Help desk
< June 8	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 10 >

Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

June 9

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Think Design Magazine

Hi, Would you be so kind to explain the errors I am making with the below post? I have cited sources and have a reference list. I am not sure what I am doing wrong. thank you. Trisha

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Think_Design_Magazine&oldid=496699590

Banks200 (talk) 04:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have tidied up the references. The {{cite web}} template requires at least two parameters, the URL (which you had) and a title (which you didn't have). Furthermore, the "group=" parameter of the <ref> tag is used to group some of the foornotes - for example if you want to distinguish references from other footnotes. Displaying those groups requires separate uses of {{Reflist}} with the appropriate parameter each, such as {{Reflist|group=note}}. I don't think that was what you wanted to do and have thus removed the "group=" parameters.

Unfortunately I don't think your references show significant coverage of the magazine. In fact, the art dinners hosted by the magazine seem more notable than the magazine itself (and the art festival reference did not mention the magazine at all), but even then significant parts of the article, such as the claim that the institutions hosting the dinners are 5-star restaurants, are not supported by the given references (the Phuket E Magazine looks like a press release on a blog and is probably not a reliable secondary source anyway). Huon (talk) 11:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

problems with submitting a post

I am having problems submitting the below post. It states I am not citing and referencing correctly. Can you tell me what I am doing wrong? http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Think_Design_Magazine

Banks200 (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Huon (talk) 11:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question on Sporting Club Article Creation

Hi,

Please could you provide a little more information as to why my article about the City of Leeds Synchronised Swimming Club keeps getting rejected,

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/City of Leeds Synchronised Swimming Club

I have now 8 external recognised references which cite the club, including references to two other wiki pages that mention us and in addition have listed TV shows (the BBC 1 and Channel 4) along with Press Releases the club has featured on as well as our standings in the British Championships. As for notable swimmers, we had an Olympic swimmer on our books for a few years, and so have listed (with references) her placings in both Olympics she competed in.

As for notability of the club, we are unique in the Synchro world as we are the based on a feeder club system and the club represents an entire ASA region. We are the first club to do this in the UK.

I look at other speed swimming club pages on Wikipedia and their club details are extremely sparse and vague with only 1 or 2 references, so am wondering why our article has been rejected 3 times.

I have read the sporting guidelines and can't understand what guideline we are not fulfilling. Synchroleeds (talk) 12:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, other articles with insufficient references exist, but that's no reason to create more of them.

Many of your references are primary sources - the club's own website, the websites of organizations the club is a member of, and the like. Primary sources cannot be used to establish the club's notability; we need secondary sources for that.

Also, many of your references do not actually mention the City of Leeds Synchronized Swimming Club, for example the websites of the other synchronized swimming clubs (one of those links even gives an error message) or the BBC hair stylist's profile. In fact, I believe the only secondary source to mention the club at all is the Huddersfield Daily Examiner, and that's hardly significant coverage (in fact, it doesn't even say the club is featured by the BBC and thus does not support the statement we use it for). Furthermore, the article should be based on such sources, not just point out that they exist.

If the club is notable for its unique organization, surely someone not affiliated with the club or its parent organizations has written about that? Huon (talk) 12:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response and detailed advice which is very informative and very helpful for me to understand the rejections. So,

ASA NE Membership - point taken we are a member

But what about

Leeds City Council Website - we operate in Leeds but are not affiliated to Leeds City Council at all

Swim21 - This is a mark of approval from an independent body of the ASA

British Swimming - We are members of the ASA but British Swimming are a federation to which the ASA belong. British swimming hold the championships.

Leeds City Page in wikipedia

John Charles Centre for Sport in wikipedia

Camelot - who run the UK National Lottery

Now this last link have a press release on their website which we are mentioned on - but its a pdf. When I try to link directly to it, wikipedia complains that its not of suitable content. Is this because its contains gaming / lottery content.

Synchroleeds (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In order: I'm not sure whether the Leeds City Council website comes with the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy required of a reliable source, and it may well be one, but the coverage is just two lines, hardly significant.

The SWIM21 Club Accreditation website does not mention the club, and the list of accredited clubs is published by ASA, which makes it once again a primary source. If the accrediting organization published a list of clubs accreditied by itself, that would still be a primary source. The list entry also isn't really significant coverage.

The British Swimming Results page, reference 14, does not mention the club, and the website of the organizers of a championship reporting the results of said championship is once again a primary source.

Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source.

A press release is usually not considered a reliable source, and if I understand the draft's paragraph correctly, City of Leeds participated in a promotion for the Camelot Group - the Camelot Group reporting on its own promotion is once again a primary source. I cannot tell without the link, but I'd expect the problem is more with the site hosting the content than with the content itself - Wikipedia has articles on lotteries, and it's not censored, but some sites which have been deemed "not reliable sources" are blacklisted to prevent promotional link spam.

In summary, even with the Leeds City Council we have at most two reliable secondary sources, both of which provide very short coverage of the club. But a Wikipedia article should be based on the coverage in reliable secondary sources, and that's currently not the case. My suggestion would be to look for more news pieces. Maybe the club's formation in 2008 was worth an article, or some especially successful performance was the occasion of a report?

As an aside, you might also want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest - your user name suggests you are closely affiliated with the club on which you want to write an article. Huon (talk) 13:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To underline what Huon says, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which includes articles about things that are notable, not simply things that exist. The various mentions and directory listings prove that the Club exists, but they don't prove it has been widely noticed and talked about in reliable sources. Sionk (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Agharkar Research Institute

My new page ( http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Agharkar_Research_Institute ) was rejected on the grounds of copyrighted material. There is a remark saying that this page can be deleted any time without further notice. However, I want to have new material on the page which hopefully will not violet any copyrights. Can I continue to edit the page? Or will the page be deleted with my new contents without even intimating me?

Thanks in advance! Atul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sowani (talk • contribs) 15:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can remove the remark and continue editing, but please make sure that the new content is indeed not a copyright violation. Huon (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]