Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2012 July 3

Help desk
< July 2	<< Jun | July | Aug >>	July 4 >

Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

July 3

Article Declined - Request suggestions for improvement

I tried to create my first Article: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Gaylord_Discovery_Center. The Article was now declined twice, once for lack of Notability and once for appearing to be an advertisement. I used comparable Articles as examples of content and format, Impression 5 Science Center, Ann Arbor Hands-On Museum, and Flint Children's Museum. I feel the Article I created was more complete and supported while maintaining a Neutral view, than the examples. Clearly not, as the editors declined the article. I would love suggestions on how to better fit Neutrality and Notability. Thanks Mehkael (talk) 00:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

No, the other articles you pointed to are not better than your draft. But while other stuff exists, every article must stand on its own merits. Apparently quite a few of your references are primary sources such as the Center's own website. Others actually are reliable secondary sources, but most of those provide only trivial coverage, such as event announcements among the local news. For all I can tell, the issue of The Guide you linked to does not even mention the Discovery Center (if it does, please provide a page number). That's not the significant coverage required to establish notability. Regarding the neutrality, I found the repeated comparisons to other science centers a little irritating. I believe no secondary source actually makes those comparisons, yet the draft repeatedly highlights how the Discovery Center is better than its competitors. Huon (talk) 01:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I will make the corrections. There is more content like The Guide that is more readily available in print than online, are they valid even though they would be difficult to verify? Thanks for pointing out OSE, I just read it. Much appreciated Mehkael (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Print sources are entirely acceptable if you provide enough bibliographical information to allow the readers to identify the source: Ideally, we'd have the author, publication, publication date, issue, page numbers... You might want to have a look at the {{cite journal}} and {{cite news}} templates, but if those seem too tricky, just provide the information and let other editors put it in the preferred style. Huon (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Need help for the page..that i had submitted

Hi,

I had added a Article, but its was not accepted kindly help me with that.

this is what The reviewer said:

This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.

you can check the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/The_Entertainment_Hub

What do i need to do to improve and resubmit.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glammy editor (talk • contribs) 06:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You need reliable sources covering the company in significant detail. Right now, your sources don't do more than report that Entertainment Hub produced a certain show, and they focus on the show with sometimes not even an entire sentence about the company. Conversely, significant parts of the draft are not sourced at all. Huon (talk) 12:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Article on Incofin Investment Management refused

Could you please provide me information on why the article on Incofin Investment Management has been refused?

The information is all correct and independent sources have been added. Several other articles on Wikipedia refer to the company.

Thanks for your help.

Kaatbos (talk) 09:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I am guessing that your sources are listed under "See also" and your "References" are actually not your references/sources? To prove the notability of the company, the sources need to be independent, but also reliable (of a journalistic standard) and to be significantly about the subject. The GrameenFoundation link is to a press release, so doesn't count towards 'notability' of Incofin. The MicroFinance website source does not seem to be a reliable, journalistic news source. The Financial Times link is possibly good, but you don't explain what it links to. See Wikipedia:Citations#What_information_to_include, which may help you. Maybe some inline references would help too. Sionk (talk) 11:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Page: Colin Ratushniak

I'm not sure if this is the right page for my query which is this. My page was given a C grade at the time of being approved. Since then (just a day or two) someone else has downgraded it to a "Stub". Is this normal procedure? (This is the first page I've created).--Karendawes (talk) 13:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Technically, once a submission has been accepted, the general help desk may be a better place for questions; this one is only for articles still stuck in the creation process. Anyway, I don't think the article is short enough to be classified as a stub; I've removed that template. If you disagree with others' edits, you can revert them, but unless it's obvious vandalism please leave an edit summary with the reason for your reversal, or explain your reasoning on the article's talk page. (Of course, such a disagreement also shouldn't degenerate into an edit war.) Huon (talk) 13:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. And sorry I came to the wrong place. Hopefully what I've done is OK. --Karendawes (talk) 14:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Matthew 25: Ministries

I am a little concerned that each person who reviews our submission seems to find different challenges with the article. We have worked very hard to respond to each reviewer's suggestions in order to produce a page that is complete, well-referenced and informative.

The most recent reviewer made one comment that is completely new to the comment thread and I am not certain where it comes from. The reviewer indicated that the page "appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia." What does this mean? There is no solicitation, no ask, no advertisement. The organization is fortunate to have received high rankings from several evaluating companies and to have, as documented in audited financial statements and IRS Form 990s, praiseworthy statistics. Stating them is not an advertisement, it is documented fact.

The reviewer goes on to state that the page should "refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed." Again, I am confused. Among the external references used to document statements in the article are the following:

   ^ Houck, Jeanne. "Matthew 25: Ministries gives aid to Missouri and Alabama – and receives top award". Cincinnati.com. Retrieved 26 June 2012.
   ^ Lyghtel Rohrer, Barbara. "Save the World and Pay the Light Bill". Cincy Magazine. Retrieved 26 June 2012.
   ^ Matthews, Kimmo. "Spanish Town schools get educational supplies from charity groups". Jamaica Observer. Retrieved 26 June 2012.
   ^ May, Lucy. "Matthew 25: Ministries Takes Firms' Unwanted Goods". Business Courier. Retrieved 26 June 2012.
   ^ a b Hemmer, Andy. "Matthew 25: Ministries Celebrates 20 Years". Cincinnati.com. Retrieved 26 June 2012.
   ^ Reeves, Chip. "Waste Not Want Not". UC Magazine. Retrieved 26 June 2012.
   ^ Archer, Joodi. "Donate Your Excess Paint to Matthew 25: Ministries". Cincinnati.com. Retrieved 26 June 2012.
   ^ a b "Forbes Magazine". Forbes.com. Retrieved 19 June 2012.
   ^ a b c "Charity Navigator". Charity Navigator.
   ^ a b "Better Business Bureau". Better Business Bureau. Retrieved 19 June 2012.
   ^ Datta-Ray, Sunanda K.. "The World Needs a Strengthened Disaster Agency". The New York Times. Retrieved 26 June 2012.
   ^ Marshall, Adam. "Locals Helping Those Hit By Storms". WCPO.com. Retrieved 26 June 2012.
   ^ Wood, Emily. "Local Volunteers Provide Disaster Relief to Victims in Japan". Fox 19. Retrieved 26 June 2012.
   ^ Peagler, Annette. "Matthew 25: Ministries Travels to Haiti to Help Survivors". WCPO.com. Retrieved 26 June 2012.
   ^ Wegener, Scott. "Matthew 25: Ministries Keeps Up With Disaster Demands". WCPO.com. Retrieved 26 June 2012. 

Certainly, there are links to Matthew 25's organizational web page (as there are for other similar organizations as well) in order to ensure that readers who click through will see the most current information about that topic. However, there are a significant number of outside resources that document, over time, the validity of statements made in the article.

As an organization that meets the highest standards of performance and financial responsibility, as documented by Forbes and Charity Navigator among others, Matthew 25: Ministries would seem to most definitely fall into the category "notable."

In reviewing other similar organizations with articles active on Wikipedia such as Food for the Poor, Society of Saint Vincent de Paul, Compassion International and Direct Relief International among others, the volume of documentation and outside references attached to the articles does not seem to be any more detailed and extensive than what this article offers.

I look forward to your response and to seeing our article activated in the near future.

Joodia (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The article indeed has an impressive range of secondary sources that clearly establish the topic's notability. Unfortunately large parts of the article are not supported by those sources, but only by the charity's own website, for example the entire Mission and Programs sections, and much of the History . But Wikipedia content should always be based on secondary sources. If parts of the article cannot be supported by secondary sources, they should be shortened or removed. Furthermore, content should be brought in line with what the secondary sources say: The very first reference, cited to support the statement that M25M ships over 12 million pounds of goods per year, only mentions "more than 10 million pounds of donated goods".

Regarding the "advertisement": That may not be the best description, but the article is rather non-encyclopedic in tone and uses language designed to promote M25M and its goals. One of the most obvious examples might be the call for volunteers: "Matthew 25 welcomes volunteers 6 days a week at their Blue Ash facility." Even if that language were used by a secondary source (and I don't think it is), it's hardly appropriate. The recounting of the founder's motivating experiences also struck me as anything but encyclopedic (I also doubt it's factually accurate - spending 10% of the US defense budget on foreign aid for Nicaragua would probably resolve the supposedly "endless" poverty). In summary, we aim for a dry tone, with unembellished facts as supported by secondary sources. Huon (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Tiny redirects

Hello, I'm scratching a bit my head about the answers to my suggestions for redirections:

• VanZandt and Vanzandt --> Van Zandt were accepted, but only the second one created (despite Lonnie Lee VanZandt), why?

• VanZant and Vanzant --> Van Zant were both declined (despite Iyanla Vanzant and Vanzant, Missouri) as "Duplicate request", what does that even mean?

I don't get the logic? 62.147.26.231 (talk) 20:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe the reviewer made a mistake; he probably mistook the Van Zant redirects for a duplicate of the Van Zandt redirects. I have created redirects for those names for which we actually have articles. Since we don't have a VanZant and the search bar isn't case sensitive anyway, I don't think we need a redirect from VanZant. Huon (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Aah, makes sense. As for the VanZant redirect, as I see it: there's plenty of people spelled like that, and some of them will eventually be documented on Wikipedia (like pro fighter Paige VanZant or someone), so why not be proactive and have the tiny redirect already to the right page? Your call... Anyway, thank you for sorting it out, cheers. 62.147.26.231 (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Since it's rather difficult to arrive at VanZant right now (the search box will take you to Vanzant anyway), I don't think we need a differently capitalized redirect. That redundancy might also have been a reason why the original reviewer didn't create VanZandt. Huon (talk) 22:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MaVi Systems

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN,

Thank you for your response. The article was created by the information on our website, I am in charge of Business Development here at MaVi Systems in Schaumburg. You can reach me at [telephone number and email address redacted] MaVi approves the use of the information provided on their website to create this Wikipedia Article.

Thank you for your time. Please let me know if you require any additional information in order to approve the article.

Best Regards,

George

20:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)20:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)20:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)20:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)20:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)20:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)20:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.86.100.62 (talk)

Unfortunately this is not enough. Most importantly, the information must be released under a license compatible with the CC BY-SA 3.0 license; releasing it just for use on Wikipedia itself is insufficient because Wikipedia itself uses that license, which allows redistribution for any purpose as long as it's attributed. Secondly, there is a process for confirming such licensing information; please have a look at WP:Requesting copyright permission, especially the section "When permission is confirmed", and follow those instructions.

But I had to note that the draft suffered a range of other problems. It didn't cite any reliable secondary sources, but such sources are necessary to establish a company's notability (see also WP:CORP). It was overtly promotional and read like an advertisement. For those reasons alone, the draft would have to be significantly rewritten - so much so that it's probably easier to start from scratch and not bother with the copyrighted text at all. You might also want to read our guideline on conflicts of interest - writing about your own company is discouraged. Huon (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/TMF

The family involved is a very powerful and wealthy league of extraordinary gentlemen who have a very relevant existence in Texas. They have alot of influence in the Entertainment Business especially in Houston, TX. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tandeka (talk • contribs) 21:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Then it should be easy to find reliable sources that cover this family in significant detail. Right now I cannot tell whether it really exists or whether it's a hoax. Huon (talk) 22:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)