Help desk
< March 23	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 25 >

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.

March 24

10:19:38, 24 March 2015 review of submission by Silentarif

Silentarif (talk · contribs)
- No draft specified!

Silentarif (talk) 10:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE ADVISE WHICH REFERENCES ARE REQUIRED TO CREATE THE ARTICLE?

Please confirm that you have visited your draft and read the review comments. Once you have confirmed this please ask for more information, specifying what you do not understand. Please do not use all capitals. Fiddle Faddle 11:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I confirm that I have visited the draft and read the review comments. I have added some references for my article but the article is not accepted so i am unable to understand which type of references you required. Please be noted that I have added almost 7500 songs of Asha Bhosle songs in my article and my wish is that people must know about her songs details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silentarif (talk • contribs) 11:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10:26:34, 24 March 2015 review of submission by Dhmellor

Dhmellor (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Leeds Lieder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Having revised my first draft of the article Leeds Lieder, to include references to reliable independent sources, The Times and the Austrian Cultural Forum, I'm puzzled that it has been rejected again. I'd appreciate your advice as to what should be done in order to ensure that the article is accepted. Those two sources are certainly independent and reliable - do you simply want more than two? Dhmellor Dhmellor (talk) 10:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dhmellor: The article from The Times is a good start, however we generally need more that one example of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article to show notability. The Austrian Cultural Forum appears to be more of a directory entry than significant coverage, and it refers to the line-up being chosen by "our Artistic Director", implying that it's not an independent source. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that - it's helpful. I'll put a couple more references in and re-submit. Dhmellor (talk) 10:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10:49:50, 24 March 2015 review of submission by 2.125.172.90

2.125.172.90 (talk · contribs)

We recently had our article declined on regulatory data management, saying it reads too much like an essay. We don't quite understand as we've tried very hard to do it in a similar style to other articles in this space. It's not an essay, it's information about what regulatory data management is all about and why it is important at the moment, since it is becoming a hot topic in the city. Banks need to understand what to look for in a tool in order to help them comply with the regulation - then they need to go and find the right tools for their particular needs. Even if we write this again it will be saying the same stuff so we aren't sure what to do. But yet this is what users out there need to know - I thought that was what Wiki was for. Please can you clarify why this is more of an essay style than something like http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Governance,_risk_management,_and_compliance, for example? Thanks

2.125.172.90 (talk) 10:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you delete everything below the Context section it could probably be an acceptable article. Wikipedia is absolutely not at all interested in the "why" or the "should be" aspects of any topic. We have articles about things that happened thousands of years ago so being a current "hot topic in the city" is also of no relevance. We never tell readers what to think or do about a topic - in fact we never even refer to the reader. Your draft currently consists mostly of unsourced opinions and arguments about what needs to be done and why - all completely irrelevant. Give us only the what, when, where and who. That other article has a rather prominent tag at the top pointing out it's problems, so using it as an example of an acceptable article is a rather bad idea. The English Wikipedia has almost 5 million articles - more than a few of them rate somewhere between barely adequate and utter rubbish. Hope this helps. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

13:15:29, 24 March 2015 review of submission by Crimsontidealabama

Crimsontidealabama (talk · contribs)

It seems my entry was rejected over the citations. Only one citation was from a self-published source. The others were from third party sources. Please help me understand what may be wrong with these sources. Thanks.

Crimsontidealabama (talk) 13:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Crimsontidealabama: The reason that the article was rejected is that large sections of it (such as the first 8 paragraphs of the background section) don't have any in-line citations. To quote the decline message left by the reviewer: "Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation".

Also, please see the message I left on your talk page. Thanks. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

13:44:13, 24 March 2015 review of submission by Datablue12

Datablue12 (talk · contribs)

The article submitted was flagged for copywriting. The article/biography written is for Peter Aiken. The information sited was provided to Virginia Commonwealth University for his bio there by us (Data Blueprint). Peter is the Founder of Data Blueprint and a Professor at VCU. The information provided is our written biography for him. Please help me understand how we can get a biography posted for Dr. Aiken. Thank you.

Datablue12 (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Datablue12: Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly exists under a compatible licence and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure.

If you wish to license the text that your company wrote under a compatible license, you can follow the instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted material. However, official biographies are usually written to promote the subject, and therefore are not written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. You are much better off re-rewring the information from a neutral point of view, avoiding peacock terms that are designed to promote or show-off the subject, or waiting for someone who does not have a conflict of interest to write an article about this person. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:30:24, 24 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by FrankAbalistreri

FrankAbalistreri (talk · contribs)
- User:FrankAbalistreri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi I submitted an article and it was rejected for Copyright issue. The problem is I am the person that wrote the content on the other site... How do I deal with this? Thanks!!

FrankAbalistreri (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FrankAbalistreri: If you wish to license the text that you wrote under a compatible license, you can follow the instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted material. However, text written for company websites is usually designed to promote the subject, and therefore is not written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. You are much better off re-rewring the information from a neutral point of view, avoiding peacock terms that are designed to promote or show-off the subject, or waiting for someone who does not have a conflict of interest to write an article about the subject. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:34:40, 24 March 2015 review of submission by Tfennes

Tfennes (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Ectodesmata (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

i do not understand why my entry is not notable; the reference given is a genuine scientific publication. To be precise, I am the author and the article cited is part of my thesis.

Tfennes (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid you have just given the precise definition of WP:OR, something we do not allow. You may find reading WP:ACADEME useful to help you gain an understanding of Wikipedia vs Academe. If you are here to publicise your own research, that, too, is not allowed. If the topic is inherently notable it will have been peer reviewed, published in a peer reviewed publication, and/or have multiple people commenting upon it it recognised publications. Fiddle Faddle 18:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What if this user were to use the very sources he cited in his thesis, instead, as the citations for the article? This looks like a legitimate and encylcopedia-worthy entry. --Arise again, Arisedrew! (talk) 23:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Arise again, Arisedrew!: It depends upon the quality of the sources and their peer reviewed status. At present the Tfennes is protected from WP:COI issues, but needs to understand that, the moment the draft is accepted, great care is required with editing a topic in which they have ultimate involvement. Fiddle Faddle 23:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

23:38:19, 24 March 2015 review of submission by Vivre101

Vivre101 (talk · contribs)
- User:Vivre101 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Vivre101 (talk) 23:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like to keep this page going until I have more time to edit as requested. I have changed the date formats on the numerous references. Can you tell me if it is safe for awhile now as a Start Class article or in imminent danger of being deleted? Thanks, Pat

Your Paula Bourne article? It's already in the mainspace and doesn't seem to be up for deletion at all. --Arise again, Arisedrew! (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]