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

= March 10 =

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christian Seidel
Hello, I've already asked a question regarding the article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christian Seidel but lost the link to the conversation. I don't know better than to copy the conversation so far in here and hope you can help me...


 * This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of people 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.


 * Hello, I have created a new Article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christian Seidel. It is the english version of a german Article about Christian Seidel. I was asked to bring evidence of the subjects notability. In Germany he is a notable Person, and there are several publications. I checked the Notability Guidelines and found the following as suitable: "Creative professionals >4.The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Can you please tell me what else I can mention that would point out the notability? Thank you in advance! CTC2 (talk) 11:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You'll still have to provide reliable sources that are independent of the subject so the readers can verify that Seidel created a significant work, or that he has been the subject of independent books, films or articles - say, news coverage or said articles discussing his work. Right now the article doesn't cite any sources, and most of the external links are Seidel speaking about Seidel - not quite independent. See also Help:Footnotes andWP:Referencing for beginners. Huon (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply. But this is a misunderstanding. There is not a single link, 'Seidel speaking about Seidel', as you have mentioned in your comment. In the list of my sources there have been a few articles, written by 'Christian Seidl about Christian Seidel. In fact this author is a notable international writer, called Christian Seidl (without an 'e'). He is someone else than Christian Seidel. But I understand, that the similarity of the names confuses. Because of this I have removed these sources and added some other sources. I hope the article is accepted now.CTC2 (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I was referring to the various interviews - with the ZDF, with BR3, with DWDL and so on. For all of those, Seidel himself is the primary source of information about Seidel. With the current list of references, footnotes are ever more important to clarify which source supports which of the draft's statements. For example, which of the sources credits Seidel's PR success to his "unique style of concept writing"? Huon (talk) 12:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you again. I added the footnotes and references and hope the article fits the conditions for release. Please let me know if there is still something missing.CTC2 (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Is there anything else that I have to do so that the article can be submitted? I see it is still waiting for submission... Please let me know. Thanks!CTC2 (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Montaigne&
I am confused by the rejection of a proposed article (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Montaigne&) based on "lack of independent sources to prove notability." I have added a couple sources since the rejection and will add more (the article is back to WIP stage), but the sources provided were independent from the subject (except possibly one, the public site of the castle in which the tower in question is located).

The notability of the tower seems difficult to contest to me for several reasons (mostly: 1) the castle has been included in Wikipedia, when the tower is architecturally more authentic, which the French government recognized by protecting it 50 years earlier than it did the rest of the castle; and 2) the tower is the place where the most studied work of 16th-century French literature was written, was uniquely important to this writing, and is very much cited in the book). However it is possible that I did not redact the article clearly enough to indicate this; I am trying to avoid hyperbole, so I may not have struck the right note.

Most sources are in French, which might also be an issue (just let me know).

Any help with addressing issues is very much welcome,

Impaire (talk) 02:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)impaire


 * First of all, the sources' language is not a problem; while English sources are oviously easier for our readers, non-English sources are acceptable as well.
 * When the draft was rejected, it had five sources, including Montaigne's Essays, which would not be an independent source on Montaigne's Tower, and Grigson's book of poems as a source on Grigson's poem - Grigson obviously is not an independent source on his own poem, nor is a poem a reliable source on the Tower. If we had a literary critic discussing that poem, that would be a much better source. The DRAC website devotes less than a sentence to the Tower and doesn't confirm all the content of the "architecture" section, for which it is the only source.
 * The new sources are much better. Wikipedia measures notability by the amount of coverage a subject has received in independent, reliable sources such as articles in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, and these new sources show the tower itself has indeed been discussed at length in such sources. Huon (talk) 12:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Sandbox - Yes or No?
Hello All,

I have written a page in my sandbox (as we are told to do in various places round Wikipedia) User:Kiltpin/Sandbox_2. When I thought it was ready, I clicked on the Article For Creation link at the top of the page and it joined the queue at Afc. It is slowly working its way up the list. So far so good.

In an idle moment today I looked at the Afc Talk Page. One of the reviewers was bemoaning the fact that so many articles were in sandboxes.

So, here are the questions -

Should I move my article to the name it should be, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Armorial Register Limited, or should I leave it as User:Kiltpin/Sandbox_2?

Will it mess up the system, now that it is already in the queue?

And finally, if I did move it, will it keep its place in the queue or go back to the start?

Thank you Kiltpin (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Moving the draft to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Armorial Register Limited is indeed easier on the reviewers; I have done so. It won't cost your draft its place in the queue, though drafts aren't necessarily reviewed in strict chronological order anyway.
 * On an entirely unrelated note, I don't think your references suffice to establish the publisher's notability. To be considered notable by Wikipedia's standards, a company must have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as news coverage or maybe articles in reputable trade magazines. I don't think Cheshire Heraldry is a reliable source, and it doesn't seem to mention the publisher anyway. Companies House is a directory of all businesses in the UK, for all I can tell; being listed there is not significant coverage. Huon (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Huon, for your swift reply and help. I will work on the notability. Thanks again.  Kiltpin (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gabriele Mandel
Hallo All, I am struggling to put inline citations to this article as the lack of inline citations is one of the reasons it was rejected (I have fixed the other). I don't seem to advance much :-( though. If you look at the edit history you will see...

Is there anyone who can lend me a hand? Thanks in advance!

By the way, this article exists in Italian, German, Turkish and Català. Are the standards somehow different in other languages than English?!?

Love and chocolate from Switzerland.

Lady Mim (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * In my experience the English Wikipedia's standards are higher than the de facto standards of many other Wikipedias; for example, de:Gabriele Mandel does not cite a single reference and would, in the English Wikipedia, be open for deletion via WP:PRODBLP. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS seems relevant: Other articles not conforming to our standards exist (and the English Wikipedia also has quite a few articles that don't satisfy our standards), but each submission must stand on its own merits, and we should not use sub-par examples as a pretext to lower our standards and create more sub-par articles.
 * I have tidied up the references. At its most basic, a footnote is created by tags, where everything between the tags becomes the footnote. If you want to refer to the same reference twice, you can add a name parameter to the tag:  The next time you can refer to the same source only by the name:  Note that instead of a closing  tag here you just have the slash; if you omit that, everything afterwards would be considered as part of a new footnote. That kind of typo could let significant portions of the draft vanish.
 * On an entirely unrelated note, the "popular converts to Islam" website seems empty, and even if it existed, it would only be a blog without editorial oversight, not a reliable source. Wikipedia content should be based on reliable, independent sources such as the Corriere della Sera article - but on its own that source may be too little to establish Mandel's notability. Huon (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I will study this matter further, I might find some other articles in the Italian press. Thanks for pointing at the notability. One thing that hinds me is that many sources are simply NOT on the web. Italians bother less... Love and chocolate, Marina Lady Mim (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * While online sources are easier for the readers, offline sources such as the print editions of newspapers are also acceptable. Huon (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)