Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Modelago (talk | contribs) at 03:32, 5 September 2013 (→Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Allen F. Brewer Jr.: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • 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.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions


August 30

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Khanqah

My article rejected. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Khanqah

Possible to do a write up for www.abilkhair.org which is located at 426 Siglap Road Singapore? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam1khan1 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That may be possible, but you should clarify that you're writing an article about a specific khanaq, and you will have to show that this specific khanaq has received significant coverage in reliable independent sources such as articles in newspapers or reputable magazines. Huon (talk) 10:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Worsley

Do forgive me if this is the incorrect area to ask for assistance. I am an amateur regarding the creation of Wikipedia articles, and I discovered my submission for British war artist John Worsley rejected owed to a lack of references. I have created a section listing all the publications Mr. Worsley illustrated during his lifetime. The list of illustrated titles is complete, to the best of my knowledge, and would constitute the only reference of its type online. I understand the need to provide references, although I do not understand the full extent of this request. For most titles I provide an ISBN, if available, which a plethora of catalogues would verify the illustrator; however, early out-of-print titles do not contain such details, and one must reference notes from online antique book sellers; moreover, the earliest material does not credit the illustrator at all, and one must have knowledge of the illustrators work, and history to verify.

I own a large selection of plates by Mr. Worsley, encompassing a familiarity of his style, and history. Although Mr Worsley’s paintings hang in prominent British institutions, he begins to fade into obscurity, with few articles exploring his history, paintings, and works, post his death in 2000. Interested parties can research the listed early titles via online antique book sellers, and those familiar with Mr. Worsley, his style, interests, and history, would immediately recognise these titles; nevertheless, there is no online repository that can identify every volume. Naturally, I can delete the complete “Selected Works” section, and the article becomes an adjunct to other articles on Wikipedia centred on Mr. Worsley’s work, such as Albert RN.

I would appreciate any advice offered, and will amend the article as recommended, and to the extent of my ability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danger Woman (talk • contribs) 14:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have accepted the article with a few minor changes. The discussion about whether the list of works should be trimmed, can continue on the article talk page. I would note that references do not need to be online in order to be acceptable. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Beta Phi Pi Fraternity Incorporated

My name is Richard Alveranga. I am the creator of Beta Phi Pi Fraternity Incorporated. To my understanding, it was nominated for deletion. Due to the fact that I'm waiting for the proper references to add with this page to be verified, I am unable to publish it yet.

May this please be considered for Userfication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardalveranga (talk • contribs) 15:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't been nominated for deletion formally, but as a stale draft it was at risk of deletion. I have made an edit to prevent that. It doesn't need userfication - just work on it to add references etc and when you are ready to submit it for review, please follow the instructions in the box at the top of the draft.--ukexpat (talk) 18:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is safe where it is now - as long as you do not leave it unedited for 6 months. I found no current evidence of possible deletion. When you've added references you can simply hit the green submit button. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kellie Torrey

Hello, I need help in finishing my article on Kellie Torrey. I have revamped the article and it was rejected. She has been a model and acted in the past. Please give me some advise how to publish this article. Thank you. Davisj1359 (talk) 18:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you have sufficiently addressed the last reviewer's concerns: There are still multiple sections that cite no sources whatsoever. Furthermore, many of the given sources are not independent or don't provide significant coverage of Torrey; such sources should not form the sole basis of large amounts of content. See WP:WEIGHT for details. Huon (talk) 01:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 31

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Traditional (clay) architecture in Iran

Dear Mr. Vantias,

I received your message concerning my article. My book is pubished and I am introducing the subject and the title of my book in Wikipedia. I do not earn money for it, and the review of my book is for free in the Amazon, KDP.

To give an introduction of book title and cover page and the name of author is normal in Wikipedia. Why are you saying that your team writes only article? If you searched in wikipedia for Gone With the Wind, a full description of the book and author appear. I plan to create a page just like it to introduce my published book.

Sincerely yours, Dr. Manoochehri — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.71.210.106 (talk) 07:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC) (User:Dr. Hossein Manoochehri, Ph.D.)[reply]


Hello Dr. Manoochehri, the issue is that it is not clear what the intent of your draft is. Are you writing a Wikipedia article about historical Iranian architecture, or are you writing an article about a specific book thereon, which you have written and has been published? If the latter, please be aware of our policy WP:Conflict of interest (as we do not permit articles that serve simply to advertise one's book) Also be aware that all articles about books must meet the standards of WP:Notability (books); this policy states that a book article must include substantive external critique and analysis. That is, it is not enough to say, for example, " The History of Apples was published in 1983", the article writer must demonstrate that the book excited commentary among botanists, maybe was used to reform the apple policies of the Department of Agriculture, etc. So those are the standards we require.
If we are still misunderstanding your intent in drafting an article, please clarify. MatthewVanitas (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sachin Garg

 Done Hi,

Is my page for Sachin Garg under review again? I don't see the yellow box saying 'under review'.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushagrabatra (talk • contribs) 08:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kushagrabatra, your article is not currently under review; if you are ready for review please hit the RESUBMIT button at the bottom of your pink box, and it will create a new yellow box. The yellow box may appear at the bottom of your article at first, but will eventually migrate to the top.
Before you Resubmit, have you read the guidance given to you about WP:Footnoting your sources? I will make an example footnote for you just so you can see how a footnote is coded. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/2012 Wimbledon Championships – Men's Singles final

Hi,

I think it is unfair that you are rejecting my article for the 2012 Wimbledon Championships – Men's Singles final, when there is one for the 2008 Wimbledon Championships – Men's Singles final, the 2013 Wimbledon Championships – Men's Singles final, the 2012 US Open – Men's Singles final, the 2012 French Open – Men's Singles final, and the 2012 Australian Open – Men's Singles final.

Why do those five other finals get their own pages but the 2012 Wimbledon final, which is more historic than any of them except the 2008 Wimbledon final, is getting summarily rejected. It is totally different from the page for the tournament draw that you cited.

Your criteria for rejecting my article would have to apply for those other five pages but you are only applying it to my article.

Can you please consider retracting your rejection in light of this double standard.

Thanks for your consideration,
Praline97 8:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Your article was rejected because it was a copy of an article that's already in mainspace. LionMans Account (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Walford Lloyd Gealy

Hello Dori Smith has declined my submission - I do not understand what he/she requires me to do to rectify the article. Can you help please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.4.54.29 (talk) 12:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the text of the pink Decline box: The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.
What Dori means by that is that you have made statements and claims about Gealy's career and impact, but have provided no WP:Sourcing at all. It would not be fair to Gealy to simply allow anonymous people to come and claim facts about him, to do it right every stated claim must be backed up by a news article, academic paper, cite from a published book, etc. that mentions said fact about Gealy. The tutorial WP:Referencing for beginners may be helpful to read. Does this answer your question? MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Leukemia Ball

My first try. I added references but there are no books, just newspaper articles. But the articles require a payment to view entire article. Your thoughts on this please?Chrismoss8713 (talk) 14:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper articles usually are reliable sources, and a paywall doesn't change that - we expect our readers can find them in a sufficiently well-equipped library. You don't seem to have added the sources yet, though. Huon (talk) 01:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Amateur Astronomers Association of Princeton

Hi,

I need more specific information on why this article was not accepted: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Amateur Astronomers Association of Princeton

The reviewer, Tazerdadog, said the following:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms, that are designed to promote or show-off the subject.

I will try to provide more independent, reliable, published sources; however, I am stumped about what to do about the tone. I tried use only necessary adjectives and and adverbs, and to stick to facts. The tone appears to me to be similar to the tone of accepted articles about other astronomical associations. If someone could suggest where to change text, I would greatly appreciate it.

Thank you for your help,

LordStark45 (talk) 23:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some examples: Most of the "Famous members" section's content is completely irrelevant to the Astronomers Association, and the title itself is debatable - is Dyson really "famous" in the greater scheme of things? Says who? Listing the topics of the various monthly lectures also provides no information whatsoever on the Association, and unless individual talks have been the subject of more significant third-party coverage than routine events coverage in a local newspaper, I don't think they should be mentioned individually at all. The "50th Anniversary Celebration" section reads like something I'd expect in an Association newsletter, not in an encyclopedia article. Huon (talk) 01:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 1

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ricky Balshaw

How do I put a picture on my article of the person Taliescull (talk) 07:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the picture tutorial on how to add an image to an article. However, that specific image is a copy of a commercial image and seems a likely copyright violation. See the deletion discussion. If you did indeed take that image, you should follow the steps outlined at WP:Donating copyrighted content. Huon (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paul Bowen

Hi, I put forward this article many weeks ago and wondered why it has not been accepted yet.

Any advice greatly appreciated!

Many thanks

Starfighterriat (talk) 09:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC) riatstarfighter[reply]

You removed that article's submission template, effectively un-submitting it for review. You also removed the draft message box that had instructions for submission. Articles that are not submitted will not be reviewed. However, even if it were submitted for review this draft would likely not be accepted because most of its sources are not the independent reliable sources we need to establish that Bowen is notable enough for an article. Huon (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Your submission name here

As requested by a Wikipedia editor, I have linked the article on Nelson Pass to my article on Threshold Audio so it would no longer be an orphan. Would another editor please verify this and remove the header requesting this? Thank you. Anthony Young Ahy2650 (talk) 13:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Huon (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Flat irons museum

The article is fully based on Russian-language printed sources from 2002 to 2011 (newspapers and magazines). The museum itself is widely known and has a good tourist flow, for is stays in the Golden Ring of Russia tourist route. How can this article be improved? Thank you. --95.129.140.113 (talk) 14:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you provided additional details, such as the titles of the newspapers, links to those newspapers we have articles on, author information, and so on. I expect 2011 articles are available online, but it's impossible to even search for them with what little information you gave. Worse, the English sources actually are available online, but at least one of them doesn't say what it's cited for. Huon (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eightysix (Andras Vleminckx)

Hi ,

I would like to know which of my sources are not reliable. For referencing production credits I've used www.ultratop.be as website, which stores the official credits on every released song.

Thank you,

Andras Andrasvleminckx (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A mere database of credits is not the kind of significant coverage necessary to establish that Vleminckx is notable enough for an article, and the actual text of the article doesn't seem to be supported by the given sources at all. For example, the very first source is his record label, not an independent source, and it doesn't say anything about him gaining recognition anyway. And which source confirms that Vleminckx "had become heavily submerged in his craft" by age 14? You may also want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest. Writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged. Huon (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chris Baldwin - Theatre Director and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Teatro de Creación

Hello

I am new to Wikipedia and am unsure if my articles Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chris Baldwin - Theatre Director and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Teatro de Creación are in the list to be reviewed?

Thank you

Silvestri

Silvestricb (talk) 09:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yes they are, you had actually submitted them multiple times. I have cleaned it up to make it clearer that they are in the queue. - Happysailor (Talk) 09:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Treasure Television Series

For https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Treasure_Television_Series, please see 40 seconds into the video where Bill Burrud announces the name of the series, "Treasure" at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9KSAh9jEEU. The series in fact did exist as listed on producer Bill Burrud's IMDb.com page at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0123310/ Tikihouse (talk) 09:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may exist, but that is not why the submission was declined. You need to provide reliable, third party sources that prove the show is notable enough to have a wikipedia article. Youtube clips does not show this. - Happysailor (Talk) 09:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lyndhurst Hall, Warden Road, Kentish Town, London

Hi,

I am trying to import a photograph into this draft article - I have uploaded a photograph in the commons section (title Lyndhurst Hall before demolition 2005) but when I copy the link into this article it is locked. I have removed the link from the article for now whilst I get your advice on how I can do this.

Your help would be appreciated.

Thanks

Christine

Christine A Dyos (talk) 11:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to use the [[File:]] tag. I have added your picture to your submission and it should now be visible. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/chandola lake

How to include image in articleJayshukla2006 (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on the image's copyright. If you took the image yourself and are willing to release it under a free license so that everybody can re-use and modify it for any purpose, including commercial purposes, you can upload the image to the Wikimedia Commons via their Upload Wizard. If the image isn't freely licensed, it likely will not be acceptable to Wikipedia.
Once it's uploaded, the picture tutorial explains how to add the image to an article. Huon (talk) 00:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Collision-induced absorption and emission

Madam/Sir:

On June 18, 2013, I submitted a new article entitled "Collision-induced emission and absorption" to Wikipedia's website and had no response thus far. I resubmitted once more the identical article today, thinking that I may have done something wrong previously and hope to receive some echo soon, perhaps an acknowledgement of receipt, an acception or rejection notice, or just something indicating you have looked, or you will look at it. The article is a brief scientific review of a relatively new science, collision-induced emission and absorption spectra, which is rigorous and much needed, especially for modern astrophysics and physical chemistry in particular. You may find it difficult to name a suitable referee, because the science is still somewhat esoteric and it was widely ignored previously, but there can be no doubt about the strictly scientific approach presented. Suitable referees would be, for example, Didier Saumon, an astrophysicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory, one of the expert users of collision-induced absorption (CIA) spectra in astrophysics. Most of the pioneers of CIA are no more, but famous students of the Harry Welsh group of the University of Toronto - where CIA was discovered in 1949 - are still around. I mention as a famous example Bob McKellar, National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa; many others could also be named if requested.

Almost a quarter year is past since my first submission. Could someone, please, tell me if the article was received and will be properly considered? As to my qualification of writing the article, I mention that I am the sole author of the only existing monograph on Collision-induced Absorption in Gases, Cambridge University Press, 1993 and 2006. I published more than hundred scientific articles on the subject matter. The proposed article is a serious attempt to introduce an increasing number of young scientists to CIA. Personally, I used wikipedia articles to learn much about modern astrophysics over the years, where important applications of CIA are emerging. I think my article will fit in nicely with what I have seen in wikipedia.

Sincerely, Lothar Frommhold Prof.em., Physics, University of Texas

173.174.96.222 (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission is in the queue for review. However at first glance I see a number of problems in terms of style, referencing, etc. I've asked for some assistance from WikiProject Physics to get the draft into shape for "publication". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, thanks for writing this article and sorry about the wait. AfC is an imperfect process; some articles get reviewed quickly, others in technical areas in which few reviewers feel competent seem to sit in the queue a long time. Your excellent qualifications are certainly not the problem here. I see that Maschen has already cleaned up almost all of the LaTeX problems and the article is in pretty good shape now. I've added a a short introduction (called a lead in Wikipedia jargon) that introduces the subject. Please check it for accuracy--I am no expert in this field. While the article could be improved--it needs more wiki links and I wager that an illustration or two would help explain the concepts--the article is in good shape and well referenced. I'd say that it is ready for mainspace. --Mark viking (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I left a note on Prof. Frommhold's page about my editing. To update, the refs are now moved inline, although some LaTeX may remain in them, we still need to distill volume numbers, issue numbers, series, publishers, journals, locations, years, authors/editors... Other bits of clean up are still needed.
Apologies the draft may be messed up, but the citation templates are for consistent formatting of refs throughout the article and make it clear for editors to see what's what. Please let me know if I ruined anything!
I agree it could be moved to mainspace by now. There are refs. As Mark viking says it needs more links but this is easy, although probably best left to the author who knows exactly where they should point. Anything that needs rewriting can be rewritten in mainspace without problem. M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 21:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Access PanAm

What do you do about a reviewer who ignores you? And a reviewer who says that you have not adequately evidence the subject's notability, but whose own pages are the most trivial, piddling subjects imaginable, such as each separate air national guard unit in New England? how do you communicate with someone like that. Well I couldn't since he never answered my questions about what I needed to do. Armando Menocal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.167.4.154 (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any evidence that you tried to contact the reviewer of that draft on their talk page, and I have to agree that the sources are insufficient. Several are press releases by the association. I don't think there's a single reliable source among them that's independent of the association. We need such sources to establish that the association is notable enough for an article. Huon (talk) 00:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 3

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/sopara (a jat village of bhopalgarh(

what was the defect in my submission i am from there and who other will be the good source of information about it other then local Godarasopara (talk) 12:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft doesn't cite any reliable sources. Our readers have no way of verifying what "local people" might say, or even that local people exist. Thus Wikipedia requires published sources. "Newspapers" might indeed be acceptable sources, but you'll have to be much more explicit than just writing that word. What newspapers? Which issue? Who authored the articles? On what page of the newspaper was the article published? We'll need at least some of that information so we can look up those newspaper articles in a library. If the articles are available online and you can provide links, so much the better. Also, the draft would have to be heavily copyedited for spelling and grammar. Huon (talk) 04:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Jayfrankauthor/sandbox

Jayfrankauthor (talk) 13:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jayfrankauthor/sandbox it took 20 of us to work on this article all weekend. Our team did a fantastic job on it with over 105 references. We made sure that the references that we used were independent and already used on your site. I went on the Chat room in front of my class and asked for help and no one responded except to say hi. I was accused of being a PR person and called stupid. I am a student at coastal Carolina University in Myrtle Beach South Carolina. Part of our class project is to write a paper on vacation travel that you do not have. Our team found a site called rent my vacation home and they have 115 sites searchable by a large network of vacation homes. We went to the competition and check their references and found the same references. I look forward to this been published on your site. It is not fair to our team to approve references made by other writers who are the same references that we have example Forbes, Tech crunch, crunch base, red orbit ect. Thank You for your time and consideration we look forward to your professional response and we pray that it is fair and consistent with the other sites that you have. If we cannot use these references and you want all of these taken away how are we going to write a story and get published on your site. We followed all the guidelines and it was very difficult to find anything that meet the criteria that you don't already have. Furthermore it makes no sense to any of us as to why you want to keep this company out.Do you have a agreement with HomeAway the company that they do not want this? We find it very hard to believe that it has anything to do with the references as we were accused of working there at rent my vacation home .It is not fair to the travel industry and makes your site a little less then what it should be. I will be asking the teacher and the dean to take this out of the class grade and description of class .Jayfrank — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayfrankauthor (talk • contribs) 12:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Jayfrankauthor (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what chat room you went to, but #wikipedia-en-help is the recommended chat room to use. The teahouse is also a good place to find help and assistance. If you went to another chat channel and can confirm that it was one of those officially affiliated with Wikipedia, I would personally very interested to know which editors personally attacked you, as would other participants in WikiProject Editor Retention.
As for the article, the problem you have with your references is that none of them are really independent. Many just mention properties that Rent My Vacation Home happens to be letting, while this digital journal source appears to be a press release. The trouble with press releases and lists on Crunchbase is that they will generally list anything going without making any decision about whether it's particularly worthy of note. We need news reports from independent outlets that have no bias and report on the company in a partisan manner.
You are correct that TechCrunch is generally a good source to use. However, your one reference here doesn't appear to be about this company, so it's no good. Have a look at Craigslist and look at the type of sources used in the "References" section. You can see there are numerous sources from outlets like the San Francisco Chronicle and The New York Times. It's well known that both of those have a reputation for solid reporting of facts in a partisan manner. Click on a couple of news reports, and you'll notice they're directly about some facet of the company and discuss it in depth.
Although you might think it's unfair, it's consistently unfair across the board to everyone. For instance, I have been recently working on a band article that might be suitable for Wikipedia, but I can't be sure it's notable enough to be acceptable. That's just the way life goes.
Finally I would note that your teacher did not specifically ask you to write an article on Wikipedia, and don't understand how that is relevant. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zetta Inc

Hello AfC Reviewers,

This question is about AfC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Zetta_Inc

The article was denied for inclusion due to "Quality of sources." However, the sources list includes 10 very reputable publications. Can I have more guidance on improving quality of sources? The current sources seem to meet the guidelines for "reliable, published sources" on Wikipedia:IRS.

Additionally, several companies that are very similar to Zetta have their own pages included in the encyclopedia with only self-published references. I know that this is not a reason for inclusion, but the reference list I have created includes TechCrunch, CNN, and New York Times among others, so I am confused about why this article has been denied on basis of references.

Please provide specific comments to help me get this page included in the encyclopedia.

Thank You!

DataJunkie82 Datajunkie82 (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Zetta website itself obviously is not an independent source. Crunchbase is user-submitted content and is not considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards. Several other sources, including the New York Times, only cover Zetta as one among many - the NYT, in particular, devotes but a single sentence exclusively to Zetta. Others, for example the Hurricane Sandy coverage, only mention Zetta in passing without providing any details - for example, it doesn't mention "a lightweight software agent" (also, that paragraph reads unduly promotional). Huon (talk) 04:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ferris Rezvani

hi I submitted this article but I am not sure if it submitted with content or empty? please let me know if the submission has content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Messner (talk • contribs) 17:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The submitted draft was indeed empty. Huon (talk) 04:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Frank Messner, according to your "My changes" tab, you never saved any content to that page other than the review request. Did you perhaps type an article but not hit the "Save" button, or only hit "Preview" but not save subsequently? MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 4

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Estakhr Constant (Physics)

article is based on reliable, published source. To cite this abstract, use the following reference: http://meetings.aps.org/link/BAPS.2013.APR.K2.3

You should add that to the draft, not to this page, but firstly I don't think the inventor's own paper would be considered an independent source, and secondly I'm not at all sure poster sessions are subject to peer review. Huon (talk) 04:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even other websites have used this reference link too, for example:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013APS..APR.K2003E — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.127.230.42 (talk) 05:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The American Physical Society is the world's second largest organization of physicists, . The Society publishes more than a dozen scientific journals, including the prestigious Physical Review and Physical Review Letters, and organizes more than 20 science meetings each year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.114.214.38 (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've found that the folks at WP:WikiProject Physics are quite willing to help new editors and articles. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bob Slayer

I was looking for an article on Bob Slayer It seems that he has been deleted in the past for being not notable - it seems that was some years ago - maybe that was when he was a band manager - he is now an award winning comedian (Malcolm Hardee Award) nominations http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-14631265 wins http://www.chortle.co.uk/news/2011/08/27/13873/brandreths_son_most_likely_to_make_a_million He is a trail blazing promoter at the Edinburgh Fringe - The venue he promoted this year became the smallest venue to ever win one of the Edinburgh Comedy Awards (previously the perrier) News here - https://www.google.co.uk/search?num=50&rlz=1C1LENN_enGB499GB499&biw=1366&bih=677&tbm=nws&q=%22bob+slayer%22&oq=%22bob+slayer%22&gs_l=serp.3...12512.14039.0.14306.2.2.0.0.0.0.45.85.2.2.0....0...1c.1.26.serp..2.0.0.IOGpNu_T33A “Bob Slayer, an eccentric promoter battling to find a new financial model that works for acts.” The Scotsman “You have to admire the endeavours of mavericks like Bob Slayer for living proof that fringe spirit is not yet gone for good…” Huffingdon Post (Late Night Gimp Fight David Moon) "Bob Slayer has created a whole new form of late night show at Bob’s Bookshop by not simply thinking outside the comedy box, but throwing it away. He has grown into a lovely comic and, in his own show, a really great raconteur..." Copstick, The Scotsman “Anti-establishment booze hound Bob Slayer has two shows to perform and a system to smash” London is Funny “Fringe veteran Bob Slayer, the absurdist storytelling performer, promoter and spirit of the fringe…” The Guardian “a force of creative brilliance in the world of comedy” The Comedy Scoop Broken Noeck at Download Festival http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2159165/Now-thats-rubbish-stand-act-Comedian-breaks-neck-trying-crowd-surf-WHEELIE-BIN.html 86.146.239.25 (talk) 03:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should write a draft via the Article Wizard. Huon (talk) 04:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Scott Morrow Adventure trilogy

Hi,

I am creating a new article and have put in a series of links to various references but there is no showing of the links in the 'References' section on saving the page.

Are the references locked until the page is cleared for publication? Christopher 06:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7Lawrence (talk • contribs)

(ec)You haven't got any correctly formatted references, it looks like you have formatted them as inline external links instead. I have fixed the references and wikilinks in the lead section for you. (BTW the lead doesn't get a section heading.) Another issue is that you have simply listed various reviews with external links. However the "core" of articles about books should actually be built on reviews so please expand the "mentions" into substantial discussion of the reviews. The Author infobox des not belong in this article. There is already an article about Christopher J. Holcroft - it has a number of maintenance tags that you might be able to resolve. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pips Taylor

This keeps getting rejected. Please can someone tell me why with detailed feedback? (80.194.200.114 (talk) 09:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

  • As was stated in the latest rejection, your sources do not have any significant coverage of the subject. For instance, the first BBC link here just says "Presenter - Pips Taylor". That's not enough to convey notability - we need articles that are specifically about her, ideally covering several paragraphs. Some of your other references are merely front pages of websites, which are almost never acceptable as a specific reference about a person. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Is it best to take out all these references completely and just have plain text? There hasn't been much written about Pips Taylor in external sources, yet she is a credible TV presenter and I was using those references as proof of her work. If you look at the websites they do list her as presenter so will validate the claims in the wikipedia article. Please advise on what is best to do to get this page created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somethin' Else Talent (talk • contribs) 14:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been biased at all in the submission of this. Pips Taylor is a client of Somethin' Else Talent but we are not using her wikipedia listing as anything other than an encyclopedia entry, like everything else on the site. There is nothing on the article to suggest any kind of bias or any mention of our affiliation with her (Somethin' Else Talent (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

  • Your user name and the article's history show a direct correlation between the agency and the article's subject. A conflict of interest can cause embarrassment to editors, as you have now discovered. You will need to follow the guide to appealing blocks. It's true that the article is reasonably well presented, but fundamentally I don't think Taylor is quite notable enough for a Wikipedia article, particularly if she needs to pay someone to promote herself. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shahidha Bari

Hello.

I have been asked to add some more biographical info and a link to her latest book. THis has now been done and the changes saved. How do I resubmit?

Regards,

JoeGoud77Joegould77 (talk) 09:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Your article is now in the queue for submission. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Telangana Words

Hello Team,

My submission 'Telangana words' has declined .

Now , i changed the content and i would like to edit my article name . Could you please assist in editing the name ?

Thanks in advance . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shirish Bathini (talk • contribs) 12:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should have started a new submission for a new topic. I have moved your submission to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Donkeshwer. Villages are normally passed as inherently notable (it appears on Google Maps and is real), but I would strongly recommend looking for a news source to describe the 1975 flood. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dewain Whitmore, Jr.

Hello, my question is for an article I submitted for 2x Grammy Award Winner Dewain Whitmore, Jr.. The article name is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dewain Whitmore, Jr. I submitted this article about 9 months ago. I also updated/edited the article last week. Can someone please help me in getting this article created? Not sure, why I am having trouble doing so. Thank you in advance. Mikeivy (talk) 13:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Mikeivy (talk) 13:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pips Taylor

I'm trying to create a page for Pips Taylor and it keeps getting rejected. Please can you provide detailed reasons why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somethin' Else Talent (talk • contribs) 13:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carestream_Dental

Good morning! I have created an article for Carestream Dental several times, omitting any biased information and adding a number of credible third-party sources, but am having no luck getting it accepted. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you Dentstaff (talk) 14:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Dentstaff[reply]

Good morning! I have created an article for Carestream Dental several times, omitting any biased information and adding a number of credible third-party sources, but am having no luck getting it accepted. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you Dentstaff (talk) 14:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Dentstaff[reply]

Hello Dentstaff. The last time that you submitted your article, only one of the references mentioned the company "Carestream Dental". This is fine if they support other facts in the article. However, you must be sure that there are several that have extensive information about your main topic. You have added more since, and this is good. One of the new ones, from DentalTown, is an exact copy of another from "HygieneTown"; you should include just one of these, probably the DentalTown one since it's the original. About interviews: be aware that reviewers only look at what the journalist has said when determining notability; remarks by company representatives are not considered independent. So now you have two sources, the Applied Radiology and the Dental Town one, which talk about this company. This is better than one, but please look for more. How about this one? I don't know who these doctors are, but if they are not company representatives, then this is a good source. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/C. Stephen Foster

Please help me. I noted the original rejection. I read suggestions. I revised the submission with material written about me by others. I added evidenced of publication of over 700 publications in peer reviewed medical literature, verifiable through pubmed.org. I have read the materials on criteria for notability. Can you please review the submission now and tell me if it is now acceptable and if not, what are the features which make it unacceptable?

Thank you.

Charles Stephen FosterCharlesstephenfoster (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it is strongly suggested that you do not create an autobiography on Wikipedia, see WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. If you are indeed notable, someone will write an article about you eventually. Second, your draft is nothing more than a c.v. masquerading as an article - that is promotion and is not permitted, see WP:PROMOTION. Sorry to be harsh, but it is completely inappropriate as it stands.--ukexpat (talk) 19:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Right at Home

Curious to why our Wikipedia article creation was turned down please? What other content could I add for the creation of the article?

Thanks.Bpappasrah (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It needs independent, third party sources and it is too promotional in tone. Please see WP:RS.--ukexpat (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Reach - Association for Children with Upper Limb Deficiency

Please can you explain why validation of the charity through official government sources is not sufficent to get published. A similar charity has an entry on Wikipedia and has less references than Reach. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbless_Association — Preceding unsigned comment added by P457452 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


September 5

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Your submission name here

Rejected articles

i would like to know why my article was rejected please and its Euphoric Heritage Records Shanghsu (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Allen F. Brewer Jr.

Is there anyone that can input the info for me that knows how to do wikipedia for I am not a computer savvy person.

Thank you

Sean Brewer

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=571597782"