Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2015 February 18

= February 18 =

Request on 04:11:45, 18 February 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by JGObianyo
Thanks so much Graeme and Ahecht! Your suggestions are extremely helpful. It's all so overwhelming but excited about learning new things. I will make the edits and resubmit the article again.--JGObianyo (talk) 04:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello! I submitted my very first Wikipedia article and I was so excited about doing it. However I just received a message indicating the article was rejected because my citations were incorrect. Since I am so new to this are their experienced editors available who can help me? I really want to get approved. I welcome all suggestions. Thank you! --JGObianyo (talk) 04:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

JGObianyo (talk) 04:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC) PAGE''' ]]) 17:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We cannot tell which reference supports which fact. There is no number imbedded in the text to show us what to read. Also none of those nl.newsbank.com urls work correctly. We need something more like this: Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * User:JGObianyo, for more information on formatting references, you can take a look at the guide at WP:REFBEGIN. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK
 * Second question by User:JGObianyo about are there editors available who can help? I hope so, though there do not seem to be many editing this page! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

04:45:58, 18 February 2015 review of submission by Fred Bakker
Fred Bakker (talk) 04:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The title of the article is now Errol Francis Sawyer but it should be just Errol Sawyer. How can I change this?

Fred Bakker (talk) 04:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I moved the article for you, using the move tab. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

11:44:54, 18 February 2015 review of submission by Sunteck
Kindly help me understand the reason the post got declined. I will make changes accordingly. Sunteck (talk) 11:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It was declined because it copied content from http://corecommunique.com/sunteck-realty-launch-4-new-projects-mumbai-quarter/
 * It is illegal to copy other websites unless written permission is given. You can avoid this problem by writing in your own words and not copy and pasting material from elsewhere. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

12:42:52, 18 February 2015 review of submission by 128.141.170.10
Does being head of a large experimental collaboration not automatically meet the guidelines for notability? Is the article for David Charlton, for example, only allowed to exist because of his fellowship with the Royal Society?

128.141.170.10 (talk) 12:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no such thing as automatic notability. An article is acceptable when (among other criteria) independent reliable sources are used as references. Both the current references in the draft are not independent and are probably even written by the subject. Look for sources written and published by people who have no direct connection to him. These sources need to substantially discuss him and his work. I have not checked the other article you mentioned because it isn't actually relevant, each article must stand on its own merits. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Of course the other article is relevant. I'm trying to understand the rules by example of their implementation. I want to know if it's worth my time making this article as detailed and well-sourced as another one that does conform to guidelines. If the position of LHCb/ATLAS/CMS/ALICE spokesperson doesn't count as "a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society" then I'll just drop it. --80.15.91.77 (talk) 00:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, on both questions. FRS counts as a "highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national ... level".
 * While the criteria Notability_(academics) are always open for discussion, I see nothing that makes Guy Wilkinson comparable to the criteria. However, a rather more serious issue is, should it survive deletion on those criteria, if the only two sources are the brief college and CERN bios, then it would never grow beyond a stub of three or four sentences, so it doesn't really add to the encyclopedia.
 * --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

15:14:26, 18 February 2015 review of submission by Albertosthewilliyono
Albertosthewilliyono (talk) 15:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

PAGE''' ]]) 17:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What is your question? Your draft has not yet been submitted for review, but I would advise you against submitting it in its current state. It needs serious work to correct spelling, punctuation, grammar, and capitalization. If English isn't your first language, you might want to create an article for the Hindi Wikipedia instead.
 * It's also not clear that the subject of your article meets the standards of WP:BIO. Make sure that you cite significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK

17:15:14, 18 February 2015 review of submission by Stheisen
"This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources"

Hello, I am very excited to get this post approved and could use some help with adding reliable resources. Was my submission rejected because I provided some inadaquate resources? Do I just need to delete some references?

I read "Good references" in "referencing for beginners" and I feel like all my references are good. So im just looking for some direction

Stheisen (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * One thing I immediately noticed is that you simply state that an interview and other video exists then you link directly to them. That is actually source material, instead of just telling us the material exists you should actually use it as references for the article. You can use what was said in the interview/video to expand the text. Then you reference the video/interview. What the subject himself says in the interview is of limited use but what the presenter/interviewer says is a possibly valuable third party source. You should also not mention and link the "courtesy of" stuff, that's just advertising. We do not need permission to reference sources so "courtesy of" is irrelevant. In fact even if such "source owners" were to actually object to Wikipedia citing "their" material we don't care, provided it is properly published any reliable source is fair game. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)