Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2013 June 18

= June 18 =

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/International Music Master Classes
The texts were given for use on this page by Maestro Volodymyr Baran (Director of Malta International Music Master Classes, VFIMF International Music Festival and Malta International Music Competition). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wangran (talk • contribs) 00:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * See, you can say that, but we have no way of knowing for sure. Maybe take a look at Donating copyrighted materials, or else rewrite the article so that it's no longer a copyright violation.  Howicus (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Kansas_City_Cauldron
My submission was recently rejected, but before I submitted it for review I sought help from other experienced editors via the chat page and through various talk pages. Three different people looked over my submission and based on references included with the article they thought it wouldn't be a problem at all being that the subject has had an enormous amount of media attention and thus the valid references.

Here is the reason for the decline:

"This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject."

In my article I included 35 references including references from the Kansas City Star a well known and respected major metropolitan newspaper, TV news stations like Fox, ABC etc.., and along with those I included several smaller references from student run newspapers, notable blogs (i know about citing blogs, but was assured the ones I used only added to the point of the article) and others.

I went to great lengths to follow Wiki guidelines and rules, and even added a section for the reviewer providing full transparency just as Wiki suggest.

Any help you can give me here as to what I need to do to correct the article will be much appreciated. Thank you.

Rjbass (talk) 05:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. Getting a first article accepted can be a bit of a minefield if you've not written a Wikipedia article before, but if you're unsure exactly why someone declined an article, you can always contact them via their talk page - in this case, is generally responsive and reasonable about replies to AfC submissions.
 * The problem with your article's subject is that it's very much limited to local interest. With sports organisations, we greatly prefer them to have major national news coverage, otherwise it's difficult to justify their importance on Wikipedia. Some of your references, such as the news coverage, are considered reliable sources, but too much of the article cites either YouTube videos (whose suitability is questionable at best due to potential copyright violations, or are of the Cauldron's official site - which you can use for basic facts, but not for sustaining an article on its own, as we need sources where other people talk about the Cauldron in an impartial manner. The Ink Magazine does have a few paragraphs on the Cauldron, which does suggest there is potential for an article in there somewhere, but I don't know much about it to be able to advise any further.
 * I would start by taking out all of the YouTube and kcccauldron.org references, and removing anything not explicitly cited to at least a major regional news source. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   09:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * OK. Well before I used the YouTube videos as references I looked at the Wikipedia guidelines for using YouTube, and thus most of the YouTube videos are actually news or other official videos posted by Sporting Kansas City and MLS Soccer.  I know two of the videos were posted by the KC Cauldron and are not really news/interview video's, but the videos were obviously done and show exactly what the article describes.  I was very careful in that regard, only using YouTube when the videos were proper references that clearly showed what was needed, and were not just some random user posted videos that could not be verified.


 * Having tried to write an article based on another subject in the past, I was also aware about citing the main subjects actual page, and again only used KCCauldron.com for just what you said, basic facts to support the rest of the article. Basically, every step of the way I was very careful to mind Wikipedia's rules and guidelines and spent a great deal of time in doing so.  I had a couple of the actual leaders of the KC Cauldron look at what I was doing when I was about 75% done with the article, and they started feeding me information.  When I went to verify the information they were giving me, I found very few notable references, and subsequently left much of that information out.


 * All the same I will contact and see what she can offer me.  I will also go over the article again, pulling as much as possible.  Thank you for your assistance.

Rjbass (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Always remember to cite the news item, not the youtube video. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Well in this case, KMBC, our local ABC new affiliate, uploads all their news video to YouTube after the story is a year old. This is a growing trend in online news media that I am sure Wikipedia will be seeing more and more of over time. Rjbass (talk) 00:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * So you know who the affiliate broadcaster is, you know who the presenter is, you know the air date (presumably), you presumably can find out who the producer was - why are you unable to cite the broadcast? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Ahhhh now I get it. Ok so I use a program called Zotero to cite my sources in research papers.  I can use that program to make up citations based on the available information from a web page, even a page like YouTube, fill in the rest of the blanks (provided I know the proper information) and then create an MLA or APA citation similar to this:


 * Cauldron Boils With Sporting KC Spirit. (2012, July 23). KMBC 9 News at 9. Sporting Park: KMBC. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aR54N4ZwT4I


 * Would that kind of citation suffice?
 * Rjbass (talk) 04:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes that's probably much better. You can also use a citation template, like I did for the one TV news source on Marlowe Academy, but it's not mandatory. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Nice, thanks for that. I'm going to start working on that today.  Would it be better if I set up all the citations that are not videos and that I am keeping or adding in MLA or APA format? Rjbass (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Siri Parakum
My article was declined due to no references included. How to resubmit my new article with references. Pls reply. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshana.nadeeshan (talk • contribs) 05:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You have two references at the moment, but both of them appear to be connected with the subject of the submission, so are not independent. Read WP:VRS for an overview of the sort of sources that are required. See WikiProject Film/Resources for a list of sources generally considered to be reliable on the subject of movies. It is also likely that substantial reviews (not press releases or announcements) in general interest newspapers would be considered reliable sources (there are plenty of newspapers published in Sri Lanka, and newspapers or magazines in southern India might also review the film). Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Damnation_Angels
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Damnation_Angels

Hi, I am trying to get an article published but it has been declined (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Damnation_Angels). I appreciate that the editors are volunteers and have a large number of articles to review, but the feedback has been lacking. I am providing links to four articles that have been published and appear to have less (relevant) references than the article I'm trying to submit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Kings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperia_(band) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magica_(band) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh_Wonder

I feel that we have demonstrated that the article meets the notability criteria (Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself).

Please could more detailed feedback be provided and an explanation of why the three pages listed above meet these guidlines and ours does not.

Regards, Paul(InAmberClad84) InAmberClad84 (talk) 09:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem you're seeing is that Wikipedia's quality control has risen over the years, and consequently it's harder to get an article passed through AfC now than it used to be - the presence of other articles has no bearing on the suitability of this one. The corollary to that is that, once the article is passed, it's extremely unlikely to be sent to Articles for Deletion. At the moment, all four of the band articles you listed are problematic, and the only reason I haven't nominated all four for deletion right here and now is because I haven't searched for any obvious sources on them. The basic rule of thumb for a band article on Wikipedia is you need significant chart success (even one week at number 100 will do) be a "supergroup" of musicians in other charting bands or otherwise be mentioned in the major music press such as Mojo or Rolling Stone. Have a look at WP:GARAGE, which is a rather cutting, but hopefully amusing, explanation as to why we have these policies (and I really don't mean any malice in this link - I play in several non-notable bands myself, all of which I wouldn't even expect to survive a speedy deletion were they to have articles here). Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   09:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/S.H.I.S.-Standardized Headset Identification System
I got a message that said our submission was not suitable for Wikipedia, with a link to several sources. Can someone help me in directing why it is not? Hcolson (talk) 11:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Hcolson


 * The message you got was unhelpful, but from a cursory glance at the article, it appears it would have been declined because it contains too much technical jargon. Let's take the first sentence - "S.H.I.S. is a standardized language for headset fitment". What's a "standardized language?" What does "headset fitment" mean? I thought it had something to do with headphones when I first looked at the article, and having looked at the article I still can't tell if "the bike industry" refers to motor or pedal cycles. You need to write the article from the perspective of an outsider with a cursory interest in the topic, who doesn't necessarily understand the technical terms. The article also doesn't appear to reference any reliable sources such as major news or magazine coverage. Has your product appeared in any major national cycling magazines?  Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   11:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The draft falls foul of WP:NOTHOW so the decline reason is valid. Please do not rewrite it, the subject is inherently unsuitable for Wikipedia. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Forte Village Resort
Hello, I created ah article about Forte Village Resort which has been declined on may 24th and then I edited it in order to be compliant with the suggestions the reviewer gave me. After editing it,I saved the article for submission bit nothing changed, as if it was no more reviewed. Cna you help me in this? Many thanks Aferino (talk) 13:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC) Aferino


 * You never resubmitted the article. You must follow the instructions in the red box to resubmit it. Charmlet (talk) 13:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Review of User:&
Dear Wikipedia team,

I have created in new article in my user sandbox and requested its creation by clicking the corresponding link at the top of my sandbox page. The title of the submission is

User:&reasNink/sandbox

How can I propose a title for this article (as it should appear later in the article space)? It should be "Asymptotic Safety in quantum gravity" (and typing "Asymptotic Safety" should also redirect to the article).

Thanks for your help. &#38;reasNink (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You have correctly bolded the article title, so the reviewer should move it to an appropriate page name when they review it or accept it. You shouldn't need to do anything else.


 * It looks a very thorough article! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael J. Dochniak
What is a CV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharmony3 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It's a curriculum vitae, similar to a résumé.--ukexpat (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually in the context of AfC a "CV" is usually meant as an abreviation of Copyright Violation - a very serious problem which can lead to a page being permanently deleted without further warning. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case reviewers need to use more specific abbreviations, or none at all, because that one is obviously confusing.--ukexpat (talk) 14:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Why was my Article Declined?
Why was my Article Declined? I submitted an article on Alexander Hardwick a Maya and Miguel character and it was declined why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.140.245 (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * As the reviewer said, "you need better sources to prove why this is notable (IMDB and Wikia shouldn't be used as core sources). Also, perhaps a bit more information to provide context to the uninitiated." Have newspapers or TV magazines discussed this character in reviews of the show? Something like that would be the kind of reliable third-party source we're after. Huon (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Molly Moccasins
I was told that my sources aren't considered reliable or verifiable, but We have references from HowtoLearn.com, Wall Street Journal, and Richmond Family magazine. Is it that we don't have enough reliable sources?

Thanks,

Mcneely12345 (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The Wall Street Journal piece is a press release not subject to the WSJ's editorial control, not a news article. That's not a reliable source. Both the HowtoLearn.com and the Richmond Family Magazine articles are written by Victoria Ryan O’Toole, the author of Molly Moccasins; that's not what we consider independent sources. You'd need third-party reviews by literary critics or newspaper articles (not press releases!) about the books, not just the author's self-promotion. Huon (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Nawi Arigi
Nawi Arigi


 * So what? Huon (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rothenberg Ventures
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rothenberg Ventures

Hello - I submitted this article about a month ago and have yet to hear back. Just want to see when we can get it published. Thanks!

Dylan Flinn

Flinndustries (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You submitted the article on June 18 with this edit. There's a backlog of almost 1,000 unreviewed submissions, so it may take two weeks for a reviewer to take a look at yours.
 * On an unrelated note, you may need additional sources to establish the company's notability. CrunchBase is not considered a reliable source, the company's own website clearly is not independent, and the WSJ blog only mentions the company in passing. Huon (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Review of User:Rhodji/sandbox
Please, how do I edit and update an existing subject, article or discuss on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhodji (talk • contribs) 22:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * To edit and update the article, use the "Edit" tab at the very top of that article, between "Read" and "View history". See also Help:Editing. To discuss an article, use its talk page, which you can find via the "Talk" link at the top left, next to "Article". Huon (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)