Help desk
< December 26	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 28 >

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.

December 27

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Most expensive domain names for sale and sold

Hello, I am just wondering what I have to do to get this published. It will not allow me to even get it reviewed so it can be submitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webgeekr23 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can submit the draft by following the instructions in the "currently not submitted for review" message box: "If this submission is ready to be reviewed, click here and press Save page". However, the draft looks as if it was copied and pasted from another Wikipedia page without regard for wiki-code, mangling, for example, the references and removing all links. It would need some copyediting to resolve those issues. At the very least the references should probably contain some external links; otherwise, "TechCrunch" is much too vague to serve as a reference. Huon (talk) 12:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt about reliable sources

My article MindGuard (software) has not been accepted again because it is not adequately supported by "reliable sources". It is not clear to me, why the reference Biblioteca Pleyades is considered not reliable?, that site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 and has been visited by millions since 2003, and is every week updated. Just thanks to "Biblioteca Pleyades", I've been able to find many scientific articles and patents for already commented article, infeasible to obtain since another more or less serious website. Furthermore, the quantity of offered topics and articles (written in a triad of languages) makes it trusty (please, see webutation). In spite of already commented verifiability, it is doing impossible the satisfactory acceptance of two of my articles: MindGuard (software) (not accepted) and Psychotronics (accepted). I hope you can explain me this situation more in detail. Best regards.--Paritto (talk) 04:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Biblioteca Pleyades' self-description, it's a repository of "information found on the internet", which can mean anything or nothing. While some information may be from reliable sources, others looks like pseudoscience and conspiracy theories to me - discussing Nibiru, aliens, ancient Egyptian cities in the Grand Canyon, and a proposed " U.N. Tribunal For Crimes Against Aliens". Thus I doubt it is itself a reliable source. Since its content is gathered from around the internet (and mostly not available under a CC license, though that's irrelevant to the reliability question), any texts that are supposed to be reliable should probably be traced to the original publisher. Webutation only referes to frauds and malware, not to information that's dubious or simply wrong as long as they don't try to make a profit.

I saw that the Psychotronics article is tagged for sources that may not be reliable, and Biblioteca Pleyades probably ranks prominently among the problematic ones. But it also cites some truly reliable sources such as Science, the BBC or the Canadian Medical Association Journal, sources that have been subject to editorial oversight or peer review and not just random texts published on the internet. Huon (talk) 12:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that my article would be accepted if I substitute the "Biblioteca Pleyades" references by (at least) these ones [1]?--Paritto (talk) 17:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do those sources even mention MindScan? It seems you're aiming for an original synthesis of sources that don't discuss the subject at hand. Besides, I somehow doubt a book about "UFOs, the J.F.K.. assassination, the Secret Government, the war on drugs and more by the world's leading expert on UFOs" (per Amazon), Milton William Cooper, a conspiracy theorist, would be considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards. Huon (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/M. K. K. Nair declined

My article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/M. K. K. Nair has not been accepted again because it is not adequately supported by "reliable sources". I add some references to this article, But online references is less. So I search for books about mkk nair. But how can I add these offline resources ?vikian 06:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikian (talk • contribs)

We have the {{cite book}} template for book sources. At the very least you should provide the author, the exact title and the relevant page numbers, but every additional detail helps - the ISBN, the publisher, the publication date, maybe a link to the Google Books entry if they have a preview.

On an unrelated note, the current sources don't say what they're cited for. For example, the Redefining Mohiniyattom article doesn't say Nair was "well known for the uplift of Kerala art" but only cites his praise of a single artist, and the On Kathakali's superstar, Gopi article doesn't say he was the Chairman of Kerala Kalamandalam. Huon (talk) 12:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article for creation/Electrovestibulography (EVestG)

My Article for creation/Electrovestibulography (EVestG) has not been accepted again, now because it is not yet notable... May you help me to understand why? Everyday I see too many articles so short as to be considered "stubs", for instance, electrodiagnostic and depression (both internal references in already commented article), and spite of that are being accepted by Wikipedia... please, see corresponding "page ratings", in order to appreciate the statistics about them. By the way, the set of sickness already mentioned in that article (e.g. schizophrenia and Parkinson's disease) are of the common interest of people, aside those diseases are not well understood (even in this XXI century) and EVestG is one of the techniques that could help us to diagnose them adequately. The notability guideline doesn't tell me more specifically, how to improve my article with the purpose of being accepted the next time I submit it.--Paritto (talk) 06:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other problematic articles exist, but that's no reason to create more. Each submission must stand on its own merits. To be considered notable, a topic must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Per WP:MEDRS, reliable sources in a medical context are review articles, not the original research articles. If such sources exist, you should add them to the draft. Among your current sources the first is a wiki and may not be itself reliable, though the linked news reports may be. It's also highly critical of the diagnostic value of EVestG as currently established, a criticism that didn't make its way into the draft. The fifth is an original research article by the technique's inventors that explicitly is not considered a reliable source per WP:MEDRS. I doubt the other three mention EVestG at all. Huon (talk) 12:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to your answer, I'd like to ask you the same that in village pump question if, does it exist therein/thereout Wikipedia a "default list" of reliable sources?--Paritto (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a default list. There's WP:Identifying reliable sources, there's WP:MEDRS for medical sources, and in cases of doubt there's the Reliable sources noticeboard. Outside medicine I'd say news coverage and articles in peer-reviewed scholarly journals are always reliable, but for medical research the bar is a little higher. Huon (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

I created an article, http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Ataklan , and it has been rejected 4 times. After the last edit, I was sure I had included sufficient references by inserting newspaper article links, however it was still rejected. There are not online references for all of the information within the article, however there is 'non-digital' evidence that I cannot get a hold of to upload. I do not wish to compromise the accuracy and completeness of the article by excluding information that I do not have online sources for. I have also seen other articles approved where not all of the information discussed was fully referenced. Can you give me any suggestions to get the article accepted. Thanks Petalm (talk) 15:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are not required to be available online; print newspapers and books published with reputable publishers are acceptable as well. Unsourced and thus unverifiable content, like your draft's "career" section and much of the "early years" and "collaboration" sections, is not acceptable, especially in the biography of a living person.

By the way, the sources I checked mentioned Ataklan only in passing without providing any details. For example, this source doesn't say Ataklan was a founding member of Homefront and in fact contradicts your draft by stating that Homefront had four members, not three.

In short, Wikipedia content should be based on reliable secondary sources; just adding a few references that may or may not confirm the draft's content is not enough. Huon (talk) 16:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kimicoh

I dont understand why My article for a client was denied? Please help.

It would appear that the subject of your article is likely notable, because of reaching #1 on the Italian dance charts. Which of the references listed can reliably demonstrate this? Many of the references listed are self-referential. They may help establish fact, but won't help establish notability. Also note that the World Peace Is Possible organization does not seem to be notable, so the fact that he has been appointed International Ambassador won't help get the article created, although if/when article is created this information is probably pertinent. Additionally, there are serious issues with the way the article is formatted. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style. I hope that helps! Don't give up, most articles don't pass AfC on the first try. After reading these various Wikipedia guidelines, have another go at improving the article, and re-submit! All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 18:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mary B. Huber

Hello,

I am a little surprised at the rejection - and its reason. This article is just one result from a research paper I created on the life and work of Canadian, Mary B. Huber. My sources are many and all verifiable - including The Toronto Star (daily newspaper since 1892), The Globe and Mail (daily newspaper since 1844), Torontonensis (student yearbook from the University of Toronto), the Archives of the Rare Book Library at the University of Toronto and the Public Archives of the Province of Ontario.

This is my first attempt at a Wikipedia article, so I am sure there is much I do not know. Perhaps I am citing incorrectly? Any advice would be appreciated.

SheldieSchlock 18:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SheldieSchlock (talk • contribs)

I indeed found your referencing style rather unhelpful. I couldn't quite tell whether, say, "County of York, Division of Scarborough; Registration Number: 023154; Archives of Ontario, MS 932, Reel 138" has been digitized and is available online or whether I'd have to physically travel to Ontario to look it up. In the former case a link to the source itself would be more helpful than just a link to the Ontario Archives website. Of course I couldn't tell what the source is, either. If it's just somebody's archived personal papers, it may not be a reliable source or not an independent one. Other sources provide only trivial coverage, such as Silk Stockings that just reprints the poem and mentions Huber by name without providing any details. Regarding Torontonensis, I'm not quite sure it's reliable - how much editorial oversight was the student yearbook subject to in the 1900s? Does it have a reputation for fact-checking? To me it sounds more like a primary source that should be used with care and doesn't contribute towards notability. Huon (talk) 23:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is helpful insight. I have spent years researching this to make sure it is accurate - so now I need to look at the actual article's referencing through a third party's eyes.

Thanks for your help. SheldieSchlock 19:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SheldieSchlock (talk • contribs)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alialujah Choir (band)

Can you please let me know if this draft:Creating Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alialujah Choir (band) for the stub Category:United States folk musical group stubs requires any more references prior to submission. Thank you.Cameraf72 (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uncertain why the hyperlink is red and is linking to a blank page. I can see the the stub article draft when I leave this page but I am not seeing it listed under Contributions. I understand you can't answer a question if you can't see the draft. I'll sort out the problem and re-post the question. Cameraf72 (talk) 20:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find the draft, and it hasn't been deleted either. The link above still points to the "Creating" page - are you sure you saved it? Huon (talk) 23:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply and sorry for the confusion. My mistake, I thought it was possible to ask a question without clicking save. I re-posted the question below. Thanks. Cameraf72 (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please let me know if this draft:Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alialujah Choir (band) for the stub Category:United States folk musical group stubs requires additional third party references. Thank you. Cameraf72 (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The draft's sources look good to me, though it may be better to summarize what NPR and The Oregonian had to say about the band than just to mention that the reviews exist. Of course SyFy and Live Wire! are primary sources, and secondary sources would be better, but since the multiple reviews establish notability they may serve as sources for their own content. Huon (talk) 00:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you suggested I summarized what NPR and The Oregonian had to say about the band. If you see any other ways I can improve the stub please let me know. Thanks for the help. Cameraf72 (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]