Help desk
< May 28	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 30 >

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.

May 29

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mark Cawley

I am hoping to get some help with an article that I submitted (that was rejected): Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mark Cawley . I'm not sure what kind of references I need to submit to verify that Mark has written the songs mentioned in the article--should I provide a link for each song to the artist's site or some kind of discography? Thank you so much for your help. Taylormaris1 (talk) 01:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Taylor Sullivan[reply]

Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles or reviews of his work published in reputable music magazines. To establish that Cawley is notable enough for an article we need multiple such sources that devote at least a paragraph each to him. Huon (talk) 01:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Coignard/sandbox

http://www.oxfordartonline.com/public/book/oao_benz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coignard (talk • contribs) 04:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a reliable source to me, but a single source is not enough to establish someone's notability. Huon (talk) 13:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do submitted AFC articles get picked out of the queue for evaluation?

Just curious, do admin/editors look for articles you have an interest in, or do you just take the next one in order, or some other method? GS Silver (talk) 05:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any and all of the above, depending on the individual reviewer's whim. Huon (talk) 13:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It varies by reviewer. I tend to pick the oldest when I have mental energy to do a thorough review. When I don't I look at submissions less than a day old and try to decline the "obvious declines with simple and obvious reasons for the decline" and pray for the opportunity to accept one of the very rare "obvious accept, no major cleanup needed, this guy's a natural Wikipedia editor" submissions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Coignard/sandbox

Alexander Putov, drawings, The Museum of Modern Art, Haifa, Janvier 1976. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coignard (talk • contribs) 07:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For all I can tell that's an exhibition catalogue authored by Putov himself and published by the museum, not a reliable third-party source. Huon (talk) 13:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Clyde Vickers

Hello,

Thank you for your willingness to help me with my first significant submission to Wikipedia. The site is such a part of my life -- I think I must visit it at least daily -- and I want to give back.

I just got notification that the article I submitted Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Clyde Vickers was rejected. The reviewer suggested that the references I provided do not adequately evidence the subject's notability.

The last thing I would want would be to submit a sub-par article, so I'm reaching out to try and get just a little more direction to help me make sure I get it right for my second submission.

The reviewer suggested that I add citations to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject. I'm obviously mistaken, but I feel like I've done that. The 10 references included come from reputable sources like ESPN, USA Today, RedBull.com, and several regional newspapers. The only source that is at all connected to the subject is information I included that I found on the about us page of the company the subject built. I felt that the company was the best authority on the for sourcing its current size and location.

So, here's my question ...

Have I gone wrong in the types of sources I've used, or have I gone wrong in not doing a good enough job showing that the subject is notable?

I look forward to your response. Also, please feel free to include any additional information you feel might be helpful.

Bullfrogco (talk) 07:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vickers is something of a borderline case. There are several issues with the sources. Red Bull is not a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards, and it's certainly not an independent source on their own drivers' relatives. Similarly CV Products and the NCMA are not reliable third-party sources. Many others, including ESPN, USA Today and the 1977 Dispatch, mention Clyde Vickers only in passing, often while focusing on his son. Only the 2007 Dispatch article seems to cover Vickers in any detail, and that's too little to establish his notability. We'd need multiple sources that devote at least a paragraph each to Clyde Vickers. Huon (talk) 13:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did he ever actually win a race? That might help establish notability - the old cliche that "nobody remembers who came second" applies. The Olympic Wikiproject only considers people who won medals to be "presumably" notable - people who "just make up the numbers" in teams generally don't get enough media attention to source a viable article. I'm not sure if the motor racing project(s) has similar notability criteria. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re-submission

My submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Yuba Pass, California (landform) was initially declined because it was inadvertently blanked out. I have now edited it. Is it automatically still under consideration, or do I have to do something to resubmit it? If so, I cannot find a button to do so. Riscola54 (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Put {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page to get it back into the queue for review. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]