User talk:MadeYourReadThis/Archives/2013/April

Nomination of Michael Hamnett for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michael Hamnett is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Hamnett until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Note: You previously nominated this page for Speedy deletion which was declined. I am now taking it to AfD. Emeraude (talk) 12:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

heres a template for a regular

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 33 Thomas Street. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

You are now in violation of 3RR, and have reverted two other editors to do so. There is no "verifiability" exception to 3RR. Please stop now so that I won't be forced to report you for edit warring. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record here (I archive my talk page for future reference), we aren't talking about a difference of opinion on content. We are talking about a challenge to content that was not backed up by the references given. At the time it was synthesis or original research or both. You also might want to join me in thanking User:Tomwsulcer, the citations added to this article by this user resolve this issue. Claims in the article are fully supported now.--RadioFan (talk) 12:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:KQZR logo.png)

Thanks for uploading File:KQZR logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:WLIM logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:WLIM logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:WZOM logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:WZOM logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Questions about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thewikirap/sandbox (article - Rafe Gomez)

RadioFan -

Good morning, and thanks for reviewing the article that I wrote about Rafe Gomez.

I saw that for articles about Notability (music), a number of criteria need to be met in order for articles to be accepted. I believe that the subject (Mr. Gomez) is one who merits article acceptance, as per the Notability requirements listed below:

1. "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself."

Mr. Gomez has been the subject of profiles in...

The New York Times - http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/14/nyregion/jerseyana-the-basement-tapes-well-not-quite.html

The Wall Street Journal - http://www.thegrooveboutique.com/WSJGrooveCD.pdf

The New York Daily News - http://thegrooveboutique.com/Daily%20News%20-%202004.pdf http://thegrooveboutique.com/Daily%20News%20-%202005.pdf

The Star Ledger - http://thegrooveboutique.com/StarLedgerQVC.pdf

The Bergen Record - http://thegrooveboutique.com/RidgewoodDJexperiment.pdf

Smooth Jazz News - http://www.thegrooveboutique.com/smoothjazznews.pdf

2. "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart."

Mr. Gomez's song productions ("Icy", "Quiet Storm" remix) and/or albums ("Groove Boutique Volume 1" have been featured in Billboard's music charts.

5. "Has released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels."

Mr. Gomez's albums "Smooth Grooves 4" was released by Higher Octave Records, and his album "Groove Boutique Volume 1" was released by Tommy Boy Records.

7. "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style."

Mr. Gomez's innovative approach to DJ'ing - in particular the usage of jazz in DJ'ing presentations - was recognized in the above listed articles.

11. "Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio... network."

Mr. Gomez's radio show "The Groove Boutique" aired on major radio network stations across the U.S. (Clear Channel, Cumulus, Emmis, to name a few) and his song "Icy" was aired on stations within the previously named radio network companies.

Along with the above, Mr. Gomez's story is also noteworthy because of the transition that he made to becoming a top-selling business author and media personality. Coverage of his expertise has been featured on...

Fox News Channel - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kozl0TCiPjY&list=UUcgTj9Du48V9iOTon4VsfMw&index=16 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDWKHu7OEdo&list=UUcgTj9Du48V9iOTon4VsfMw&index=5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0ua3q0Gqrs&list=UUcgTj9Du48V9iOTon4VsfMw&index=4

MSNBC - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7iJIHP5szA&list=UUcgTj9Du48V9iOTon4VsfMw&index=8

PBS - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZEnd7L2uT8&list=UUcgTj9Du48V9iOTon4VsfMw&index=9

... and a variety of top tier online outlets, including Entrepreneur Magazine, FoxBusiness.com, the American Express OPEN Forum, and many more.

Most of the above citations were included in the article about Mr. Gomez. Can you guide me on how I would need to edit the article so it would be approval-ready?

Thank you. Thewikirap (talk) 13:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

This person likely meets notability guidelines, thank you for outlining those references. However the article still needs a bit of work. If it doesn't tell us about this person or his work, it probably doesn't belong there. For example, receiving coverage on several news programs doesn't tell us much. Could those references be used to reference other parts of the article using the information discussed in that reference? Also, 33 references is a lot for such a short article. I've not had a chance to go through them all but the first thought experienced wikipedia editors may have when seeing this is citation overkill. It seems counterintuitive but so many references can be a detractor. A well referenced article is great but so many references often this is an indication that the article is appearing to be notable through quantity of source than it really is.--RadioFan (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply to my questions. As per your recommendations, I'll remove some of the citations. How many would you recommend an article of this length to have? In terms of the content, which section(s) do you think require additional info/work/explanation? The reason why I ask is because I thought that I had explained the notability and uniqueness of Mr. Gomez's accomplishments, but if I didn't, I'd be glad to make the necessary adjustments/corrections. Thank you again. Thewikirap (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I recommend you cite the references you actually used. If ANY of these references weren't used to support the article, remove them.--RadioFan (talk) 23:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I actually did use all the references to support the article, but I removed duplicates and/or others that were only used minimally. I now have 22 references. Is the overall article more acceptable now, or might you have other recommendations that would improve it?

Thanks. Thewikirap (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Question about article

Hi, Thanks for reviewing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/The_Seventy_Years_Declaration_on_the_Final_Solution_Conference_at_Wannsee I have re-edited it with additional context and background. Is it possible to get it accepted now? Paul oz2013 (talk) 23:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It will be reviewed again sometime. Perhaps by me perhaps by someone else.--RadioFan (talk) 23:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Update about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thewikirap/sandbox (article - Rafe Gomez)

RadioFan -

Good morning.

Wondering if the reduction in citations for the above article was ok, and if there are additional changes you feel I should make in order for it to be acceptable.

Thanks. Thewikirap (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

It's looking much more reasonable now. If you are ready to have it reviewed, please resubmit. Someone (maybe me, maybe someone else) will give it a more formal review.--RadioFan (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm ready to have it re-reviewed.

How do I resubmit?

Thanks again. Thewikirap (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Files missing description details

Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as:

• File:NBL-logo.jpg
• File:STS-114 closeout crew.jpg
• File:STS-133crack.jpg
• File:Kamagsrmtransporter.jpg
• File:Stennis A3 test stand construction.jpg
• File:SSA Logo.gif
• File:Mercury mission control.jpeg

are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the images may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 08:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

VocaLink (Draft)

Hi Radiofan

Thanks for your commments on the recent VocaLink draft submission.

I am new at this but I didnt see anything about having too many references in the guidance notes so i was simply ensuring that every fact in the article was properly backed up with a proper reference from either an originator, media or academic source. Our first submission was declined because there were not enough references.

Obviously I am looking for a balance but i may need yout guidance on this. VocaLink is a complex and unusual organisation and has many unrelated roles being at the center of the entire UK payments infrastructure. Everything from UK Payments processing, payments services, mobile payments, switching and ATM estates, critical infrastructure for Sweden and the UK, and key economic data for UK government.

Even the history of the organisation is pretty big, involving the merger of uk payments infrastructure (Bacs / Voca) with ATM infrastructure (LINK), the first ever international outsourcing of payments infrastucture from one country to another (Sweden to UK), and Europes biggest ever IT project.

I am slightly concerned that the efforts to make all these things credible with references is delivering the view that the company is over referenceing because it is not significant enough.

Any clarification that you could provide would be helpful. Cheers MichaelHarrington123 (talk) 09:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

An excessive number of references is often seen by experienced editors as a red flag indicating the article is digging deep to make an non-notable topic look notable. I think this topic can be shown to be notable but I rejected your submission to give you a chance to review those references to make sure each and every one is being used in the way claimed. Also you should consider citing only one reference (the best one) for each point. Multiple citations for the same information only detracts from the article.--RadioFan (talk) 16:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

OK Thanks Radio Fan. I will review now and make sure that only one citation is used for each fact. Thanks for clarifying. I'm glad it was not just about the number of references as i just checked the firefly (TV series) entry and the references are substancial compared to VocaLink....mind you it is more interesting being entertainment.MichaelHarrington123 (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Jill Purce article

I am writing to ask for advice about the Jill Purce article you have just reviewed. I had written it with the golden rule in mind, even playing down the international role she played in the development of group chanting and singing in the West, to make it modest, and making sure I included enough independent references to demonstrate the subject's notability. I noticed your comment about primary sources - are you saying that if I removed the primary sources the article would have a better chance of success? There seems to me, having looked at many other Wikipedia articles which have far fewer independent references, and indeed some have hardly any at all, that there are far more secondary sources in this article than most, which suggests that the subject is notable enough for inclusion. What would it take in terms of independent/secondary/tertiary sources for this article to demonstrate notability, beyond what is already there? gh26

First off, other articles dont matter, what matters is making this article a good one. As I look through the references, a very large number of them are written by Purce. That generally serves as a red flag to experienced editors that the subject of the article might not be notable and can get the article marked for deletion. I dont think you want that to happen. Focus on reliable sources for your sources. If you cant support what is written in the article with reliable sources, remove that section. This person is probably notable, the article just needs a bit of work before it can be accepted.--RadioFan (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Articles_for_creation/Jamal_Mahjoub

Hi RadioFan,

I was trying to create a page for this author and it seems to have got turned around, so that now the pseudonym he began writing under a couple of years ago (Parker Bilal)has a wiki entry, but the author's name Jamal Mahjoub simply redirects you back to that. I feel there is more information about the author on the article for creation page than on the pseudonym page. Now it looks like that work has gone to waste. What have I done wrong and how can I fix it? thanks. Jahman137

You are welcome to improve the existing article. You dont need to create a new one.--RadioFan (talk) 03:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Article for Creation: Jetty Rae

Hi Radiofan. Thanks for reviewing the article I wrote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Jetty_Rae). I have a question for you regarding notability of a musician. I originally wrote this article because this artist was listed on the Lilith Fair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith_Fair#Village_Stage_artists_4) article page, but there was not article about her (link was dead). I thought that alone made her notable (playing at a festival as big and notable as Lilith Fair, and being handpicked by Sarah McLachlan and Terry McBride), then did some more research and found that she was on a national television campaign. Does this not constitute as notable? Thanks for your help! Trekerboy (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately inclusion in a tour like Lilith Fair is not among the guidelines for notability of musicians, the only mention there is the significant coverage of a tour which is not different than any other article. In short, if you can find significant coverage of this person in 3rd party (i.e. not written by Jetty Rae or promoters) in reliable sources (i.e. professionally written and edited sources, not blogs or fan forums) then she is probably notable. Without this coverage she probably wont meet notability guidelines. Hope that helps.--RadioFan (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

That definitely helps, thanks! I checked guidelines for notability of musicians and added a citation for one of Jetty Rae's album appearing on the "College Radio Charts" (known as CMJ or CRC depending on who you ask) which I believe satisfies #2 and #11 in the guidelines. I believe Jetty's voice on the Truvia commercials satisfies #10. Winning a national competition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Jetty_Rae#cite_note-10) satisfies #9, and she's appeared in multiple, non-trivial, published works (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Jetty_Rae#cite_note-ispy-18 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Jetty_Rae#cite_ref-11 are two examples). This is my first article, so I'm not sure if I'm interpreting the guidelines correctly for notable musicians; am I correct in my assumptions of notability above? Trekerboy (talk) 23:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I added more references that I believe improves notability. I believe this musician now meets criteria #1, #2, #9, #10, #11 in the guidelines for notability of musicians. I resubmitted the article for approval based on your recommendations. Thank you for your help Radiofan! Trekerboy (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

If you are confident in the article, resubmit it. someone (maybe me, maybe another editor) will review it.--RadioFan (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Perihelion Science Fiction (2)

I would be extremely grateful if you could be a bit more explicit why you turned down my article for creation on my online science fiction magazine, "Perihelion." To be quite frank, I'm not sure this is a fair assessment. WikiPedia already has entries for a number of science fiction websizes, many far less popular than "Perihelion." I'd be more than happy to address any specific concern within the listing itself, but a rejection solely on a subjective judgment of "notoriety" seems very petty. You personally may not have heard of "Perihelion," but the magazine has thousands of readers, is growing in importance within the science fiction community on a daily basis, and has, in a sense, been around since 1967. Thank you for your attention. Sam Bellotto Jr. Crossdown (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not I've heard of the magazine is immaterial here (for the record I have heard of it). Whether or not it has received significant coverage in 3rd party reliable sources is how notability is established. The article needs more work, specifically around the lack of references.

Of the references you provide NewsBlaze is of unclear reliability and the author of this article notes a possible conflict of interest, the ralan.com link appears to be self published. Duotrope appears to be an announcement of opportunity for writers wishing to submit to the publication and finally the WorldCat listing for the holdings of the periodical in 3 libraries does little to establish the notability of this publication. The Science Fiction Encyclopedia website is a reasonable source to use but more reliable sources are needed where the magazine in the primary subject. Finding the magazine mentioned in a URL isn't good enough. Personal knowledge of the magazine is also not appropriate for Wikipedia, it must come from the references you use.--RadioFan (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Lil Bub

Can you explain to me why you felt Lil Bub wasn't notable enough for a page, despite Grumpy Cat getting a page? Seems odd that a cat that has star billing in a film premiering at Tribeca doesn't have one, but the cat billed under it does

letter

Dear RadioFan, Thank very much for your recommendations and advise. Your job is really difficult to verify huge number of articles. But thank you again.

Dear RadioFan,

I hope that the last version of article "Khalifa-zade Chingiz (geologist)" is ok. I submitted the latest version on April 18, 2013. As you recommended me, I inserted inline citations in accordance with wiki instructions. However, please be advised that my dad (Khalifa-zade Chingiz) worked in Soviet time so, no huge internet citations are available to verify his period in 1950-1970. He wrote key monographs and articles in Russian.

Meantime, you can verify his information from the following websites that will make your task little bit easy:

- Prof Chingiz Khalifa-zade, Azerbaijan State Oil Academy http://www.asoa.edu.az/en/faculties-and-departments/geological_exploration/chairs/mineralogy_petrography_lithology.jsp

- VIAF ID: 6294260 (Personal), http://viaf.org/viaf/6294260/

- WorldCat Identities, http://www.worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n82-231207

- Library of Congress, USA, Catalog Record, http://lccn.loc.gov/71268800 and http://lccn.loc.gov/83108849

- University of Toronto Libraries, Canada, http://search.library.utoronto.ca/UTL/coverflow.jsp?item_id=31761011835246

- Prof Chingiz Khalifa-zade, The Azerbaijani Soviet Encyclopedia, Vol X, 1987, Page 77, Elm publishing house, Baku, Azerbaijan SSR, in-Azerbaijani

- EAGE Photo Gallery Archive Caspian & Black Sea 2008 Students socializing with Elshan Abdullayev, Phil Christie and Ch. Khalifazade, http://www.eage.org/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=5123 (my dad is oldest one)

Thank you in advance. Please do not hesitate to contact me. Dr Mahir Khalifa-zadeh E-mail: mahir6219@yahoo.com April 19, 2013 Toronto, Canada — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahir6219 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It would be advisable for you to stop editing this article as you have a conflict of interest. Please read that link for more information.--RadioFan (talk) 16:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Jill Purce article

Thank you RadioFan for your advice. What do you think of the page now? It has been revised and pruned extensively to make it sound more neutral, and the primary sources have been taken out. Do you think it is ready for submission? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Jill_Purce — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.184.8 (talk) 08:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Scottkenway (talk) 09:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC) Neuros Social Network

Hi,

You had reviewed my article and declined it with a reason that the sources were not notable. I had given reference from newspaper, startup blogs and other tech websites too. Can you tell me why these sources are not notable, so that I can review my article and submit again

Thank you Regards

Blogs and other self published sources do not meet Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources. The newspaper appeared to be a pretty good source. Are there any other sources you can add which have some editorial control?--RadioFan (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Khalifa-zada Chingiz

I'm writing on the article related Khalifa-zada Chingiz (geologist) that I submitted and updated recently. However, as I understood from your reply letter, I have conflict of interest on this article. So, can one of my his PhD students verify the article and resubmit it under his name? I mean the one of his PhD student will review and re-apply mentioned above article. I think this is possible solution to escape the conflict of interest.

Please contact me on this matter as soon as possible.

Regards, mahir6219 April 21, 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.112.43 (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

One of his students has a similar conflict of interest problem. It's best that someone with no connection to this person edit the article.--RadioFan (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

MOWAG Roland

Hello please notice that the main page about MOWAG has only the history about Mowag and a overvive about the vehicles build by mowag. so just a few informations about the Rolannd is writen there. The Idea is to have a sub page(like from the Duro or Eagel) who contains more detailt informations about the Roland. 193.5.216.100 (talk) 05:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Should the main mowag article get to large, it can be split into dedicate articles for each variant. Until this, let's continue to improve the main article and not create new ones that run the risk of being deleted.--RadioFan (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Aviation_Management_College

Hi,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_School_and_College

&

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKM

barely had any references and yet they still got a page done. How?

Oh, and it's just my sources, right? If I change them to a "third-party" style, it'll get accepted?

ZeYap (talk) 00:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)ZeYap

Third party isn't a "style", it's fundamental to how Wikipedia is to be built. Also other articles are of no concern here, we are looking at the article you are creating.--RadioFan (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, terribly sorry for asking how non-referenced pages got into Wikipedia. Anyhow, if I take sources which aren't linked to the Subject's website, it will be ok, right?

Exactly what can I do to get the page approved of?

The Subject is already in the nation's newspapers. What else should be done? ZeYap (talk) 08:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)ZeYap

My mistake, I mistook one of the references as being a blog, it is in fact a reliable source, a national newspaper. The entry has been accepted and moved to a name that complies with naming guidelines (the abbreviation is not necessary in the title)--RadioFan (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Citations for notability

Hi, You've declined http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Aleksandar_Petrovic_(aquabike/jet_ski_freestyler) So I added NBC TV report, magazine covers, and fixed an incorrect link to official results from 2011 showing he was the champion that year. Is that enough? THANKS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akvabajk (talk • contribs) 19:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

As you probably already have seen, the article has been accepted with a few more modifications for readability and interwiki links. Consider creating an article on the competition itself.--RadioFan (talk) 11:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Edward Lawrence Levy article

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Edward_Lawrence_Levy

Thanks for reviewing the article I submitted. I have tried to improve it. I accept the point that some of the wording was judgmental, and have removed this, and tried to improve the paragraph breaks.

As regards the referencing, I have now provided online links to Old Bailey Proceedings. However, most of the other references are newspaper reports of court cases. These can be followed by anyone with a subscription to the Times archives. I have improved these references now by including page numbers as well as just dates. Some other references are to primary archive sources.

These are the only references there are. I am pretty sure there are no readily accessible references to Levy in textbooks or academic sources, possibly no other references at all, because this article is a piece of original research based on newspaper reports and court proceedings. But I would maintain that Levy's criminal activities are sufficiently noteworthy to warrant a Wikipedia article - the fact that the Times ran a leader/editorial on him justifies this.

Do you think I should resubmit or simply abandon it?

Rdward (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)rdward

I do not think you should abandon it. Continue searching for better sources. Were there any books written on the subject? Something that summarizes what happened here. The papers you reference are great but your making summaries of that is essentially original research which is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Let someone else do the sleuthing, let their editor provide the oversight and you can make use of that in this article.--RadioFan (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I would be surprised to find anything else has been written about Edward Lawrence Levy over and above the references cited and an extended discussion on the British Genealogy site to which I am one of the main contributors. Further to above - the discussion I refer to has continued over several years, involving extensive searching of sources, so it seems quite likely we would have found anything else there is. What's the best thing to do here - resubmit? abandon? try to find a existing article to include it in?

Rdward (talk) 09:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)rdward

Jamal Mahjoub

Hi, you declined this submission on the basis that it already exists. Actually, what exists is a page on the author's pen name or pseudonym Parker Bilal. Any attempt to connect with the author's real name, Jamal Mahjoub is redirected. Most authors who write under other names appear to have pages under the author's real name, and then a reference to the pen name. i.e; John Banville/Benjamin Black or Julian Barnes/Dan Kavanagh. How do you suggest I rectify this? Thanks Jahman137 (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

It would be best to delete the redirect and move the pen name there rather than create 2, in the meantime, please update the article with the pen name.--RadioFan (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

PERTTEST

Hi RadioFan, Thank you for providing feedback. I wasn't aware of the username conflict, although it makes perfect sense. I can change it to my real name. And I will add categories. After a quick look through the list of categories, I didn't see Education, Testing or Florida--but I will see what I can find. Thanks again for your feedback. PERTTEST (talk) 14:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing this issue.--RadioFan (talk) 15:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey! Just wondering why you feel Lil Bub isn't noteworthy enough for a page? I realize it is a cat, but I think the titular star of a movie (Lil Bub and Friendz) that is premiering at Tribeca is worthy of at least some level of nobility. Grumpy Cat has a page, despite Grumpy Cat being featured in the movie, but being billed under Lil Bub.

Articles for creation/Lil Bub

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dzillmer (talk • contribs) 00:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Test Construction Strategies

Raak1jd asked about your review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Test Construction Strategies at the AfC help desk. I'll give him a short reply, but you may want to add something as well. Huon (talk) 01:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The Clarion Project - submission question

Hi, I recently submitted an article called "The Clarion Project" that you declined due to inadequate references. Can you please clarify for me what the issues were so that I can fix them? thank you so much

Viktor

Viktorahron (talk) 07:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The inline citations should contain the links, rather than just listing the links at the end of the article. Also, please use the citation templates, this will provide more information for reviewers to help determine notability here. Finally, make sure that the references you've used are ABOUT the organization, not just the problems it addresses. Only organizations that have significant coverage in 3rd party sources where the organization is the primary subject of that article are considered notable by wikipedia standards. See WP:CORP for more information.--RadioFan (talk) 13:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:KCBS-FM logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:KCBS-FM logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Further thoughts on article turned down as not deemed notable

Dear Radio Fan,

Thanks very much for looking at the article I wrote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Donor_Committee_for_Enterprise_Development which unfortunately did not make it live as you said the organisation did not seem notable as it was not the main focus of references to it. I was hoping to try and make a claim of why it is notable. Im not sure being the centre of a reference is key as I should add that the organisation is a non-profit and rather than seeking big press coverage of its work, aims rather to support and influence national governments and United Nations agencies in how they do there development work abroad. So, for instance, the 1st and 5th reference note how the organisation has had an important role in changing the international development paradigm in regards to the private sector, the 9th and 15th spend a couple of pages looking at its measuring results framework which is increasingly adopted in different countries, the 15th calls one of its working groups the key platform for governments to review business environment reform and some others highlights its events at different international fora. In addition DEVEX, which is US funded, just made this public- https://www.devex.com/en/news/dced-report-calls-for-better-measurement-of-partnerships/80752 a review of the organisations last report, which I could add if it helps? Thanks so much and sorry for being a nuisance. Any further advice would be really welcome :-)

Ashleyaak (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mike Golic Jr.

Hi RadioFan, in case you didn't notice, this submission's got a "Jr." at the back, so the subject of the article is Mike Golic's son, not Mike Golic himself. Cheers, Arctic Kangaroo 18:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure what to do next

hi, after I heard from you about my created article （NYsunworks) advice, I added related and stable resources for further exvaluation. But after I clicked the "save page", I am not sure if the system has been record or submit my re-edit version. Because when I created the article at the first place, there was always a step to inform me the " submit". So, can you double check the activities I did?

Bests

Roger — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger0206 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you review my article again?

I think I have made necessary changes to the article Rutvik Oza. I would be thankful to you if you verify the same. THANKS! BEST STAR 907 talk 10:01, 28 April 2013 (IST)

I'm still not seeing how this person meets notability guidelines. The claim of notability you have in there concerning the tower of hanoi problem isn't enough to meet WP:BIO and the article is likely to be deleted based on the fact that he is notable only for this one event. It is up to you however, you may resubmit the article andsomeone will review it (maybe me, maybe someone else).--RadioFan (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The person has also scripted in Indian films apart from just solving an open problem and leading some social change protests. The IMDb reference has also been added. I think it doesn't categorize into notable only for this one event. But finally it's up to you! THANKS! BEST STAR 907 talk 11:57, 28 April 2013 (IST)

Questions regarding your comments on "Waguih Ghali"

Dear RadioFan, Thank you for taking the time to review my submission. I intentionally avoided citing from the dozens of reviews of the multiple reprintings of Ghali (in English), as the Wikipedia entry for Ghali's novel "Beer in the Snooker Club" does that quite well already. I wished to avoid duplicating that entry and added additional information about the author, and about the translation of the book into six languages, the fact that even after 40+ years his book is in print and still being translated, and the willingness of a premier US university to devote library resources to archiving his unpublished writings. I would be happy to add a section of responses to his novel to demonstrate significance if this is the bar you require. I have no doubt that Ghali is significant enough to merit an entry.

I am pasting below the critical reception of "Beer in the Snooker Club" as it appears in the Wikipedia entry for the book. I would be willing to cite these and other sources attesting tho the writers importance if you deem it necessary.

• • According to author Diana Athill, Beer in the Snooker Club is "a classic of the literature of emigration." [1]

Ahdaf Soueif wrote that "Beer in the Snooker Club is one of the best novels about Egypt ever written. In the protagonist, Ram, a passionate nationalist who is nonetheless an anglophile, Waguih Ghali creates a hero who is tragic, funny and sympathetic. Through him we are presented with an authentic and acutely observed account of Egyptian society at a time of great upheaval. " [2] Gabriel Josipovici wrote "This is a wonderful book. Quiet, understated, seemingly without any artistic or formal pretentions. Yet quite devastating in its human and political insights... if you want to convey to someone what Egypt was like in the forties and fifties, and why it is impossible for Europeans or Americans to understand, give them this book. It makes The Alexandria Quartet look like the travel brochure it is."[3] Writing in The Observer, Rachel Aspden feels that the book "may be angry, but it is also extremely funny. Ghali neatly skewers the pretensions of the Cairene elite along with the hypocrisies of empire... In Ghali's Cairo, almost everything is phoney."[4]** Thank you, debastarr (re: Waguih Ghali) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debastarr (talk • contribs) 14:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC) Debastarr (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)debastarr

Guidelines for determining notability of wikipedia articles on books insist that the book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. You wont be duplicating information by citing reliable reviews, it's a minimum here. Also be sure you are writing the article based on those sources, not your own interpretations of the book. Remember the sources must come first, then the article.--RadioFan (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Waguih Ghali

Thanks for the clarification. There are no shortage of such references. I'll edit the entry and resubmit. Thank you. Debastarr (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)debastarr

I made the requested changes, but I'm not sure if they have been resubmitted for review. How can I tell? Does the same reviewer read it the second time, or does it just renter the queue and get picked up by the next available reviewer? Thanks Debastarr (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)debastarr