Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2013 February 11

= February 11 =

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Orrstudios
i'm getting conflicting information from the "my contributions" page. Has the Eric Orr article been submitted for review or not?

Best, E — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orrstudios (talk • contribs) 01:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Both Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Orrstudios and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eric Orr have been submitted for review. The "not currently submitted" message is a technical artefact that will soon be removed by a bot. As long as there's a yellow "review waiting" message, the draft is awaiting review.
 * However, both pages contain multiple copies of your draft each; you should remove the redundant copies to avoid confusion. In fact, the entire draft at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Orrstudios seems a redundant duplicateof the other; I'll nominate it for speedy deletion because we certainly don't need two separate draft pages on the same person, and this one has the wrong page title anyway. Huon (talk) 01:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Abhimanyu Ghosh
Hi...my contribution has been declined recently due to additional references required. However, I have carefully followed all guidelines and mentioned several different reliable external sources, like those in similar articles.

Please advise - there are genuine external references utilized at all places that can be verified independently. ThanksJason Ocean (talk) 07:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Abhimanyu Ghosh


 * To be considered notable, Ghosh must have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of him. All but one of the sources mention him only in passing, along the lines of "... Abhimanyu Ghosh, in his official capacity of X, said." The remaining source, Best Media Info, strikes me as not independent; they openly ask for contributions by their subjects: "Write to us at [mail address] if you are the shining star, and we shall spread the word far, quite far…" - so we have to assume that "rising star" Ghosh wrote that article himself. In summary, this isn't the significant coverage needed to establish Ghosh's notability, and many of the sources don't even confirm what they're cited for. For example, the first, sixth and seventh sources are all copies of the same news agency report, and they don't call Ghosh a "pioneer", and all the draft says about Asia's Most Promising Brands and Leaders is in fact based on a quote by Ghosh himself, not on an independent report. Huon (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Page approval taking too long
I had submitted my article on February 1, 2013 with the Links, how long is it going to take for the approval. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktbt10 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It normally takes between one and three weeks for an article submission to be reviewed. However, in its current state, your article submission is almost certain to be declined. Read WP:42 for details as to what is required in terms of sources. Sources like "itzmyylife youtube page" do not meet those requirements.


 * Also, if you are going to write things like "She has been an essential part of the television industry for two decades now", then you need to cite a reliable independent source that says so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Pink Floyd: Live at Pompeii
I went to the Wiki Pink Floyd site in regard to watching earlier this morning "Live At Pompeii" and was surprised to find no mention at all in the bio of this most excellant work! I had remembered it for many many years since watching it at the local downtown cinema! I feel it is well worth inclusion and proper mention! Can you look into it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.43.252 (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The article has existed at Pink Floyd: Live at Pompeii and Pink Floyd at Pompeii for about the past nine years, and is also linked from most of the major Pink Floyd articles. Not only does it exist on Wikipedia, it is also a good article, which I did the majority of improvements towards. If you simply mean that it isn't linked from Pink Floyd itself, that's because consensus during its featured article review decided a direct link in the article wasn't appropriate. Instead, it's mentioned in footnote 23 at the bottom. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   12:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/L.A. Jay
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/L.A._Jay&action=edit

How can I prove that the sources for my submission are reliable?? It's all true! And I have links to official record label websites, discogs and wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlicePS (talk • contribs) 18:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * "It's all true" is not an acceptable excuse for Wikipedia, as your version of "true" may be different to mine. How do you know the article's subject didn't lie to you, for example? Most of your sources are unacceptable - other Wikipedia articles can never be used as a source (although the sources cited from those articles can potentially be), the discogs source only shows that a record exists, not that it's notable, and the other sources don't appear to be about the subject. Sorry. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   12:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)