Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 330

Archive 325

←

Archive 328

Archive 329

Archive 330

Archive 331

Archive 332

→

Archive 335

An Article concerning Kuwaits 1st Astronomical Society

Is it possible to write about the establishment of Kuwait's first astronomical society, that also has a mission of incorporating astronomy in to the academic arena? Exximos (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Exximos hello and welcome to The Teahouse. Yes, you can write about this topic if you can find multiple independent (of the topic) reliable sources which have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that establish what we call notability by writing in detail and in a neutral manner about the topic.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

How can I get my article accepted?

Hello everyone!

I wrote an article about a comic books preservation project but it got rejected because "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources."

Please, can someone tell me what is wrong with my article? I tried to follow my reviewer's advice yet, I didn't have any answer to my second submission.

Here it is: Draft:Q-Collection

Thanks in advance, CyrilG4 (talk) 12:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The reason that you haven't had any answer to your second submission is that in these edits you removed the submission templates with the feedback from the previous submission & the details of the second submission, hence your draft was not in a submitted state. I have replaced the templates, so you are back in the submission queue. I have also taken the liberty of changing the url in your question (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Q-Collection) to a wikilink ([[Draft:Q-Collection]]). - David Biddulph (talk) 12:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it means you don't have enough links Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

No, Dunkleosteus77, it certainly does not mean that "you don't have enough links". It is about references, not links, and it is about their quality, not their number. I see that CyrilG4 has made some changes to the references since the submission was declined. Certainly, the Boston Globe reference looks like a good one: I haven't looked any further. --ColinFine (talk) 10:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It means that the facts in the article need to be supported by what Wikipedia considers to be good sources. The best sources are things like magazines and newspaper articles and books (they don't have to be accessible online). I see you've already added Boston Globe to the article and listed it in the reference section; that's a good source and you've added it properly. The article just needs more.

Sources don't have to be mainstream. Sometimes specialist is better. Did Wizard Magazine ever do an article on comic book preservation? Wizard Magazine is a good source because even though it directly concerns comic books, it is not financially or otherwise directly related to the subject of your article (and therefore probably isn't lying). Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Discography

Hello, I noticed with Entertainers that when you click on their discography, it links to a corresponding page on Wikipedia describing their cd. Are you allowed to list a person's discography without building them a separate wikipedia page for each cd? Annalynnehurtgen (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Annalynnehurtgen: and thanks for stopping by to ask this question. Absolutely. In general, most of these sorts of sets of articles started off as a single article, with all the information in one place. When that article gets too big, it becomes necessary to split an article off as needed. Thus, when an article on a musical artist is first started, there's no need for more than one article, if everything fits comfortably, you can list their CDs, singles, and all of the information about them in one place. If some of the individual albums or songs start taking up too much space, and there is enough information to build an article about the album itself, then splitting it off to its own article may be appropriate. If an artist only has one or two albums and one or two singles, then they can fit comfortably in the article about the artist, no need to split the list off by itself. When an artist has dozens of releases, it becomes time to create a new article to contain them. At Wikipedia, the question of how to organize information is largely one of convenience and there are no rules besides "Articles should not be too short or too long". If the article about an album would be WAY too short to stand on its own, describe the album in the article about the singer itself. In the other direction, if the article on the singer is too long, AND splitting off information about the albums would be appropriate, then do that. It's all in what works for the current situation, there's no requirement that every album have its own article, or every singer have a separate discography page apart from the main one. Does that help? --Jayron32 20:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, that IS very helpful!--Annalynnehurtgen (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Images

How do I add images to articles? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Dunkleosteus: It depends on which type of images. See WP:IMAGE and WP:NFCC for more information. It'll be useful. Cheers, Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 06:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Review for an article created based on WP:RA/I

It would be great if someone can review my draft. I plan to submit it in its current state, pending your comments. Thanks in advance. ← scribbleink ^talk 04:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@Scribbleink: I went ahead and moved it to the main article space. Article looked fine, subject is clearly notable. No need for formalities. I also created a redirect from the alternate name noted in the article. --Jayron32 04:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Thanks. It's only my second AfC, so I'm erring on the cautious side. I was more concerned with the page history. Being that I started it in my sandbox, it includes an unrelated edit. I will create subpages in my sandbox henceforth, but I'm curious how easy it is to remove that entry from the history. ← scribbleink ^talk 04:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I suppose we could delete those revisions if you want. But please also be aware that AFC is an entirely voluntary, entirely optional process. All registered users are 100% allowed to just create new articles in the main article space, and permission is not required from anyone. The AFC process was created as an alternative to deletion: many new articles are deleted quickly, and it was felt that AFC created less problems than outright deletion because it offered more opportunities for feedback. But if you've got a good handle on WP:42 and thus are pretty good at understanding what will (and will not) get an article deleted quickly, then feel free to skip the AFC process and just create the article as an article in the main space. If you are still uncomfortable doing so, you're allowed to use the AFC process (or to ping experienced Wikipedians such as myself) for a review. But it is not any sort of requirement. --Jayron32 04:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

No need to delete it. WP:REVDEL satisfied my curiosity, thanks. Your comments regarding AfC are noted. ← scribbleink ^talk 04:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Help organizing/marking a stub

I don't know how to mark an article a stub. This one has seen very few edits since its creation in 2006 and is extremely difficult to read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Coey

StainlessSteelScorpion (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, StainlessSteelScorpion, and welcome to the Teahouse. That article certainly needs some work, but it is a bit longer than a stub. As described here, "a stub is an article containing only a few sentences of text which is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject." That article is a page long, though it's rather disorganized and would benefit from splitting it up into sections. If you do wish to tag an article as a stub, place the tag {{stub}} at the end of the article.--Gronk Oz (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Greetings StainlessSteelScorpion, In addition to Gronk Oz answer above, I would add that a general stub for a biography article can be {{Bio-stub}} placed at bottom of article with two blank lines above. To find an even more specific stub Category:People stubs. Cheers, JoeHebda (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

about writing

Hi I am radhika narasimhan from India Chennai. I have been a travelogue blog writer so far. This is my first trial to Wikipedia. Six months before I had visited a temple down south, called Mapedu. It is temple for many to visit. I wrote my article and it went for speedy deletion.

I want to write about this temple. I have all the location and information and photos in hand. There has been no reference link so far to this temple. Can you guide me. Radhika .k.narasimhan (talk) 11:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@Radhinarasi: What an excellent idea. You will need to alter the tone of your writing from travelogue to dull-but-worthy, and will need references for facts you assert. WP:42 is a light yet serious guide to referencing. Try to model the 'shape' of articles you write to match the shape of good articles, but do not try to match their content. The WP:AFC process will help you, should you choose to use it. I recommend that you do. Fiddle Faddle 15:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Translating references

As far as I have understood, articles on Wikipedia can be translated between the languages that Wikipedia exists in. But I recently noticed, whilst editing an article in Spanish, that references seem to be written in slightly different ways in English and in Spanish. So far, I have handled them simply by adding translations of their titles in brackets. Now, however, I've seen that both “cite web” and “cita web“ are used in Spanish for the same purpose. The code from an English article did work in several other languages. Some languages have a tool called Content translation that should be able to make translation of contents easier whilst hiding the code. Unfortunately, last time I tried to translate an article from Spanish into Danish, some normal paragraphs were not editable. English does not seem to have such a tool, so how do I know how to change the references in a translation into English? Also, the tool does not handle translation of long articles to expand shorter articles in other languages, so sometimes I need to translate without it. Another situation where I need to know how references work in a given language is when I find additional sources whilst researching for the translation: sometimes I need to check how speakers of the target language write about the subject of the article I'm translating, and that often makes me find sources that weren't mentioned in the source language. Is there a page listing which parts of the code for a reference are language specific and how those can be translated into English? Pretended leer (talk) 12:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Pretended and Welcome to the Teahouse. See Wikipedia:Citation templates for a nice summary of the common templates used for citations, with tables listing their fields and giving examples. Happy translating. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for answering. Pretended leer (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

An older article was proposed for deletion in 2010, not seeing the status of that process?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1legcall Hi! I was looking over this article and I am very confused. I noticed that proposed for deletion in 2010, a few days later contested but no summary of anything? I have never seen anything like this before and I was reading through the policy and still confused. Can you tell me what happened or is happening here? Jooojay (talk) 03:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey Jooojay. For background you should know what deletion processes exist for articles:

• 1. Speedy deletion (csd)
• 2. Proposed deletion (prod)
• 3. Proposed deletion of articles on living persons (sticky prod); and
• 4. Articles for deletion (AfD).

You can explore each of these by clicking on the links. The nomination you're here about was under the second process, proposed deletion, which is not a discussion process. Rather, a person places the prod template in an article with a rationale for why they think it should be uncontroversially deleted (usually on a content basis we recognize such as a those listed at what Wikipedia is not, but which is not among the criteria for speedy deletion). If the template is not removed for seven days, then an administrator some time thereafter will consider deleting the article.

The rub is that since this is not a discussion process, anyone, including the creator (unlike articles tagged for deletion under CSD) can remove the prod template and it cannot properly be returned. So the whole process can be comprised of one person's placement, and another's removal—that's it, full stop. So, what you are seeing on the talk page is a notification template explaining that the articles was 'prodded', the rationale provided by the nominator, the identity of the person who removed the prod template, and what rational they gave for the removal (in this case, none). This has no precedential effect – it's not like "keep" was found to be the consensus after an articles for deletion debate; this article can be taken to AfD right now. The only thing it does mean is that it can't be proposed for deletion again specifically under the proposed deletion process.

By the way, in your post above you linked to the talk page through its URL. It's much easier to make a wikilink. Just enclosed the title in doubled brackets to link it: [[Talk:1legcall]] displays as Talk:1legcall. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank youFuhghettaboutit! Very helpful Jooojay (talk) 18:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

CSD A1 and CSD A3 not to be issued immediately??

Hi there, recently I tagged the article The Bartley Corporation, which was just created, with WP:A3 (The article appeared in 'Recent changes' when I was patrolling). Minutes later an editor approached me and gave a 'level 1 warning' saying that, which I quote "you shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1), or content (CSD A3), moments after they are created, as you did at The Bartley Corporation. It's best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia".As said, is he right? How can I not mark a page 'patrolled' when I issue a CSD with confidence on my approach?? Isn't the right way to mark the page with CSD and then instruct the user to save the article in DRAFTS instead of publishing them??? Then can I remove the CSD of this article Escuela Hablamos Español-EHE and issue a level 1 warning to the editor who issued it???? Thank You! --Jaaron95 (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jaaron95: Opinions are divided, so be your own person here, and use the tools with confidence and skill and judgement. When in doubt, I suggest a PROD rather than a CSD, since PROD gives the editor time to correct matters. When certain that an article is a CSD candidate, 100% certain, then propose that. Fiddle Faddle 15:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Timtrent, Thanks for the answer! --Jaaron95 (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. Pretended leer (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think that should have appeared further below (as an answer to another answer). I'm not sure how that could happen, but I'll add it below without removing it from here then. Pretended leer (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jaaron95. You can blame me, since I championed this, wrote that template, and got consensus to place this footnote to CSD A1 and CSD A3 at the criteria for speedy deletion. There's also a note at the top of Special:Newpages that says "Articles should not be tagged for speedy deletion as having no context (CSD A1) or no content (CSD A3) moments after creation, as not all users will have added full content in their first revision", among other processes and templates we've implemented to stop people from tagging under A1 and A3 seconds after creation. (Long ago we looked for a technical fix so that the speedy tag would not work when placed early, but it was not feasible.) Yes, you will have automatically marked the page as patrolled if you place the speedy tag but that's not a contradiction because the cart goes before that horse. You should not be placing the speedy tag in the first place, and certainly not with confidence. It does not matter whether you agree with the consensus; the consensus is actually in the policy (see the links above), as well as set forth in other places. (I have grave disagreements with certain aspects of policy and guideline despite attempting in my edits to respect the current consensus against me.) It's true that users should, ideally, be creating articles with all their content already placed for assessment, or creating them in a sandbox or in the draft namespace, but that's just not the way it works in practice. Loads of new users do not understand these matters, and start articles in the mainspace with just a few words and then continue writing them over the next few minutes. A high percentage of those are going to be properly deleted anyway – most new articles are inappropriate for one reason or another – but lack of context or content are special situations because we don't yet know whether the content will be proper and if we wait just a few minutes we can see, so we carved these circumstances out as particularly bitey towards new users when applied so quickly. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm obviously a smidgen out of date. Even so my answer to use confident and judgement does not conflict with consensus. Part of judgement is in not having a hair trigger Fiddle Faddle 17:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

---

I think a superior approach would be to WP:USERFY and encourage editors to use userspace for article development on a more regular basis. I know that I should do this more often myself. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ceyockey: Here's the problem as I see it with that approach. Some high percentage of new articles are inappropriate (we're not talking at this point about A1 and A3 but for other reasons – A7 candidates, copyvios, advertisements, etc.). With that in mind, when you come across A1 or A3 at newpages, you know that if they weren't empty or lacking context, the same high percentage of them would be revealed as taggable under A7 or G12 or G11, etc. If instead of waiting to tag under A1 or A3 we start userfying all of those, you will thereby allow all of them – those ~90% that would have otherwise been deleted – from normal CSD newpages review, and without any such gatekeeper process in existence on the back end. So we do and should delete under A1 and A3 (it's just that we should not tag under them immediately).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Citation

Hi I'm new to writing an article. can someone help me with my citation formatting questions.

Sources I will Cite: 1. website(s) 2. published book 3. An oral history interview conducted by the univ of Wisconsin- Madison

Also to what extent is pin citing required. In law (my profession) when citing a case I must include citation to the exact page sometimes paragraph where the statement is found. Must I do so here, if so do I include the page number of a website, what about for the oral history manuscript do I cite by the time noted or by page number as supplied in the word doc available for public download?

Kindly Please advise my formatting questions.

Thanks you BBehl (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@BBehl: Welcome to the Teahouse and thanks for asking this question. At Wikipedia, we offer optional templates for making citations easier. First, you'll probably want to read Help:Referencing for beginners for an introduction to the technical aspects of providing footnotes at Wikipedia in proper syntax. Then, check out Wikipedia:Citation templates for a breakdown of various templates which simplify the citation process. I hope this helps! --Jayron32 03:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

You just need the web link; you don't need to add the paragraph number and so forth. Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Taxobox

I'm trying to do a Taxobox on Homo Denisova. I have all the info., but I can't figure out how to put it in correctly so it turns out as a Taxobox. Please help. Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@Dunkleosteus77: Hello! I think you'll find what you're looking for in Template:Taxobox. From skimming through your edits, it seems like you just forgot to add the top and bottom lines of code. CabbagePotato (talk) 19:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@Dunkleosteus77: I've gone and added the line of code to the beginning of the taxobox; it should look more like one now. CabbagePotato (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

How do I get images?!!!

I've read the explanation, but I'm still having problems. I've been trying to get a picture for the Champ (cryptozoology) article, but it just says in red File:ChamplainMonster.jpg where I want the image to be. PLEASE HELP ME!!! Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Dunkleosteus77 the link will show red until the image file exists. Are you trying to link to an existing file? In which case it might be that you have got the file name wrong - the spelling has to match exactly. Otherwise the file needs to be created. As your account is only two days old you will have to wait until 02:28UTC on 13 April before you can upload an image file. Nthep (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Dunkleosteus77. Any image you want to link to here has to either exist here or at the Wikimedia Commons (only for suitably freely-licensed, and public domain images). That is, it has to have been uploaded to the one or the other. Are you trying to display the Wikia image that is posted here? If so, please understand that you can't hotlink to an image from another Wikimedia site (other than the Commons), and Wikia is not even a Wikimedia run website (though it was created by Jimmy Wales). It does look like that image is available under CC-By-SA 3.0 so it could be uploaded to the Commons. On the other hand, I do question whether it's an appropriate image, as it's just some person's imagined illustration. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2015

I searched "Wikimedia Commons champy 1977" and copied the URL to the first image that came up. Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC) Also, the image is a picture of Champy taken with a digital camera in 1977. It is not an artists impression of Champy. Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind, I just realized that it said I have to be either a confirmed/auto-confirmed member or an administrator and I am neither. Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Dunkleosteus77 if the image already exists on Wikipedia or Commons then you can link to it at any time. You only need the auto-confirmed status to upload images. I'm still intrigued by what url you found because I don't get any Wikimedia results using the same search terms. Nthep (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

It's "Wikimedia Commons champy lake monster 1977" and if you go to images it's the first one on the top right hand corner of the screen (if you're using Google search engine) Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

http://www.wondermondo.com/Images/NAmerica/USA/Vermont/ChamplainMonster.jpg Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@Dunkleosteus77: Google tries to match the result of queries but will return other results through its algorithms if no exact match exists. If your Google search was as stated actually in quotes, then the results say at the top "No results found for 'Wikimedia Commons champy lake monster 1977" ", and then it provides results for that phrasing as if typed without quotes. If it was without quotes then it would be the same. In either case, Google tried to find an image on Commons, was not able to (since one does not exist), and instead linked you to a whole bunch of other things that are not at Commons, including the image at the above URL. You can tell it's not a Commons image because its URL starts with "http://www.wondermondo.com", meaning its at the website wondermondo.com. All files at the Commons would have a URL starting with "https://commons.wikimedia.org/" That image appears to be non-free. It might be able to be uploaded in relatively small size under a claim of fair use here (not at the Commons), and especially if the article details through citations to a reliable sources the existence of the image itself, as critical commentary in the article, like some of those found in this Google books search. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Removal of sandbox link from interface

Long ago I turned off the display of the default sandbox link at the top of the interface. I no longer remember how I did that but it was probably through an option in preferences to opt out or suppress it. Anyway, as of very recently, the sandbox link is back, cluttering my interface, probably from some recent preference or software change. I looked in preferences and didn't find anything relevant. Anyone know of a way to suppress/hide it, like with a common.css hack?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Fuhghettaboutit. The sandbox gadget was replaced by a MediaWiki extension with no option in preferences. You can place this in your CSS:

#pt-sandbox { display: none; }

PrimeHunter (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Prime! Question: it's not working...yet. I added it, then refreshed and when that didn't work, logged out, and when that didn't work, dumped all cookies, etc., and restarted Firefox. Any idea why not? I use Monobook. Hmm, let me try removing everything else from my CSS file to see if the other things already there are the problem. Nope. I also restarted my computer (long overdue anyway).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit try li#pt-sandbox { display: none; } I had to add the li at the start for it to work for me. Nthep (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Excellent. That worked. Thanks Nthep!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I know very little CSS. I can just test whether something works. It worked without li in Vector but in MonoBook li is apparently required. Previewing my common.css with li gives the misleading: "Warning: Element (li#pt-sandbox) is overqualified, just use #pt-sandbox without element name." PrimeHunter (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Image size

I find these really nice pictures for some articles, but for some reason they look huge on the article page. Some are so wide, they won't even fit on it! Appreciate your help. Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dunkleosteus77. I haven't seen your code but I guess the problem is that you don't specify a size or thumb. Then images are shown at the resolution they were uploaded at. See Wikipedia:Picture tutorial and come back if you still have problems. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I would like to complete an article, but can't get the assistance I need

I've started to edit Draft:David_Fishelov, and got some comments [here] and [here] and [here] but couldn't get any response to my last question. I would appreciate any help to complete this article! Davidgute (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Davidgute hello and welcome back to The Teahouse. The lead, or first section, should explain why Fishelov is what we call notable. I believe the article goes on to establish notability. However, I am concerned about the various reviews of his work. I can't say for sure they violate a specific rule, but they just don't look like what other articles say. They sort of look like a group of reviews on the cover of a book, which would be promotional, though I don't see that as being the problem here.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear Vchimpanzee,

Thanks for your useful comments and suggestions. I have elaborated a bit on Fishelov's books, describing their contribution to the different fields of study and also added references to reviews that criticize his works as part of ongoing academic debates (not just bringing passages from positive reviews that publishers like to post). Thus, the reader can now have useful information about the content of Fishelov's books and their contribution to pertinent debates in the field. Still, if you want me to shorten the passages taken from positive reviews of his books, please let me know. Davidgute (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Davidgute I think the reason you wouldn't see such long reviews is copyright problems. Short excerpts are best but if you say too much of what the other person said, you risk violating copyright. It is probably better to summarize as much as you can in your own words. I realized when looking at the detailed reviews that the different wording might be easier to understand, and there would be less risk of quoting too much.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear Vchimpanzee,

Thanks for your prompt and useful response. I followed your suggestion and summarized the passages taken from reviews of Fishelov's books. I left only very short excerpts (a sentence or two) and I am confident this will not create any copyright problem. Do you have any more suggestions before I submit the article? How do I submit it? Davidgute (talk) 22:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@Davidgute: there is a big green button in the grey box at the head of your draft to submit it. But, before you do, consider whether this is a biography of the man or a treatise about each of his books. The man must be notable. Such notability includes his having written the books and other papers, but those books and papers may not, except i special circumstances act as references for his notability. Let me try to explain. If s/he manufactured vacuum cleaners, the cleaners would be her/his work. A vacuum cleaner could not be a reference for her/him, simply because it is the product he makes. So it is with research. However, a review of her/his work by others tends to be a review of her/him and her/his methods, so is a reference, as is a peer reviewed paper a reference for her/his work. You may find WP:ACADEME of some use in seeing how Wikipedia and Academe differ hugely.

What you need to achieve is referencing that establishes him as notable. WP:GNG is helpful here, as is WP:PROF. I cannot read Hebrew so some of your referencing is closed to me. So let me explain in general what we need. For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS.

As you see, there is some wriggle room.

The books make up a major segment of the draft. Is this right for a biography? My view is that it is not. Others may disagree.

If I reviewed the draft today, were it to be submitted as is, I would push to back to you for the reasons above. Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. I view this one as being in the wrong side of the boundary, something WP:AFC reviewers set as an article having a better than 60% chance of surviving a deletion discussion. Yours is close, bit anything that strengthens its chances in the wild is a good thing to do.

Mine is but a single editor's opinion, and nothing prevents you from submitting it. Having it declined is not fatal, you may resubmit as often as required, and gives you good guidance. I will not review it, at least for the first pass, since I have given you this advice here. Reviews are an iterative process. We intend them to help folk understand how to make articles survive. Fiddle Faddle 22:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@Davidgute: In addition you have at least one citation to a site selling the books. If, instead, you use the following format:

ISBN 978-0-271-00886-8

it will generate ISBN 978-0-271-00886-8 automagically which leads to all the sites selling the book, and is thus not viewed as a spam link. It is, however, not a reference. Fiddle Faddle 23:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page:

Hi Vchimpanzee,

Thanks for your detailed and useful responses. I don't know how to find our conversation about Draft:David_Fishelov.

Re Fishelov's notability: according to the list of criteria specified in "Wikipeida: Notability (academics)" Fishelov definitely meets the first two criteria: 1. Fishelov's work has made significant impact in his scholarly discipline, i.e. literary studies. His book Metaphors of Genre is widely discussed and cited by scholars working in the field: Google-Scholar counts more than 130 citations of this book, much above the average of scholarly books in that field. It is no coincidence that the article on "Genre studies" on Wikipedia devotes a significant part of its section on "Generic Conventions" to present Fishelov's contribution to that field. 2. Fishelov's book Samson's Locks won the first Bahat Prize. The Bahat Prize is a prestigious Israeli national award for a scholarly, non-fiction book and many Israeli scholars in the Humanities and the Social Sciences compete for that prize. Moreover, Fishelov has also made a substantial impact outside academia in his academic capacity, hence he also meets criterion #7: based on his reputation as a literary scholar Fishelov was invited to chair the committee appointed by the Israeli Ministry of Culture and the Jerusalem municipality, to award the prestigious Yehuda Amichai Prize in poetry. Furthermore, the numerous reviews and essays Fishelov published in the literary supplements of three national Israeli newspapers made a significant impact outside academia. Note also the important role he played in introducing to Israeli readers to several classical works of modern English literature (e.g. Robinson Crusoe) by writing comprehensive afterword to their Hebrew translations.

Let me also mention the fact that Fishelov was invited to teach at several distinguished universities, including UC Berkeley, University of Chicago, Columbia University and EHESS in Paris. Perhaps this last fact, in and of itself, does not fall exactly into the list of criteria listed in "Wikipedia: Notability (academics)", but it is definitely another indication of his reputation as a leading scholar in the field of literary studies.

Re Fishelov's books: I elaborated a bit on the content of Fishelov's books and briefly described several reviews in order to illustrate his contribution to literary studies both in Israel and abroad. If you want me to shorten or to change that part, please let me know. Davidgute (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Advocate, writer, gentleman, grub

I have written several publications currently available in two of the most renowned libraries in Australia. They are about all sorts of things and I'd like guidance on how I could be a useful contributor here. I am particularly familiar with legal issues surrounding functional age restrictions and activity prohibition. 82.132.226.96 (talk) 11:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I am an avid reader of your publications and suggest you carry on precisely as you do in real life, folk here enjoy a robust approach and their behaviour to be challenged. 217.43.5.204 (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, 82.132.226.96. Welcome, and I hope you do contribute: experts in all areas are very welcome. However, there are some features of editing Wikipedia that often come as a surprise to experienced writers, especially academics. One is that original research is not accepted: every single piece of information in a Wikipedia article, and especially, every argument, judgment, conclusion, or evaluation, must be cited to a reliable published source. Often the value of an expert's contributions lies in knowing where to find the sources, and selecting what is important from them, rather than arguing a case. Another is that Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anybody may edit; and as long as they are working within the rules of Wikipedia, their edits are as valid as anybody else's. Some experts find it hard to remain civil when they see what they think are ignorant editors disagreeing with them about what should go into an article. I recommend you read Everything you need to know to get a feel of how we work. I would also strongly suggest that you create an account: it is not required, but there are several advantages to doing so. --ColinFine (talk) 10:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I will add WP:ACADEME to your reading list. Fiddle Faddle 11:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Are there any Wikipedia essays on dealing with cyber bullying and editing controversial articles?

I was wondering if there are any essays written on being hyper political and dealing with cyber bullying should it happen? I was interested in if there's a history of law enforcement involvement with doxing or if any Wikipedia editors have been assaulted or murdered for their views. It seems a bit one sided talking about the inevitability of a technological singularity but not of a first time for a technology assisted crime. Bullets and Bracelets (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@Bullets and Bracelets: WP:CYBER will start you off. Fiddle Faddle 11:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Page View Statistics

If I click on the history tab of the Teahouse and then click on Page View Statistics I see a very nice graph is displayed of how many times the page has been visited in the last 30 days. But on some articles, the graph displays to several decimal places for example, 4.16667 visits. Is this due to something in my preference settings or would everyone else see the same kind of thing?CV9933 (talk) 11:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey CV9933. I think it's what everyone would see, since that site is a third party tool, and AFAIK could not interface with your Wikipedia preferences. It's a bit strange that it would return a fraction of a month statistic, since it's not supplying us an average but just a count. Anyway, if you copy the url of its output for a particular page where you're getting that type of result, we can then report back on if we're seeing the same thing. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@CV9933: I would also like to see an example. In some cases with very few views the graph makes an unfortunate division of the vertical axis into non-integers but the actual views are still integers in all examples I have seen. For example, at http://stats.grok.se/en/201504/William%20Iddison I currently see the vertical axis increment by 0.83333 up to 5, but all page views (the vertical bars) are 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5. Is that what you mean? PrimeHunter (talk) 14:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much; yes that is a typical example shown above. It isn’t possible to have a fraction of a visit, so the scaling would make sense if the decimal places were rounded up. A talk page history I visited was here and I thought it was displaying lots of fractional visits. Looking more closely, I can see that isn’t the case; the axis labelling just confused me.CV9933 (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@CV9933: Thanks for clarifying. The author of the tool has a talk page at User talk:Henrik but rarely edits Wikipedia. Last time was in August 2014. This issue was posted at User talk:Henrik/Archive 18#Fractional visitor numbers. with no reply. The vertical axis seems to always be split into 6 parts. If the largest number is below 6 then the axis unfortunately ends there. In http://stats.grok.se/en/201504/Braceborough the largest number is 7 and the axis ends at 12, the next multiple of 6. That is more sensible. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter and Fuhghettaboutit: Despite the decimal point quirkiness I think it is a useful tool, many thanks for your help.CV9933 (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

What makes a historical article newsworthy?

I notice that the only 2 bishops in Belize that are included in wikipedia are from the US, and they are referred to as stubs in need of amplification. Yet my offer of an article on a Belizean Bishop who was Italian was rejected in part as unimportant. My question: is a summary of the ministerial life of a person who became a Bishop in Belize (for 5 years at the end of his life), in the 1890s, destined to be judged as unimportant? And what might I add to the lives of the 2 American Bishops in Belize that would be judged important? Is the fact they were in the small country of Belize and not in the US make them hardly of importance to Wikipedia?Jzsj (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jzsj: Nothing has been rejected. Draft:Salvatore di Pietro has been pushed back to you for more work before it can be accepted. This is the entire point of a review process. Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. Please do what is asked and the work you started will not be in vain, assuming you can assert and verify the gentleman's notability. Go to it with a will! Fiddle Faddle 18:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jzsj. No one is saying that this bishop was "unimportant", and I personally believe that any Roman Catholic bishop can be shown to be notable in Wikipedia terms with sufficient work by the editor writing the article. You have included a lot of unreferenced details about this man's life. Reference your draft article properly, fully citing the reliable sources you used to write the draft, and I am confident your article will then be accepted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Jzsj. People new to Wikipedia often misunderstand the technical term "notable", and think it means "important", "famous" or "worthy". The word in normal use can mean something like these, but in Wikipedia it means something different from all of them: please see WP:42. --ColinFine (talk) 18:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jzsj. Just to add slightly to the comments above, I think you've conflated the standards we ask to be met in writing the article to provide evidence of the topic's notability (and to ensure the content is verifiable), with whether the subject is actually notable. It's an easy confusion to have. Nevertheless, the comment in the rejection was addressed not to the merits of the subject, but the sufficiency of you demonstrating those merits in your writing, by not including sufficient citations to reliable sources. Having just looked, it seems to me you can fix this by citing and using the information from here here, here, here, here, here and so on.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

"Collections", probably in mobile front beta

I use the mobile front end beta on my Android smart phone (which currently is my only usable internet device). Recently a new line has appeared in the menu at the upper left: "Collections". But I haven't been able to find out what it's for or how to use it. Searching for "Wikipedia: Collections" only gets Wikipedia:WikiProject Collections Care, which is about the care of art collections and such. Please {{ping}} me to answer. --Thnidu (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Thnidu: This option is present when beta is enabled in mobile settings. Information about mobile is often at mw:, the wiki about the MediaWiki software. See mw:Gather and mw:Extension:Gather/FAQ for the Collections feature. I don't have a mobile device for testing but when I view the mobile version on my desktop PC, "Collections" gives me an option when page X is opened: "Add X to a collection of pages you can share with the world!" I haven't tested beyond that. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, PrimeHunter. --Thnidu (talk) 02:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Proper references

Hi, I am wondering if there is someone who can help me with my references. I tried to link the "[]" to the references I found, but when I clicked 'save page' the references doubled. Please advise how I can properly arrange the references to be more neat.

HafizAzizi91 (talk) 03:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, HafizAzizi91. You have used an unconventional style of references. Normally, we use inline references placed in the body of the article after each statement, along with a "References" section at the end of the article, which uses a template to display the references properly. You have also been numbering your references manually. The wiki software does that automatically. Also, we create sections by both starting and ending the section name text with two equal signs (a total of four). I tried to do some cleanup, but proper formatting of this lengthy article is more than I can do at this time. Please read Referencing for beginners. I will return the article to its state when I first took a look, so that you can format it the way you want. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Making a Composite Image of Three Photos

Hello Amazing Wikipedia Editors. My question is, can I make a composite image out of three photos, make them into one image, and upload that? I own all three photos, but I just want to condense them into one image, so I am not getting into an uploading "frenzy" that I know that wikipedia does not like. they show three massive events that took place over three years Thanks!Annalynnehurtgen (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Annalynnehurtgen: Welcome to the Teahouse! As long as you took the photos yourself, you most likely own the copyright for them and are free to create a composite and upload them to the Wikimedia Commons under an acceptable free license of your choice. Once you've created an account there, you can use their upload wizard. You may also create composites of other free images you find on the Commons, as long as you properly cite the sources and authors of the images used when you upload. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Hello, Annalynnehurtgen. If you own the copyright to the three photos, you can do anything you like with them, and you will own the result, which you may then release, uploading it in the ordinary way. There is nothing in Wikipedia which will let you merge them: you'll need to use some separate software. See Category:Graphics software. (For myself, I would use GIMP). --ColinFine (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. You could also use Powerpoint or Photoshop, but be aware of legalities as stated above.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) composite images are easier enough but I see you have a bit of a chequered history over image uploads. So before you go any further

1. do you own the copyright on all the images (this means you took the original photos, owning the print is not enough),
2. do you have permission from the copyright owners,
3. can you prove they are public domain images that can be used anywhere for any purpose (use on Wikipedia along is not enough), or
4. a combination of the above.

If you can manage this then you can create a composite image and upload it but the file information would have to include the appropriate licence for each image forming the composite as well as the author details for each image. Nthep (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, are you saying we need to meet one of the criteria above or all four?Annalynnehurtgen (talk) 23:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Annalynnehurtgen. Please read the plain meaning of the four items listed above. You can create a composite of three images for use on Wikipedia if and only if the three images in question are properly licensed for free use under an acceptable Creative Commons license, or are guaranteed free of copyright. Your talk page is full of warnings and notifications about problems with copyright and licenses. This is very problematic. All editors are expected to comply with our image use policies when uploading any images. Please be very cautious in the future. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

How to delete an article?

Hi, I recently posted an article using the wikipedia:article wizard. I would like to delete the page. Can you advise how I can do that ASAP please?

HafizAzizi91 (talk) 06:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I've removed it under WP:G7. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

How long do reviews usually take?

I have an article in draft Draft:Religious_Education_Association that was initially rejected for lack of sufficient external references. I added many citations to historical newspapers and other sources and resubmitted it over a week ago. Since then I've only seen it sink in the review queue. I am wondering how long reviews usually take and whether there is something else I should be doing to move the process along.

I am a bit discouraged since I modeled my initial page on the American Academy of Religion page which is already public. I notice that page has no external citations at all (except one to its own journal). I actually find it a very helpful article, I just want the article I am working on made available to the world so that others can start helping to maintain and improve it.

Thanks for any advice you may have!

Maryhess2015 (talk) 15:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@Maryhess2015: The reviewers are all volunteers. We review those drafts we feel competent to review to our own personal timetables. We try to do tw things:

1. Get rid of the trash
2. Work form the oldest submissions forwards

We do not always succeed with either.

Please continue to improve your draft while awaiting a review. The better you get it the better the chance of it not being pushed back for further work. Fiddle Faddle 15:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

thanks for such a quick response! I'll just keep working on it...Maryhess2015 (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@Maryhess2015: I do not feel competent to make a formal review in this field, but I have given you some general pointers on the draft itself, pointers I hope you find of use. Fiddle Faddle 16:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

thanks Maryhess2015 (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out how woefully undersourced American Academy of Religion is, Maryhess2015. I have tagged it as such (which puts it into lists of articles needing work). If you have some expertise in this area, maybe you can improve it once your draft is accepted! --ColinFine (talk) 10:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Just to let you guys know, I have accepted the Draft as it was much past AfC's simple criteria by the time I read it, and I have also PROD'ed American Academy of Religion as non-notable based on what I can tell. Good work Maryhess2015 EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 02:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

It's exciting to see this page on REA go live! I can't wait to get other people working on improving it. Thanks so much to all of you for your help to me, the newbie! Maryhess2015 (talk) 03:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations on the new article Maryhess2015, for your next challenge ;) see if you can "save" American Academy of Religion by improving its sources. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I think I want to work on getting this entry up to a higher classification before I take on another... but I will see if I can find someone to work on the AAR entry. Thanks again for your work on the wiki!

How to rename (or move?!) a translated site?

Hey there, I just translated a Wikipedia site to German. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Translate_to_German But now the title is really strange and I cant change it to "DE: Eclipse (software suite)" If the title is right, how can I connect it to the original English site, that a user can choose "German" as a language? I am a new member and not allowed to move articles... Thank you in advance - Alex Alexandra Fetzer (talk) 15:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@Alexandra Fetzer: Hi! Articles written in another language, in this case German, should be written on their own Wiki site (SO for this it should be on https://de.wikipedia.org), not on English Wikipedia. You also created the page in the Category namespace, so I will move it out of there, probably to a usersubpage of yours. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 15:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok. So I will copy paste the content and create a complete new Wikipedia site on the german wiki? Thanks Alexandra Fetzer (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes please do that, and then come back with a link to it and follow the below instructions. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 15:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok the page can now be found at User:Alexandra Fetzer/Eclipse (software suite). Now, to make it so readers of the en.wiki site can see your version in the siderbar, you must first create it on German wiki (if that is the language) linked above. Then you add a link to the page by going to Eclipse (software suite) on English wikipedia, scrolling down and on the bottom of the right Left... I meant left. sidebar there is a button for editing language links. You can add your article there. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 15:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you a lot. I will try to do that. :) Alexandra Fetzer (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Multiple sources for single sentence/paragraph

When a referencing a single sentence or paragraph that has two sources, what is the preferred format: (1) a single footnote that cites the two sources or (2) two footnotes that cite each source individually? LeeVirginia (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, LeeVirginia. A separate footnote for each source is preferred. Future expansion of the article may require use of one of the sources as a reference in other parts of the article. This will be much easier if they are separate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Copyright information in my article - cannot verify

I'm not entirely sure why the content I had attempted to publish on Wikipedia was deemed to have had copyright information infringement and therefore was not approved for publication. You can find the article in my Sandbox.. not sure how to link it to you otherwise. It's clear I am a new Wiki user, and I would very much appreciate a lending hand. Thanks in advance. CharlieSkye (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Here's the link for easy access. User:CharlieSkye/sandbox. To link a page you simple type [[pagename]] replacing pagename with the article/page's name. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 18:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft

Hello, Could someone please comment on this draft about one of the New Netherland founders, before I submit it? 143.176.216.29 (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The best thing to do is to submit it and continue to work on it while awaiting review. Review is an iterative process and is designed to help get new articles accepted where they qualify. Fiddle Faddle 19:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

how to connet page with sandbox article?

I wrote an article in sandbox but how can I connect it to google search or another wiki page?Nidhi Shankar (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@Nidhi Shankar: Could you clarify what you mean by "connect". As far as Google goes, that's another website run by another company. At Wikipedia, we have no control over what their web searches do. By connect to another wiki page, do you mean another page at Wikipedia, or another page at a wiki outside of Wikipedia? I'm confused about what you're trying to do here. If you give some more details, perhaps we can help you better? --Jayron32 19:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@Nidhi Shankar: Would you mind telling us a little more about what you would like to do? Fiddle Faddle 19:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry! I wasn't so clear before.I want to link my article(wiki) that is sandbox with a web page on Wikipedia.Like, I wrote an article on Absolut Citron and wanted it to link to Absolut Vodka page i.e (List of core flavour). Nidhi Shankar (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Nidhi Shankar. I've moved your reply onto the end of your question: it's better to do that than to start a new section, when it's about the same topic. And to answer your question, you link to another article in Wikipedia by putting its name in double square brackets, so [[Absolut Vodka]] displays as Absolut Vodka. On another subject, your draft has no chance of being accepted in its current form, because it has no independent references. As a general rule, every single piece of information in a Wikipedia article should be referenced to a reliable source, and most of them to an independent reliable source. If you haven't got a published reference for something, don't put it in Wikipedia. The page referencing for beginners may be helpful. --ColinFine (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Does this belong on wikipedia? And if not, what should I do?

I came accross this article Gail F. Goodman. The notability tag has been up for 2 years. There is only one source and I am not sure it establishes notability. I think it might need to be deleted. Does it? How should I proceed? This is the first time I come accross something like this. Thanks! Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 20:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! A subject has to meet our notability guidelines in order for it to be suitably included on Wikipedia.

A subject's notability is usually established by meeting the general notability guideline, that is, the subject has significant coverage in multiple reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject. Does that seem like a mouthful? I will break it down:

• Significant coverage means that a source expends a significant amount of coverage on the subject. Trivial coverage (for example, quotes by the subject) does not count.
• A reliable source is a source that is written and published by a person or company that has a reputation of being reliable (arguable, but some examples are the [for an author] New York Times and [for a publisher] Oxford University Press).
• A secondary source is a source that provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, which are sources that were written close to the applicable event, usually at least one step from an event.
• Content from sources that are independent of the subject is content that isn't written by the subject or someone affiliated with it (such as press releases, but not interviews).
• Multiple means that there is significant coverage from more than just a few sources.

I like to think at it as this: If an article that is mostly supported by reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject can be written that expends more than a few paragraphs on the subject can be written, it is most likely notable.

This works because only sources that significantly cover the subject can have a good amount of information synthesized and put into the article, and multiple sources are usually needed to write such an article.

Now that you know how notability roughly works, the next step is to find sources. Try a search on your favourite search engine (also search on the news search if the engine has it) on the subject, and a newspaper archive search (Google News Archive is good). If you find that the subject meets the notability guidelines, then the article belongs on Wikipedia. If not, nominate it for deletion, where numerous participants will discuss if the article should be kept, merged or redirected to another article, or deleted.

Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia! Esquivalience ^t 23:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Thankfully, someone has nominated it already, but now I know for next time. Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 00:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Long term potential deletion candidates need not be auto-nom'd for deletion

I do agree that the article discussed above does not merit survival as a standing article ... but that is beside my point. I created an article back in April 2014 which garnered a not notable company hatnote in July 2014 - which I did not notice. I got re-interested when someone added a red-link street address to the company infobox and decided that there was a choice to be made -- improve the article or PROD it. I chose 'improve'. Compare the state at the time of notability tagging vs. the state as of my last edit. My point is this: just because something has been tagged as suspiciously non-encyclopedic does not mean it can't be "elevated" to the proper level of notability. Notability is about potential first and actuality second. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)