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 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)

Umm ... Because he wrote an Amazon review he is unimportant?

Rather, that's the only place I know of that he wrote a review. But if, for example, he were to write a review for George Mason University's History News Network <http://hnn.us/roundup/36.html>, would that suffice? They regularly publish reviews, and they recently republished Graboske's critique of Kutler's alteration of the historical record: "Frederick J. Graboske, Nixon Tapes Archivist, explains why he attacked Stanley Kutler". (The URL points to a page that links as well to extended context for Graboske's commentary.)
Bn (talk) 03:31, 10 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)

Thank you very much to everyone who helped with this! The article now exists at Moving crack (metalworking). Whether this is ideal is unclear, but for now this is

Resolved

and any remaining issues with the existence of this article can be resolved through ordinary editing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:42, 9 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)

The draft is submitted for review only once, and it was created only after this help request. The page at Chi-Dooh (Skip) Li by now has been deleted, so I can't tell whether it was submitted for review repeatedly. Huon (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Huon,

Do you know if it is currently under review? It says that it is under the "Review Waiting" stage, though you mentioned it has been deleted. If it has been deleted do I need to re-submit it? If not, is there anything I can do to improve this submission to ensure that it is accepted?

Thanks

Ericthomasparker (talk) 03:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The draft is correctly submitted for review. What was deleted was a live article on the same topic; that's not related to the draft's review process. The draft doesn't need to be resubmitted.

That said, the draft will probably be declined because it doesn't show that Li has been the subject of significant coverage in third-party sources; most of your sources are primary sources such as Li's law firm or articles written by Li. Wikipedia requires WP:Independent sources both to allow our readers to verify the content and to establish that the subject is notable enough for an article in the first place. So citing newspaper articles about Li, or articles about him in reputable magazines, would be necessary to ensure that the article is accepted. Huon (talk) 04:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the feedback. I've included another reference to an article from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Hopefully that does enough to beef it up! If not, let me know and I can continue to work on it. I really appreciate your help.

Ericthomasparker (talk) 16:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

How to edit

I have just create and submit an article for review. How can I make some changes on that articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samratsubedi (talk • contribs) 23:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

You can edit the article via the "edit" tab at the top of the page. Huon (talk) 04:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

May 9

Decline of Article User: Lisbonized

Hi there, I was wondering why my article was declined. The draft is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/World neurofibromatosis day. I put a lot of work into it and had to learn your complicated method of compiling. I even added good sources. The observance is recognised around the world. Is there something I have omitted as I am new to this. Can you help me to tick all the necessary boxes?

Would appreciate this very much.

Lisbonized (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

This holiday doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia's standards of notability. The sources you give are all primary sources written by people directly involved in promoting the holiday (including the Grimsby Telegraph piece which speaks of "our event page"). To be considered notable, the holiday would have to be the subject of significant third-party coverage, such as newspaper articles about the observance. Besides, the claim that "Many people around the world show their support by wearing fancy dress" is rather absurd when nobody has shown their support yet and the source is a local newspaper. Will people outside Grimsby show their support? Outside Britain? Outside Europe? How many is "many"? I have my doubts. Huon (talk) 16:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I received your email. What Huon said is pretty much what needed to be done. Regarding this being the first celebration, I stand corrected. I have updated the submission. I did a fresh Google Books, Google News, and Google Scholar search for "World neurofibromatosis day" and "World neurofibromatosis awareness day" and based on that it's quite likely that this subject has not yet become notable by Wikipedia standards. Even if this submission is turned down for lack of notability now, it is possible that the "non-promotional" press coverage in the weeks before and after this year's event will put it "over the top." If that doesn't happen this year, then it probably will in coming years as awareness increases and more reliable sources write about it in a non-trivial/non-promotional way. As an "extreme" example of a very notable "disease awareness day," World AIDS Day has over 5000 hits in Google Scholar alone. Even if many of those "5000+" are "partial matches" or duplicates, I expect there are hundreds of unique scholarly works about World AIDS Day. The "bar for entry" to Wikipedia is of course much, much lower - you don't need any mentions in Google Scholar at all. You just need enough independent, non-trivial, non-promotional coverage from reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's relatively low notability standards. Memo to self: World AIDS day has been tagged for cleanup due to a need for additional references. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi to both Huon and Davidwr. Still new to all of this so please bear with me and thank-you for taking the time to explain things. I don't think I have put enough references forward. I am not also sure of what constitutes appropriate/reliable sources. Huon has implied that World Neurofibromatosis Day is only recognized in the Grimsby Area but there are other sources I have used such as this one from New Straits Times. [1] from Malaysia which is definitely outside Grimsby. I also checked the Wikipedia article Notability in the English Wikipedia it is very ambiguous as it uses terms such as "in general" etc. May I refer to articles that are deemed notable such as Abbotsbury Garland Day which would only have notability in Abottsbury (have been researching Wikipedia to help me reply and found out a lot of interesting trivia!) which has a population of 505 people or at most in the surrounding area and has a mention of one of the WP:DOY pages. Can I also reference World Day for Cultural Diversity for Dialogue and Development which has references at the foot of the article page which seem to promote it. I am also confused as to what constitutes "non-promotional" press coverage. Surely the press publishing an article on on something promotes it regardless of intent. For example Wikipedia has articles on sporting events and charity events before they occur and this isn't considered promoting them. Is it unfortunate that I have decided to write about an observance so close to its occurrence? I also checked this page Wikipedia:Purpose which is basically to impart information around the world. I suppose the point I am trying to make is that if I saw I guy wearing a T-shirt which promoted a charity or had a music band unknown to me on it etc my first port of call is to read it on Wikipedia. It may be that I end up donating to a charity or buying a CD after reading a Wikipedia article even thouigh that is not the purpose. World Neurofibromatosis Day is not a charity though but an event. Is it worth me continuing the project. I have done a bit more research as you will probably see. many thanks for your time friends! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisbonized (talk • contribs) 02:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Abbotsbury Garland Day is discussed in a book published by Oxford University Press, for example - that's not just local coverage. The sources for the World Day for Cultural Diversity for Dialogue and Development indeed aren't great, but I expect better sources on a UN-sponsored holiday exist. But while other problematic articles may exist, that's no reason to create more - each submission must stand on its own merits. And while the New Straits Times piece does show that the holiday is known outside the UK, it provides no information. It's an opinion piece which doesn't mention the World neurofibromatosis day at all except in the headline. Do people in Kuala Lumpur also celebrate it by "wearing fancy dress"? I can't tell. The sources actually discussing the event are local interest pieces of the "Our neighbour Mrs. X takes part" type. Thus I don't think the holiday satisfies our notability guidelines which require significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. I may be wrong, though. Huon (talk) 03:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

"Reliable Sources"

What "reliable Sources" is the objector referring to in declining:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Liber_Brevior#References

I have listed:

1. a citation to the Library of Congress <http://lccn.loc.gov/m55002174> 2. PDF of the book which is the subject of the article <http://media.musicasacra.com/books/liberbrevior.pdf> 3. a citation to a book review of this book <http://liberreader.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/review-liber-brevior/> 4. another version of the book similar to a PDF http://en.gloria.tv/?media=387528

Thank you.

~~John D. Horton~~ johndhorton@yahoo.com Colt, Arkansas USA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.245.93.178 (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The PDFs obviously aren't independent of the book. I doubt the LOC covers this book in any detail. And the review comes close to what we're looking for, but it's just a random blog on the internet without editorial oversight; it's not considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards. What we're looking for would be reviews published in newspapers or reputable magazines, or maybe peer-reviewed scholarly papers on theology discussing this book. Huon (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Thomas O'Toole

Hello. I just tried to save and submit a new article and am unsure if it went through. Can you help me verify or finish? Thanks. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Thomas O'Toole Cosmonaut61 (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I've submitted the draft for you. However, most of the sources seem to be primary sources such as O'Toole's own writings or his employers. Wikipedia content should not be based on what O'Toole has written, but on what independent third parties have written about him. Huon (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi and thanks. I'm just trying to use the primary sources to establish "residency". That the person existed and worked as such. Not to put forward an interpretation. The problem with documenting news reporters as writers is that they go unnoticed as far as much commentary goes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmonaut61 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Can I unsubmit an article for review?

Hello, I recently created and submitted for review the article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Food Lovers Fat Loss System. In continuing my research, I came across lots of magazine articles on the program and want to update the article with this information. Is there a way to stop the review process so I can make the changes and then resubmit for review? Thanks! Normanocott (talk) 23:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It might be best to just go ahead and add the information (see WP:REFB) while the draft is still waiting for review. On average, it will be a week before it gets reviewed anyway. If it gets reviewed and declined, just put {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page to submit it again. (After dealing with whatever problems are listed!) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lisa Stahl Sullivan

Hi Help Desk! I just created my first article. How do i create links within the article. I wrote about an actress I like and listed some of her credits. But how do I make the credits link to those movies?

And...how do I create a filmography for her?

thank you for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanleyeisen (talk • contribs) 23:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Links to other Wikipedia articles are created with double square brackets: [[NYPD Blue]] will look like this: NYPD Blue. If for some reason you want the displayed text to differ from the title of the article linked to, you can use a "piped" link: For example, [[Ellen (TV series)|Ellen]] will look like this: Ellen. It links to the TV series article. See Help:Link for more information on links.

For the filmography I'd suggest either a table or just a list of bullet points. The easiest way for the table would probably be to take an article which already has one (say, Katharine Hepburn film and theatre credits), to copy and paste that code and then to modify the entries. The list of bullet points is much easier; an asterisk (*) at the beginning of a line will create a bullet point. Huon (talk) 01:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

May 10

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sujatha Awards for Literary Excellence

Please review the article and please suggest where corrections are needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agnikunju (talk • contribs) 11:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The standard of English in the submission is quite poor, the sentences are not cohesive and many don't make any sense. Also, the submission is full of flowery peacock terms designed to promote or show-off the subject. It needs to be fundamentally rewritten by someone with a professional command of the English language. Pol430 talk to me 15:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Doreen Steidle (2)

Hi,

I was surprised to find this article rejected as having insufficient references. I decided to include the references as links in the body of the material so it has a nice, clean look. For example, please click on the citations for Doreen Steidle's nominations as High Commissioner to Singapore and/or Consul General to Hong Kong. If for stylistic reasons you would rather that I created a separate reference section I will do so but I think the information is well-substantiated. Could you please take another look and advise?

Thanks, ChellymostChellymost (talk) 14:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

That's not the way we do references. Please take a look at WP:REFBEGIN for further help.--ukexpat (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Please do not insert external links into the body text - External links must go in a seprate External links list below the References section. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed the references and a few other minor problems. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Concord Prison Outreach

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/concord prison outreach Submission name (my name) Wfingerle

Greetings: I'm saddened after so much work that my article is not approved. I don't know where to begin, there is so many format rules I don't understand.

Can anyone help me with some specifics - so I can obtain approval for this important article? Thanks so much!!! Wfingerle (talk) 14:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Wfingerle, I've looked over your submission and I have to say I'm surprised at the reviewer's decline rationale. The formatting issues are minor (I've fixed most of them and in any case, this not a valid decline rationale) and the submission is full of inline citations. I've gone ahead and created the article for you. Pol430 talk to me 15:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/BioéthiqueOnline

I'm trying to create a wiki for a new academic journal and am having problems responding to reviewer requests for independent sources. I'm not sure what other independent sources are really possible for academic journals because they're not the sort of objects that receive much public attention or commentary...unless there is a scandal like at AJOB (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Journal_of_Bioethics). Similarly if you look at the Journal of Medical Ethics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Medical_Ethics) or Bioethics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioethics_(journal)) for example, the sources are all from the editors or publishers.

In the meantime, I've added direct links those websites that are indexing or archiving the journal content, which confirms the existence and credibility of the journal.

BrynwjBrynwj (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The journal may well exist and be credible, but is it notable? To establish notability, Wikipedia requires significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Unfortunately many academic journals have problems with this hurdle, but while other problematic articles may exist, that's no excuse to create more - each submission must stand on its own merits. Since this journal is very new, I don't think it's notable enough for an article of its own yet. Huon (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk: Articles for creation/Clicktopurchase

I am ready to resubmit my page but need to "put the categories back", I'm told, before moving the page to the article space.

I'm not sure what this means or how to do this. Please help?

Thank you.

Neil Singer (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The draft is at User:Neil Singer/sandbox. Don't worry about categories just yet. To submit it for review add {{subst:Submit}} to the top and save.--ukexpat (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed Hi Neil, I've submitted the article for review on your behalf. It is now located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Clicktopurchase. Pol430 talk to me 15:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Decline of Article User: Laravel

Hi Mabdul,

you declined my submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Laravel. The sources are not reliable. There are two sources, Web Designer and Geek Gumbo. Just one source is not reliable or both ?

Ch. Aubrée. 10 May 2013

Geek Gumbo is a blog with no indication of editorial oversight; that's not a reliable source. Web Designer looks reliable to me, but a single reliable source is not enough to establish that Laravel is notable. Huon (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Assistance is needed for Gameplay article

The article for creation Gameplay of The Sims 3 is reviewed. Cite the follow:

1. Lack of Reliable Sources
2. Content exists on original page (see note below for details)

The Sims 3 was nominated for Good Article status but failed to make grade. As par reviewer request, this is a spin-off to the main article The Sims 3. I need help on citing reliable sources and make the article more stand-alone article than a repeat content. I might be new to the site regardless to January 2006 sign up date. I am still learning how to add and revise on this site. Thanks. Sundogs ^{talk page sandbox} 21:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)