Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, Sorting, FeedShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subjectReviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
June 2025

Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

• This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • For questions on how to use or edit Wikipedia, visit the Teahouse.
  • For unrelated questions, use the search box or the reference desk.
  • Create a draft via Article wizard or request an article at requested articles.
• Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
• Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.

Ask a new question Please check back often for answers.

• Top of page
• Table of Contents
• Today's posts
• Bottom of page

May 2

Appeal Follow-Up--Darden Smith

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Darden Smith Thank you for your clear and helpful explanation. Indeed, I did not understand the difference between primary sources and secondary or tertiary sources. I have gone back and pulled all information that relied on the primary sources you mentioned: record label's press release, the ASCAP column, interviews with Smith, his HuffPo author profile and one of his blog posts. When I found secondary sources, I was able to restore some of that information. But I tossed the rest.

Would you be willing to take another look??? Once again, I am grateful for you help in seeing this article through. Sabrina Sabrina Barton (talk) 03:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

You can re-submit the draft for another review by following the instructions in the lower "submission declined" message box or by adding {{subst:submit}} to the very top. I have done so for you; it will be reviewed again in a few days. At a very quick glance the sources look much better now. Huon (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

How do I add a request?

How do I add a request for an article to be created? The "submissions" page is semi-protected. 65.128.234.79 (talk) 03:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

If you want to write a new article, please use the Article Wizard. If you want to request others to write an article, please have a look at WP:Requested articles and its sub-pages. Our submission pae is protected because it's an information page for the reviers about submissions, not the place to add new submissions. Please don't try to modify that page. Huon (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/National Music Centre

Hello there wonderful wikipedia editors.

Before I submit my article for publication, I was wondering if you could look it over to make sure I have fixed the issues you mentioned earlier. I'm very new to this, so I do appreciate all of your help in getting this article up.

Thank you!

Musicmuseum (talk)jimjamjummel (Musicmuseum) for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/National Music Centre — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicmuseum (talk • contribs) 03:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It will be reviewed when you submit it. From just a quick look I can see some issues, some minor such as the section headings are not properly formatted but more significant problems are that the first reference appears only about a third of the way down the page - thus most of the material above it is not referenced, the article as a whole is not very well referenced. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Blair Cuspids

How do I post a photo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.112.64.40 (talk) 05:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

That depends on the image. Wikipedia can (with some narrow exceptions which don't apply to drafts) only accept free images. If the photo is in the public domain (say, because it's the work of an employee of the US federal government) or if it's copyrighted but freely licensed (for example, because you took it yourself and are willing to release it under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License), you can upload it to the Wikimedia Commons via their Upload Wizard. The picture tutorial explains how to add the image to a page once it's uploaded. Huon (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, I had to decline your submission because its source is not reliable by Wikipedia's standards. Wikipedia content should be based on sources that are subject to editorial oversight, such as articles in newspapers or reputable magazines or peer-reviewed scholarly papers. Huon (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Review of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Nick_Grey

Hi there,

Please can someone review the AfC on Nick Grey, the British inventor behind Gtech, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Nick_Grey

I've made numerous edits and now believe the copy is okay for approval for Wiki publication - but need one of you lovely editor-types to have a looksee, and give it a thumbs up now that it's been edited.

Any feedback/advice much appreciated.

46.31.87.177 (talk) 08:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

You can re-submit the draft for another review by following the instructions in the lower "submission declined" message box or by adding {{subst:submit}} to the very top. However, I'm not sure your changes since the last review are sufficient. For example, quite a few of the draft's sources do not even mention Grey, and others do so only in passing, quoting Grey on some other topic without discussing Grey himself. The same goes for the article itself, which seems to cover Grey's invention in excessive detail. For example, what's the fact that the AirRAM is fully rechargeable and includes a Lithium battery supposed to tell me about Grey? That sounds more like a sales pitch for Grey's invention than an encyclopedia article on the inventor. Huon (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Huon, thanks for the advice. This is a difficult area, but essentially, the features of the AirRAM you mention represent an advance in vacuum cleaner technology unique to Gtech. The changes invented/implemented by Grey differentiate the Gtech range of cordless products from those of other manufacturers'. For instance, the Lithium battery delivers energy savings of up to £200 per year - this is a unique feature of Gtech's product, not offered by other manufacturers, and an innovation in energy efficiency compared to mains-powered vacuums. In terms of "excessive detail", this is down to the number of new inventions within Gtech's products, again, not offered elsewhere. Failure to mention these is failure to explain why Grey has created a successful business in a competitive market. There actually isn't "excessive detail" - the AfC doesn't go into the run-time on charge compared to other manufacturers, for instance, as this could be seen as promotional, even though it has a greater run time as a result of the unique Lithium battery being used, which you felt was an unimportant detail.

It's hard to explain any of that without it sounding salesy.

In terms of 'passing mentions', the fact Grey is regularly featured as a spokesperson for British design/manufacturing were added as citations, as there were initial questions on Grey's "notability". Clearly if the UK's largest broadsheets belive he is notable, with citations showing this (I've never had a feature in the Sunday Times, Sunday Telegraph or Daily Mail about me), then these are worthwhile citations to underline his notability. Again, this is difficult to describe without it sounding promotional.

Is the upshot of all this, then, that until there is a warts-n-all history of Grey in a newspaper, that it's impossible to establish his notability without it sounding like an advert?

Or would it be better to just wipe down the information on the AfC to the bear minimum and attempt to create an entry with no context and thus be disapproved due to lack of info/clarity?

Apologies, but there are countless promotional Wiki pages for numerous businessmen, businesses and retailers which don't even have citations (Argos, for example), so it's confusing to know exactly how to circumvent this 'promotional' business whilst maintaining context and notability, and without going as far into advertising territory as other, approved Wiki pages...

So, given this, is it best to try a very skinny edit with bare-bones material and see how that goes?

Really appreciate your time, thank you :)

10:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Question of your review on my wiki draft: 7!!(Seven Oops)

Dear Sir or Madam,

I was wondering if you could let me know where to improve in my draft. It is understandable to be denied, but I would like to make the page for the band 7!!(Seven Oops) be public. There are wiki pages for the band in Japanese, Italian, Spanish, and Myanmar. Thus, I assume my problem was partly the structure that I made for the English version.

Again, please let me know whether I can obtain any advice.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

-Kotaro — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotyorkotaro (talk • contribs) 14:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

As the reviewer said, the draft doesn't cite any reliable, independent sources. Without such sources we cannot accept an article. That, not the article's structure, is the main problem, though you may also want to take a look at the Manual of style. Huon (talk) 00:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alexander Karasyov

This page already exists (it seems to have passed the review, for which I would like to say "thank you"), but still comes up as AfC and "waiting for review"in my "contributions". So it seems that there is some sort of "double" submission of one and the same article.

I noticed that, on the page existing on the main article space, the references do not show up properly.

Would it be possible to copy the text from "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Alexander_Karasyov" to Alexander Karasyov? That would take care of the messed-up references and some changes that I have made to the article for creation.

Thank you KomarKomar KomarKomar (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Update: I have made the necessary changes. The references are now all there. So copying is no longer necessary.

What do I now have to do to retract the AfC in order to avoid multiple submission?

Thanks. KomarKomar (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd just wait a little; the article is already tagged for a history merge (which must be done by an admin); once that happens, the draft will no longer be submitted for review. Huon (talk) 00:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

May 3

Exception to guideline requested

In the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Family_of_Secrets I included the following:

Frederick J. Graboske, the first supervisory archivist of the Nixon tapes writes “we need more books like this one — books that make us stop and think about where we are and how we got here. … If the CIA, or any other government agency, is capable of what Russ Baker posits in this book (I believe they are), then we are in critical danger of losing the freedoms guaranteed us under the Constitution.” and that “enough of these connections are sufficiently well-documented as to merit serious consideration”.

I have removed this text in the revision currently under review because it was disallowed on grounds that we do not generally admit Amazon reviews.

I urge that the gravitas of the chief archivist of the Nixon tapes merits an exception to this general rule. Reviews even in scholarly journals are not subject to editorial oversight as strictly as are articles, reviews are understood to express the opinions of the reviewer, and the context is a summary of the range of such opinions about the book which is the topic of the article.

Thank you for considering an exception to what would ordinarily be flagged by a script.
Bn (talk) 12:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

You mean the gravitas of the chief archivist of the Nixon tapes is so great that no one except a bookstore bothered to report what he said? Amazon is not a reliable source, and unless reliable third-party sources report what Graboske said, I see no reason why we should care. Huon (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Three Rooms Press

I already created live page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Rooms_Press, after seeing Wiki bot warning about deleting orphan images. Can I still get feedback on this new page? Also how to remove from Articles for Creation?

GetDaFacts (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

That page is not acceptable as a Wikipedia article, and creating it for the sole purpose of hosting images that would otherwise be copyright violations isn't quite what Wikipedia articles are meant for. You list an impressive number of references, but not a single one of them provides significant third-party coverage of the publisher. Roughly half don't mention Three Rooms Press at all; the other half mention it in passing only. That is not the significant coverage needed to establish that the publisher is notable by Wikipedia's standards. I have thus proposed the article for deletion. Huon (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the proposed deletion notice. See comments copied here from the article's talk page, plus my additional comments below:

"Three Rooms Press is notable (1) because it has published several notable individuals listed in first paragraph of section titled "Publication History." Several of the citations include news articles announcing these publications as well as establishing the notability of the authors, (2) one of the two annuals of the press is now archived in the Museum of Modern Art Periodical and Recording Libraries. A link to MoMA archive catalog cited.'

For example there is pre-existing Wikipedia page for Mike Watts. His page seems solid and appears w/o any suggestion for improvement or deletion. He must be notable to included in wiki. The Three Rooms Press cites news and magazine articles about him and publication on his book. They mention Three Rooms Press as his publisher. His publisher is notable because he is notable.

George Wallace (poet) has two books published by Three Room Press. Unfortunately his wiki page needs editing. George Wallace was Suffolk County's (in New York) First Poet Laureate. He is also Winner of the CW Post Poetry Prize and the Poetry Kit Best Book award. He was named Writer in Residence at the Walt Whitman Birthplace in 2011. The cited Performing Arts Studio News article "Poet George Wallace Featured at The Depot" lists these credentials.

A third author published, Jackie Sheeler, has an article written about her in the New York Times labeling her Poet Laureate of Riker's Island. Don't you think that makes her notable?

Three Room Press is not exactly what I would call "start up." (1)They were founded in 1993. A list of their publications and authors is provided in the article. I went through that list and while I see they initially published the two founders and as chapbooks by 2008 they are publishing other folks and (2) some of folks they have published are notable individuals. (3) Now one of their two annuals is now part of MoMA's permanent archives. (4)And in 2012 they start to publish bi-lingual books for two notable writers. So they are going international.

I think they are deserving of attention.

GetDaFacts (talk) 05:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

They may be deserving of attention, but Wikipedia artices should only be written on topics that already have received significant attention by third-party sources. A couple of passing mentions isn't sufficient. Also, notability is not inherited, and publishing the works of notable authors does not automatically make a publisher notable. Huon (talk) 06:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Novu

Suggestions for good "reliable" resources, trying to talk about a start-up? There's not a whole lot about them other than their main website and I'm worried that would be considered too advertorial to go to the main source. Do I just need to wait until they are more established? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celtic1978 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:EXISTS WP:RS LionMans Account (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

To elaborate a little, reliable sources would be articles about the company in newspapers or reputable magazines (not press releases, though - those are not subject to editorial oversight and are not considered reliable). If the sources currently in the draft are the best to be found, you'll indeed have to wait until they are more established. Huon (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Review of User:Coignard/sandbox

I want to publish my french article "Alexandre Sacha Putov" I am french and help me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coignard (talk • contribs) 19:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

That draft cites no sources. All Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, both to allow our readers to verify the draft's content and to establish that Putov is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Huon (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

May 4

Article Jamshed Mistry

Hi, I needed to know about the article i had written about Jamshed Mistry.. When would it go live and be available? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudisha2507 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

That draft currently isn't submitted for review; you can submit it by adding {{subst:submit}} to the very top (including the curly brackets). However, there are two issues that should be addressed first: Firstly the vast majority of your sources only mention Mistry in passing (a la "... said Jamshed Mistry"), and several others are primary sources such as press relseases or the websites of organizations Mistry is affiliated with. To be considered WP:BIOnotable]] Mistry must have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable third-party sources, such as newspaper articles about him. I don't think your current sources meet that standard. Secondly, you should add Help:Footnotes to clarify which source supports which of the draft's statements; see WP:Referencing for beginners on how to easily do so.

In its current state the draft probably would not be accepted. Huon (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

May 5

Review of User:Kx.maniphest.destiny/sandbox

I am trying to upload images for this article I just drafted : Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Don Albinson

I see that they DO upload, however they are not embedded in my article - in fact I don't know where they're being stored. Do I need to wait for my article submission to be approved before I can imbed images? Please advise. Kx.maniphest.destiny (talk) 00:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Often, yes you do need to wait. With regard to these images, you don't. It appears that Huon just now fixed the problems with the images on the page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For all I can tell, you have uploaded two images, File:Don Albinson, Furniture Designer.jpg and File:Stacking Chairs Designed by Don Albinson.jpg (compare your contributions). I have corrected the file names given in the draft. Huon (talk) 01:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

complete an article

How can I complete an article that I started? I started to write a new article named Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Peninsula Temple Sholom and I had to turn off my computer. Before doing that I pressed Save. How can I go back and continue writing it? Thanks. Ptseducation (talk) 05:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

You don't seem to have saved the draft; your only contribution so far is the edit to this very page. If you're lucky you may still be able to retrieve the draft from your browser's cache; if that doesn't work and you don't still have an offline copy, you'll unfortunately have to write it again. Huon (talk) 05:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Charlie Drew

Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/Charlie Drew I've spent 2 days trying to put an Infobox into my article using {{Infobox or {{Infobox comedian but no box appears, just the words as shown left. As I am now considering aborting my article I thought I'd try posting this question. Oh, and my laptop would not print the tildes, I had to copy and paste these from a line above. Curioser and curioser. Malcolmdee (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea about the laptop tilde problem, but I have added an infobox to the draft. I'd say the draft needs better sources; for example I couldn't tell what exactly "The Era 1913" is or how I could look it up, but I doubt it covers Drew in any significant detail. For all I can tell, Drew may just have been a member of the supporting cast or a background musician. Huon (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Football at the 2013 Summer Universiade

Dear Wikipedia, I have already create a page "Men's Football at the 2013 Summer Universiade", I don't have a account before,but use the IP address "142.177.24.77", the page is "Articles for creation/Football at the 2013 Summer Universiade", but that link doesn't appear on the website. So I didn't create for women's football schedule in case this would not appear on the website. So could you help me to make this page appeared on the website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Younis7435 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

May 6

Tolikara Papua Indonesia

Tolikara Papua Indonesia

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabupatentolikarapapuabarat (talk • contribs) 00:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

How may we help you? Huon (talk) 07:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

My article has been declined by FoCuSandLeArN (talk). How to resubmit the modified content?

My article draft is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/V. Raghunathan and it has been declined on 22 April 2013 by FoCuSandLeArN (talk). Now I have modified the content and want to resubmit the same. So, kindly help me in this regard. Aghosh4 (talk) 05:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

You can resubmit the draft by adding {{subst:submit}} to the very top (including the curly brackets). However, none of your sources are independent of the subject - most of them are his own books. As sources we don't need Raghunathan's own writings or his company's, but what people not associated with him have written about him. Newspaper articles about him or reviews of his books would make good sources, for example. In its current state the draft would be declined again for the same reason. Huon (talk) 07:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Margasoft Corp.

Hello,

I have written an article about Margasoft Corporation.

My publication was not published, because the submission was not adequately supported by reliable sources.

So, I want to send some links for you to see whether they are considered reliable sources or not.

http://itguide.eif.am/?id=129#top http://www.zoominfo.com/#!search/profile/company?companyId=352387825&targetid=profile http://www.it2business.org/product.aspx?pid=107 http://www.crunchbase.com/company/margasoft-corporation

Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khzhanna (talk • contribs) 08:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The EIF Guide is written by Margasoft itself, not an independent source. So is the Zoominfo profile. I cannot quite tell what IT 2 Business is, but it looks like Margasoft's software supplier to me, who wouldn't be an independent source. I see no evidence of editorial oversight, so it's probably not a reliable source either. Finally, CrunchBase is user-submitted content without editorial oversight, definitely not reliable. Furthermore, according to the page history you apparently wrote that one yourself. Huon (talk) 09:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Charlie Drew

Thanks Huon for the Infobox. It proves it can be done but, of course, I am no wiser about how to do it! I am now struggling to locate the {{reflist}} listing to clarify The Era. The Era was a British Showbiz newspaper which was published for 101 years (Search Wiki - The Era (newspaper). I spent several years searching and copying microfilm in libraries in Birmingham, England and Rhyl, North Wales and have considerable source material. If I had got started on my great uncles' bio I had planned to cross refer to The (London) Palladium Minstrels and E.H.Williams' Merrie Men of Rhyl which were huge showbiz attractions in their time but may be of little interest to some people now some 100 years later. I have lodged a 129 page privately printed book with various libraries in England & Wales but had hoped to preserve my research on the internet in some form before my demise (currently 71 years of age!) when, no doubt, my reference material will be confined to a rubbish skip! I fear that creating Wiki pages is on a par with computer programming which I have not attempted since my early days with a ZX81! So I may have to call a halt to this. Maybe someone has created an idiots programme available in a box on a shelf at PC World that would automatically programme the Wiki process for me. Money to be made there methinks. Malcolm Drew Malcolmdee (talk) 16:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I had provided the diff so you could see what I added. For more general help on infoboxes, see Help:Infobox; for the documentation of this particular infobox, see Template:Infobox comedian. Basically, I just copied the relevant stuff from the template page and filled in what parameters I could ascertain or guess.

Regarding The Era, a link to our article on The Era (newspaper) would have been helpful (I've added it now) - I tried a Google search which, rather unsurprisingly, failed utterly because it swamped me in irrelevant eras. But even with the link, would you expect our readers to look up a year's worth of newspapers to find the one that discusses Drew? Could you provide a more specific publication date, and maybe a page number? The same goes for the Rhyl Record & Advertiser which I presume was not a monthly publication.

On a more general note, the draft currently seems rather devoid of specific information. Where and how was Drew educated? When did he perform with what troupe? What was his role in the performances? Was Drew himself (as opposed to the troupe as a whole) the subject of public or critical acclaim? What did he do after he stopped performing? Do we know anything about his family? Was he married? When and how did he die? I obviously haven't checked the sources (and since I don't expect my local library to carry pre-WWI editions of those newspapers I probably would be hard-pressed to do so even if I knew exactly where to look, but that's a problem with my library, not with the sources), but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they cover the troupes Drew performed with and only mention Drew himself in passing - that would not be the significant coverage we need to establish that Drew himself is independently notable enough for an article of his own. Huon (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cancer Systems Biology

Could you tell me when I can expect decision on the page I have created Cancer Systems Biology? --Lestrada45 (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe there's currently a review backlog of about ten days, give or take a few. However, most of those draft's sections don't cite any sources; that should be fixed before the draft is reviewed, or it will likely be declined for that reason. Huon (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Charlie Drew

Hi,again, Huon, Sorry about some lines of irrelevant stuff that got into my post a short while ago. I did not realize that this "chat" page processes those funny bracket things! Malcolmdee (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem; I fixed it. If you want to write about a "template" (ie something that uses those brackets) on a page without actually using it, we have a special template for that purpose; for example, {{tl|reflist}} will produce this: {{reflist}} That's just a link to the reflist template, not the list of references which the template itself creates. Huon (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sarah Beattie

At the top of the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Sarah_Beattie it says “This is a draft Articles for creation submission. It is not currently pending review...” and at the foot of the page it says “Review waiting. This submission is waiting to be reviewed. This may take several days...” These statements contradict each other. Please clarify.Blueshistory1 (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)blueshistory1

 Fixed Pol430 talk to me 17:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The "not currently pending" message is an artefact that should usually be removed by a bot - in this case Pol430 pre-empted the bot. As long as there's a "review waiting" message on the page, it is submitted for a review. Huon (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

May 7

I need a help. Youth time

good day! it was a draft article The Youth time about movement, it was removed. Now I want to finish this article. prompt, am I need to edit articles in the last blank and then put up for discussion? thank you Tanya ZAV. (talk) 04:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. There are currently three drafts, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Youth Time (YT) International Movement, Wikipedia:Articles for creation/The Youth Time (YT) International Movement and an empty one at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Youth Time. The latter never had any significant content; nothing was removed from any of those pages except a duplicate draft. The bot's copyright warning at the latter draft is a false positive and can be ignored, though it may be a good idea to delete that empty draft and to focus on the one that actually has some content. If you want to submit it for a review, you can follow the instructions in the "currently not submitted for review" message box: "If this submission is ready to be reviewed, click here." That will add an almost-empty section to the end of the draft; it won't blank the draft. You should not re-start new drafts but rather modify and improve the existing drafts; the best one is by far Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Youth Time (YT) International Movement; it would help if you used inline citations (see also WP:Referencing for beginners on how to easily create nicely-formatted footnotes). Huon (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Charlie Drew

Huon. My draft consisted of one line of bio information, a photo and two refs for the sole purpose of familiarising myself with formatting wiki inputs. I hit on a problem creating an Info box so I clicked on "HELP DESK" for assistance on a technical issue. In my book one line does not constitute a draft article so comments such as "would have been helpful", "would you expect our readers to look up...", plus all the !where's and what's" are totally irrelevant. If I had been ready for a review of my work rather than a novice trying to find my way round the syntax I would have clicked on "click here" next to the reference to submissions. I quote the line towards the top of the page "Thia is a draft Article for creation submission. IT IS NOT CURRENTLY PENDING REVIEW" My blocks. I fear I have come somewhat abruptly to the end of the road on this article unless another editor can show a bit more tolerance. I googled Wikipedia too complicated" and found that your leader, Jimmy Whales, has conceded to BBC News that the article creation process/editing is too complicatwd for many users and needs simplifying. I wait in hope. Sorry, no stars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolmdee (talk • contribs) 11:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for appearing too demanding; that was not my intention. I believe I have answered your infobox questions and pointed you to the relevant help and documentation pages that offer additional information. Do you need additional help regarding the infobox? If so, what kind of help?

My comments about sources have a very simple reason: Right now it's very hard to tell whether Drew is notable enough to be the subject of a Wikipedia article in the first place. If he isn't, you'd be wasting your efforts. If he is but you haven't yet added the relevant information to the article, you can of course ignore my comments and take your time to improve the draft at your leisure. Huon (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Camp Foley

I looked at numerous summer camps that have pages on Wikipedia that do not link to any more "reliable" sources than what I put together for the Camp Foley page. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Camp Foley. I am curious why their pages get to exist but mine does not. I would like to put together a list of pages that I'd like to be removed if Wikipedia is going to follow the same standards that were followed for my page.

Kmstrobel (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)kmstrobel

The biggest problem appears almost all the references are to Camp Foley's site or promo pages run by the camp. The article needs independent, reliable sources. Typically, newspaper articles or magazine articles about the camp will work. LionMans Account (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bradley Wisk

The article about Bradley Wisk is notable; however, I'm not sure where and how to add the notability. I am also unsure of how the article should be formated.

Do I create a works cited list? How do I use these these sources for notability?

He has articles on these news stations as well as the paper and also in other venues: the following are only a few of many...

http://www.wzzm13.com/news/article/230446/205/Opera-Singer-Bradley-Wisk-Performs

http://hollandparktheater.com/bradley-wisk/

http://www.verdichorus.org/artists/bradley-wisk/

Thank you.

Jami Vander Kooi Black Lake Studio and PressWinstrom (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

You could take a look at existing Good Articles on similar topics; there are lots here. An example might be Anthony Field. It wouldn't have to be that good to be accepted; something like Da Gryptions could get accepted, but it's worth being aware that the newspaper and magazine references are useful in proving notability, whereas the iTunes, YouTube and Twitter ones are not. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Of the three references you suggest, the first barely struggles to give significant coverage - don't we know who said ""an alluring rich color and exceptional spinning stratospheric top notes"? The second and third both seem to be from organisations associated with Wisk, so have little to no value in proving notability. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MOVING CRACK TIP TEMPERATURE VARIATION

I've been editing the article Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/MOVING_CRACK_TIP_TEMPERATURE_VARIATION. I don't understand all the new editor approval/disapproval thing. I have the following comments about this article, but there is no "talk" section.

• The references check out, and I've just about finished looking them up and correcting them.
• The title is all caps, I don't know how to change this, but it is ugly.
• The original article had poor English, and I've done my best to improve it.
• The subject matter seems important by the number of references, but the article doesn't state the context of this matter, nor link to anything in the context or why anyone would find this result important. I feel that it is, by looking up the references, but I'm no subject matter expert--the article could be improved by including this.
• I edited all the equations to use math encoding.

Shawn@garbett.org (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for improving this article draft! I've asked for input from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem, I was trying to clear the queue so more time could go toward an article I have an interest in getting approved.

I think the article is possibly a subsection of the following Fracture mechanics. This provides a context that makes more sense, and it's a problem in that field. I would recommend this content be folded onto that page. Shawn@garbett.org (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

(Caution: I am not a subject matter expert) This article is about heat dissipation caused by plastic deformation at the crack tip. It is a real effect, especially for ductile fracture. The basic idea is described at Fracture mechanics#Irwin's modification in the heat dissipation term. I agree that the content of the article could be folded into that section. It is in a sense complementary to the content in Fracture mechanics#Irwin's modification, as that section is about predicting when a fracture occurs and this article is about the thermodynamics of crack propagation. As a standalone article, it would need more of an introduction and context before jumping straight into betas. --Mark viking (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/AG Hair

Hi, I submitted an article in the Sandbox, which has been declined based on "This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability", I am not sure what else I can do, as I have included coverage from press, magazines and awards, made reference to partnering companies and charity's.

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Heatherkennelly (talk) 18:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The partnering companies and charities are not independent sources on their cooperation with AG. Press releases such as that about the Ernst & Young award are not reliable. Unless they're hosted by a reputable news organization that exercises some sort of editorial oversight, blogs often are considered unreliable too. Furthermore, the first paragraph reads like puffery: "quality hair products", "large professional-only beauty retailers", "can be found in national beauty chains". That largely doesn't cite any sources, and I can't tell which third-party source mentions "Taiwan and Australia".

Regarding the notability issue, AG Hair might make the cut if the unreliable sources and the unsourced hype are removed, but for all I can tell, we have very little information on the company itself (no revenues, for example, and while one source mentioned the number of employees, the draft doesn't), with most sources reporting on rather peripheral activities such as their aid for education in Africa. I'd call it a borderline case, and the reviewer apparently felt it didn't quite make the cut. Huon (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fort Worth Transgender Support

I wanted to add my logo thumbnail to the page but couldnt understand the upload procedure. Yes I own the graphic, I created it.

--Nicole M. Taylor 20:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queennikki1972 (talk • contribs)

If you own the copyright to the graphic, you may wish to reserve some rights as to its usage - in which case, you should wait until the article is accepted before uploading the graphic. If you don't wish to reserve (most) rights as to usage of the graphic, you could upload it at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard (you might need to log into your account or create an account) stating that it is entirely your own work. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Allen Fishman

When is this article going to be reviewed? This has been a frustrating process. I appreciate the integrity of Wikipedia to prevent the platform from being mis-used. Yet I spent considerable time working up an article on my colleague, Allen Fishman. He has written multiple business books, was a nationally syndicated business writer & has started a prominent company to help small businesses. He has appeared widely in the press and in television interviews. Yet the first reviewer rejected my article. I then took significant additional time to update it with many more sources. It continues to be in a "waiting for review" status. I understand that the reviews involve volunteers. Yet I would appreciate any assistance that you can provide to get this approved & into the wiki encyclopedia. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dscarola (talk • contribs) 21:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

There's currently a backlog of about 730 drafts awaiting review; the oldest are about two weeks old. Please be patient. At a glance the draft heavily cites books and articles by Fishman; Wikipedia content should be based not on what he has written, but on what others have written about him (for example, the The Southeast Missourian article). Besides, Amazon is more interested in selling books than in providing accurate information; it's not a reliable source. Neither are press releases. Huon (talk) 02:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

May 8

Article turned down

I don't understand the comment. I sourced everything in the article. If there isn't a source on something in the bio, it's sourced in the writing section.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Amy_Greene_(author) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamGreene13 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

There are two issues. Firstly, entire sections don't cite any sources. Especially for biographies of living persons you should always cite the sources right where they are used; see WP:Referencing for beginners on how to easily do so. Secondly, several of your sources aren't independent of Greene or not reliable. This includes Amazon, for example, but also Greene's own op-eds and her Glamour article. You should remove those. Huon (talk) 03:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chingsubam Akaba Meetei

<Removed a complete copy of the entire draft> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.216.3.233 (talk) 06:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Please do not copy the whole draft here - we can find it with the link in the heading. Do you want to ask a question about it? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

how to re submit the editing page

hi there:

I was finishing editing some points on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/nysunworks how can I re-submit for further review？

(Roger0206 (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC))

You deleted the review template, it contains information about the review and a "click here" link to resubmit it - I put it back.

Please take care that you do not delete any review templates as they serve as a track record of previous reviews. That way reviewers can see if the problems identified in previous reviews have been addressed, and if not, they can give you additional assistance to resolve them. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

How do you see the reviewer's comments or details for why it was declined?

Hi, Wiki newbie here, trying to understand specific details for why an article was declined.

-->How can I see the specific comments for an article that a reviewer has made? Reviewer says 'need verifiable sources.' There are several sources mentioned.

-->Is there a way I can find out which claims need additional support?

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Electronic_trial_master_file_(eTMF) Cogitari (talk) 16:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)cogitari

The reviewer's comments are in the gray box within the "submission declined" message box. I believe you saw them. The reviewer didn't leave more specific comments.

There are several sources, but firstly, most of the draft's content doesn't cite any sources at all, and secondly, the given sources are all primary sources, the websites of organizations promoting eTMF. Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as articles in newspapers or reputable magazines, or maybe peer-reviewed papers about the topic. Some highlights that definitely would require a source include: "Organizations adopt eTMF systems to make the management of clinical trial master file easier...", "In order to facilitate clinical trial process automation, eTMF applications should be built on the principal of Interoperablility...", "As of May 2013, the CareLex eTMF ontology was one of the most popular biomedical ontologies at NCBO's BioPortal website, ranking in the top 10% of over 500 biomedical ontologies on BioPortal." Right now this draft reads more like a CareLex advertisement than an encyclopedia article. Huon (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chi-Dooh (Skip) Li

Hello Wikipedia,

I am new to article writing and am currently working on a piece called Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chi-Dooh (Skip) Li. Whilst writing, I hit save page every time before I clicked the show preview button. Does that mean that the page was submitted for review dozens on times while I was in the process of writing it? If so, please disregard all of my previous submissions and just look at the most recent which I just submitted. I'm sorry if I caused an awful lot of trouble.

Thanks,

Eric Parker

EricthomasparkerEricthomasparker (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)