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

= October 25 =

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hoot Hester
I need some help trying to figure out why this article was rejected and how to fix it.The reviewer said it needs a few more sources but he or she was not specific. I received help on sourcing and editing that article and the prospect of of finding more sources only to be rejected again leaves me a little angry and frustrated. Are these reviews arbitrary or can they be appealed ? There was a time when anyone could write an article without having to get it reviewed. as if the reviewer did not really read the article and rejected it out of hand. Michaelgossett (talk) 03:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Do I need to assume that every statement in the article needs a source or am I to assume that the reviewer simply wants more sources for what is already sourced. It seems to me


 * Not every statement needs a source, but it's better to provide one. And it shouldn't be difficult - after all, the information has to come from somewhere.


 * If you think the reviewer is in error then you could ask them about it on their talk page, or resubmit the page so that another reviewer can make the decision. However, if the new reviewer agrees with the previous one, the submission will just be declined again. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Baye McNeil
Dear WikiProject Articles for Creation, Help Desk,

I noticed that many submitted articles for creation, some of which were submitted after mine (5 Oct. 2013) were reviewed in a short period of time - sometimes in as short as one day - and a decision was made whether to publish them. My article for creation was submitted 19 days ago and is still waiting review. There was a notice that the review may take 2-3 weeks because of a backlog, but I am wondering if you can give me an estimate as to how long a review for my article might take as of now.

I am on the verge of just publishing the article without waiting for the review - though I always feel it best for articles to be reviewed before publishing.

I look forward to your response.

Thank you.

Sincerely,Minusminority (talk) 04:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Since articles are not necessarily reviewed in chronological order, I cannot really say how long it'll take until yours gets reviewed. The oldest unreviewed submissions right now are from September 25. Those that are reviewed quickly usually are declined for obvious flaws.
 * At a glance your draft is heavily based on sources that are not reliable (such as Amazon) or not independent (like McNeil's own book). The latter might be acceptable for uncontroversial details, but it shouldn't be the sole basis of large amounts of content. You may want to work on that. Huon (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, thank you very much for the reply!...I'll work on article some more (though I think I have to show that subject has published books - by including references to books).Minusminority (talk) 23:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Huon...FYI, I've recently done quite a bit of cleanup/edits to article, such as deleting references to Amazon.com. I hope my work has helped improve the piece.  Any more input would be welcome.  Thank you!Minusminority (talk) 02:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi there, it may seem strange but the fact McNeil has written books is a minor issue. There are people who have written tens of books who don't qualify for wikipedia because no-one rates them highly. Simply having written and published books doesn't make you notable. You need independent, reliable sources talking about the author, the fact the person has written books should come from what people are saying about him, not from Amazon etc. Rankersbo (talk) 07:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Rankersbo, thank you for the comment. After receiving suggestions, (including those in a live chat at the help desk) I have cleaned up the article quite a bit, deleting all references to Amazon, etc., and noting "what people are saying about him" in "independent, reliable sources talking about the author" as you noted was needed...I'm wondering if someone is taking another look at the article, which would be much appreciated...Once again, thank you. Minusminority (talk) 11:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I see this issue has been marked as "Resolved" but please note that the submission has not yet been reviewed...As noted in my previous comments I have followed suggestions regarding cleanup/editing (including suggestions in an online chat with articles for creation help desk)...Looking forward to article being reviewed - - BTW, in online chat that took place a few days ago, I was given estimate of about a week for a review to take place...Thank you, everyone who has helped/will help on this issue. Minusminority (talk) 07:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Thomas Cook India Ltd
We have submitted content about Thomas Cook India by creating new Wikipedia page. Our first content piece was declined by the Wikipedian 34 days ago. However, we resubmitted the revised version as asked by the Wikepedian 20 days ago. We are unable to connect with the Wikipedian as he is on a Wikibreak. Please help us to sort this at the earliest.Thomas Cook India Ltd (talk) 05:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The submission is currently awaiting review and will be reviewed in due course. Please also see ORGNAME. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Burkard Schliessmann
Hi again and good morning, now we have finished the article and added the necessary references in details. Please could you have a look wether we could submit it in this form and manner? Thank you so much, best, Joanna--Joanna at EVP (talk) 07:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes please go ahead and resubmit it by clicking the Resubmit button or by adding at the top of the page. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank YOU so much for reviewing! As you can see, I just resubmitted it again! Do we hope the best! Sincerestly, Joanna --Joanna at EVP (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Frank Eliscu 1912 - 1996
The Frank Eliscu biography, wikipediatalk:articles_for_creation/Frank_Eliscu_1912_-_1996, says he is not important enough.

My Uncle Edward Eliscu only wrote songs but is in wiki, my Uncle Dave Dreyer only wrote songs but is in wiki,  Frank Eliscu did significantly more. The Heisman Trophy has name recognition BUT of more importance is the sculpting of the Cascade of Books that fall ten stories on the face of the Library of Congress building in Washington, DC. It took Eliscu 10 years to complete and has been declared a national monument and by law can never be removed or changed in any way.

Of real importance, in 1943, he developed a unique technique used by the US Army to rehabilitate facial disfigurements from war injuries. From that, he did research on tattooing pigmentation to cover the discoloration from skin grafts and for people with port wine stains. His technique is used at the New York Hospital today.

I can site more but feel that these three achievements alone would qualify him for a biography in Wikipedia.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by NBELQ (talk • contribs) 13:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. Do you have a question about the Articles for Creation process?


 * Note to other reviewers - the submission is at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Frank Eliscu 1912 - 1996 and is currently awaiting review. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Innovision
Innovision is a national techno-management fest of an Institute of National Importance of India, NIT Rourkela. This fact is verifiable from this link.

I'm a member of the technical team and I have been assigned the job to create a wikipedia reference for it for our overseas seekers. It is an urgent request to publish the page so that poeple don't face any inconvenience.

Thank You. Waiting for a kind reply.

Kratos 04 (talk) 15:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The reasons for the rejection of the submission can be found in the box at the top of the submission page. If you fix these problems, the submission will be accepted.


 * Verifying that an event exists is not sufficient to prove that it is notable enough for there to be an article about it in Wikipedia.


 * Please also read Conflict of interest. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kosi (spiritual teacher)
There are several independent references in this article from news sources as well as a very long interview by Buddha and Gas Pump--which is widely recognized YouTube interviewer. It is my understanding that you only need two independent sources and there are far more than that.

Also, I am not sure what kind of reformatting of book and web references is required. Can someone please advise on this?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiprague (talk • contribs) 20:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I have merged the "web" and "book" references into a single list. However, many of the former "web" sources are not reliable by Wikipedia's standards (including YouTube); those should be removed outright. Non-independent sources may be used for uncontroversial details, but what the article should be based on are reliable third-party sources, and compared to the amount of content those are far too scarce. Furthermore, I'm pretty sure the 1945 source doesn't mention a person born in 1960; thus it's useless for this article. Huon (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)