Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2014 June 1

= June 1 =

Review of Draft:Eliot Lewis (musician)Righttrack
I need help understanding what is an acceptable source for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Righttrack. According to one of your volunteers, an article in which a journalist or blogger interviewed Mr. Lewis is fine, but video of a TV interview in which a journalist asks him questions and he answers is not. The volunteer said that Mr. Lewis' answers have to be "substantially rewritten" before they can be used as a source. To me, as a former journalist, that seems odd. Also, I was told that to be a source, an article *must* be online. That may be a problem, since not all papers have all their entire article base online.

Thank you for your help!

Righttrack (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Who told you that sources must be online? Where did they tell you this? Whoever they are, they are 100% wrong.


 * As for the TV interview, one doesn't cite a piece of video footage that happens to be online somewhere; one cites the publication, i.e. the TV programme that it aired on.


 * Interviews are not great for proving notability, because they are mainly sources for what the person claims about themselves. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Review of User:Rpenafiel/sandbox
Hi, I was wondering if my article was accepted or declined because it stays on my sandbox User:Rpenafiel and I have not received any other notes from editor. It does show on my "contribution" list but I'm not sure whether my content was accepted and published nor if rejected and needs further editing to be done to get accepted as Wiki content. Thank you very much.Rpenafiel (talk) 04:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You were informed on your talk page that the submission had been declined. You reacted by removing the information about the reasons for it being declined, in this edit. Feel free to further improve the submission in accordance with the advice given. You can resubmit it by putting on the submission page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * A little more exactly, it was declined for being essentially a press release for a company with no references to support its notability, and both problems must be addressed; there is no point in resubmitting until you have done so. A Wikipedia article needs to show notability with references providing substantial coverage from  3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online. Without them,  it will not be possible to write an acceptable article.  Then, a  Wikipedia article  needs to be written like an encyclopedia article, not a press release.  Don't include material that would better belong in an advertisement or a web page, such as a detailed list of products or the personal motivation of the principals. Include only material that would be of interest to a general reader coming across the mention of the subject and wanting the sort of information that would be found in an encyclopedia. Do not include material that would be of interest only to those associated with the subject, or to prospective clients/purchasers/students/supporters/donors--that sort of content is considered promotional.   DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * A "thought trick" that I use when writing about companies and other organizations is to ask myself "Will anybody care about this 200 years from now, when the organization no longer exists and everyone with personal memories of it are long dead?" If the answer is a clear "no", it's probably not worth including. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Review of Draft:Sean Erlston
The article has been declined but there is no explanation why. Wikipedia has an article/page about wedding photographers which can only have names listed if an article page exists about that photographer, which is why I made the page submission which has been rejected.How do you make a page, which is a prerequisite, without it being rejected?Sean Erlston (talk) 05:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia only needs biographical articles about people that are notable - see WP:GNG. Sadly, you are not yet notable by that standard. Reasons for an article being declined are almost always found on the page submitted. In this case that seems not to be accessible to you or to me - perhaps the submitted page was too overtly promotional (like spam) or perhaps it was a copyright violation by copying from an external website? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Richard Sexton
Hi there--just wanted to stop by and ask if there might be anything holding up review of this entry. I know the article review process is backlogged.

I originally started working on this article in Feb., have worked with a few volunteer Wiki editors, and want to make sure there's nothing missing before it gets to a reviewer. Thanks!

Theenglishmaven (talk) 15:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Theenglishmaven (talk) - I reviewed the article - made a few minor changes and added a ref to verify the biographical information in the article. I know it's been a while - thanks for your patience!  Julie JSFarman (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Review of Draft:Waterloo Busker Carnival
I believe this article is ready for publication. It is not "fictional"....not sure where that came from...and while the help is appreciated.....and I have done as asked....even to point out that the Waterloo Chronicle is a weekly newspaper as well as being on-line (like the majority of newspapers today). It's time to approve this and get it on Wikipedia. Thank you!DivaWord (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's been submitted for another review. Rankersbo (talk) 10:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Reviewed and accepted - it is now at Waterloo Busker Carnival. Congratulations! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)