Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2013 January 10

= January 10 =

Notability questions
edit removed

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Interra information Technologies Inc.
i have added below Paragraph which is notable. I hope its Ok. Many Thanks. --- Best Employer in Top 20 companies of INDIA (year 2006 survey)

InterraIT has joined the ranks of India's Top 20 Best Employers as a result of the DQ-IDC best employers survey 2006. A detailed survey on employee satisfaction, jointly conducted by India's most respected IT magazine - Dataquest[7] and global research firm - IDC[8] has placed the company among the premier 20 employers within the IT software and services industry in India.[9] --- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1jatinchopra (talk • contribs) 07:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * With the Digital Financial Chronicle, Business Standard and Economic Times articles Interra should be notable enough for an article; however, your references also included unreliable sources like other Wikipedia articles (I've turned those into links), press releases and Interra's own website. You should emphasize the reliable sources with editorial oversight and remove the dubious sources wherever possible. Basically, if a certain fact isn't mentioned in reliable independent sources, it's probably not all that important anyway. Huon (talk) 02:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bikroy.com
Hi,

My article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Bikroy.com) was declined due the following reason: "This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability".

A further comment was added saying: "Comment: Requires more secondary sources that indicate the subject's notability. Andrew327 23:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)"

I don't understand why this is the case - my article cited references to several very well recognized local newspapers, all of which had published articles about the subject. The newspapers have the highest readerships in the relevant country (Bangladesh), and are documented on Wikipedia as well. No claims were made without citations.

Can you please let me know why these sources/references were deemed inadequate? The leading local newspapers in Bangladesh are amongst the most trusted (and reliable) sources of information in the country.

Tariqur (talk) 07:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[[Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bikroy.com]


 * I've invited the reviewer who declined your article to answer here, but one quick comment I should make is that just having coverage in local newspapers (which can be reliable sources) isn't necessarily sufficient, as the coverage must be independent of the subject, which means that press releases are generally unacceptable. The basic rule of the thumb is that the author of the source must have decided to write about you without any prompting to do so at your end. This doesn't cover all of your sources, but it certainly affects some of them - possibly too many to make the remainder establish notability. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   10:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm always happy to see people working out disagreements politely on Wikipedia. I carefully re-read every reference in the article and decided that it has just enough reliable sourcing to justify an article.  I reversed my previous decision and the article has been approved. Andrew327 16:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Edgo Group
Hi there,

I need some help with my article for creation Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Edgo Group.

I'm now not sure how to take this forward. The company is notable because it was set up by a notable political figure in Palestine and is involved in many commercial projects in the developing countries of the Middle East - e.g the airport in Jordan and infrastructure in Iraq.

I have had added as many sources as I can but as it is a private company there is mostly only press coverage or the company's own information.

I'd really appreciate any guidance you can give me.

Thanks Ruedebille (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Ruedebille, I understand that you think your article is notable, but there are also editors which do not think it's notable, and have thus declined its submission. Because different people have different opinions, Wikipedia have set out a set of guidelines - a sort of benchmark - so people won't disagree as much. This guideline, quoted from WP:ORG, states that "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." So if you are unable to find many sources to back up your claim, then under these guidelines, it must be seen as not notable. And no matter how well you write your article, if it is no notable, it will not be accepted, unfortunately. Kinkreet~&#9829;moshi moshi&#9829;~ 14:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply - I have now added a few more sources. I have read the guidance and feel the article meets the notability criteria - I have found many examples of organisations, in the same sector, who are much less notable with weaker referencing and yet have entries in Wikipedia - for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunt_Oil. Thanks

CHRONOGENETICS- A THEORITICAL SCIENCERequest review at WP:AFC
Im having problems writing in an encyclopeadic manner, im not a academictician... just a theoritician. I need help to correct my article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earthoceans (talk • contribs) 14:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's work on a few things at a time. An encyclopedic entry would include references, just as you'd read journal articles - they cite references. Wikipedia is no different. The next thing you can work on is writing in a more formal tone. The last thing you should do is stick to the point, I see a lot of diverging ideas going on, but an article must stick to the point; adding in only content that is cited might resolve this issue. Kinkreet~&#9829;moshi moshi&#9829;~ 14:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How to Redirect search name to an existing article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auwal Ingawa (talk • contribs) 17:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Type the following:   #REDIRECT Target page name Kinkreet~&#9829;moshi moshi&#9829;~  17:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Review of wiki/Talk:Almon_Harris_Thompson
I think I've addressed all of the issues indicated on the Almon Harris Thompson page I created. I included summaries of the changes that I made. How do I go about getting additional information about what still needs to be done on the page? How do I go about having the page reviewed again so I can have the issues panel at the top of the page removed? Thanks! Eduscapes (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the best option in this case would be to contact the editor who placed them there, namely: user . Click the blue 'talk' link next to their username to navigate to their talk page, where you can leave them a message. If you have addressed the issues raised, I'm sure they will have no problem in removing the maintenance tags. Pol430 talk to me 21:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Eduscapes (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/International Society for the Psychoanalytic Study of Organizations
The article is in my sandbox is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arie3333/sandbox. It is awaiting approval I believe, though at the top of the page I am urged to move the article, to somewhere but I don't know where. Should I be doing something else?

Also I uploaded a jpeg file from my computer to the wiki site. An address of the jpeg appears in the right place on my wiki page but the picture is actually not there. Not sure what if anything I did something wrong

Arie3333Arie3333 (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The draft has already been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/International Society for the Psychoanalytic Study of Organizations, the preferred location for drafts. The image wasn't displayed because such links are case sensitive (excepting the first letter); I fixed that.
 * The draft has already been reviewed; Excirial left rather extensive comments on why it currently isn't acceptable. Huon (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)