Help desk
< November 14	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 16 >

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.

November 15

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Danial Schon

my article gets rejected again and again, i have added valid information and valid resources as well, kindly help me with this: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Danial_Schon

Eman ehsan (talk) 05:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources are, in order: An interview with Schon that doesn't provide any sigificant information on him and just uses him as an expert on the Dubai housing market; the publisher apparently also accepts press releases and doesn't seem reliable to me. Wikipedia itself, and Wikipedia does not consider itself reliable (that would be circular). And what superficially resembles a Pakistani version of the Daily Mail, using the Daily Mail logo but getting the "y" wrong, which seems to have no information besides this one article that is credited to an unnamed "special correspondent". Furthermore, two of those sources don't even mention Danial Schon at all. That's hardly the significant coverage in reliable sources we need to establish Schon's notability. Huon (talk) 06:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Unitus Seed Fund

I have been trying to submit this page for some time now. But it keeps getting rejected. Can you give me some pointers to improve it Eshaninan (talk) 10:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The draft needs better sources. Right now two sources are the Unitus Seed Fund and Unitus Labs, primary sources. Another two are blogs or self-published and thus not reliable by Wikipedia's stadards. Bloomberg is just a business directory entry and doesn't contribute much to the Fund's notability either. That leaves us with VCCircle which indeed looks like a good source (though I can't read most of it because it's hidden behind a paywall, but on its own it's a little thin. Has the seed fund received coverage in mainstream newspapers such as The Hindu? That would be a significant help.

Also, the draft currently follows its sources very closely; the first few sentences are copied from Social Enterprise Buzz, the table at the end from the Unity Seed Fund website. That raises issues of copyright; we should summarize the sources' content in our own words. Huon (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Estakhr's Constant

What you have to do, when there are no peer-reviewed paper citing an article, while article is true!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.255.37.165 (talk) 13:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When there are no reliable sources the topic is unsuitable for Wikipedia. Our stadard is verifiability, not truth. And a physical constant that isn't mentioned in the peer-reviewed literature doesn't seem notable either. Huon (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ruth Hagengruber

My Article was declined because of no reliable sources. But it's a Biography of my self (Prof. of Philosophy). I don't really know what sources you wish? The Homepage of my Institution? Please help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hagengruber (talk • contribs) 15:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all you might want to read our guideline on conflicts of interest. Writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged.

Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper coverage. In short, we don't need your or your institution's writings, but we need what other, independent people have written about you. The notability criteria for academics are laid out in WP:PROF; I currently don't see which of those criteria you satisfy. Huon (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Significant figures

What is 0.0565 as 1 significent figure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.30.25.75 (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Please consider asking this question at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what the Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. I'd say it's 0.06, though. Huon (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Will Steinberg/sandbox

Hi,

I notice my submission is titled Will Steinberg/sandbox. Should it read: Wikipedia Talk: Articles for Creation/Shiftgig?

I want to make sure I am submitting properly.

Thanks for your help,

Will Steinberg

Will Steinberg (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shiftgig (2) by MatthewVanitas; Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shiftgig already existed and was in a much worse shape than your draft. I had a quick look at the draft and found no obvious problems; I expect it will be accepted soon. Good work! Huon (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Accepted. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ServiceSource rejected and the live help chat doesn't understand why

Hello,

My article Wikipedia talk: Articles for creation/ServiceSource has been denied four times for being "promotional" and not having "reliable resources". I do not understand how it is promotional, nor do the live chat helpers. Also, my sources are independant, 3rd party sources (analysts, online magazine articles, etc) whereas Cisco sites their website. The live chat helpers told me to use this page to get to the bottom of the issue as they were unable to help me.

Please help explain why the ServiceSource page is being continually rejected, as no one can seem to figure it out.

Thanks Sally Ekman (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)Sally Ekman[reply]

Firstly, several of the sources are not reliable by Wikipedia's standards. For example, NASDAQ's company description was obviously written by the company itself. OVUM apparently is a consultancy, not a news source, and I cannot tell where that report was published. Gartner Report may be reliable, but since the Executive Advisory is hidden behind a paywall and they demand the small sum of US$1,295.00 for that 35-page report whose title doesn't mention ServiceSource, it won't be of much use to most of our readers. I suspect that it's an attempt at original synthesis anyway: The statements sourced to that report aren't ServiceSource-specific. The link for the other Gartner report which actually mentions ServiceSource points to their homepage, not to the report itself (which surprisingly is available for free). The InformationWeek report is heavily based on information directly from ServiceSource; its lone other source seems to be the Gartner report which we could just as well cite directly.

Furthermore, the sources don't necessarily support what they're cited for. For example, the TechTarget article is cited in support of the claim that "before every customer engagement, ServiceSource performs a Service Performance Analysis" - the source doesn't say so. Or take this claim: "Across the global business landscape, many businesses cobble together systems or use spreadsheets to manage their recurring revenue." That's not what the source says, and that part of the source is taken directly from ServiceSource's chief product officer anyway, who is hardly a reliable source on the state of the business before ServiceSource came along. In particular, multiple of the draft's sources noted that ServiceSource claimed that this is the only product of its kind in the market - wrongly. That doesn't inspire any confidence in the statements of ServiceSource's representatives, and this little piece of false advertising somehow isn't mentioned in our draft despite the multitude of sources. These are just some examples.

Conversely, significant parts of the draft don't cite any sources at all, including the "offices", "management", "board members" and much of the "timeline" section. I don't think any of the draft's sources mentioned, say, the Dublin office. The "products and services" section cites sources, but see above: They don't really support the section's content.

Finally, there are issues of tone. Admittedly I've seen worse, but phrases such as "focused on developing" (instead of "that develops"?) or "leverages" (instead of "uses" or maybe "is based on"?) and the "global business landscape" I mentioned sound as if they were written by PR people.

In summary, I believe there are sufficient sources to write a short article on ServiceSource, but this draft's text has too little connection to what the sources actually say about the company. What the current sources don't say but what would also be interesting are such basic facts as ServiceSource's own revenues or their number of employees. Huon (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Brewin Dolphin Scottish Schools Cup

Good evening,

I re-submitted the following article for review about ten days ago. I am new to wikipedia and was wondering if there was a problem.

Kind regards,

Gomach. Gomach (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a backlog of several hundred unreviewed submissions, but I expect yours will be reviewed soon. It's pretty much at the top of the list by now. Please be patient. However, I noticed some possible issues with the draft itself: Firstly, the cup seems to have changed sponsors more than once, and a significant number of references doesn't call it the "Brewin Dolphin" Scottish Schools Cup. At the very least, those changes of sponsors should be mentioned in the draft, and it may be a good idea to name the article itself just "Scottish Schools Cup" and not include the current sponsor in the article name. Secondly, only one of the sources for the Scotland Internationalists actually said that the person in question was indeed an Internationalist: Phil Goodman. The others seem to be [[WP:SYN|original synthesis: There are sources noting the person played in the Scottish Schools Cup, there are other sources noting he plays for the national team, but no sources connecting those facts. That's not something we should engage in. Huon (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]