Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2014 June 30

= June 30 =

00:01:09, 30 June 2014 review of submission by 86.129.239.39
My request, along with a large number of similar requests, was deleted _without a response_ at 17:42, on 28 June 2014‎ by Anon 108.23.88.129 - see |link. Is it not reasonable to ask why / understand why this request was deleted??? 86.129.239.39 (talk) 00:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why that content was deleted. may have experienced an edit conflict and removed your content by accident.  In any case, Category:Thames Water already exists and has only 31 articles in it, so I see no reason to create Category:People associated with Thames Water.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 04:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

06:05:14, 30 June 2014 review of submission by SongsforLulu
Hello!

I'm not sure if I'm putting this in the right place, but I just wanted to let the reviewer know that I have reduced the number of citations as requested. There is only one place where there are three citations, and removing any of them would mean the information within the article is not verified, so please leave these.

With regard to the sexuality categories, I have found a direct reference, but because it refers to a category I don't know where to put it, so I'm pasting it here:

Brunette, Patrick “Lumière sur Jörn Fugues, Montreal, 22 March 2013. Retrieved on 30 June 2014. “J’imagine que c’est à ce moment que j’ai réalisé que j’étais gai.” (Translation: I guess it was then that I realised I was gay.)

I have replaced the "Gay men" and "LGBT people from Germany" categories, I hope this is acceptable to you.

Lulu

Lulu 06:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The reference is fine, What you need to do is to state within the artticle that the gentleman is gay in a suitable manner ([personal life section, naturally), and use that reference to support it. This is one time when a directly quoted interview is appropriate as a reference because it supports something that only the subject can confirm. Unless someone else reviews it first, ping me on my talk page when you have handled this and I'll be happy to accept the article. Good work. Fiddle   Faddle  08:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

06:48:41, 30 June 2014 review of submission by Green1234678
Green1234678 (talk) 06:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I was modelling my article on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_Direct I am just wondering how I can improve mine?
 * First, re-write the article in your own words. There's evidence of close paraphrasing from a couple websites including the Budget Direct article. If I google any random sentence I should not find that sentence somewhere else. Second, you'll need to find reliable sources like newspapers, books, and magazines.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 07:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

11:59:08, 30 June 2014 review of submission by Bwinterbotham
I am not positive that I have properly sent my Lillian Masebenza Draft page in for review. I want to be able to get this page up as quickly as possible. I thought that I submitted it several weeks ago but I have gotten no confirmation or response since then. Could you tell me if it has indeed been submitted? And if so how soon I should hear back? Thanks

Bwinterbotham (talk) 11:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , your submission has been submitted for review and, as of this post, may take around a week to be reviewed. APerson (talk!) 14:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

14:33:21, 30 June 2014 review of submission by GHMason12
We just received word that our article had been rejected, and a note saying we could write to find out why. It would be most helpful knowing the reasons for rejection and to learn if there is anything we can do to correct this. Thanks. GHMason12 (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the reviewer could have added a little more information. It is there, but sometimes we forget that folk are very new to this and are not quite forthcoming enough. The main issue is the referencing. We require references from significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. The references that you have, kin the reviewer's opinion, and in mine, do not meet those tough criteria. All other issues are supplementary. I'll make a couple of style edits in the article for you to see that element, and you do need to read the link you were left in the comment.
 * Ask the reviewer, or me on our talk pages, for more help, or ask here, too.We want articles here, though it can feel as if we do not when we puch an article back for more work. Fiddle   Faddle  15:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

18:38:37, 30 June 2014 review of draft by 184.145.17.144
This is not being copyrighted. The content from the other page is also our content. I do not know how that WikiFolks page got put up. This Wikipedia page was previously deleted and just trying to get it back up. Please advise.

184.145.17.144 (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The other site is correctly licenced. If that is the only original source of this information it is not a copyvio. However if the original source has different licencing a different discussion is required. Fiddle   Faddle  18:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

21:07:17, 30 June 2014 review of submission by Dstephenlindsay
Dstephenlindsay (talk) 21:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The reviewer says that I have not provided independent evidence that the subject (Larry L. Jacoby) is notable. The first paragraph reports that (a) the Association for Psychological Science selected Jacoby as a 2013 winner of the William James Fellow/Lifetime Achievement Award, (b) the Society for Experimental Psychology awarded him the 2013 Norman Anderson Lifetime Achievement Award, (c) he is on the Thomson Reuters list of highly cited researchers, and (d) Harzing's Publish or Perish credits Jacoby with an H index of 66 and 21,469 citations. To my mind these are four powerful pieces of external, independent evidence of notability. It is possible that in the reviewer's judgment these are not sufficiently notable accomplishment, but that seems unlikely because I know that Wikipedia includes entries for many psychologists whose records are much less notable than Jacoby's (e.g., there is one for me, and my record is very modest compared to Jacoby's). I am at a loss as to what the reviewer requires in the way of evidence of Jacoby's notability. Steve Lindsay


 * The reviewer has given you some links to follow. Have you followed them? For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every fact you assert requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS. The submission and review process is intended not only to provide articles that will probably survive any future challenge, but to give you a good grounding in what is required. We do not allow articles of a lower standard to act as precedent for any other article, that is the primrose path to disaster. Idiocracy gives you an indication.
 * Ask yourself how each of the references you have given in the article meets the requirements for significant coverage which is about the gentleman and is in WP:RS. If it fails any part of that then it is not a reference. Fiddle   Faddle  21:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I had previously declined this article. I have retrieved my rationale form the history PLease do not delete it since it forms a record and a guide to you and future reviewers. It seems I have given you this advice (above) before. Please take it on board. This is your set of pointers. Fiddle   Faddle  21:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

21:51:13, 30 June 2014 review of submission by 204.16.157.10
Hi there! Just wondering why the page for West Agile Labs was declined. It's an up-and-coming tech consultancy in SF, and is relevant to the city's technological landscape. Thanks!

204.16.157.10 (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Have you been back to the article, where I left a concise comment about the rationale? The message on your talk page does mention it, but I suspect we need to improve these notifications to include a detailed rationale on talk pages too. Fiddle   Faddle  22:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * so we do, because about half the questions here could be answered by doing this.  DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

22:54:45, 30 June 2014 review of submission by Alexander Urbelis
I would like to know why the article was rejected and hope to resolve the issues so it can be posted as soon as possible. Many thanks. Alexander Urbelis (talk) 22:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you been back to the article, where there is a concise comment about the rationale? The message on your talk page does mention it, but I suspect we need to improve these notifications to include a detailed rationale on talk pages too. Fiddle   Faddle  22:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)