Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2013 February 13

= February 13 =

Quick check on approval submission
Hi, just a check to see if my recently submitted page is in the queue for submission. There's no hurry, I just want to make sure that I actually submitted it OK.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anthony Riches

Thanks, Tony.

AnthonyRiches (talk) 09:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Your article was not submitted in the queue. I have now done this. As stated, there is currently a severe backlog and it may take well over a week, possibly even two, for the article to be reviewed. In the meantime, I would focus on finding better sources, as your own interviews published on blogs will not be considered an independent source, which we require articles to be based from. You should also read our policy on autobiographies, as it is strongly discouraged. You won't be blocked for writing an autobiography, but you might find yourself being criticised by other Wikipedians as it's pretty much impossible to write about yourself in a neutral point of view. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   09:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I have removed the blog interviews and added a couple of references to my appearances at literary festivals. I'm hopeful of being passed at review since I have exactly the same amount of evidence of notability as my colleague Ben Kane who has an approved page. I'm comfortable about the potential for criticism for autobioging as I've made no claims as to the excellence of my work, simply that it exists and has been moderately successful. Again, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthonyRiches (talk • contribs) 10:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you've fallen into a common trap there. The essay Other stuff exists will go into more detail, but in short, you should be wary of using any other article on Wikipedia as a yardstick of quality. Perhaps a featured article, particularly one that's recently been on the front page, might be acceptable, but in the case of Ben Kane, his article is tagged as being badly sourced, I've just had to remove a whole chunk of it as being unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and it's only the fact he's been on the Sunday Times bestseller's list that has probably stopped it from being nominated for deletion - indeed, I notice an earlier revision without that claim was, in fact proposed to be deleted.
 * Regarding autobiographies and conflict of interest, even though you are confident you can avoid conflict of interest, other editors won't believe you, as years of experience from other autobiographies has taught them otherwise. They may scrutinise your sources incredibly carefully, remove portions your work on the grounds of being poorly sourced, and nominate your articles for deletion. It's worth considering - if you truly are notable, why has nobody else written an article about you already? Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   11:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I see what you mean (having looked at Ben's page)! I guess I view all this with a degree of bemused understanding. On the one hand, the last thing I want to do is give the impression of bigging myself up - and there's really nothing in my article that tells anything other than the unvarnished truth - and on the other I can see how wikipedia is open to such abuse. In truth I'd be happy with an entry the size Ben's is now, just so that anyone who wants to know what I do can see it. I've had four top ten novels, so while I wouldn't call myself a superstar I am "notable" to the people who buy my books. And why has no-one else written an article about me? In truth, who's that bothered about a medium ranking author to write their wiki page? I could name half a dozen of my colleagues who wrote their own pages. Anyway, I'm happy to cut the article down to the bones if that's what you recommend (in fact I'll do it anyway), or I guess you'll just delete it if that's what works for you. I'm happy enough with the success I've achieved not to be overly troubled, since I never expected to get this far in any case. Have a nice life... AnthonyRiches (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policies can be pretty confusing at first, and I feel it's only lenghty experience with editing that makes them become clear. If you've appeared on the Sunday Times bestseller's list, you probably are notable enough for an article. I wouldn't worry about trimming the article down - we have a pretty strict policy that biographies of living people have to be well sourced and as accurate as possible, so other editors will see to that. If your books have had reviews in major national newspapers, they would be excellent sources to use. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   22:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Review of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Salesgossip
Hi, I recently submitted an article about an organisation and provided all independant and reliable references. I was wondering what makes the article to get declined.

I really appreciate if someone can let me know, how to make it more neutral.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darapureddi (talk • contribs) 11:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/jurisprudence by Ashaba-Ahebwa Mark
hullo i intended to post the article as it is for academic purposes to students offering law in east africa please guide me on how it should appear i will follow up and edit it otherwise i am optimistic that students would require such work its so simplified for there understanding... thanks Ashaba-ahebwa .mark (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The fundamental problem is that your article doesn't appear at first glance to be something that belongs in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia articles should be written for everybody and accessible to the layman reader without pandering to them. I've got a worrying feeling that you've simply copy / pasted text out of the book sources, which would be considered a copyright violation if so. You might have more success using a version of Wikipedia in a different language - Click here to see some others.  Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   11:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Nanne
Who is Nanne Nyander (A) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.83.23 (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting info.svg This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. If you would like to start writing a new article, please use the Article wizard. If you have an idea for a new article, but would like to request that someone else write it, please see: Requested articles. I hope this helps. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   13:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rich Quick
Lmrcollins74 (talk) 14:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * What exactly do you need help with? Your draft does not use inline citations or footnotes and seems very sparsely sourced; all Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as news coverage or reviews in reputable music magazines. YouTube videos are usually not considered reliable sources. Huon (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/United Country Real Estate
I'm confused as to the current status of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/United Country Real Estate. I think I resubmitted it the other day, but the Wikipedia layout has left me confused. Is it current under review or current declined? Thanks!

UCRealEstatePR (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Your article has been queued for submission. I have cleared up some of the duplicate text for you. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   15:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * There are a couple of other issues you should address. First of all, your user name is in violation of Wikipedia's username policy because it would be considered promotional; it might also imply shared use, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. You may want to change it. Secondly, you may want to read our guideline on conflicts of interest; Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not free ad space. The draft's wording currently shows your bias. (That's why it was declined on February 11, and you haven't addressed that issue; thus it will be declined again for the same reason.) Thirdly, press releases are not independent sources and should not be the sole basis of major amounts of content. Huon (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * UCRealEstatePR has already been blocked for a username violation - so I didn't mention it in my reply. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   15:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/UbD Case Studies
Not understanding why the article is not posting. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KarynFarrell (talk • contribs) 17:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to post classroom case studies. I think you're in the wrong place. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The draft is currently not submitted for review; to submit it, please follow the instructions in the "not currently submitted" message box: "If this submission is ready to be reviewed, click here and press Save page". However, I agree with Demiurge1000 that this draft seems unlikely to ever become an acceptable encyclopedia article. Huon (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research
I submitted "michael Smith Foundation for Health Research" on February 2. I know you are backlogged, but I'm wondering when I might expect the article to be approved and to appear in Wikipedia? Do you review articles in the order in which they are submitted?

Writerred (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There is, as you say, a substantial backlog. Articles are reviewed as and when people have time to look at them, rather than any particular order. I don't think I would pass your article at the moment, as the references don't seem to be specific enough - we need actual news pieces about the foundation, discussing it in depth. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   22:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Review of Article for Submission: L.A. Jay
Thankyou Ritchie333. I have edited my references so that they are more reliable and hopefully prove the notability of the records and artists. Please let me know if this is better?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/L.A._Jay

Thank you for your time! Best, Alice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlicePS (talk • contribs) 23:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not all that impressed by the draft's references. I haven't checked them all, but most of those I looked at mentioned LA Jay only in passing, or not at all. YouTube is usually not considered reliable because the videos are user-submitted content. The only source that provided some details on Jay was this one which looked like a blog to me, with no indication of editorial oversight and thus of dubious reliability. Besides, a single source that does more than mention LA Jay's name is probably not enough to establish his notability anyway.
 * On an entirely unrelated note, you should probably use footnotes to clarify which source supports which of the draft's claims - it's not that helpful to give a dozen sources and let the reader search search them all for a confirmation that LA Jay co-produced The Hypnotic, for example. See also Referencing for beginners for more referencing help. Huon (talk) 01:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)