Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 375

Archive 370

←

Archive 373

Archive 374

Archive 375

Archive 376

Archive 377

→

Archive 380

Notability?

Hello, I created a page for a string arranger I know who is Emmy nominated and quite accomplished, but I keep getting declined for notability issues. Admittedly, I am not an experienced editor, but I've read the notability guidelines several times and this arranger meets at least two of the requirements. I know a bunch of other musicians with ridiculous credits and only references from their own personally written websites. The guy I was trying to list has actual legit references. I am at a loss. Can anyone help me? Thank you so much in advance!! Intoacloud (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey Intoacloud. Evitts may be notable, but you are not demonstrating that with the sources you're using. What we are looking for is citation to:

1. reliable source (books published by major publishing houses, newspapers, magazines, peer-reviewed scholarly journals and websites that meet the same requirements as reputable print-based sources; sources that have a reputation for fact checking an accuracy – so not random webpages, most blogs, forums, user-generated content, etc.);
2. that are secondary in nature (for example, newspapers or magazines writing about him (not interviews with him);
3. that are entirely independent of him; and
4. which write about him in some detail (not mere mentions of him).

Without those cited, the draft is unlikely to be accepted (and if they don't exist, Wikipedia should not have an article on him).

Most of your sources are to Allmusic write-ups. While it is not generally considered a pure user-generated source, it is far from an ideal one. Note also, there should be no external links in the text. Remove them. You also have circularly cited another (German) Wikipedia article which should also be removed. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Making an article about a nail salon

so I wrote down what was needed the infos I got from the owner of the nail salon. That Nail Salon was recently featured on some TV networks but I can't find enough published/notable sources where I can cite anything for the article. So what should I do? wait for some publisher/journalist reputable newspaper, magazine to publish something about it? Michael A. Flores Saima (talk) 08:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Michael A. Flores Saima, and welcome to the Teahouse. You appear to already be aware of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, but they are outlined at Wikipedia:Notability in case you haven't seen that. If a subject doesn't meet the notability guidelines, there's not much you can do apart from keeping an eye out for new coverage in reliable sources. There are some specific guidelines on companies at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). I would be surprised if an individual nail salon would ever meet the criteria set out there, unless there was something that it was particularly famous for. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Michael A. Flores Saima, you can cite the tv show itself, if it qualifies as a reliable source. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

really? recently 2 big TV networks featured the nail salon I hope that's notability and reliable source enough for Wikipedia.

112.209.12.195 (talk) 02:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Timelines

I am writing with regard to the timelines. I have been carefully trying to date the events I am including on the timelines (take Timeline on the formation of the Universe). I have found many of the dates that I researched from articles in Wikipedia were changed (they do not reflect the actual dates that are being postulated in articles) I know some of the later stars in the timeline were changed because they were far more recent events. But dates taken from earlier objects became much later. It would help me out to understand this because I am trying to add information that is accurate as far as the information on the site and can be cobberated with information on site? (Davros69999 (talk) 04:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Davros69999. First of all, keep in mind that one Wikipedia article can never be a source for another Wikipedia article. We have millions of articles that need to be improved and even the best of our articles can be vandalized at random by ignorant knuckleheads. So, the events in the type of timeline you describe, which I consider to be core encyclopedic content, must be cited properly to really high quality reliable sources. Our job here is to summarize what the reliable, independent sources say, no more. Of course, you can also take on the task of improving the referencing of those other articles' reliable sources as well, if you so choose. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

How to do citations?

How does one do citations? I'm just doing them within the body of the article or typing out by hand.

Is there a difference?

Bardessa (talk) 01:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Bardessa. We have no completely standardized way of showing references (or citations), but there are some widely accepted techniques, described at Referencing for beginners. It is well worth reading. Inline references formattted in a way that our wiki software displays in a standardized list are definitely preferred. But the stylistic issue of how the references are displayed as citations is far less important than the quality of the references themselves. Formatting issues can be corrected quickly by any experienced editor, as long as the encyclopedic content is solid. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Bardessa, welcome to the Teahouse! Yes, the text of a citation should actually exist within the body of the article, but they should be encircled by <ref> ... </ref> tags. You can do them by hand, but we recommend the use of citation templates. One page we typically recommend for new editors to read is Help:Referencing for beginners. The page explains how to use the refToolbar that automates the creation of citations. Watch the videos there - I thought they were pretty helpful. It also explains how to manually add citations. Basically, at the end of a statement you wish to cite, add the following code: <ref> ... citation here ... </ref>. If you need further help, feel free to ask here at the Teahouse again! Mz7 (talk) 05:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Questions from author about declined article

I declined a submitted article, Draft:On-line participatory tools with a primary reason and a comment. I said that the article had too few sources and so had verifiability issues. I also said that the article presently only covered three countries, Romania, Georgia, and Armenia, and suggested that when it was better sourced, it could be split into three articles. The author replied on my talk page, saying that he thought my latter comment was a little harsh. I prefer to take all questions about draft articles here so as to get opinions from other experienced editors. Maybe I was right, and maybe I was wrong. Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree with the decline - there is no evidence of third party coverage of the subject, merely a bunch of primary sources cobbled together in a directory rather than encyclopedic coverage of a topic. As a topic it is potentially viable, perhaps starting as a new subsection of Digital citizen which focuses on the efforts of governments. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey Robert. I don't disagree that your decline basis is valid, but I do disagree in a way with the decline – because you said: "...This isn't so much a notability issue..." I think the topic is very much lacking in notability. A general Google search, which includes everything in Google's reach – not just the web but books, news and scholar – returns 8 results total, six of which are Wikipedia mirrors. It is not the constituent elements that notability looks to but the topic, and "On-line participatory tools" appears to be a neologism. But notability here is a side note. Yes, this strongly indicates to me the topic is non-notable, but much more to the heart of the matter is that the draft's content is original research synthesis. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I will try to take this useful advice into account in future declines (and, hopefully, in future acceptances, which, unfortunately, are not as common as declines). Robert McClenon (talk) 12:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Walking Dead RTS

Hi, I am fairly new & only am familiar with the basics. I am trying to establish a page for a game that is very popular in Australia, and is very new. Eventually it will, become much bigger but there is not much out there on the game, due to the limited territories. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Walking_Dead:_Road_to_Survival&redirect=no I am just felling a little lost on the latest recommendations. hbg1968 11:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hbg1968 (talk • contribs)

Hi Hbg1968. There is one predominating measure of whether a topic warrants an article: whether or not reliable, secondary sources, entirely independent of the topic, exist and have written about the subject in some detail to evidence notability and to give you and us the ability to write verifiable content. An encyclopedia is, by its nature, a tertiary source that provides a survey of information already the subject of publication in the wider world. Encyclopedias are never the appropriate place for first publication. What you've stated in your question is essentially an acknowledgment that this is not a topic that is appropriate for an article—at least not yet. When it "become[s] much bigger" and the types of outside sources I've described cover it, only then will an article be warranted. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

A question about talk pages and editing

A while ago in the talk page of the article Joseon, I argued that the article template should include the Korean Empire as part of the wider Joseon Dynasty. Someone objected, to which I reiterated my position and added a few more sources; he or she did not respond for more than two weeks.

What should I do? Can I edit the template now? Thanks in advance. --太定太世文端世睿成燕中仁明宣光仁孝顯肅景英正純憲哲高純 (talk) 07:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Hi 太定太世文端世睿成燕中仁明宣光仁孝顯肅景英正純憲哲高純 I see that there has been another response on that page stating a difference between the Joseon Kingdom and the Joseon Dynasty (which currently redirects) - However I agree with you its unclear why Joseon only covers the Kingdom if Joseon Dynasty redirects to the article. Maybe Joseon should be a disambiguation page and Joseon Kingdom and Joseon Dynasty separate, or maybe Joseon should cover both (as long as the context is clear for readers). Note that talk page discussions are often slow as many can't edit every day, also to speed up responses try mentioning or pinging the others users so they are notified. Its not a subject I know so can't really comment on the actual question at hand sorry, I assume this is why no one else had responded yet as well, or the question could have just been missed. So continue discussing with Conprix, Sturmgewehr88 and any other interested editors and hopefully you can work out a solution together. All the best KylieTastic (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

cite pmid

Hi teahouse hosts,

There is a cite error here and this is my first encounter with cite pmid. I think I understand how it works. An editor already has a pmid number and inserts that as their reference, then citebot fills in the details. The bot seems to be up and running but the task in this case isn't getting completed so can anyone explain why? CV9933 (talk) 12:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey CV9933. The bot stopped operating on June 17 when it was blocked indefinitely by Reaper Eternal. The surrounding circumstances are not very clear – especially as to whether there has been any discussion of what to do about the very issue that brought you here – but the bot states on its user page that it is "no longer actively maintained and contains numerous unfixed bugs". Also, as flagged at the top its documentation, the use of the {{cite PMID}} template is deprecated per this discussion, and {{cite journal}} should be used instead. So if you are willing to get your hands dirty, the best way to address the issue is to take the PMID, go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed and search for it, then replace the citation with a populated cite journal template. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks@Fuhghettaboutit:, I had to read and re-read that a couple of times to get my head around the ramifications of the discussion. I know that many things on here are largely dependent on goodwill, but I would think if there are areas within wikipedia that need some money throwing at them, then that would be one of them. I'll have a go at cite journal later. CV9933 (talk) 17:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@CV9933: it looks like your wish might be granted - User talk:Citation bot/Archive1#Fixing Citation bot. Nthep (talk) 17:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@Nthep: Brilliant -thanks very much for that, another piece in the jigsaw and the DOI generator will be great for the seven author cite journal that I need to do.I'll be keeping my fingers crossed. CV9933 (talk) 18:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Capcha in Sandbox

I was attempting to save in my Sandbox and was unable to save with Visual Editor. I had to save under Edit Source. The system gave me several capcha to complete but it didn't work.

Is there a ticket for this? Carle-IKAM (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

it is profoundly discouraging to see the rejection of addition of references under visual editor, without notice, as vandalism. where do i go to send the trout? Duckduckstop (talk) 19:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

At the same editathon I saw this too. A newbie trying to add perfectly fine footnotes in Visual Editor was sent into an apparently infinite loop of CAPTCHA after CAPTCHA. Switching to Edit Source gets around it. econterms (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

How to contact OTRS to acknowledge image use permission

Included in the article for living living artist Alberto Gómez Gómez are photos (the artist's photos) of paintings (the artist's paintings). He wants to allow them to be displayed in the article via Wikimedia Commons under Version 4.0 of the Creative Commons license. As I understand it, this means more than merely granting permission from his own computer in his own name using his own user I.D. and password. I gather that he must communicate directly with OTRS and gain approval to do so for each image (at least I think that's what I was told). He wants me to explain how to do this step by step, before they get deleted for lack of proper permissions. How I wish I could. I can't even reliably bring up the images in question in Wikimedia Commons because I don't know how to address them. Can you help? Thanks. Rmark1030 (talk) 18:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rmark1030. If the artist uploads photos of his paintings to Wikimedia Commons under a Creative Commons license, then the artist will lose all control of those images, other than the right to be credited. Anyone can reproduce those photos as posters or T-shirts or coffee mugs, and sell them for profit, without permission, without sharing a penny with the artist. To me, this seems like a very bad idea.

Instead, I suggest that low resolution photos be uploaded here to Wikipedia under our non free image policy #7, which allows use of images of paintings in the context of critical commentary of the artist's work. That allows proper illustration of the artist's work in that single article, while still protecting the artist's commercial interests.

In this scenario, there is no need to get OTRS involved, and the uploads can be done promptly. Anyone can do this, whether you or the artist or anyone else. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The above will work, but only if there is a third party reliable source commentary about the specific work.

For donating, the process is outlined at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, again with the caveats outlined above by Cullen328. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Marriage

Should this template be used in articles as such, e.g. Barack Obama or Warren G. Harding, or should it be avoided. I am unsure; I included it in all the articles on U.S. Presidents, which took me some time, although one user is somewhat angry I have been using. I am unsure how to deal with this. Neve-selbert (talk) 05:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Neve-selbert. I have been editing here for over six years and understand the basic of templates and infoboxes, but do not consider myself an expert. I never before heard of the "marriage" template. We have broader templates like "presidents" and "office holders" that have fields for spouses, so why bring new templates into established articles at this time? The Obama article should be stable, but kooks never give up. The Harding article must give appropriate weight to the new DNA evidence, but how does that affect the marriage information? Please clarify your question. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The "marriage" template has been around for more than six years also, and I just assumed I was being constructive by including them in articles I am interested in. There is a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Presidents. Neve-selbert (talk) 12:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I think I would like to know whose sock puppet you are. You are clearly not a new user as all the documentation for the "widowed" parameter was removed and deprecated before your account was registered. So, how can you possibly know about that parameter unless you are a returned user determined to reinstate it? DrKiernan (talk) 19:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Now, please, stop. I am a totally new user, that is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, I am not a "sockpuppet", this is really hurting my feelings, and making me very anxious, scared and worried. I am not determined to reinstate it. If you don't like it: fine by me, I am not willing to be vilified for edits that can be simply be forgotten. I was only trying to help. I got the whole template idea from the Elizabeth II article, and I liked the look of it. Now, I understand there are people who disagree, and that is fine. I am willing to move on from this. Please, I need a chance: don't judge me, I am OCD – I will add infoboxes about who I am on my Userpage in due time. Please, I honestly feel unwelcome now. I really want to make a fresh start. Please can we move on from this? The edits don't matter. If you don't like them, roll them all back. I want to be constructive editor here, and I will fight to the end to be constructive. You don't know who I am, how can I "clearly not a new user"? I have followed Wikipedia for as long as I can remember, I know "wikistyle" and how it all works, I am quick at the computer. If you are still unsure, check my IP for proof. Thank-you, and I hope we can eventually move on from this with understanding. Neve-selbert (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Table Templates

I can never find anything around here & Help is never helpful. I'm tweaking a BLP about an actor that desperately needed sourcing, & in addition to finding a few new ones, I've also come across extensive lists of his TV, film, theatre, & playwright work; what's mentioned in the article is barely the tip of the iceberg, & way too many to list in paragraphs. Most other actor articles seem to have this info at the end, in tables. Where can I find a template to create that sort of table to corral them into sections? Or do I just count tediously count how many rows & columns I need, hope it's right, & make tables? Oh, and I'd like to table all my banners on my profile pg, too. Is there one for that? ScarletRibbons (talk) 20:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello @ScarletRibbons:! When in doubt, go to the search bar and type WP:WHATEVERYOUARELOOKINGFOR, for example WP:TABLE would bring you to WP:TABLE. And while there is an obsession for putting things in tables, as the guidance at WP:MOSTABLE recommends, a simple bulleted list is often as good or better than complicated table markup. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

TYVM for your quick service :-D (I wonder now if I'd get a hit searching for WP:HELPISNOTHELPFUL.) So even if the lists (which I'd break down into chronological, digestible sections for each category of work) have 50 items in them, that would be preferable to a table, then? ScarletRibbons (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

in a list you can use {{div col|3}} at the top and {{div col end}} at the bottom of each section and get a nice compact list.

If each entry has multiple parts for which it would be common for a reader to want to be able to sort, then a table becomes the best bet for a list longer than 5 items or so. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

mentor

looking for a mentor. Softstarrs23 (talk) 23:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Softstarrs23, and welcome to the Teahouse. What sort of mentoring do you want? What are you trying to do here? what are your interests on Wikipesia so far? what have you had problems with? I have done some mentoring. How much time are you able to spend here, roughly? If you'd like to ask further questions of me, feel free to post on my talk page, or there is Wikipedia:Co-op which is specifically aimed at matching new editors with willing mentors. DES ^(talk) 00:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

As for Club Atlético Newell's Old Boys II I'm afraid "being a real soccer club" isn't enough to have an article on Wikipedia. See our guideline about soccer articles and our guideline about notability of organizations (which includes sports teams). See also the golden rule and Your First Article. DES ^(talk) 00:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Also i advise creating new articles via the article wizard whcih puts them under the articles for creation project until you are more experienced. DES ^(talk) 00:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

code for linking to page specific content

Hi, thank you for helping out on the Tea house, it's a fine service. I would like to use an in-line shortcut to link to a particular spot in a page. What coding should I use to link to the page wink, section on double wink?

and while I have you, could you help me learn if there is a way to sign my entries using a single keystroke instead of shift, four tildes?

Cityside189 (talk) 12:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cityside189
Wink#Double wink should take you to the section you want - if you don't want the whole address to show pipe it as [[Wink#Double wink|Double wink]] which produces Double wink
With regard to the signature, assuming you are using the standard editing window, the third symbol in the top line (to the right of B and I should sign your posts with one click--Arjayay (talk) 12:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

thank you user:arjayay. Also good tip on the signature, I should have seen it there. I will try to also find if there are keyboard binding techniques for my macbook OS that can be used, like binding [fn, shift, s] to produce Cityside189 (talk) 12:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC) (like I used to be able to do on the Quake II game, if you know what I mean.

Thank you for taking the time, energy, and patience to help me. It may not seem that difficult for you but I appreciate it very much.

Cityside189 (talk) 12:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Cityside189 if you like keyboard shortcuts, there is a list at Wikipedia:Keyboard shortcuts, but that does not include "sign post" so you may have to make your own Macro - Arjayay (talk) 13:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey Cityside189. Just a tiny observation: if you are going to set up a macro/bind text substitution, however you want to put it, I suggest making it a shortcut to the four tildes, not to the direct signature as you implied above – otherwise the automatic timestamp will not be included (unless you're vastly more technically sophisticated than me and know how to set up the timestamp to automatically be placed in UTC in the macro, if that's possible).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks user:Fuhghettaboutit - good point. You are right that I could have made that mistake, but I just meant the four tildes. Whenever I type them my signature comes out, so in my example above I was just typing normally and wiki markup replaced the four tildes with my signature and timestamp!! Great comments and I appreciate the time you took to write to me. Cityside189 (talk) 14:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Got it – you were speaking in shorthand. Appreciate the appreciative response!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Cityside189, if you wan to display markup to talk about it or as an example, use nowiki tags around it. This stops the wiki markup being interpreted. It is common to also use code tags to indicate that this is wiki-code (or some sort of computer source code). Do it like this: ~~~~. I hope that is helpful. DES ^(talk) 01:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thats exactly what I was looking for, Des. Thanks. You have the patience of a saint!Cityside189 (talk) 04:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Desparately need help RE: image use permissions

Hello. I've recently published an article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_G%C3%B3mez_G%C3%B3mez) in mainspace concerning an artist. Said article contains photos of artworks by the artist which can be found here (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/Rmark1030&ilshowall=1) But I have failed to supply all that is needed to verify my permissions to use the images in the first place (and, worse) to protect the artist's copyright while specifying the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license. I took the photos myself, but didn't paint the paintings in the photos. Do permissions need to come from the artist, himself? Does permission need to be attached to each image separately? I'm pretty sure I can work out how to use the template for permissions. I'm equally certain the Spanish speaking artist will have a very very had time with them. Please help. Thank you. Rmark1030 (talk) 23:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rmark1030. I am not saying it is impossible, but I cannot imagine any normal circumstance where a working artist would wish to give up all rights to such multiple major works of theirs, but for attribution. Do you understand that a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license, if it were given by Senor Gómez (and yes the release would have to come from him; see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials), would allow (irrevocably, forever) anyone in the world to take his images publish them anywhere, sell prints of them, collect them in a commercial book for sale, modify them in any way and so on, and the only thing they would need to do is provide credit to him? I am saying you cannot "protect the artist's copyright while specifying the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license" because doing so would release almost all rights to the works but for credit, and it is very rare indeed for any artist to do such a thing.

I think you already know this from what you said in your question, but all these images need to be deleted from Commons as the licensing is false. In short, yes, you did not become the copyright owner because you took a photograph or scanned a two-dimensional image, anymore than you would own the copyright to Stephen King's The Stand if you manually re-typed it. I suggest you go to each of the image file at the Commons and add to the top of the page and save something like this:

{{copyvio|1=I am the uploader and photographed this work but am not the artist. I had thought by taking a photograph of the work I became an owner of the copyright, but I now know this is not the case}}

--Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. OK. The CC-BY-SA 4.0 does not suffice. That's clear enough. However, there must be a way to show works of living artists that is less perilous. I certainly did not and do not believe that photography transfers ownership of the image to me. Is there no license that DOES retain the artist's copyright for him -- to say, for instance, that use is acceptable with permission? Rmark1030 (talk) 09:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@Rmark1030: not on Wikipedia or Commons because the image use policy of both (and all other WMF wikis) is that as much as possible images should either be copyright free or licenced for any reuse. That's why the Creative Commons licences that include non-commercial (NC) and no derivatives (ND) terms are not permissible licences on Wikipedia. Nthep (talk) 11:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@Rmark1030: One small piece of advice for future occasions. It is better in your question to use a wikilink such as Alberto Gómez Gómez, rather than a url like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_G%C3%B3mez_G%C3%B3mez. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Since no action has been taken, I am nominating all these images for deletion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 09:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Same thing has happened to me, too. Why don't we have permission yet to insert image files? Please reply and I might reply back if you do so. Thanks. - Minionlover2015 (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@Minionlover2015: If you still have this question and want to get an answer more quickly, you might get a quicker response if you post a new question at the top of this page using the "Ask a question" button at the top. It's easier for your question to be noticed by Teahouse hosts if it's at the top of the page. CabbagePotato (talk) 04:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Publishing a Company

Our Company, Apoorva Corporation, has been in business for 14 years and we believe that it has become notable. What are our guidelines? Apoorva Corporation 02:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apoorvacorp (talk • contribs)

Hello Apoorvacorp, welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is a collaborative project to build an encyclopedia whose content is built on three fundamental principles we call the "core content policies". They are that Wikipedia articles:

1. must be verifiable (readers should be able to check that what is being written is true),
2. written from a neutral point of view (meaning that all opinions and viewpoints on a topic are represented fairly and without bias), and
3. must not contain original research (meaning we write only about what reliable sources have written about a topic).

Jointly interpreted, these three policies form the backbone for almost every other content policy or guideline we have here, so it is important you understand them and keep them in mind as you edit.

Since you are professionally connected with your company, you have what we call a conflict of interest ("COI"). Editors with a conflict of interest in a topic area often have an unintentionally distorted view of that topic area, and this conflict of interest has a significant potential to go against some of our core content policies. For example, you might unconsciously overly embellish an article about your own organization or omit verifiable facts that may be negative or controversial—this would violate neutral point of view. Alternatively, you might inadvertently add details about the organization that hasn't been published elsewhere—a violation of verifiability and no original research.

Because of the potential for disruption, the Wikipedia community strongly discourages editing in areas you have a conflict of interest in, and that includes creating articles about your own organization. If you believe that your company is notable as per our notability guidelines, then someone else may eventually write an article about your company in due time. Although we discourage it, we don't outright prohibit editing with a COI either. If you still want to write an article about your organization, first carefully read our guideline on conflict of interest editing. Then, I strongly recommend going through the Article Wizard to help you better establish if you organization meets our notability guidelines, and also so you can submit a draft of your article for review by experienced editors before it is published. If you need help with anything, just let us here at the Teahouse know. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 04:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC), revised 05:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The cliffs notes version of the criteria for having a stand alone article are here, with the special caveats regarding organizations/businesses here. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Pubmed citations

My pubmed id citations are not populating. Is there a new shorthand for PMIDS? Plumpy Humperdinkle (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Plumpy Humperdinkle. It may just be that whatever usually fills them in isn't running right now. I know that the documentation for {{cite PMID}} says please use "cite journal" instead, but I don't think "cite PMID" has gone away. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

StarryGrandma, I believe you are correct as when I try to "jump the queue" I receive an error message from the bot. If anyone knows how to get around this, please advise. Plumpy Humperdinkle (talk) 11:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

German import into the english Wikipedia

I wrote a content in the German Wikipedia and would like to know, how to copy/translate it into the English Wikipedia? 84.161.52.57 (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

See WP:Translation here on the English Wikipedia as well as de:WP:Übersetzungen on the German Wikipedia. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Can I assume you do have an account and are just not logged in right now? If not, signing up for one is easy and has many benefits. I recommend then creating this in a workspace rather than directly in the article mainspace. There are essentially three three options. You can create the page:

• i) Through articles for creation (click the giant button labeled "Click here to create an article now!" which will take you to the article wizard, or just CLICK HERE);
• ii) Create a draft directly at a subpage of your user or user talk space, such as creating it at User:Username/Name of proposed article; or
• iii) You could use the draft article space, in which case you would create the page at Draft:Name of proposed article.

Regardless of which you choose:

1. Your first edit would place in the page the text from the foreign page and (this is important): provide an edit summary stating copyright attribution of the source of the text you are translating, linking the foreign Wikipedia article, and ideally the URL of the revision you took it from. Your edit summary would be something like This text is copied from [[:de:Exact Name of German article]], the existing German Wikipedia article on this topic, from this revision: https://de.wikipedia.org/... You can also place on the talk page a filled-out {{Translated page}} template.
2. Translate the text into English.
3. Remember though, that just because the article exists on the German Wikipedia does not necessarily mean it is appropriate there, or meets our policies and guidelines here. For example, it must be on a notable topic and must cite to reliable, secondary, independent sources that verify its content.
4. Once done with the translation, you can submit it for review by adding to the top {{subst:submit}}.

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Help!

I'm good at contributing, but I'm a noob at Wikipedia, can someone please help me? The Pancake of Heaven! (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I am also a beginner editor but I got most of the answers to my questions regarding editing a page and creation of page on wikipedia from these links.

1. Video 1
2. Video 2

Hope this helps.. Cheers! KalEl2794 (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, The Pancake of Heaven!. Is there something specific you want help with? If you're after general guidance as you get to know the place, you might consider the adopt-a-user programme. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey The Pancake of Heaven!. I recommend you take a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial, and then read Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia. After that, you might visit the Wikipedia:Community portal, which list a variety of things you can help out with and get your toes wet. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info guys! The Pancake of Heaven! (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

What does db mean?

What does this edit [1] mean? Please answer on the article talk page here [2]. IpaTLC (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: question has been answered at Talk:LaDoris Cordell by DrKiernan. CabbagePotato (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Oliver M. Gruber-Lavin Ochoa

The article about Oliver M. Gruber-Lavin Ochoa has come to my attention - the subject does not seem to be notable and I thought that it qualified for speedy deletion. However, an editor said that it does not qualify for speedy deletion. Could somebody please advise me which deletion process this article needs? The article is about a subject that is not notable and it seems to be written by an editor close to the subject - or by the subject itself. There are no relevant sources on the internet about the subject, just mainly personal pages. Thanks--Sheroddy (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sheroddy. Because the speedy deletion request was denied, properly I believe since the article makes plausible claims of notability, the best option is to nominate the article at Articles for deletion. That involves an open debate about whether to delete or keep the article. That debate normally lasts a week or more. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I am the editor (and admin) who declined the speedy deletion request, Sheroddy. Please remember that speedy deletion is only for the very narrow categories of pages listed at WP:CSD. If it doesn't clearly and unaguably fit one (or more) of those criteria, don't use a db tag. Notability (as opposed to a claim of significance) is a judgement call, and may depend on offline or obscure sources. Therefore it must be made via a discussion open to all, at WP:AFD as Cullen suggested. DES ^(talk) 20:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Puffed-up resume. Nominated for deletion. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

difficult to use

I even find this tea house difficult to use... how do you answer to a question????

{{des}} ...But that is just a guess without seeing the article/page. FYI, block quotes should be used like this:

Quoted content here.

I did use it correctly, and everything beneath where the block quote was moved over on the article. The article is sitting in my sandbox as I am writing a new article for a band. Imasku (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

To post a reply, you need to click on either the "Join this discussion" or "[edit]" links to the right of the heading for your question. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Cordless Larry ... Imasku (talk) 21:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, I thank you but ... it does not teach me what or why first it did this and how to fix it in the future??? Imasku (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I've explained what you did wrong in the section below. If you click on this link, you'll see what you were missing. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@Imasku: to ping somebody, you need to use the code {{Ping|Username}}, replacing "Username" with the name of the person you are replying to. For instance, to ping you at the start of the message, I typed {{Ping|Imasku}}. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 21:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

verifying citations

1.) The issue I am experiencing to obtain 3rd party verification from archives in Canadian newspapers requires a 'pay per user' situation. Which means... I can see the information I paid to see it, but providing all the information and entering into the article will only take the next reviewer to the home page of the website of the paper not to the actual reference proving the information as the individuals reviewing.. have not paid for the privilege to view... I am finding this is the norm with Canadian newspaper archives and possibly other researchers are going to have this same issue, if not already have. Please advise in this situation as articles are slim for proof even though a magazine and two newspapers have been contacted in the Toronto area regarding this Band which was instrumental in bringing blues music to Canada???? Please advise? Imasku (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, Imasku. This is common at many newspaper archives, not just in Canada. Sources do not need to be available free of charge, they just need to be available. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Access to sources where it says: "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print source may be available only in university libraries or other offline places. Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access.". (also, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources# Definition of published says "It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet.") If you use citation templates, the parameter subscription=yes will indicate that a fee must be paid to access the source. You can also use the quote= parameter to quote the key passage (if not too long) that supports the statement in the article. I hope this helps. DES ^(talk) 20:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Just found it:I even find this tea house difficult to use... how do you answer to a question????

First thank you for responding to both questions.

Again how do you respond to a message left here. How do I submit or where the subscription?? Directly in the article at the time of creating the cite from the source??? {DES}]Imasku (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, Imasku. To answer a question here at the teahouse, or respond to the answer, or ask a clarifing further question, just edit the section where the question is placed, using the "edit" link at the right of the section division, or click the "join this discussion" link just to the left of the edit link, adn add the response or rejoinder at the bottom. Just as yo u did her eto respond to me.

As for how to insert a mention that a subscription is required, in your sandbox you ahve a citation that looks like this:

<ref name="Black Swan Tavern">{{cite news|title=Kendall Wall - Black swan looking back-KWB Newsletter #1 and Archives|url=http://www.kendallwallband.com/|accessdate=15 August 2015|issue=Vol.2, No.1|publisher=Black Swan|date=1992|ref=Acrhives}}</ref>

This will render as:

If the cite is changed so that it reads:

<ref name="Black Swan Tavern">{{cite news |title=Kendall Wall - Black swan looking back-KWB Newsletter #1 and Archives |url=http://www.kendallwallband.com/ |url-access=subscription |accessdate=15 August 2015 |issue=1 |volume=2 |publisher=Black Swan|date=1992|ref=Acrhives}}</ref>

it will render like this:

(I also fixed the way that volume and issue are entered.) I don't know if that particular cite is to a a source that needs payment; it is just an example. DES ^(talk) 21:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Thank you ... no actually that cite can be found in the archives that are permitted for public use. However, there must be a way to set it I am not seeing.

The ones I will receive later (tomorrow) will not be so I will make a copy of how to put in that to see the next ones it will require pay per user to see. @Des: Imasku (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Block quote moves rest of article over

2.) When I attempted to do a 'block quote' it made the rest of the article move over to the right and ... I cannot see why it would do that or find how to stop it from doing this???? Please advise?? Imasku (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Imasku, and welcome to the Teahouse. What article was this in? please provide a link if possible. I looked through your contributions and didn't see anywhere that a blockquote tag was in use. The thing that occurs to me is that the closing blockquote tag may have been omitted or incorrectly formatted, leaving the rest of the article inside the quote. But that is just a guess without seeing the article/page. FYI, block quotes should be used like this: <blockquote>Quoted content here.</blockquote> (The code and nowiki tags are to make this display as an example, don't copy them. DES ^(talk) 20:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I even find this tea house difficult to use... how do you answer to a question????

Template:Des ...But that is just a guess without seeing the article/page. FYI, block quotes should be used like this:

Quoted content here.

I did use it correctly, and everything beneath where the block quote was moved over on the article. The article is sitting in my sandbox as I am writing a new article for a band. Imasku (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed you asked for a link as I mentioned its in my sandbox being worked on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Imasku/sandbox

The body of the article has moved over and I cannot figure out how to move it back. Imasku (talk) 21:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I've fixed it for you. You were just missing the / from the closing </blockquote>. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you @Cordless Larry: - I will copy that so I have this for future use. Imasku (talk) 23:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Space

On double track, I have added a hatnote which is not in line with the above hatnote, which uses a template to do so. How can I get it in line? Thanks, Rubbish computer 22:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I found a suitable template after creating a new disambiguation page, which needed creating anyway, but I still do not know how to add these spaces. --Rubbish computer 22:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

It looks as if the formatting of hatnote template implementations is done through Module:Hatnote, but I must admit that much of that is Greek to me. If you had simply wanted to indent the line you added in your first attempt, you could merely add a colon before it, just as you did to indent your reply to yourself here, or did I misunderstand your question? --David Biddulph (talk) 00:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Organization Question

Hello. I have a question about how to organize an article about a broad, complex topic: articles in fields like sociology or the humanities. What should guide the organization? In other words, what should guide how the information is categorized in sections? (Some fields have MOS guidelines; these do not.)

I feel that the general organization in peer-reviewed survey articles can be good models to follow. It's like a reference not only for its substantive statements but also for the way the topic is presented. Particularly since these journal articles cover about the same breadth of information as a wikipedia article. Thoughts? —Fluous (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Fluous, and welcome to the Teahouse. That's a good question. Beyond the Manual of Style, you'll find that some WikiProjects have their own article structure guidelines. A good example of this is the guidance provided at WikiProject Countries. However, a project like WikiProject Sociology obviously covers a much broader range of articles, that couldn't possibly follow an identical or even similar structure (articles under its remit include Anarchism, Birth control and Émile Durkheim, for example). Your idea to follow the structure of review articles published in journals sounds like a good one. Do you have a particular article in mind here? I ask because there might be a more specific WikiProject that offers guidance. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Cyberbullying on Wikipedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A group of full-time activists (I call them as I reach for the most tactful term) makes changes to the Naturopathy page many times per day. Those changes are consistently in a derogatory direction toward naturopathic physicians. I see that naturopathic physician edits are not allowed to stand; they are reverted back to libel within several minutes by this vandalizing group, many of whom are outside the U.S., evading U.S. libel laws. The Wikipedia definition of cyberbullying tactics is: "Common tactics used by cyberstalkers is to vandalize a search engine or encyclopedia, to threaten a victim's earnings, employment, reputation, or safety. Various companies provide cases of cyber-stalking (involving adults) follow the pattern of repeated actions against a target." [sic] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberbullying. What recourse does the public or the naturopathic profession have to correct the quickly increasing number of lies that comprise the Wikipedia page on Naturopathy? Is there any interest in at least having a balance of viewpoints reflected on this page? "Talk" or other negotiation with the cyberbullies is not on the table, due to their flagrant violation of law and ethics. Will Wikipedia administrators take action against this problem? Username ininion 23:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia presents materials as they are seen the mainstream academic and medical sources . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Please answer the questions that I asked: What will Wikipedia do about the false statements, libel and cyberbullying on the Naturopathy page? Naturopathic physicians have approximately twice as many classroom hours and twice as many courses as MDs in the medical schools, verifiable at the respective schools' curricula descriptions online. Unlike MDs and DOs, naturopathic physicians have full-term courses in cardiology, pulmonology, endocrinology, through all major systems, again verifiable at the schools' own curricula descriptions. All of that is contradicted on the Wikipedia Naturopathy page. How will Wikipedia address not only the cyberbullying and libel, but its own impaired credibility? Ininion (talk) 00:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ininion. Because naturopathy is a fringe topic based in large part on pseudoscience, as reported by reliable sources, our experienced editors who work to defend the encyclopedia from content endorsing pseudoscience will always monitor this article closely. This is bound to hurt the feelings of the advocates of naturopathy, but that is the way things are, and all concerned should avoid insulting language. That includes you, with your talk of "evading U.S. libel laws" and "flagrant violation of law and ethics". You are coming perilously close to violating our policy calling for No legal threats. Those who make such threats are blocked from editing until the threat is withdrawn or all court cases are resolved. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

First, as you well know, you have found no threat at all in anything that I said. Second, if all concerned should refrain from using insulting language, then it would be best for you not to use the word "fringe" regarding a vast and eclectic system of medicine on which many around the world and throughout human history (in fact all of our distant ancestors) relied for their healthcare, a system of medicine that today is practiced in 17 US states by duly licensed physicians, who have scopes of practice that range from time-honored natural modalities through contemporary medical practices such as laboratory analysis, the prescription of pharmaceuticals and minor surgery, depending on the state. That training happened extensively in medical school and was confirmed by the longest and most rigorous medical board certification examinations in the U.S. I regret to inform you that the sources you call "reliable" have only been reliable to consistently misrepresent and falsify the history and the effects of naturopathic medicine. The cyberbullying that has damaged the Naturopathy page on Wikipedia has continually worsened in large part due to the echo chamber reliance on such sources, and I am indicating to you the problems that arise from allowing such behavior to continue. I have shown that the Naturopathy page fulfills the Wikipedia definition of cyberbullying tactics. Please be clear: Are you defending the cyberbullying tactics? If not, what will be done to stop the problem?Ininion (talk) 01:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Accusing other editors of "flagrant violation of law" without indisputable evidence is inappropriate behavior here on Wikipedia and perilously close to a legal threat. If reliable scientific sources say that naturopathy is largely based on pseudoscience, then so too shall Wikipedia. It cannot be any other way. You are, of course, entirely free to promulgate your beliefs on other websites, but Wikipedia does not exist to validate or promote pseudoscience in any way, shape or form. As for your other unproven accusations, I believe in being polite to those with whom I disagree. I recommend the same course of action to you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I have shown that the actions of the referenced editors fulfill the description of cyberbullying by Wikipedia's own definition. I have asked that this be corrected by Wikipedia. It seems that you are unlikely to examine or to correct the problem. Ininion (talk) 02:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems that we disagree about what the problem is, having thoroughly debated the issue, but that is relatively common here on Wikipedia. I could be wrong and if other experienced editors think so, then I will pay most serious attention to their opinions.

The Teahouse is a place for new editors to ask questions about editing, a place for answers, discussion and advice. It is not Wikipedia's Night court nor a place that issues binding decisions about anything, other than advancing the goal of building a better encyclopedia. You are entitled to seek more formal action if your concerns are so deep. Please read our policy regarding dispute resolution for much more detailed information. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy of not giving equal validity to fringe subjects and pseudoscience. This is not bullying.Charles (talk) 09:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

First, your whole attitude appears to be that you are here to right great wrongs, and that isn't what Wikipedia is for. However, why don't you start over? Instead of starting with the assumption that we are mistreating you and your subject, let's start with a quest for neutrality. Here are my suggestions. First, I am aware that there are some naturopathic medicine programs, that, like osteopathic medicine programs, have outgrown their fringe roots and have adopted most of the content of allopathic (orthodox) medicine. If you can source them, and you should be able to do so, you should be able to add them. Also, if you feel that that your contributions are being disregarded, as other editors have noted, we have dispute resolution forums, some of which are for content disputes, which this is. Some of them are particularly suitable to the extent that some naturopathic programs have incorporated some of the wisdom of allopathic medicine, and have licensure in some states. Those might include the fringe theory noticeboard, but it may have anti-pseudoscience warriors. They also include the dispute resolution noticeboard, in which most volunteer moderators start off with little knowledge of the subject matter and expect the parties to state the material. Beyond that, there is requests for formal mediation, by an experienced mediator. So what you should do is, first, find the sources that are out there that show that naturopathic medicine has grown up and become partly orthodox. Second, back off from your hostility and ask other editors to back off from their hostility. Third, discuss on talk pages, with references to reliable sources. Fourth, engage in dispute resolution, possibly at DRN or RFM. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion, Robert McClenon. However, I have no need to try to drag naturopathic medicine over to something that it is not and should not be: allopathic medicine. Nor would that serve any greater interest, since naturopathic patients are generally much healthier than allopathic patients. "Pseudocience" is an invalid term that is used to stockpile evidence that the user wishes to ignore. In this case, your associates have used it to make excuses for the damage caused by libel and cyberbullying. I agree with one thing that they have said: this discussion has moved past the purpose of the teahouse, and I therefore leave this discussion behind now. Ininion (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article notability

Thank you for your help as this is my first article Draft:Hoi_Jeon_Moo_Sool

I am currently wondering about notability of this article. So far there are 8 sources 4 being primary and 4 secondary and extra sources would just be more of the same or in another language like these: http://www.martialplanet.com/Web-Portal/Asia-Oceania/Korea/martial_art_Korea_Hoi-Jeon-Moo-Sool.htm

http://www.alwasatnews.com/4103/news/read/833826/1.html

I practice this martial art and I personally know over a hundred people that do so in my gym alone, which makes it notable enough in my opinion but I don't know where to go from there

Thank you for your time Kanoog (talk) 09:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Just a comment on your final sentence, the number of practitioners is not determinant of notability. Notability is determined by the coverage that the subject has received in reliable sources.--ukexpat (talk) 13:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Kanoog, and welcome to the Teahouse. Martial arts are not an area I am well versed in, but some of your sources seem to be one-person sites, and the similarity in their descriptions seems to suggest that they are repeating a description from the organizers. Just how good is the reputation of the sources you have cited? Web sites maintained by a single person are often considered not to be reliable sources here. Within reason additional sources, particularly if they are clearly independent and have done their own assessment and evaluation of the content, would be good -- if they just repeat each other in almost the same words, that isn't much help. DES ^(talk) 15:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi! For the general notability criteria there needs to be "significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources":

• significant coverage - more than a passing mention or a directory entry. Preferably at least a couple of paragraphs.
• multiple - more than one (publications from one author/organization may only count as one)
• independent - not by the subject, their mum, best friend, PR agent, website, company etc. - also often excludes interviews
• reliable sources' - generally newspapers, mainstream magazines, books published by reputable publishing houses. We look for some kind of editorial control, so we would tend exclude self-published works, fanzines, crowd sourced web sites.

Other sources will still be useful for constructing the article, and for providing references.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC).