User talk:Wiae/Archive 11

I am having trouble understanding why my page on the Kinder Institute for Urban Research was rejected. The feedback from the editor questions the independence and objectivity of the sources, but I exclusively used major media outlets. Are these not considered objective? Should I be using different types of sources? Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanholeywell (talk • contribs) 19:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ryanholeywell: Hello! After DGG's comment explaining that such institutes are generally not notable, there were two newly added references (1, 2). While you are certainly right that newspapers are generally great sources for articles, neither of those two references actually discusses the Kinder Institute. They may be valuable as general references to cite claims, but they don't demonstrate notability. My opinion is that the Institute is probably not notable "enough" for its own article, and that it should instead be discussed within Wikipedia's existing article on Rice University. However, I see that you have resubmitted the draft, so another reviewer will give you their thoughts on the matter in due time! Thanks, /wiae /tlk 19:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Wiae: both of those articles discus a program of the Kinder Institute for Urban Research.

@Wiae: I also notice that many, many think tanks have Wikipedia pages. Is there a reason so many others are allowed to have pages, but this one in particular is not?

@Wiae: For example: Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research, National Institute of Urban Affairs, Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies, Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies, Centre for Eastern Studies, Razumkov Centre. Most of these have no outside citations, beyond their own websites, whereas the Kinder Institute's page has nearly two dozen, all of which are from objective media outlets. I don't understand why, despite their lack of notability citation, they are considered more notable. Please advise.

@Wiae: Additionally, many university think tanks are NOT forced to be housed within their university wikipedia page: Roosevelt House Public Policy Institute at Hunter College, James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy, Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program, Institute for Interdisciplinary Research on Conflict and Violence. It seems like this particular page is being treated arbitrarily, since many, many obscure think tanks (including plenty that are more obscure than this one) are allowed to be listed, regardless of whether they are within universities.

@Ryanholeywell: I think my issue with those references was more so the apparently tenuous connection between the discussion therein and Kinder itself. (For example, this source only says that HERC is "housed within the Kinder Institute for Urban Research", and I think there was another source that also repeated that "housed" language. What does it mean for something to be "housed"? Is Kinder running the program? Are they providing the square footage for offices?)

As for your question about other think tanks, those articles are (if I may be frank) in a rather sorry state. Four of the six are tagged with a requirement for additional sources, and the other two probably should be tagged as needing such. That's a problem resulting from the disproportionality between the 5 million articles on the English-language Wikipedia and the relative paucity of editors doing cleanup. In general, to demonstrate notability, a think tank must meet the organizational notability criteria. Each article should stand or fall as compared to that metric. It is entirely possible that some of those think tanks do not meet the notability threshold, or perhaps they do but the probative sourcing hasn't been included yet.

My impression is that the draft is borderline. Another reviewer may agree with me, or they may find that it passes the WP:ORG threshold and accept it. If there is more national coverage of the Institute, I think that would only help. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 20:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Wiae: I understand what you're saying, but it seems like it's all just capricious and arbitrary. A bad article can exist, but a more objective better one can't, for .... unclear reasons. This also makes it very difficult to find examples to follow.

Regardless, is the threshold for notability international, national, regional, or local? I ask because I think I've demonstrated local/regional notability in this post, but probably not national. Yet there are plenty of pages for things that aren't nationally notable. For example, the Mayor of Clearwater, Florida has a page George Cretekos, as does this Texas convenience store (Buc-ee's) and this out-of-business Arena Football team (Houston Thunderbears). I don't think anyone could argue these things have national notability. Certainly, their citations don't make that case either. So must the page demonstrate national notability, or is local notability fine, as it is for so many other entries? Thanks for clarification.Ryanholeywell (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ryanholeywell: That is a good question. The short answer is that for organizations and corporations, at least one regional source is needed. (The policy shortcut for that is WP:AUD.) More Texas-wide or national sources discussing Kinder's work would help. The regional sources currently cited are a bit sparse on content specifically about Kinder Institute. (Next City and Texas Monthly have some discussion, but the Politico source only has a short paragraph about HERC/Rice's involvement.)

Different subjects have different notability requirements. Articles about politicians have a similar rule (WP:NPOL: local politicians are not automatically notable). Not all subjects need national coverage, but it definitely helps.

I don't want to talk your ear off here, so my suggestion is to see if there's more coverage from a broader perspective (regional or national). If you can find some such sources, drop me a line here and I'll take another look at the draft. As for your concerns about Wikipedia's capriciousness, I don't disagree. It is a very confusing place. The best articles to use as a guide would be featured articles about companies or organizations like London Necropolis Company or Cracker Barrel, for example. You don't need to replicate their length, but maybe their sourcing will help show how a solidly written article should be referenced. /wiae /tlk 20:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

G'day from Oz; I really don't know what to make of this, but there is some strange stuff associated with the IP user/s active at Draft:Air New Zealand Flight 24 and Draft:Air New Zealand Boeing 747 hijack. The IP responsible for this edit has also "awarded" a bunch of Barnstars to User:Gavinfu2016, three of which are clearly copied from my own User page, and some of which are purportedly from User:Inarafu2016, who claims to be Gavinfu's sister. Gavinfu has also copied the "user busy in real life" banner from your own Talk page (diff). Gavinfu, Inarafu and the IPs are all editing across each other on various draft articles of very poor quality. It might be worth opening a Sockpuppet investigation; what are your thoughts and suggestions? YSSYguy (talk) 03:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@YSSYguy: That is... odd. My decline of Draft:Air New Zealand Flight 24 was admittedly shoddy; if I had gone to the second page of Google results, I would have quickly discovered it wasn't a hoax. Embarrassing. (I think I might have mixed it up with Draft:Cathay Pacific Flight 418, which looks like it might not be a real thing.) Having said that, I'm not quite sure what these users are up to. (Although I am sort of flattered that someone found my corny recursive "real life" joke funny enough to use.) The geolocation of the two IP addresses active on Draft:Air New Zealand Flight 24 is certainly consistent with Gavinfu2016 and Inarafu2016. (There's also A single box.) I don't venture over to WP:SPI much but I'd say keep an eye on things and if there are any disruptive edits from those accounts, file an SPI. I'll watch out for disruption too. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 04:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The Cathay draft is definitely a hoax; I G3 Speedied it but one of the IPs in question removed the tag. See what I posted on the draft's Talk page a few days ago. YSSYguy (talk) 08:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@YSSYguy: Looks like User:117.34.185.24, who geolocates to Xi'an, China, has been submitting a lot of content forks of existing articles at AfC. See Draft:History of Air Canada, Draft:History of Fiji Airways, Draft:History of Air Greenland, Draft:History of Air India and Draft:History of Air China for example. If these drafts continue to be resubmitted disruptively, I think an SPI might not be a bad idea. However, I believe CheckUsers don't publicly connect named accounts with IP addresses. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 14:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Draft:History of Timor Air too. /wiae /tlk 14:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

And weirdly enough, when the IP editor created the page, they put a fake comment attributed to you here. This might be worth raising at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation or Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines so those communities know what's up. /wiae /tlk 15:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• MarcyCourt71 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:OdinText Inc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi. Thank you for reviewing my submission and for your feedback. Per the editors' suggestions, I have revised the language and content and I have cited references pertinent to the sections to which I've added them from reputable independent sources in the media, including:

- An article on the Huffington Post website explain how the OdinText software was used to analyze the texts of the Koran and Old and New Testaments. (This was included as an example of how the software has been applied to analyze large quantities of unstructured data.)

- An article from AdAge about how a major corporation used the OdinText platform through Anderson Analytics (the company that developed OdinText – noted under the history section) to analyze its franchisee customer satisfaction data. (This was included as media coverage of a use case by a major corporation that has applied the software.)

- An article from Forbes.com featuring OdinText CEO Tom Anderson and chief technology officer Chris Lehew that discusses how clients are using the software in ways that dispel widespread assumptions about the limitations of "Big Data". (This media coverage speaks to ways major companies are using OdinText to conduct advanced text analyses in a variety of marketing-related disciplines.)

I have also removed sections listing awards from industry trade associations and clients, respectively, because I feared they might be construed as promotional. What do you think?

I would deeply appreciate it if you would please re-review my submission and provide any feedback for further revisions or improvements to the article. Please let me know if you have questions or require further information or clarification.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration! This is my first Wikipedia submission and I'm excited about it!

MarcyCourt71 (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)MarcyCourt74

@MarcyCourt71: Hello, and thanks for stopping by! I took a quick look at the sources. I don't review articles twice in a row so as to ensure that the review process isn't biased (it's best to let other reviewers take a look to give their thoughts as well), but I'll give you my quick impressions here:

The general rule about including an article about a corporation in Wikipedia is that the references have to meet the following three criteria:

• They have to be from reliable sources: sources with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking. Blogs generally aren't considered to be reliable sources;
• they must be independent of the subject; and
• they must offer significant, in-depth coverage of the subject. There's no hard and fast rule about how much content is substantive enough, but usually if a reference doesn't have at least a solid paragraph specifically about the subject, then it's not detailed enough.

Now I'll run through the references provided:

• Patents are generally considered primary sources that lack independence from the subject. Keep in mind that anyone can file a patent for an invention and that the the claims in a patent specification may not always line up with how the technology works in reality. As such the patent isn't a good reference to rely on.
• The Huffington Post article is a bit tricky, as the Huffington Post is sometimes considered a blog. Either way it is rather light on content about OdinText. The article is mostly about the Quran and the Bible and only name-drops OdinText once or twice. Now, to be clear, you could use this reference as a general one to support the claims you're making in the draft. But it doesn't help show that the corporation is notable. The Huffington Post piece doesn't show that the company passes that initial threshold.
• I think there's a similar problem with the AdAge source—it's not really about OdinText, and even if Anderson did use OdinText to do the analysis, the article doesn't actually say that. In my opinion this is a weak source because it does not offer much substantive coverage of OdinText specifically.
• The Forbes source is sort of in the same boat: Forbes Contributor articles are essentially blog posts (you'll note that the page reads "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own") that don't offer much in the way of reliability. Also, the Forbes piece is more about Anderson's opinions than it is about OdinText specifically.

My advice would be to do a search for coverage that is specifically about OdinText. For instance, if the New York Times ran a profile of OdinText, that would be a perfect source. Reputable magazines, journals, books or newspapers are in general a good place to start your search. You can use this tool to search for sources: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL.

Some awards are fine but only keep the important ones. Winning a minor award from a local or regional organization is probably not important in the grand scheme of things. You could mention the American Marketing Association award.

So, in a nutshell: the first threshold the draft must meet is the "notability" threshold per WP:CORP, and that requires showing the existence of multiple reliable, independent sources that discuss the subject in significant detail. So far I don't think the sources meet that threshold. If you can find better sources (sources that are specifically about OdinText, that aren't affiliated with the company, and that are from sources with editorial oversight), add those. Thanks, and let me know if you have any further questions. /wiae /tlk 15:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Jljohn27 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:On Target Living (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What type of source is "On Target Living" missing that the article, "Wellness Corporate Solutions" has? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jljohn (talk • contribs) 22:00:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jljohn27: Hi, thanks for stopping by. That's a good question. Wellness Corporate Solutions is not in great shape right now. As you can see, it's been tagged as needing more sources. If those sources can't be found, the article may be nominated for deletion in the future. That's why it can be risky to write a draft by using another article as a template; not all the articles on Wikipedia are very well-written or -sourced. Instead, it's best to rely on the corporate inclusion criteria to guide the way. They require multiple references from reliable, independent sources that discuss the subject in significant detail. Reliable sources are ones with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking (in general, no blogs, forums or social media sites). At least one of the sources should be from a regional or national source, to show that the company has seen some coverage outside of its own locality. You might try using this search tool to look for more high-quality sources: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 14:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• Anikwue (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Vinvae (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

please i need help in creating the page Draft:Vinvae. i have been trying but it keeps getting declined.

Anikwue (talk) 08:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Hi Anikwue. I tried to find sources on Miss Vincentia Ifeyinwa, but there are very few and maybe none that are reliable. It is most probably too soon to try and create an article on a young singer who only had her first single out this February. Can we help you get started editing in other areas of the 'pedia? If you have any questions, you are also welcome to ask on my talk page. Happy editing. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC) _{Please leave me a {{talkback}} if you reply}

@Anikwue: I agree with Sam Sailor. It looks like it's just too soon for an article on Vinvae. However, if there is another area of Wikipedia you might be interested in helping out in, we'd be happy to get you set up. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 13:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anikwue (talk • contribs) 15:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Anikwue: I see that you have resubmitted the draft. I would suggest not resubmitting the draft at this time, as Vinvae is not ready for her own article on Wikipedia. /wiae /tlk 16:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• 39.38.61.35 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Kelash Kumar Nagani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, IP editor! Do you have a specific question about the draft? It does not contain any references to reliable sources discussing the subject, and it does not demonstrate that the subject meets the biographical inclusion criteria. I'm afraid that there are many doctors in the world, and while they do very important work, not all of them are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Thanks, and let me know if you have any further questions. /wiae /tlk 23:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• Dorothy Potter Snyder (talk · contribs)
  • User:Dorothy Potter Snyder/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there. I see that my article on well-known Mexican author Mónica Lavín was rejected. This is the first time I've tried to submit an article, and clearly I don't understand that process or this article would not have been rejected. The reason given was that the article was blank, but it really was not. Can you help me out? This is an important author and she deserves a page on Wikipedia in English. She already exists in Wikipedia in Spanish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorothy Potter Snyder (talk • contribs) 02:13:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@Dorothy Potter Snyder: Hi, thanks for stopping by! When I reviewed the draft, this is what it looked like. If you go to the draft and click on the "View history" button, you'll see that you added some content after I'd reviewed the draft. So in short, nobody has taken a look at the new text you've added. If you'd like the text to be looked at again by a reviewer, just click the Blue "resubmit" button and a reviewer will be along to take a look.

At first glance it seems like this author is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. However, I noticed there are no references to support the claims made in the draft. You can add the same sources used in the Spanish-language Wikipedia article if you'd like. Just make sure to add in-line citations so that readers know what source the important claims in the draft are coming from. Thanks, and let me know if you have any further questions. /wiae /tlk 02:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@Wiae Many thanks. I am new in this space, so inexperienced. I've added some citations and links, as well as a photo of the author. I have resubmitted, and I thank you for your attention and patience. Dorothy Potter Snyder (talk) 03:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

hey, i am fairly new to wikipedia, and i submitted all the information of glen ellyn bible church from it's own website which is http://gebible.org/ do i need any other references as well? please kindly help me. is this church part of any other organization that it got declined? thank you khanm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khanm169 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@Khanm169: Hi, thanks for stopping by. The draft Draft:Glen Ellyn Bible Church was declined because it does not show whether the church meets the organizational inclusion criteria. Not all churches are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Generally, only those churches that have been discussed in significant detail by a variety of reliable sources (sources with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking like newspapers, books from reputable publishers, and the like) that are independent of the church are suitable to be included in the encyclopedia. I took a quick look online for referencing and did not find any such sources. So at this point it is unlikely that the church would be ready for its own Wikipedia article. You might try working on the church's Facebook page or setting up a church blog instead. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 15:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• Virtumanity (talk · contribs)
  • User:Virtumanity/sandbox/Spacetime Manifold (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The review comments are excellent. We will follow the suggestion to upgrade the page of Spacetime Topology.

Virtumanity (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wiae. I thought something like {{Afc redirect error}} could come in handy. Have a look, modify as needed, use it if you want to. Best regards, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 04:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Sam Sailor: That's very helpful! I've just added it to my Twinkle prefs. Thanks! /wiae /tlk 15:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wiae!

I saw your comments about the Runnr draft and I need help from you to resolve these issues. As its a page for the company I work for I have time restraints around getting it published. Please help me getting this live as I'm still new to wiki and will take some more time to familiarise myself with how it works!

Appreciate all the help! Thanks a ton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Safsinc (talk • contribs) 05:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Safsinc: Thanks for stopping by! The draft Draft:Runnr needs some reference cleanup so that the references aren't all dumped at the end of the draft. I see you have already used one inline citation after the text "February 2016"; you should be able to see a little [1] in a superscript that Wikipedia will produce automagically if you use <ref></ref> tags. To learn more about referencing, check out WP:REFB or watch the video on that page.

Another issue with the draft is that it is written somewhat promotionally. Things like " Simplicity is at the heart of the company and it prizes itself as a purely technology driven company that believes in a reliable and efficient delivery system" or "Runnr helps other businesses grow by providing on-demand delivery facilities in minutes" might be at home in a PR piece, but they do not belong in Wikipedia, as they violate the neutral point of view policy. A good rule of thumb is to avoid any subjective value judgments about the company, flowery language describing the company and its business, or peacock terms. Focus instead on discussing what the company has done, as described in the reliable sources.

This leads to my next point. Companies must meet the corporate inclusion criteria in order to have a Wikipedia article. To meet those criteria, they must have seen substantial media coverage from reliable sources that are unaffiliated with the company. That coverage should be substantive and in-depth. Some of the references in the draft are a good start (like the Times of India ones, for example), but some of the other sources (like Huntnews) I'm not so sure about. I think it might be best to just get rid of the Huntnews references and cite better coverage from newspapers and other sources with editorial oversight.

My last point concerns your involvement with the company. This means you have a conflict of interest. That's not a per se bad thing, but it means you will probably find it very difficult to write neutrally and objectively about the company. (We all have trouble being neutral about things we're closely affiliated with, after all.) As a result, there are some Wikipedia policies you should be aware of, as they will affect how you can contribute to the Wikipedia article should it be accepted. To read about these, please read this short Wikipedia page about conflicts of interest. Also, if you are receiving or expect to receive payment for your work on the draft, you must disclose "your employer, client, and affiliation per Wikipedia's terms of use. I know it all sounds a little confusing, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a repository for PR firms and companies to promote themselves, so Wikipedia takes this sort of thing rather seriously.

That's my two cents on the draft. You may also wish to inquire at the Teahouse if you have further questions about editing Wikipedia; they're very friendly and helpful there. Best, /wiae /tlk 15:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for moving my article. I was very confused about the namespace/draftspace thing.Evaki1972 (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Evaki1972: No problem. I find that the mainspace/userspace/draftspace distinctions are somewhat unintuitive. In general, if you're writing an article but you're not sure if it's notable or if you think it may have some other defects, it's worth writing it in the userspace or the draft space and submitting it for review at Articles for Creation. (If you write it in the userspace and then submit it, a reviewer will just move it to the draft space for you, as I have.) Hope that's helpful. Let me know if you have any other questions and I'll try my best to help. /wiae /tlk 16:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello - I submitted a page on artist, Gianni Piacentino, but it was declined due to copyright issues. I'm very new to Wikipedia so I'm still learning what the rules, my apologies. I now understand the copyright issue as much of my text was pulled from a press release. It happens to be a press release that I wrote, does this change the copyright issues that my page had? Or do I need to cite every instance I pulled text from the press release (even if I was the author)? Hribbens (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@Hribbens: Hi, thanks for dropping by! If you're the copyright-holder of the text in the press release, you can donate the copyrighted material to Wikipedia for use. However, taking a look at the source, I noticed that some of the text is written in a typical press release style; that is to say it's not written from the neutral point of view that Wikipedia requires its content to adopt. That's one reason why press releases don't make great references on Wikipedia. (For example, "these boundless objects are distillations of Piacentino’s lifelong disruption of the status quo" is too flowery for Wikipedia.) My advice in these sorts of situations is just to rephrase the content in your own words, essentially summarizing what the source says in a neutral, objective fashion. And of course, make sure to cite whatever sources the information is coming from, preferably using inline citations so it's very easy for a reader to find the source used to substantiate a particular claim.

I hope this helps. Let me know if you have any further questions about Draft:Gianni Piacentino or about Wikipedia in general. I've chopped out the parts that were copyrighted already. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 00:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello Wiae - thank you so much for your help, I've added citations to anything else I thought would be helpful. Is the page, Gianni Piacentino up to Wikipedia standards and ready to be published? Please let me know if I've missed anything! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hribbens (talk • contribs) 22:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hribbens (talk) 22:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Hribbens: The copyright issue seems to be resolved. You can try resubmitting the draft for another reviewer to take a look. However, first I might suggest adding some more inline citations after substantive claims about the subject. For example, when the draft says "The transformation of Piacentino’s minimal sculptures into works such as "MARBLED (PURPLE-BROWN) VEHICLE" (1969-1970) coincided with a deepening interest in motorcycles and flight that continues to this day", how do we know this? According to whom did his interest deepen? This is why a source should be cited. I'd also suggest tightening up the language a bit so it's more objective and meets the neutral point of view requirement. Another example of something to fix is the use of "we" in the draft (like "we see this attention to detail"—who is "we"?) Thanks, /wiae /tlk 22:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• 178.107.195.47 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Kalas Sher Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear sir I made a page of my village "kalas sher khan" just for the information of everyone but it was declined by the error of referencing. It contain some basic informtions collected by myself and some other fellows. I take full responsibility that these are correct at the time of publising. I will try to get some references as well but it is too difficult to hve such data of small villge. Hope you undersrand

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.107.195.47 (talk • contribs) 17:29:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree, it can sometimes be difficult to find references about subjects that are on the smaller side, like the village you're writing about. If the government has any documents that mention the village, those would be a good place to start looking for references. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 23:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear WIKI Reviewer

1. I have submitted a draft WIKI entry about musician Niall MacMahon. Here is a link Draft:Niall MacMahon 2. The last WIKI reviewer advised that the submission was not adequately supported by reliable sources. 3. However, Niall MacMahon has already been the subject of three published works in UK and Irish national music journals, namely NME & Folk Roots and Hot Press. Each published work was professionally written independent editorial critiquing his music. Fully documented references to these published works can be provided. In addition, each of the journals has its own WIKI entry should WIKI reviewers want to find out more about any one the publications. 4. Before I do any further work on the draft entry could a WIKI reviewer confirm, on the basis of the information set out in paragraph 3 above, that Niall MacMahon meets notability criteria, please?

Many thanks

Joe Neanor 01:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeneanor (talk • contribs)

@Joeneanor: I've done a little bit of formatting on Draft:Niall MacMahon for you. I've also done the first reference correctly (Hot Press, vol 2, no 15, Jan15 1980, page 21). You can use it as a model to fix the rest of the references in the draft. You have it almost right; you just need to move the <ref>text here</ref> parts up to where you want the footnotes to appear in the body of the text.

As for notability, I don't have access to most of the references (since they're presumably in print only) but if those articles contain substantial coverage of MacMahon, he may meet the musician notability requirements. Of course, this is only my own impression of the matter. I think the issue with the "reliable sources" decline is that many of the sources seem to be affiliated with MacMahon. For instance, Mosa Records put out two of his albums, so it's not an independent source. Similarly, Discogs is, I believe, a user-generated site, so it's not terribly reliable for encyclopedic writing. I'm familiar with NME and that should be a fine source. As for the other sources, the more information about them you can provide, the better. ARticle titles and author names are helpful.

Once you've cleaned up the formatting and worked on the references, you could try resubmitting the draft for another review. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 03:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• 49.144.157.60 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Tristan M. Melliza - ALTRAX (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

He's a notable man, why do we have someone to be notable when He's already dead? we don't want to be that way, He is a hero in the making. He's an inspiration for most middle life financial crisis self supporting student, He "survived" the holocaust and dehumanization problems of middle life college schooling here in the Philippines. Not to mention His high IQ and an ample "uninvestigated" works. If you need just the "references" well unfortunately I only have a few of them, because He's a very secretive guy. Most of His documents about what he has done were "printed in hard copies", some of it lost.

What do you recommend?

My advice is to find references that would meet the criteria set out in the biographical inclusion criteria. Any 23-year-old knight, seafarer, architect, accountant, inventor and composer should be attracting a lot of media coverage. /wiae /tlk 02:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia for a notable (people) person:

"worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2] – that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. So He is quite PASSED this. except the secondary element: "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary. -> "worthy of notice, remarkable, significant and an unusual "life story".

He belongs to a (not that) secret society of (modern) knights. He didn't want to be attracted by those media man, He preferred to go on with His career life unnoticed, and if there's so, in hard copies (printed) not on multimedia.

In order to be notable, the claims that would make him remarkable must themselves be verifiable. That means that they have to be supported by reliable published sources so people can find those sources in order to confirm the claims being made. If you scroll down the WP:BIO page a bit, you'll come to a part entitled "Basic criteria" which essentially says exactly that. That section also explains how Wikipedia assesses the notability of people: based on the existence of significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If there aren't any references out there confirming the claims in the draft, then that bars the draft from being accepted.

Have you considered writing about the subject on a blog or social media site? Some of those platforms don't have the same stringent referencing requirements that Wikipedia does, and so they might be a better forum. Something to consider. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 03:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Jayakumartvm (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Cearsleg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please let me know what all are the reference documents should I submit for approving this page Draft:Cearsleg Regards Jayakumar K

@Jayakumartvm: Please see WP:CORP and WP:RS for a description of the types of references that are required. /wiae /tlk 11:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!!

I am new here and having problem in making tables and adding links to the pages I am writing content from. Rest everything looks fine. Still I like what I had made so far. Hopefully will do better in future and will keep improving this one. This article I am writing was a sample. I like to add some more articles about Himachal and my local places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueparticle (talk • contribs) 16:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Andyht (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Independent Automotive Aftermarket Federation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

You have disallowed a page we created for not for profit organisation IAAF, however I have come across this page for a private company which has very few external sources and is blatantly using you for SEO purposes – seems a little unfair!

Andyht (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Andyht: You will have to put a link to the Wikipedia page of this private company here, as I do not know which company you are referring to. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 16:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• 73.225.121.14 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:The Andrew White School of Music (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

How do I go about getting more references for this school when there are limited references available? Aside from the Yelp page, and local small businesses that have reviewed the school, the website is the main portal to information and is a very reliable source along with its Yelp page.

How can I get this school to meet the requirements of Wikipedia's citations? Your help would be hugely appreciated!

Thanks.

Hello, IP editor! If there are not many references about the school (which my quick search for references seems to confirm), then it is probably too soon for an article about the music school. On Wikipedia, a "reliable source" means a source with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking. Typically this includes newspapers, journals, books from reputable publishers and the like, but not blogs, web fora or reviews from social media sites or Yelp. That's one thing a good source must be—reliable. Another quality of a good source is that it should be independent of the subject it is discussing. The music school's own website is obviously affiliated with the school, so its usefulness as a reference will be necessarily limited.

My opinion is that the school is not "notable"; that is, not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, at this time. In that case, no amount of editing will make the article meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but that is the standard that Wikipedia has chosen when it comes to including articles about organizations in the encyclopedia. You can read all about it by clicking on that last link. Thanks, and let me know if you have any further questions. /wiae /tlk 04:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

• Phoenix society (talk · contribs)
  • User:Phoenix society/sandbox/The Phoenix Society (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I totally understand your reasoning for not approving the article that we wrote. The thing is, there is no information out on the web regarding the Phoenix Society – and that's why we're writing this wikipedia article. I'm one of the members and we hoped that this could serve as a sort-of stub article that lets people know we exist without spilling too much information about the Society itself or who the members are. And foremost, we want to clearly express it's unaffiliated to Hult International Business School – so if students google us they know that while we recruit from the school we are not bound to or subject to the school in any way.

Would be great if you could help us with this, I know it's not exactly a normal request but I do hope you see where we are coming from.

Many thanks,

PH The Phoenix Society

@Atlor: Thanks for stopping by! You should know that you are not restricted to online sources; offline references are also permissible. (However, they must still be from reliable sources that are independent of the Society and that offer significant, in-depth coverage of the Society.) If there simply isn't much of this kind of coverage out there, then the Society isn't ready for its own Wikipedia article. That is the inclusion rule that Wikipedia has come up with for organizations: ones that have seen a good deal of media coverage from reputable sources are generally suitable for inclusion, but organizations that haven't really been covered in the media don't make the cut. I understand that it may be difficult to find good-quality independent referencing about a secret society, but that's just the way the cookie crumbles. However, if you can't find high-quality sources online or offline, you could always consider starting a blog, social media account, or website for the Society. That would be a way to "get the word out", so to speak, without having to worry about whether the Society meets Wikipedia's organizational inclusion criteria. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 17:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, I noticed you resubmitted the draft two more times. The draft won't be approved without those reliable sources. I apologize if I didn't make that clear in my review of the draft. Thanks, and let me know if you have further questions. /wiae /tlk 17:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wiae, how can I start creating a new page on Wikipedia? I don't know where or how to start. Please help me. Thanks! Simple2010 (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Simple2010: Hi! The easiest way to start a new article would be to make a draft with the Article Wizard. When you're happy with it, you can submit it for review and an experienced editor will have a look at it and give you feedback. You might also want to take a look at this guide to writing your first article; you can refer to it while you are writing your draft in the Article Wizard. Thanks! /wiae /tlk 01:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Khalaf Smoqi (talk · contribs)
  • Yazda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Yazda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hey Wiae, Thanks for reviewing my article earlier that was declined (Draft:Yazda). The reason I'm writing this message is to request, if possible, a Re-review for the article because I believe I did the necessary changes that you requested, and I believe it is ready to be published. Thank you in advance

@Khalaf Smoqi: Hi, thanks for stopping by. Sorry for the late reply. I see that LaMona has reviewed the draft in the interim. I agree with her comments on the draft. You should use in-line citations so that the footnotes for references appear directly after the statements in the draft they are supporting. I also looked through a few of the references and noticed that some of them were not actually about Yazda specifically. Coverage that only name-checks Yazda once or twice is not particularly useful for showing that the organization belongs in Wikipedia. Media sources that focus on Yazda specifically are best. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 01:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello Wiae -

Thank you very much for reviewing the Preparis article. I would like to request that the Products & Services page be included back into the article. It explains facts in more detail about the company that are readily available from many 3rd party news sources. Also, in looking at other technology company articles, Oracle Corporation in particular, Products & Services are prominently mentioned as important supporting information. Anyway, I am grateful for your consideration in revisiting this for the Preparis article.

Thank you.

Respectfully, Armistead Whitney — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yetitree3340 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Yetitree3340: Thanks for stopping by. The short answer is that, since Wikipedia is meant to be written from a neutral point of view and should not act as a promotional vehicle for subjects, the text should not be included in the page. The list of products and services was full of corporate buzzwords that are out of place on Wikipedia. (For example, what exactly are "business continuity planning" or "penetration tests"?) If someone wants to learn what the company thinks its own products do, they can click on the link to the company's official website.

Also, it appears that you may have a conflict of interest due to affiliation with the company. If so, please take a look at WP:COISIMPLE to learn how this will affect your editing on Wikipedia in relation to Preparis. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 14:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no need to change login to "log in".

• http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/login
• http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/login

I have reverted the change again. If you do it again, I will simply take it to a larger forum to discuss. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Hi, thanks for dropping by! In the sentence "100 simulated users attempt to login with a single user ID and password", login is where the verb should be. The dictionary links you've provided state that login is only ever used as a noun (or possibly an adjective), and they say that log in is the correct phrasal verb form. I double-checked this before making any changes (see this for example), but I don't mind if we take it to a larger forum. I'm not sure what that would be—the MoS talk page? /wiae /tlk 11:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I did not read the word in context. Login is a noun and it was being used as a verb. Walter Görlitz (talk) 12:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

No problem. All the best! /wiae /tlk 14:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, i think i responded on my talk page, but i figured i should contact you instead. The article submitted was sent prematurely as i did not read about the rules you cited. I am rewriting the article now according to your advice but under a different title and topic. If you could delete the article for me, then i would be extremely grateful. Thank you and have a good evening! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcmind (talk • contribs) 01:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@Arcmind: Hi! An administrator has deleted the old article and I see you've started work on a new version at Draft:Vex Robotics Design System. /wiae /tlk 11:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes i have, but it was rejected due to not enough reliable sources. Guess i have to fix. Anyhow, Thank you, and have good one ! Arcmind (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello and thank you very much! Could you give advice on how to improve my article? What should I do for faster transfer the article to the english Wiki main space? Thanks a lot Valettuzza (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Valettuzza: Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia! My suggestion would be to look at the director inclusion criteria, the "rules" that a director should meet in order to have their own Wikipedia article. Basically, there should be a good deal of media coverage of the director from reliable sources of information, and that coverage should show that the director is:

• seen as an important figure;
• known for coming up with an important new concept, theory, or technique;
• the creator of well-known works that have seen a good deal of coverage; or
• the recipient of significant critical attention for their work.

I don't typically review articles about directors since it's not my area of expertise, but those are my suggestions. The more articles you can find about Uglichin in particular, the better. References that aren't about him very much aren't as useful. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 14:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wiae! I would like to know maybe it will be better to write the article about the film because the the information about it is on the Casper Van Dien Wiki page? There is so few english links about the ::director (((Valettuzza (talk) 11:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

@Valettuzza: Hi again! References in other languages are fine to use, but usually it means that the review will take a bit longer, as not all of the AfC reviewers speak other languages. You could try writing about one of his films, but whether it will be accepted depends on whether it meets the film inclusion criteria. I'd suggest looking closely at those criteria before trying to write an article about a film—usually if a film hasn't been reviewed by independent critics in at least a few reliable sources, it doesn't really stand much chance of being accepted.

Another option would be to write about this director or his films in the Russian-language Wikipedia. I don't know what their content policies are like there, but it might well be easier to have the article accepted there. Just an idea. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 22:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• LucaPost (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:European Plate Observing System (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello thank for reviewing the page, the texts that raised your concerns are taken from http://www.epos-ip.org/, the institutional Web site of the project, with which I am involved. The EU web site Cordis you refer to is the portal where reports from participating projects are collected, thus all content found there is not original,but replicated according to the participation agreements of the funded projects.

Hence I believe we have to refer to http://www.epos-ip.org/ and not http://cordis.europa.eu to further discuss copyright issues. I will re-publish the copyright page on the Web site since it is currently offline erroneously, and make sure it declares CC-BY-SA and GFDL as requested by Wikipedia.

I believe starting the page with a summary content taken from the site is a good thing, since it provides a verified explanation of the project organizational and operational structure, provided the above and the {{text:release}} template.

To allow Wikipedia reviewers to further verify the issue I will also send an email to permissions-en@wikipedia.org authorising the content usage. --LucaPost (talk) 09:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

@LucaPost: Ah, my bad about identifying that it was from CORDIS instead of EPOS. A GDFL+CC-By-SA license will work, and the email to permissions is a good idea as well. Sounds like you know what you're doing! Thanks, /wiae /tlk 13:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

@LucaPost: By the way, after you send the email, please edit Draft talk:European Plate Observing System to put {{subst:OP}} at the top of that page. That will let others know that you've sent an email about permissions. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 14:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

@Wiae: Aside from the Copyright issues and permissions the current 'cleaned' version might suffice for us at the moment, do you think I can resubmit it as such ?

I will then take care of the rest so that future updates will not run into wikipedia infringements.

--LucaPost (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

@LucaPost: Sure, that is an option too. Before resubmitting I would suggest tweaking some of the language to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view. For example, text like "pushes the boundaries of scientific excellence" strikes me as a bit too much like what you would find in a press release. I took a brief look at some of the references; some are better than others. The Metadata and Semantics Research source looks good at first glance, as does the ilsussidiario.net source. However, the interviews with people working on the project aren't as valuable as third-party coverage (from sources that are independent of the subject). Similarly, newspaper coverage is preferable to trade website coverage. You can still use interviews as citations for basic facts in the draft, of course, but they're just not terribly persuasive when it comes to showing the greater media coverage about EPOS. My general advice is to write the draft based on what the reliable third-party sources say, not what you yourself know about EPOS. That often helps lessen promotional tone problems.

Also, if you're not yet aware of it, Wikipedia has a policy about conflicts of interests. Please take a look at WP:COISIMPLE to learn how this policy will affect you. It doesn't prohibit you from editing or anything, but if you are being paid for your contributions to Wikipedia, you do have to disclose that. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 14:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)