Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2013 March 25

= March 25 =

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lamar Thomas
Hi, Im submitting this article on this rapper but all of the info is lifted from the German Wikipedia which I would like to work on, however Im having some errors in formatting which I would like help with..thanks. --JTBX (talk) 04:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I've fixed most of the formatting errors, but the German templates you want to use simply don't exist on the English Wikipedia. The most appropriate infobox probably is Infobox musical artist, but I don't think that's the equivalent of the German infobox.
 * As an aside, the text itself needs some serious work. It reads like a machine translation, and a bad one at that. The sources may also need some work; I haven't checked them in detail, but a discogs page, for example, is not considered significant coverage and doesn't help establish Thomas' notability. Huon (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for that....I'm working on it now JTBX (talk) 11:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

double submission
Dear editors: I am reviewing submissions, and I am not sure what to do about Jimborads, who has submitted his sandbox for review and then submitted another copy of the same material under another article name and continued to edit it. I want to decline the sandbox copy, but "Article exists" isn't quite right, since neither draft has been accepted at this time. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 04:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I've manually declined the sandbox. A more complete list of canned "decline" reasons can be found here, and it includes "duplicate". Huon (talk) 11:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Keshav R. Murugesh
Hi OrenBochman,

Please let me know what I should add or delete in this article as the article could not qualify for approval. Please help me out in creating his biography on Wikipedia. Looking forward to hear from you.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivekk127 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This article submission must be completely re-written in your own words because you have violated copyright by copy-pasting text from copyrighted websites into Wikipedia. See WP:COPYPASTE and WP:PARAPHRASE. The article cannot be accepted in its current form. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you- Are the links and references that I have given are fine? Do I want to include more sources? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivekk127 (talk • contribs)


 * I would say the references you have provided are not fine, because they do not include significant coverage of the article topic in independent reliable sources. Some of them appear to be repeating press releases, some of them do not mention the individual or only mention him in passing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Spoken English Corpus
Hi, I have written a short article on the Spoken English Corpus (my first article). I am finding it hard to find out if it has actually been submitted for review, as in one place I am told that it has not yet been submitted while at the bottom of the page it ways that the article is waiting to be reviewed. I did try to follow the instructions for submission but this did not seem to work. Thanks. RoachPeter (talk) 08:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Your article draft is correctly submitted for review - the beige boxes at the bottom are accurate, and the grey box at the top is inaccurate. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Quixey
Hi there,

I submitted Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Quixey over a month ago and can't seem to find it in the pending category, declined category, or published category. I'm wondering where it currently sits, and if it's still pending, when I could expect it to get reviewed for approval. Even though the Quixey account created the page, every single sentence on the page is based on information that has been referenced and written about the company by unaffiliated authors. Let me know if that's still an issue and how I can go about getting the article approved.

Thanks!

Quixey (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * As the message at the top says, the draft was declined on March 5 because the sources were insufficient to establish the company's notability. The draft was written by an IP editor; that editor was notified of the decision. I cannot agree with the assertion that all the information has been written about by unaffiliated authors; rather, the sources include quite a few primary sources such as the company's own website or press releases by the company. TechCrunch is a blog and not as reliable as a true news source with editorial oversight. Huon (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Could you identify other sources that were used within the draft that don't qualify as a true/reliable news source? Would like to be thorough and accurate in adjusting the references before resubmitting. Thanks.

Quixey (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * See WP:RS: Sources are considered reliable if they're subject to editorial oversight and have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. TechCrunch may actually meet that standard; I confused it with CrunchBase, which is user-submitted content without any editorial oversight. Among the more dubious sources I'd count the following: CrunchBase, the company's own website, ActiveFilings (not a news source and presumably not subject to editorial oversight), PR Newswire (press releases), this Forbes piece (guest post written by Quixey's CEO himself), MarketWire (press releases), Markspace (software company, not a news source, presumably its publications are not subject to editorial oversight), e27 (press release), and Wikipedia itself (user-submitted content). Several others are on the line between blogs and news sources with editorial oversight. Huon (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carna Botnet
I cited newspaper articles which are secondary sources. How was the information original research? (Lowkeyvision (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC))


 * I'd say the problem is not so much original research but that the botnet itself isn't the focus of the sources so much as the map it was used to create. But you also take some poetic licence with the reported facts: The sources both credit a single individual, "a hacker" or "an anonymous researcher" - your draft speaks of multiple hackers. Huon (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

references for a notable academic
Dear editors: I have been reviewing a page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alexander Pruss for a professor who is undoubtedly notable, but all of the references are his own publications. If a subject is a notable academic, should the article be accepted to be improved later, or rejected for lack of independent sources? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 22:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I have declined it. No secondary sources, no article. The decline reason could be failure to comply with either WP:V (which says articles should be based on "reliable, third-party, published sources") or WP:N; since I don't like the canned verifiability response, I went with the latter and left a comment. Huon (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)