Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2014 February 28

= February 28 =

Review of E System Design new page
i need some help.

I tried to minimize issues and copied Nimbic's company web page (EDA companies). Once copied, I then changed all of Nimbic's specific information to ours and thought it would be accepted. Unfortunately it was not. So my "low risk" plan failed!

Any suggestions?

Thanks, 99.9.19.0 (talk) 02:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Bill


 * It would be useful to have a link to the page that you're asking about.


 * In general it is not a good idea to base a new article on the format and layout of a related existing article. Instead, have a look at existing recognised Wikipedia Good Articles to see what sort of coverage could be aimed at. Links to Good Articles about businesses and organisations can be found at Good articles/Social sciences and society. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You should also read Conflict of interest. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I am REALLY confused. The entire list of EDA Companies and the associated pages (like my page that was denied that provide additional details) are generated by employees or contractors of each EDA company to help answer question and market their wares. Any person searching in EDA companies is looking for tool suppliers and the types of tools they develop, sell and support. Which I thought was the intent of Wikipedia: to catalog information that can quickly answer anyone's question. Are all of these pages about commercial companies that sell tools, services, etc? YEP

If you want to look at an approved page. Do a search for "EDA Companies". This should pull up a list of EDA companies. I believe all of the company names except for E-System Design you can click on to go to their own Wikipedia page. Do this on Nimbic's. That is that page I modeled ours after since we  develop similar tools.

Sorry to be a pain, but it seems like a different set of rules are being applied vs other posting in these pages. 99.9.19.0 (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Bill

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/R.D. Landing
I would like to know why my article was not accepted.

Title of submission: David Correa

[[Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/R.D. Landing

Thank you!

R.D.R.D. Landing (talk) 04:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Correa was declined for the reasons given in and under the pink box on that page. Click on the links provided in the pink box for more information. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Charles R. Conn
Hello! I am really struggling with my first Wikipedia entry: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Charles R. Conn - I keep being told "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." - I keep adding new citations and I can't think of anything else to do! Is there a way of asking an experienced wikipedia editor to assist on a project as I think it is my inexperience which is letting this page down and I feel quite dispondent about it. Babettet (talk) 09:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * What is he notable as? An academic? A fundraiser? Being a professorial fellow at Balliol College might maybe be somewhere near meeting ACADEMIC.


 * The "List of Wardens" is out of place in the article about Conn, even though it is useful (for this discussion only) in showing that people in this position tend to be notable academics.


 * It is rather difficult to work out which of the references you've added are actually contributing to proving his notability. So for example the Nick Anderson piece in the Washington Post is permissible as a source to support the fact that a particular important event happened during Conn's tenure, but it doesn't actually mention Conn himself at all. Neither does the other Washington Post piece. Adding more sources related to the organisation Conn works for doesn't help prove notability, in fact it makes it harder because the reviewer can't see the wood for the trees. There's nothing to indicate that Idahonaturenotes.blogspot.co.uk is a reliable source. Citing material written by Conn in the references, for example the Conservation Biology piece, causes confusion because what the reviewer is looking for is material written about Conn. The same goes for listing the homepage of the Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation as a reference - it doesn't mention Conn at all. And so on. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

(talk)Thanks for your reply Arthur - he is notable as an early tech entrepreneur and as Warden (CEO) of the Rhodes Scholarships which is an important position within the University of Oxford and within academia - it funds 83 Scholarships to Oxford every year. 'Supporting evidence' would include his position as Aspen Fellow and Balliol Fellow. Is there a way of asking an experienced Wikipedia editor to take this on? I thought adding more links was a good thing, but it seems like I just keep doing the wrong thing! One the page Wikipedia: Your first article it states: 'Recruit help: Seek out a sponsor (volunteer editor) who has worked on similar articles' - how would I do that? Thanks!! Babettet (talk) 14:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You could try asking some of the people listed at WikiProject University of Oxford, but do check whether they're still actively editing or not otherwise you may not get much of a reply. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I will do that - thank you again! Babettet (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tenagino Probus
I would like to attach maps of the provinces of Numidia and (Roman Egypt). Where can i access these?Pjbjas (talk) 14:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * At https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Maps_of_Numidia and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Roman_Egypt Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ShopVisible
I am having trouble understanding why my article has been rejected for notability. Seven out of eleven sources are secondary sources from trusted industry outlets, so there is a variety of reliable sources of information. The rejection feedback also mentions that there should be clear evidence as to why this article is worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia, and in addition to the various secondary sources referenced, the company's direct and indirect competitors have Wikipedia pages as well - so firms in this industry have already been deemed worthy for inclusion. Jenniferarpr (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)jenniferarpr

The industry may be notable, but companies must be notable in and of themselves to be included in Wikipedia. (See WP:ORGIN for more information.) Anon126 (talk - contribs) 20:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I am responding to the answer that was given to me yesterday (above): If the competitors are notable, then why isn't the company they directly compete with? I've added in additional secondary sources referencing the company after each rejection. If I add even more secondary resources and include them in the submission, will this article then be acceptable? How many are required?72.16.218.22 (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)jenniferarpr


 * I've gone through the references. Many of them are press releases, which are not independent sources that can demonstrate notability. (See the general notability guideline and the guideline for organizations.) Also, as I said, sources that only discuss the industry without mentioning this company in particular do not count, either.


 * Filtering out these two groups, what remains is Internet Retailer, Website Magazine, and Technology Association of Georgia. These do not constitute "significant coverage." There is no set number of sources required to show notability, but the idea is that a subject is notable if most to all information can be found in independent sources. If an article were written about ShopVisible based on these sources alone, it would contain very little.  Anon 126   (talk - contribs) 22:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bitcoin Malleability
I am curious why my article on Bitcoin malleability was rejected. I followed the guidelines, my information was correct, I am confused. Carlo Caraluzzo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlo Caraluzzo (talk • contribs) 20:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you actually read the reviewer's comment? The explanation is quite clear and contains links to further information and guidance. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)