Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2014 January 26

= January 26 =

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bentonville Public Library
I created a draft in AfC. I tried to write the article in my own words, but Madmanbot said it was still a copyright violation. Is there a way I could get some others to help me with the article? Eventhorizon51 (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have looked at this article, and I think that the remaining similarities are a matter of a list of facts in chronological order, and not a copyright violation. we will see if others agree. DES (talk) 06:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Would it be a good idea to submit the article now so it can go in the namespace for the community to work on it? We can put a message indicating the issue at the top of the page. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/All Kerala Law Students Association
pasted article removed

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aklsa ailsa (talk • contribs) 09:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * , this is not a place to paste your draft, it is a place to ask questions. Do you have a question for us about your draft at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/All Kerala Law Students Association? MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Young European Strings School of Music
Hello, I have two questions: one relating to this article and one relating to a prospective article. With regard to this article, I am just wondering why it still has orphan status as there is currently one link from another Wikipedia page Gwendolyn Masin to this page? Secondly, I would like to start another article on a separate topic relating to Arts and Health which is a burgeoning area of arts practice in many European and Western countries. Is there a special help desk to ask questions about prospective articles? Thank you, HurleyOne (talk) 10:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * On the first, I have removed the tag. These tags need to be removed manually, so people need to notice the article is de-orphaned. On the second, I would recommend trying the Tea house. Rankersbo (talk) 12:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Review of User:Tim3829308/sandbox
Hi Everyone,

Ijust received this feedback (This appears to be an essay, as opposed to a notable encyclopedic topic. The use of the term itself is not sufficiently referenced to exist as a title.) on this article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tim3829308/sandbox). Now, the first part (less essay, more encyclopedia) I can fix. However, I was wondering if the second part of the feedback means that I need to include more citations or that the topic itself is simply not relevant enough to exist?

Thanks,

Tim3829308 (talk) 12:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the reviewer was not convinced that "Agricultural household models" is an actual "thing" or concept, but that it is merely a phrase used in some sources. You should edit the lead to begin with a concise definition of "Agricultural household models" - properly sourced of course.
 * The "essay" issue is basically that Wikipedia articles are purely and strictly descriptive, they never include "findings" or "conclusions" or argue positions or issues. Articles should report the existence of and describe findings and arguments published in reliable sources but may never state the findings and arguments in Wikipedia's voice. Wikipedia never says things like: "Dubya was the worst US president ever", but it may say "According to Joe Blogs writing in the Daily Blah(reference), a June 2012 poll by Polls-R-Us Inc. found that 38.7% of American adults believe that Dubya was the worst US president ever." Hope this helps. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Phoenix Living Poets
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Phoenix Living Poets

I submitted a page about the "Phoenix Living poets" series of books of poetry. This listed the whole series and made some brief comments about them.

I received this feedback: "We need more sources that are about the book series. I see where the series exists, but existing isn't really notability." from Tokyogirl79.

Given that the series is a notable set of publications offering a range of poetry from the 60's to the 80's, so reflecting changes over a couple of decades, and given that many of the poets published in it have been individually notable, what should I add to demonstrate that notability? There is limited material available online about the series and I thought that offering the list on Wikipedia would provide a starting point for other contributors and also provide a similar list to those already available for Paladin, City Lights, Best American, Pitt, Carcenet, the Hogarth Press (broader than just poetry) and others.

Many of the volumes have been "Poetry Book Society" recommendations over the years. Would such information help to establish "notability"? I have checked this and over the 60s and 70s there were 10 Poetry Book Society "choices" and 11 Poetry Book Society "recommendations" - an average of about one a year, suggesting that the series as a whole deserves some recognition as "notable"?

I didn't want to include much detail on the individual poets, plenty is available, as the more significant ones already have their own Wikipedia pages and as I was just trying to offer an overview of the series for interested researchers. The majority of the poets in the series do have their own Wikipedia pages so part of the value of this particular page is that it provides a route into exploring a range of poets of this era. There are similar pages on Wikipedia for bands and record labels as well and this ability to link can be very helpful when exploring a topic?

I wrote this page because I needed to find all the poets in the series for some research recently and that information was not readily available anywhere and I thought that others might find it of use. If I take the time to add more about the notability of this series, is the article likely to be accepted? By offering it to Wikipedia I am not, of course, suggesting that this is the final word but rather, as usual, just the starting place for wider and more learned contributions.

Thank you. Steve Millar (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The article needs sources that discuss the book series as such. Sources that only discuss one or a few of the books in the series or about poets that are published in one of the books in the series don't do anything to establish the notability of the entire series as a unit - see WP:Notability is not inherited. Hope this helps. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Marzia Bisognin
I have submitted an article twice the first time I need notability and I can't remember the rest so I put in the websites I found the info from submitted it again and it said I need references. I know what they are but don't know how I should put them in I have sources but I can't get the exact page — Preceding unsigned comment added by BobMarley1994 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * , I think you need to take a closer look at WP:Notability (people). Your current references are:
 * http://youtube.wikia.com/wiki/CutiePieMarzia
 * http://www.youtube.com/user/CutiePieMarzia
 * http://instagram.com/p/jonxi7gn7H/


 * Not a single one of these is a WP:Reliable source. Do you have any serious news articles or anything that discuss Bisognin and her career and impact? MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Their is a wikitubia or something but other than that I can't find anything could you please help I would love to make this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by BobMarley1994 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * We're happy to help advise you on what works and what doesn't, but it's unlikely anyone here is going to write the page for you. My personal unofficial guess is that this person probably does not meet WP:Notability (people) and therefore cannot have an article at this time until if/when she receives a wider body of coverage for her work. I could be wrong, maybe such coverage exists, but we can't move forward without such coverage provided as References. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * To see what kind of coverage does work for an Internet commentator article, see PewDiePie, since that's a person you mentioned in your draft. Your subject clearly won't have as much coverage, but she would have to have a small body of coverage of references as serious/professional as the PewDiePie article in order to merit her own article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)