Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2013 January 4

= January 4 =

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David N. Solly
This article has been described as an Essay, and asked by reviewers to be reconsidered. However, We consider this article should be accepted, as  previous described we feel it does not read like an Essay.. After numourous changes, also we have viewed many articles that do read like long essays and have yet been accepted......we look forward to a favourable outcome for this article to be finally acceptedTardis501 (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC).


 * Firstly, unless you're using the majestic plural, you should be aware that Wikipedia does not allow shared accounts - one person per account only.
 * Secondly, there's but a single secondary source providing non-trivial coverage of KPS (the BBC article), and none at all for Solly. That's not the significant coverage we require to establish the subject's notability. Most of the references are KPS' own websites or don't mention KPS at all, with a broken link and a few directory entries thrown in. Huon (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Clemmie Moodie
I have submitted a small article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Clemmie_Moodie and it has been rejected twice because of insufficient citations. I cannot see what is now missing and looking at other articles they seem to be included with very few submissions. Could you please advise what I am doing wrong. Dobbin1 (talk) 09:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The article has only been rejected once, as far as I can tell, when it had no sources. Since then you have added some, which helps resolve the problem. Although a lot of them are primary sources, a quick web search reveals coverage in reliable sources such as The Guardian (which I have included), and a reporter for a national newspaper tends to be inherently notable anyway, so I am passing the article. I think your reference to a second "rejection" is the tagging of the image referenced in the article, which has no evidence of permission, and I suspect is a copyright violation. Unless you can categorically prove you personally took this photo and own the copyright to it, the article's photograph may be speedy deleted. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   12:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Daniel Magid
Ya Hello I Just Wanna Thank u all for looking my artcle 217.132.73.19 (talk) 12:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You article is totally unsuitable for Wikipedia and looks like borderline vandalism. Unless you have reliable sources for this article's subject, it will probably stay rejected. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   12:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

FIVE FORMS Guitar Method
Where do I get references if this is a new method?

Should I just cite music theory text in regards to musical ROOTS? Should I state that my mentor was winner of the ultimate international classical guitar competetions in Italy?

What about offering a digital 341 page copy of this method?

I presented this method at the Florida Music Educator's Conference in Tampa and have many school districts interested in using it, however I just got the copyright for the completed work so I thought I would put it on Wikipedia first. Can I just get quotes from other published authors or winners of awards like "Musician of the Year" USA-GEM?

I am disabled and have worked on this for 40 years so I'm not sure what kind of references you are looking for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary Glen Hart (talk • contribs) 13:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There are a number of problems. The most serious is "The FIVE FORMS Guitar Method is copyright 2004 and 2012 by author Gary G. Hart (email redacted)" - this suggests you're trying to assert copyright of the Wikipedia article, which you cannot do as it is incompatible with our CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence which you can see immediately above the "Save page" button every time you make an edit. The other significant problem is if this is a "new method", then by definition it's original research and cannot belong on Wikipedia. Unless major newspapers or magazines have published this tuition, it cannot have a Wikipedia article. You could try bribing Robert Fripp out of retirement... -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   14:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Reason for decline please
Hi, can someone tell me specifically why this article was declined? I'm not sure why the sources are considered unreliable and what other kinds of sources I need to get this piece posted. Thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Gordon_Bahary Jeff TamarkinJefftamarkin (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as news coverage or reviews in music magazines. To be considered reliable, a source should have some sort of editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. To be considered notable a topic must have received significant coverage in such sources - that's usually interpreted as "multiple sources of at least a paragraph each". Blogs are self-published sources and are usually not considered reliable. Among your draft's other sources, the Yahoo! Music text is a copy of the AllMusic page about Twilight 22 - we should use the original source, not the copy. The various AllMusic "credits" pages don't provide significant coverage - they don't even write a single sentence about Bahary. The Metropolitan Room is not an independent source - they have an obvious financial interest in promoting Bahary. Regarding Whitburn's book, the "1942-1949" date probably is incorrect; I couldn't find the correct edition. Whitburn, the AllMusic page about Twilight 22, and the MusicWorld.com article might suffice to establish Bahary's notability, but the draft currently contains significant parts that aren't supported by any sources at all, for example Bahary's radio station. Those would have to be either sourced or removed. Huon (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Journal on Crying
Can you please find Crying & Health Popular and Scientific Mills, CK., Wooster, A. D 1987 Crying in the Counselling Situation British Journal of Guidance and Counselling 15,125-131 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.101.188 (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The journal website gives the abstract, the article itself is hidden behind a paywall. University libraries may carry the journal. Huon (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David N. Solly
I have reviewed your comments regarding my request for help regarding the David N. Solly article awaiting review...

I note you seem to believe that the article is from several people? Thie may be because I refer to the word 'we' I have used. In fact, I (David Solly) am the only account holder for this article, apologies that I tend to use 'we' than the obvious correct term 'I'. The reason is that I have submitted an article about HIV Services in Cornwall to let a vulnerable group of people living with HIV learn more about services available. Also, that as you may well be aware, HIV and its services are poorly promoted, even to the extent of a recent announcement on 1st Dec (world aids day) 2012 by the prime minister 'Cameron', on the lack of awareness within the UK about Aids and HIV, and an urgent need to place this issue in the forefront. It has been recognised that HIV has not had much awareness regarding the disease and the important support services available. In fact, as a notable point many organisations have fallen by the wayside since the 1980s and 1990s, and that in particular, KPS has been one of a very few organisation that have been established in recent years, including notably that KPS' respite centre is now the ONLY specialist service and facility of its kind within the UK, which, I believe to be extremely notable...

Obviously, further references and citations can be sourced over time to prove this fact beyond doubt. I thought it important to at the very least get the article 'off the ground' and improve references, citations etc once it is published and the info is available to people interested in the important awareness to all areas regarding HIV and its impact on society. Example; I can provide links and citations from other available sources in time. Example; Cornwall Council, Cornwall Primary Healthcare, Baseline and other websites. However, this can take time and if you give me a chance I would be able to provide this important info. Initially I though it best to get an acceptable article up and running to see if it would be published, as I have noted that many articles published have requests for confirmations and additional references and citations etc. I also note that, if in time the author does not comply the article would be deleted. Naturally, I would hate to waste all my effort in compling information about an important subject that would never get the chance to be published.....

The reviewers that have declined previous submissions have not really explained reasons for declining the article. Just saying reads like an 'essay' is not helpful in trying to ensure I follow your rules. Regarding myself details and citations are mentioned by a number of organisations such as Baseline (an HIV information magazine - I might add, Baseline in one of only a very few publications within the UK. One of the reasons I have as yet not included such organisations is that by the very token of not wanting the article to read like an 'Essay' I have wrongly or rightly not included such, as I have been told to keep thing brief, so you can imagine my dilemma when trying to get this article of the ground. Possibly I should have contacted the help desk sooner to establish what I am doing wrong. I fear this article will never get off the ground with all the seeming 'Red Tape'. However, I do understand and appreciate Wikipedia's need to ensure that submitted articles are informative, correct and accurate, to which I am attempting to comply, before Ill-health, as I am HIV-positive myself and would like to see the article published on Wikipedia, before I die. Also, you can probably see by this help request I tend to use rather too many words, whereby, I could use less words to get my point across. Precise was never my greatest whilst in education....

I hope you will be able to assist regarding the numerous revisions, or am I flogging a dead horse? Kindest Regards David N. Solly Founder and Chair of Kernow Positive Support Tardis501 (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It's generally good practice for reviewers to add a comment stating exactly why there's a problem with your article. I'm surprised there's one common essay you haven't been referred to - referencing for beginners is usually mentioned when declining an article. User:Uncle G/On notability is another good essay explaining what sort of references you need. I'll need to look at the references in more depth to give a definitive answer, but my gut feeling is you're probably better off creating an article about KPS as an organisation. Don't worry about the article getting deleted - as long as you're making progress, it can stay incubated in AFC pretty much indefinitely until it's ready. One serious problem you face though, is that if you are David Solly, you're trying to create an article about yourself, which is generally considered to be a bad idea, as it is hard to write with a neutral point of view - I'd advise reading WP:PROUD to see some of the other pitfalls you can face. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   00:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)