Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2013 May 30

= May 30 =

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/V. Raghunathan
Hi Sarah,

I did read the references you supplied quite a few times. Dr. Raghunathan (from his time as the President of Vyasa Bank) has been constantly referred across various news articles across all major Indian news dailies. It has been stated that press releases are not reliable sources, however, if the person is not working for that organization any more it will be not be possible to find the information from the website, so please let us know what other sources are accepted. The reference for his being the CEO has also not been accepted, though the link is from the website of the company he is the CEO of. Please let us know what references we need to provide (the reason given for the rejection is that he is associated with the website, however, information about a CEO will be available only on the company website or news dailies. The company being a listed one the information provided will not be fabricated). The reference about him being a adjutant professor at SDA Bocconi University has also from the University website. If that is not accepted please let us know what alternate sources are we looking for. The other reference that has been provided is also from an independent company website where he is part of the advisory board, if we are not considering company websites, press releases and his own blog from a reputed Indian daily kindly let us know what are sources we need to reference. We have also gone through guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. I understand being an author of more than a couple of hundred publications, notable books, being a renowned academician in some of the premiere educational institutions, being a top corporate honcho, a person who have entered varied record books as part of his hobby collection makes him a notable person. If you would be kind enough to provide more detail and some guidelines & suggestions to enhance the article, we would really appreciate it. Best Regards, Arijeet Arijeet Ghosh GMR Varalakshmi Foundation http://www.gmrgroup.in/foundation.html Aghosh4 (talk) 03:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as the newspaper articles you mention or articles about him in reputable magazines, or maybe peer-reviewed scholarly papers (written by others, not by himself!) discussing his academic work. If he's a member of a company's advisory board, that company is obviously not an independent source on him. Press releases are not subject to editorial oversight and thus are not considered reliable. His own blog again isn't independent. Basically, we want what independent third parties have written about him, now what he or his employers write. You may also want to have a look at Wikipedia's guideline on conflicts of interest; writing about your boss is discouraged because it's hard to remain neutral about him.
 * I have removed the phone number because no one from Wikipedia is going to phone you anyway and there might be spam issues. Huon (talk) 04:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/sandbox
http://www.centrepompidou.fr/cpv/ressource.action;jsessionid=5E2036337E28961736656A3472609350?param.id=id&param.idSource=FR_DO-14944e1debfc8f1d958210dc1bea3 MOvement ART CLOCHE 1986/1989 a link to GEORGES POMPIDOU CENTER in this book ther is PUTOV — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coignard (talk • contribs) 04:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC) BENEZIT printed in Italy 2010 edition 2006 mise à jour en 2010 ISBN 2 7000 3070 2 (complete set) ISBN 2 7000 3081 8 (vol.11) PUTOV page 482 plus de confusion Alexander ou Sacha ici Alexander or Alexandre or Sasha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coignard (talk • contribs) 04:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Art Cloche, élément pour une rétrospective. Squatt artistique, auction catalog Maître Cornette de Saint-Cyr, Paris, 30 janvier 1989 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coignard (talk • contribs) 05:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Celui-ci est la Wikipédia <> Peut-être vouz aurez plus de succés demander vos questions sur la Wikipédia Francaise. Aussi, votre text semble une publicité, qui soit interdite sur Wikipédia. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   13:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Section break 30 May 2013
I posted my article but it was declined and I cannot do the reference part so well but have the sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by PJBOzzie Battler (talk • contribs) 13:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The best way to understand how references work is to drop into the Teahouse and ask a question there - somebody will be able to help you out. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   13:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Referencing a Translation-Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jean-Philippe Lenclos
My submission has been denied twice due to lack of references. I first added some citations that I had available, but the rest of the content comes directly from the French version of this page. My main goal in creating this submission was to do a translation of the French wikipedia page. But the French page lacks citations as well, all the information that I added on top of the translation has been cited. There are also a small additions that are directly from Lenclos himself because I have contact with him through his son. I'm not sure what steps to take next to make this a submittable draft for wikipedia.

Meaghan Farrell

MeggFarrell (talk) 14:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia requires reliable published third-party sources so our readers can verify the article's content. Wikipedia does not consider itself reliable, whether the English or the French version, and Lenclos is obviously neither a published source nor a third-party source on himself. The article says there were three published monographs on Lenclos; what do those have to say about him? They could serve as useful sources.
 * My suggestions would be to remove stuff that's not based on third-party sources and to instead summarize what third-party sources such as those monographs say about him, while citing those sources, of course. Huon (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

why use this project?
Hi, I'm new and a bit confused. It seems like if you wait 4 days after creating an account, and make the requisite number of edits, then you can create a new page yourself without going through this review process. Since the review process apparently takes up to two weeks, why wouldn't someone just wait the 4 days and then bypass this review process completely? Then, you could get your article up on Wikipedia more promptly. It seems like some of the articles rejected here are better quality than some of the articles already up on Wikipedia, so this process doesn't seem quite fair. Anyway, that is just the impression from this ignorant newbie. Mafh01 (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * If the article made by the newbie is not up to the minimum standards it will almost certainly be deleted by the New Page Patrol process - they tend to "shoot first and don't even bother to ask questions". Going through the process here means that when it passes you know the article does meet the minimum standards so the chances of it being deleted are slim. The vast majority of poor quality articles already on Wikipedia are simply older than the review processes - Wikipedia's structures, rules and procedures have evolved over years, so standards were much lower in the early days than they are now. Take a look at WP:OTHERSTUFF for an explanation of why "But there is worse crap on Wikipedia than my draft!" is not a valid argument to allow more crap in. Why would someone knowingly and deliberately actually want to create an inferior piece of junk (that will most probably be deleted within a few days, if not sooner anway) when there is a system in place to help them create a decent article? Experienced editors who are confident that they know how to create pages that meet the standards don't generally use this system, but for newbies it is highly reccommended. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, I get it. So, it's not required, but just very strongly recommended unless you are experienced.  It's just that as a newbie, I got the impression that this was the way all new pages are created (because that's how Wikipedia directs you), and then as I learned more, I discovered that everyone goes through this process, so I was a bit confused.


 * But, my main concern was from looking at some of the articles where the reviewers seem to be nitpicking. Like, I saw one submission rejected multiple times because it didn't have 'wiki-links', and I've seen other rejected for using general references instead of inline ones.  I didn't see anything  in your reviewing instructions that required this sort of thing before approval, so it didn't seem quite fair. Mafh01 (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC) 19:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Could you provide links to the problematic declines? Reviewers are human too, so they can make mistakes and decline articles for invalid reasons. We'd like to correct those mistakes. Biographies of living persons, unlike most other articles, require inline citations for some claims (for all other articles they're nice to have, a convenience to our readers, and generally an improvement, but not strictly required - as Dodger67 said, you can deliberately create bad articles and sneak them by our minimum requirements, but why not expend some effort to write a better article?). Huon (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Found it, here's the one that was fussing over the wiki-links. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Jean-Louis_Rodrigue

64.181.114.4 (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC) (mafh01)


 * I can't find the other one. But, thanks both of you for taking the time to answer my questions! Mafh01 (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)