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 30

Review of User:Imansoor/sandbox

can you let me know why the page is deleted actually?

One of competitors were able to publish it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LocalOye.com I did the same format with our brand and information. What is the actual reason removing it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imansoor (talk • contribs)

@Imansoor: Yes, LocalOye.com is crap. I've tagged it and it may be deleted. Meanwhile, your entry was deleted by Deb only 20 hours ago for being obvious advertisement. Now you're trying again? Neither entry has reliable sources or a real claim to notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I've deleted LocalOye.com for advertising - why mess around? It appears neither user understands the wikipedia guidelines. Deb (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Review of Draft:Jesse Faber

Hi,

I would like to know more about why my submission has been rejected in order to improve it. There are several referencing to external articles that make the information verifiable.

Thanks in advance. JesseFaber (talk) 11:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jesse. I went through your draft and formatted the referencing properly in order to be able to see what kinds of sources you were using. Simply adding inline external links in the article is not the correct way to reference. I completely removed all the YouTube links. (1) They are not considered valid references in this context, and (2) they are all copyright infringements. I also removed inline external links to other Wikipedia articles and the inline link to your own web site. So what's left? Very little that would indicate that the subject passes the criteria for inclusion as an article here. You were given links to read in the decline notice at the top of your draft. I strongly suggest you click on each of those links and read them carefully—all the way through. They will explain why most of your current references are useless for establishing that the subject meets the notability criteria and why some of them are even inappropriate for simply verifying the information in the article. You should also look at the alternative criteria for Creative professionals. Finally, I am assuming from your name that you are also the subject. Wikipedia strongly discourages writing articles about yourself or on subjects to which you have close connection, either personally or financially. Suggested reading Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. – Voceditenore (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Review of Draft:European Academy of Bozen

i understand why the article in march was rejected. Independent sources were missing. I added them and resented the question for review. After this, nothing happened, but the article was moved from Articles for creation to Draft. Without a comment. Can someone tell me what’s wrong about the article? Niuwörldorder (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Moving the submission from Articles for Creation to Draft (which was done by Rankersbo) means nothing; at the moment, we're trying to put some submissions in the Draft namespace since it (the namespace) was recently introduced.

The submission looks like it has a bunch of sources and will probably be reviewed, according to the banner at the top, sometime in the next month. Thanks! APerson (talk!) 20:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

thank you Niuwörldorder (talk) 11:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Review of User:LynxHungaricus/Ga-nime

I think I made some mistake but I'm not sure. When I made my draft, I pressed the "Submit your draft for review!" button. Then a new page appeared with only the content in the edit box saying I should not edit anything explicitly saying in that whole edit box just press the save button below. I did that, there was no warning that I may lose my article in the making... and now I can't find anything what I wrote. The yellow Review waiting window says "In the meantime, you can continue to improve this article by pressing the "Edit" tab at the top of the window" suggesting that what I see is not normal at all. If I did click the edit link, I'd just get the same edit box with the content do not change anything there. So... does my draft disappeared? I went to other drafts waiting to be accepted and most of them had the content in it, not just the yellow box. Do I have to recreate everything or is there a way to get back what I submitted for review?

LynxHungaricus (talk) 14:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@LynxHungaricus: I moved your submission to Draft:Ga-nime. Your submission has no reliable sources, which cannot be allowed. You will also need to prove notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: Edit: everything's proven reliably in the draft. Sorry for previous mistakes, I overlooked the fact that the main source has English site!

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/KidCareCanada Society

Please advise why this submission was refused, and how I can change it.

Thanks. KatharineHolmes (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@KatharineHolmes: Read the comments Timtrent left for you on the article. Please also read WP:TONE, WP:RS, WP:NOTADVERTISING, and WP:GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Review of Draft:Perspective projection

My edited "Perspective Projection Distortion," https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Patkelso/sandbox was declined because it was deemed better to merge it into "Perspective projection," https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_Projection#Perspective_projection. I would prefer to keep the former in my sandbox for reference but I would also like to edit and merge it into the latter via a sandbox. Can this be done? (I would appreciate a heads-up email, Kelso@coes.latech.edu, with link, of where I might find your reply.) Thank you.Pat Kelso (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. You would do so by editing Perspective projection.

You can reach me as demiurge1000.wikipedia@gmail.com and I hope that satisfies your requirements for replies. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Review of Draft:Evidence and Case Studies for Agile Software Development Methodologies

How do I communicate with the editor who rejected my article? Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Evidence and Case Studies for Agile Software Development Methodologies Sarah M SarahMonsees (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@SarahMonsees: While MatthewVanitas declined your submission, I can address your questions. Your first sentence: "When pursuing software or product development quality using Agile methodologies, there is Evidence and Case Studies for Agile Software Development Methodologies that Agile methods improve quality of the resulting products." is clear evidence you've written an essay. Please also read WP:NPOV. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Roberta Joy Weir

I had my article Wikipediatalk:Articles for creation Roberta Joy Weir reviewed and turned down. I'd like to know what was wrong with the article; I believe the subject to have sufficient notability and verifiable references for publication. Thanks all for help & encouragement.P.g.duffy (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

You do have some reliable sources in the submission; however, Timtrent (aka Fiddle Faddle), who reviewed the article, thought (and I agree with him/her) that many of the statements in the article need citations, according to Wikipedia's verifiability policy. You should look carefully at Fiddle Faddle's comment, and try to address the remarks made in it. APerson (talk!) 20:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

@P.g.duffy: I do try very hard to give as clear a rationale as I am able. It was wise of you to come here to get further opinions. We're always pleased when editors come and ask for help, the more so when a review has been disappointing. If, after reading and acting on the elements of my comments you feel are appropriate, you have further questions please drop by my talk page or {{ping}} me here and ask. Be as specific as you can, please.

One thing I try not to do is a further formal review of the same article. Our system is more useful when further pairs of eyes look at a submission. Our objective is to help you to avoid deletion when your article goes live. That truly hurts. We don't always succeed, but we do a pretty good job. I include you in the "we". You are as much part of the team as a reviewer. Fiddle Faddle 22:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks guys; I do very much appreciate the encouragement and offers of help. I added a citation I'd been looking for for a month, but I suspect that in itself isn't really sufficient. I hadn't wanted to expand the article, rather, I had been paring it down...but I fear that more detail is needed. Roberta Weir is a woman who never sought notoriety, and managed to stay out of nearby spotlights like Jerry Garcia's, yet her effect on the culture has been profound in subtle ways (cf: her introduction of the Flammerion engraving to the masses in the 60's...). I'd like to keep working on this and making it worthy of publication.P.g.duffy (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mark Sheldon Ross

Hello, I have invited to contact by the OTRS team, now that permissions are in order for the new article below. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Mark_Sheldon_Ross What is next required before it can be published? Thank you EdouardGris (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I just submitted the draft; now, all you have to do is wait until one of the Articles for Creation reviewers takes a look at it; after they review it, they will leave a note on your talk page. So, you should check your submission periodically. Thanks! APerson (talk!) 20:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

EdouardGris: unfortunately, I had to decline it, because there is no evidence that he meets either WP:GNG, or WP:CRERATIVE--see the note on the submission. If you do have such references, add them and resubmit. DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Edouard: I guess you meant: "unfortunately, I had to decline it, because there is no evidence that it meets either WP:GNG (...)"

Review of Draft:Narawa Games

I created the website in the article, but the site is not a popular one, so nobody knows it exists. That means there are no Internet sources available. How to I reference and cite it? The article is at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Narawa Games. 2601:E:2C00:44A:16C:AC93:1C2C:5937 (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Are there any printed books from well known publishers that mention it? Or printed magazines from reputable sources?

If there aren't any of these either, then it is too soon to make a Wikipedia article about this website.

Wait until the website is widely known. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

May 31

I can't change a band's main picture?

For the Family Force 5 page, the main band picture has not been updated since 2008 I believe. This band also got a new lead singer and drummer in September. It's been 9 months now and no one has uploaded a new picture with the new members. I do not see any way for me to change the picture. Is this because it's protected? Does that mean the old picture will stay on their page until the person who has it protected changes it? Also, is the person who actually submitted the page for the band the only person allowed to change the main band/profile picture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannahro95 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Please consider asking this question at the Wikipedia:Help desk. - This is where editors will try to answer any question regarding how to use Wikipedia. Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for any help related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps! APerson (talk!) 20:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Review of [1]

Review of [2]

Hi!

I don't understand if the article i'm working on, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Martin_Haene is still pending for review by an editor or if I have to react in any way. Could you tell me that, please?

Thank you very much for your help and greetings,

FrS

FrS (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

@Sandro.friedrich: I think the problem was caused by removal of the notice declining the submission. This meant you lost track of what was going on. I have restored it. I will pop over to the draft and make some comments there. Please do not delete the boxes and comments declining things. They help you and future reviewers, and are removed on acceptance. Fiddle Faddle 13:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

@Sandro.friedrich: What you need to do now, should you choose to, is to look at comments made, consider what you will adopt from them, and, once you have, resubmit the article. This one does need a fair bit of work. Fiddle Faddle 13:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Barry King (tennis)

Resolved

 – Article was created. APerson (talk!) 19:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, my article was rejected about Barry King/tennis due to issues with the context of the article. Here is the link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Barry_King_(tennis)

Thanks, any help appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Footer44 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Review of [Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&diff=next&oldid=610897325]

Hi! I got a message that an change had been made by an editor: "Wikipedia page Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk has been changed by Footer44"

Except all it displays is an article about tennis which doesn't have to do with me. Can you check this? Thank you!

Best,

FrS FrS (talk) 11:50, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The diff which you linked to looks like you starting a post. I'm guessing that the notification system thought that Footer44, who started a thread right below you, was responding to your thread. APerson (talk!) 20:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Review of Nate Fakes

Hello,

I was just curious to why the submission to include Nate Fakes was rejected and if there are any edits I can do to help improve it.

Thanks!

Jim AddamsJimboaddams (talk) 15:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

It looks like FoCuSandLeArN, who reviewed the submission, linked you to WP:ARTIST. It doesn't look like Nate Fakes meets that guideline yet. You may also want to focus on meeting WP:GNG, which doesn't cover artists specifically, by adding more reliable, independent sources about Nate Fakes as sources. You should cite phrases like "He is also known for his work". Although it is not required, since the submission contains multiple sources which focus on only one sentence in the submission (e.g. the "Knocking on Heaven's Door" mention), you should look at Citation Style 1. APerson (talk!) 19:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Review of User:Nidhitanusri/sandbox

Why my article is rejectedNidhitanusri (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

As the two reviewers who looked at the submission said, your article needs more reliable sources so that the content in it can be verified.

Please re-submit the article only after adding some. Thanks! APerson (talk!) 20:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/KKAnini

biography of auguste francois michaut thanks for creating the article but i do not understand why it appears in google search as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KKAnini/sandbox and not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auguste-Fran%C3%A7ois_Michaut how to change it? KKAnini (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

That's down to Google. Google will probably update itself in a few days. If not, you could ask for the redirect to be deleted. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

June 1

Review of Draft:Eliot Lewis (musician)Righttrack

I need help understanding what is an acceptable source for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Righttrack. According to one of your volunteers, an article in which a journalist or blogger interviewed Mr. Lewis is fine, but video of a TV interview in which a journalist asks him questions and he answers is not. The volunteer said that Mr. Lewis' answers have to be "substantially rewritten" before they can be used as a source. To me, as a former journalist, that seems odd. Also, I was told that to be a source, an article *must* be online. That may be a problem, since not all papers have all their entire article base online.

Thank you for your help!

Righttrack (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Who told you that sources must be online? Where did they tell you this? Whoever they are, they are 100% wrong.

As for the TV interview, one doesn't cite a piece of video footage that happens to be online somewhere; one cites the publication, i.e. the TV programme that it aired on.

Interviews are not great for proving notability, because they are mainly sources for what the person claims about themselves. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Review of User:Rpenafiel/sandbox

Hi, I was wondering if my article was accepted or declined because it stays on my sandbox User:Rpenafiel and I have not received any other notes from editor. It does show on my "contribution" list but I'm not sure whether my content was accepted and published nor if rejected and needs further editing to be done to get accepted as Wiki content. Thank you very much.Rpenafiel (talk) 04:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

You were informed on your talk page that the submission had been declined. You reacted by removing the information about the reasons for it being declined, in this edit. Feel free to further improve the submission in accordance with the advice given. You can resubmit it by putting {{subst:submit}} on the submission page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

A little more exactly, it was declined for being essentially a press release for a company with no references to support its notability , and both problems must be addressed; there is no point in resubmitting until you have done so. A Wikipedia article needs to show notability with references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online. Without them, it will not be possible to write an acceptable article. Then, a Wikipedia article needs to be written like an encyclopedia article, not a press release. Don't include material that would better belong in an advertisement or a web page, such as a detailed list of products or the personal motivation of the principals. Include only material that would be of interest to a general reader coming across the mention of the subject and wanting the sort of information that would be found in an encyclopedia. Do not include material that would be of interest only to those associated with the subject, or to prospective clients/purchasers/students/supporters/donors--that sort of content is considered promotional. DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

A "thought trick" that I use when writing about companies and other organizations is to ask myself "Will anybody care about this 200 years from now, when the organization no longer exists and everyone with personal memories of it are long dead?" If the answer is a clear "no", it's probably not worth including. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Review of Draft:Sean Erlston

The article has been declined but there is no explanation why. Wikipedia has an article/page about wedding photographers which can only have names listed if an article page exists about that photographer, which is why I made the page submission which has been rejected.How do you make a page, which is a prerequisite, without it being rejected?Sean Erlston (talk) 05:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia only needs biographical articles about people that are notable - see WP:GNG. Sadly, you are not yet notable by that standard. Reasons for an article being declined are almost always found on the page submitted. In this case that seems not to be accessible to you or to me - perhaps the submitted page was too overtly promotional (like spam) or perhaps it was a copyright violation by copying from an external website? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Richard Sexton

Resolved

Hi there--just wanted to stop by and ask if there might be anything holding up review of this entry. I know the article review process is backlogged.

I originally started working on this article in Feb., have worked with a few volunteer Wiki editors, and want to make sure there's nothing missing before it gets to a reviewer. Thanks!

Theenglishmaven (talk) 15:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Theenglishmaven (talk) - I reviewed the article - made a few minor changes and added a ref to verify the biographical information in the article. I know it's been a while - thanks for your patience! Julie JSFarman (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Review of Draft:Waterloo Busker Carnival

I believe this article is ready for publication. It is not "fictional"....not sure where that came from...and while the help is appreciated.....and I have done as asked....even to point out that the Waterloo Chronicle is a weekly newspaper as well as being on-line (like the majority of newspapers today). It's time to approve this and get it on Wikipedia. Thank you!DivaWord (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

It's been submitted for another review. Rankersbo (talk) 10:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Reviewed and accepted - it is now at Waterloo Busker Carnival. Congratulations! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2

Review of Draft:John Sutton Lutz

Hello. I've completed my draft of [[Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/JohnSuttonLutz] and am not sure how to activate it? Could you please advise. I'm clearly doing something incorrectly. KeithKeith Thor Carlson (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

 DoneYou hadn't finished the <ref> with a </ref>, so nothing after the broken reference worked, including your many attempts to submit. It's been fixed now. Rankersbo (talk) 10:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Review of Draft:Yun Mu Kwan (karate)

I submitted an article called Yun Mu Kwan the other day from my sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Swmirsky/sandbox and received a message as follows:

"This sandbox is in the Draft namespace. Either move this page into your userspace, or remove the template."

I don't understand what it is telling me to do. Can someone assist? Thanks.

Swmirsky (talk) 03:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC) swmirsky

Done. You just need to remove the template at the top of the draft. JSFarman (talk) 03:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Joe

In relation to the Article, I am the trademark holder and designer of Hottorque. Are you refering to the copright material as in from it being from Business Wire.

The stated comments in the business wire article are in true fact, as our company being the first to create a social media application with a Iphone App integration for the Automotive industry also we were the first Australian Tech Company to be a sponsor in a NASCAR sprintcup event.

So what do you suggest we create our own Article based on all the facts rather than the Business wire article

Also I would like to know how do we get this Article to main stream wiki?

Regards Laz Till CEO Hottorque.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by HtorqueMarketing (talk • contribs) 05:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the truth of the material was questioned. You can't use copyright material on wikipedia, even if you wrote it yourself. You must either compose new wording or formally and legally licence the material to wikipedia so the material can be reproduced and altered as any editor and reader sees fit. It's usually better to go down the re-write route as material composed for press releases tend to be too promotionally worded to work as an encyclopaedia article. Rankersbo (talk) 10:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Question

under what accounting entry is the battery use for wall clock — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.52.15.57 (talk) 06:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

This help desk is only for editors seeking advice on their draft articles. For general questions, please go to Wikipedia:Reference desk. Voceditenore (talk) 10:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Review of User:Liam.bertuzzi/sandbox

explain why my article was accepted please...Liam.bertuzzi (talk) 07:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Liam.bertuzzi, I assume you mean not accepted. The decline notice at the top of your draft explains the reason quite clearly, and given the content of your draft, I'm pretty sure you know perfectly well why it was declined. Voceditenore (talk) 10:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Review of User:Incrediblehappenings01/sandbox

please why was my article decline? please get back to me.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Incrediblehappenings01 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Incrediblehappenings01, the decline notice and comment at the top of your draft explains why it was declined. Please read them and the linked pages you were given there. Voceditenore (talk) 10:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Directorate of Cooperation of Security and Defence

Hello everyone,

I've submitted an article 1 month ago, which still unvalidate... You can find it here (in the talk page) : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Directorate_of_Cooperation_of_Security_and_Defence

Thanks in advance for any help,

--MelDCSD (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Please be assured that someone will review it. The delay is not on purpose, you know. Everyone who reviews articles does so when they can and when they want, and volunteers to do so. Hurrying volunteers is often counter-productive. Sometimes one wishes to review an article but finds one hasn't the expertise in the relevant area, so one passes on. Time is immaterial to Wikipedia, though. An article goes live when it is ready. No-one ever dies because of the lack of an article. Fiddle Faddle 17:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I see that it is a very close translation of the French WP article . Obviously, this is a good way to start an article here about a French organisation, but our practice differ somewhat from the practices there. I will review the article in a few hours, and tell you about the needed changes. (You are in my o[pinion very right to complain about the delay; it is the fault of our having insufficient good reviewers, and we must not be complacent about it) DGG ( talk ) 17:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses, I just wanted to be sure my draft was still in the actuality, take all the time you need to valid it dear volunteer, I wait your advices for the needed changes :)--MelDCSD (talk) 06:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Review of User:Deanpowers/sandbox

Hello, I submitted an article on the "Quick Zope CMS"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deanpowers/sandbox

It was rejected for copyright violations because the content was taken from:

https://github.com/Zojax/QuickZopeCMS.

However, I was the author of the Github content since I am the CEO of Zojax (http://www.zojax.com).

Please tell me how to get this article approved.

Regards,

Dean Powers CEO, Zojax Group LLC

Deanpowers (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Deanpowers, I'm afraid it doesn't matter if you are the author or not. It was previously published on a page clearly marked © 2014 GitHub, Inc. Likewise the pages at zojax.com are marked © 2012 Zojax Group, LLC. If you own the copyright and want to donate the material for use of Wikipedia, the instructions are WP:Donating copyright material—you must follow them to the letter. However, it would be a complete waste of your time. Even if the text were copyright free, the draft is unacceptable on multiple levels as a blatant advertisement, e.g.

• QuickZopeCMS is a good choice for medium to large projects, providing an intuitive interface for managing the following types of content
• QuickZopeCMS is a powerful and flexible python web content management system and framework.
• It's built on Zope technologies to be very robust and flexible with pluggability in mind
• Contact: info@zojax.com

Before continuing any further with this, I strongly suggest you read WP:NOTADVERTISING, Wikipedia:Golden Rule, and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Voceditenore (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carlos Dews

Hello. I'm looking for help with my Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carlos Dews article. I have discussed it with the reviewer who declined it (Fiddle Faddle) and he sent me here. Our discussion is at User_talk:Timtrent#Carlos Dews. I need more help understanding why the listing of chapters/articles that show Dews's Carson McCullers expertise is too much. I have looked at the links Fiddle Faddle suggested as indices, and I don't see that they would showcase the McCullers well. Where else can I look for a listing without having everything Dews wrote show up?

As requested, to help with clarity, I will start reworking the page to remove the inlines in the article and the references. While waiting (nearly six weeks) for a review of the article, I kept clicking "Edit" to add more and more to 'improve' the article. I guess I went way overboard.

Any help is appreciated -- thank you! Oldbeeg (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Please never be concerned about doing too much. Doing too much is great! Doing too little, that is not so good. I'm glad you came here. Opinions other than mine are always useful. I may be incorrect, it has happened before, and I learn from that each time. We're doing something about the 6 week queue. There is currently a backlog clearance drive on. That is how we met. Fiddle Faddle 16:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The hours spent on research "doing too much" is not so great when that's apparently what got my article declined. I'm sure there're notability references in there, they're apparently hidden amongst the excess. <sad face> I need to figure out how much is excess. Oldbeeg (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The important thing is to ensure that you retain the references that have significant coverage about Dews, independent of him and in reliable sources. Then what you do is to consider the facts you assert in the article and make sure each of them is so referenced. Ignore the list of work for the present. It is the last thing you need to attend to. Read my comment in detail at the head of the article.

Please may we have other eyes on this? I have reviewed it as well as I am able, but, if I am not helping our new friend it needs others to look and offer help, too. Fiddle Faddle 23:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

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

hello please why does my recent submission has been declined?Raissa Damergi (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

thank you, Regards, Raissa

@Raissa Damerg: Your submission is at User:Raissa Damergi/sandbox and has been declined by MatthewVanitas because there are no references at all. The box at the top declining the article gives you lots of information about how to rectify this, and tells you with clarity why it has been declined However, I would encourage you to work in other articles and let this one wither on the vine. There is no evidence that this autobiography is of a notable person in our sense however much those who love you find you notable. Autobiographies hurt folk the most when they write them and submit them. Please consider this before proceeding.

If you proceed please be very aware that the article will never be accepted without strong references from significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Fiddle Faddle 23:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Elementary Cycles

Hello

My article for submission has been rejected for publication for notability reasons. The article was motivated by the fact that among the interpretations of quantum mechanics the voice Elementary Cycles was one of the few without a dedicated article.

I have provided a list of published peer reviewed papers related to this interpretation. I think that it is sufficiently notable as, for instance, it has been awarded in the FQXi contest in 2011, voted by a large general public.

How can I improve the article?

N4tur4le (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The comment added by the reviewer linked to a WikiProject Physics discussion about your article. It received two comments: a brief comment linking you to WP:OR (without the link, of course) and a concurring comment. So, at this point, it looks like editors had two complaints about your submission:

• It counted as WP:OR, which is Wikipedia shorthand for a link to the policy No original research, which itself means that the two editors thought that your submission was about something—in your case, an interpretation in the field of physics—which does not seem to be confirmed by any extant reliable, published sources.
• It also did not meet WP:GNG, which is the "official" reason adopted by the Articles for Creation reviewer. You evidently understand it; however, I believe that what the reviewer meant to say was that your submission is characterized by very long stretches devoid of any citations to reliable sources.

Hope this helps! APerson (talk!) 00:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Como Brothers Band

Dear Wikipedia Help Desk, Please restore and create this page. This band is notable according to the Criteria for musicians and ensembles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles

According to the Criteria for musicians and ensembles A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, instrumentalist, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria:

The Como Brothers Band has met the below notable criteria: 9 ) Has won or placed in a major music competition

    Fulfilled  -  Won Ernie Ball Battle of the Band 2012

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warped_Tour_2012#Ernie_Ball_Battle_of_the_Bands_16_Winners

10) Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E for further clarifications).

    Fulfilled by having music played worldwide on the below Networks

1)Movie - Wingman Inc. (performer: "Can I Be Matched With You?", "You Are My World", "What They Say")

2)E! Network 2013 Keeping Up with the Kardashians (TV Series) (performer - 1 episode)

                  Episode -  We're Having a Baby! (2013) (performer: "Can I Be Matched With You?"

3)Oxygen Channels 2013 Best Ink (TV Series) (performer - 1 episode)

                Episode - A Family Affair (2013) "Your Love")

4) MTV’s 2012-2013 The Real World (TV Series) (performer - 2 episodes)

           Episode - Bondage, Butts and Burlesque (2013) ... (performer: "You Are My World")
          Episode - Clean Break (2012) ... (performer: "You Are My World", "Can I Be Matched With You?")

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm6398859/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1 http://www.mtv.com/artists/the-como-brothers-band-1/

I need help in correctly referencing The Como Brothers Band winning in two categories in The 2014 Artist in Music Awards (Composer of the Year and Album of the Year) http://www.allindiemagazine.net/2014/02/a-successful-3rd-annual-artists-in.html . Other artists that have Wikipedia pages reference these awards (see Katie Cole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katie_Cole

Thank you in advance for your help.

I am also providing the link to the original page deletion. It seems that the original cause for deletion was not notability but stated here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_129#The_Como_Brothers_Band

I feel that I am struggling against negative feelings about bands and music here. Please help

Marissa Smith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bco66209 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

While this may prove notability, your article still needs to be sourced by reliable sources. IMDB and Wikipedia cannot be used as sources (see WP:UGC). Moreover, the competition does not seem very "major", so it may still fail the notability criteria. Darylgolden^(talk) 23:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Canadian boxer Irish Eddie Carroll /Danny Doran Canadian hall of fame boxer

Hi,I have wrote this article of Canadian boxer Eddie Carroll,My Wikipedia user is Dannyboy 492 .I am trying to have this boxer's name added to the names of Canadian boxers in Canada . Canada's top JR lightweight for the Crown 1934,and Canad's top welterweight for the Canadian Championships..1935 Inducted to the Canadian boxing hall of fame[ Ottawa Ontario Canada] May 17 /1974. I need someone who can help Me enter His Name Thank You...Danny.[[[User:Dannyboy492|Dannyboy492]] (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)]

@Dannyboy492: This process is for new articles and your submission is not an article. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Senior Peer Counseling

My submission, "Senior Peer Counseling", was rejected because the editor said it read like an essay instead of an encyclopedia article. What is the difference? I do not understand how to correct my submission. Please help. Thank you!

Recordsmgr (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)Bob Milbourn Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/Senior Peer Counseling

@Recordsmgr: Not one of my more helpful reviews. My apologies. I suspect I managed to suffer from premature pressing of the submit button. The difference between an essay and an encyclopaedia article is a subjective "I know it when I see it one" and this does not help you at all. "Essay" is really a shorthand for "Needs to be substantially more concise, and the tone needs to be inspected to ensure it is neutral, flat, and factual." In addition essays are almost always light on referencing. My approach with this article would be to look at each sentence and ask myself "Does this sentence add value to the article?" and "Is this fact asserted i this sentence referenced properly from significant independent coverage in WP:RS?" A negative answer is your cue to cut. Finally I would ask "Is the tone now that of an encyclopaedia?" Our job is to be interesting but wholly neutral, factual but not bullet pointed, and always to be referenced in WP:RS. Fiddle Faddle 23:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Review of Draft:INTEGRIS

I just created a page for INTEGRIS Health that was rejected. I was hoping someone could tell me why it was rejected. INTEGRIS is the largest hospital system in Oklahoma and many of its individual centers have pages, so I'm confused as to why the organization itself wouldn't be substantial. I was hoping to create this page to unite the other pages of INTEGRIS and create a more comprehensive series of articles about INTEGRIS — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhitleyOConnor (talk • contribs) 22:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

@WhitleyOConnor: It seems that it was not declined previously. I have now reviewed it, was unable to accept it, and have left you full details at the head of the article. I can;t see any other articles in your contribution history, and I am unsure why you consider that it had been declined previously. I hope you enjoy the extra research you need to do to get the article accepted. Fiddle Faddle 23:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

@Timtrent I must have been confused. Someone sent me a message saying they saw that my article was rejected at the Articles for Creation before I posted this thread. I'm not sure why/how that happened. However, I have added a number of outside sources to bulk up the reference section as well as replacing some references from the entity the article is about to better legitimize the article. Thank you for the suggestions!

WhitleyOConnor (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@WhitleyOConnor: While awaiting your reviewer, please do the thing you missed: removal of inline URLs. I try very hard not to re-revioew an article. It is far better to have new eyes upon it, but it will not be accepted with the inline URLs in it. I will leave anything else to the next reviewer. Fiddle Faddle 17:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

June 3

Review of Draft:Studio Under

Hello. I've been told that my submission had been denied. I would be happy to understand what to improve/change so it would be accepted.

Best regards,

Eran Gal-Or — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.114.5.10 (talk) 08:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

We can't tell which article you are talking about, but the reasons are given in the centre of the pink box on the article, with links in there to pages that explain the various terms. Rankersbo (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, found it now. There are no independent, reliable sources to the article. There are lots of external links to the websites of various entities referrerd to in the article, which prove those entities exist and nothing more. The links don't say anything about Studio Under. You need references that talk about Studio Under, and the events and facts in your article. Rankersbo (talk) 14:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Katch 22

I have edited the article for the band Katch 22 many times and all of the information is correct and available to be checked on the internet, i.e.record release dates etc. Why is it not entered on the website. (Mike-eastman (talk) 11:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)). mike-Eastman (Mike-eastman (talk) 11:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)).

@Mike-eastman: Because this is what you submitted. What else could be done here?

Mike-eastman, it looks as if your draft had been deleted as an abandoned draft, a few hours before you tried to re-submit it. See [3]. To get it reinstated as a draft, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Good Katch, V. I should have spotted that. Fiddle Faddle 20:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/UK Data Service

Hi there I've responded to the original reviewer's concerns about citations and updated the page, but I can't figure out how to re-submit it. Can you help? Many thanks. Scozzolino (talk) 13:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

You deleted the review templates and comments at the top of the page - I have just restored it. There is a big blue button in the pink template for resubmitting. Please do not delete any of the review stuff at the top of the page - it is the record of the progress of the draft and also has many links to advice and help pages. It is automatically removed when the article gets accepted, but until then it needs to be kept. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Review of User:GreenLips/Sandbox

Hi, y wife and I have been trying to post articles for wiki's review. Subject titled "Bill Haney". We have put probably 50hrs into trying to get this very worthy man listed. We keep getting deleted even through we are carefully following the many many many rules. We have submitted newspaper articles and a bio and it just keeps getting swallowed up - deleted with messages saying different reasons. The latest being "deleted: out of scope. Can someone please work with us? Thank you in advance to any one who tries to help us GreenLips (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@GreenLips: Submissions like yours are problematic. Your words above hint that you have a conflict of interest. I might suggest quitting this effort altogether.

That said, here are my comments: You'll need to add in-line citations for all your assertions. Much of that content (high school, personal life) is really not important enough to mention. Your subject doesn't appear to meet any subject-specific notability criteria so you'd need to make a case for WP:GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@GreenLips: In answer to your questions at my talk page: Your file uploads can be found at Special:ListFiles/GreenLips. You uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, which is a sister project. WP:CITE does not require that you provide scans of newspaper articles (File:SundayOaklandPress,1997.png, File:NYTimes,Apr1993.png, File:JacksonCitizenPatriot,Mar2002.png, File:Detroiter1990.png, and File:BirminghamEccentric,Dec1989.png), you only have to list which periodical, on what day, on what page, as well as the title and author. I'm sorry that was unclear to you.

When you use phrases like "very worthy man" and "someone who truly deserves it", it makes me doubt your objectivity. We are writing an encyclopedia; we're not here to celebrate heroes or condemn villains. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@GreenLips: : May I suggest Wikipedia:Mentorship? Fiddle Faddle 20:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Review of Draft:Relativistic Global Non-Inertial Reference Frames

My recent;y submitted paper Relativistic Global Non Inertial Frames was declined for copyright violations. I would like to know which parts of the article the reviewer feels that there is too much overlap with published work ..

H Crater

Hcrater (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Hcrater. According to the deleting administrator, [4] it was an unambiguous copyright infringement from http://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.3257. That article appears to be co-authored by someone with a name similar to yours. Are you one of the authors? The problem is, even if you are the author and hold the copyright, if it has been previously published, then we cannot publish substantial chunks and/or paraphrases from it on Wikipedia unless it has been released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. I was unable to find anything to confirm what license it had been released under on either the article or its abstract page. Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials has more information on this. – Voceditenore (talk) 15:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@Hcrater: I was very specific in my comments but perhaps the submission was blanked before you could read them. You wrote a very technical paper hosted by Cornell University and recreated that content in your submission. I determined that fact by Googling random sentences in your submission. We value your contributions but we cannot host someone else's content. When using even public domain content, you must leave a clear notification that the content had already been published elsewhere. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2014 (UTCIt

((reply to Chris Troutman)) Yes, I am a coauthor with Lusanna on the arxiv paper paper you googled. Our article is a distillation of our arxive paper. Would it be possible to resubmit the article with this notification (i.e. that it is a distillation of the arxiv paper)? HCrater Hcrater (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Hcrater , minimally you have to list the source(s) for any Wikipedia article, but a "distillation" (from what Chris says, the draft contained verbatim sentences, etc.) requires evidence that the paper has been previously published under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Until that is in place, the draft cannot be restored. Voceditenore (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

((reply to Chris Troutman)) I have contacted the distribition arxiv for the purpose of finding the liscense

agreement all contributors agree to. The URL with the details is http://arxiv.org/help/license The particular portion of that agreement I believe relevent is... " In order to submit an article to arXiv, the submitter must either: •grant arXiv.org a non-exclusive and irrevocable license to distribute the article, and certify that they have the right to grant this license, •certify that the work is available under either the Creative Commons Attribution license, or the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike license, and that they have the right to grant this license, or •certify that the work is in the public domain (we will store this information by associating the Create Commons Public Domain Declaration with the submission)...."

Please let me know if this is sufficient to allow me to have my article restored to my sandbox for further editing that would explicitly state it is a distillation based on the arxiv article and any other necesssary editing you would recommend. Horace Crater Hcrater (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's not sufficient, Hcrater. You must provide proof that your article was specifically released either into the public domain (highly unlikely) or under the Creative Commons Attribution license. We do not accept the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike license, as all text on Wikipedia must be available for commercial use. This will probably entail an email from arXiv with a copy of the original submission which specifies the license. Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials has more information on this. Voceditenore (talk) 15:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello ::((reply to Chris Troutman)) I received the following note from the Cornell arxiv Dear Horace Crater, We do not provide any document regarding this. You should send them the link to our documentation regarding the licenses. --arXiv admin

Here is the note the above was a response to.. Dear arxiv admin, Thank you for your helpful response. Is there a way I can provide proof to Wikipedia that my article was specifically released either into the public domain or under the Creative Commons Attribution license? Horace Crater

So, it looks like I have come to the end of my rope..My mistake was to submit to Wikipedia a paper that was based on a specific article instead of one based on a general subject area. I will contact my coauthor to determine our next step. I suspect we will resubmit an article based on a general subject area which includes the area of the arxiv paper but not exclusively. In that event it would be most helpful if I could obtain the ascii version of the sandbox as there were many tedious details we may want to reuse. One suggestion would be for you to restore it for a few hours and when I copied it for my records I could notify you and then you could delete it permanently. Thanks in advance for any help in this regard. Horace Crater Hcrater (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

@Hcrater: Again, I want to reiterate that we appreciate you bringing your technical knowledge to Wikipedia. Our rules are firm on this matter. Also, as WP:DCM explains this help desk can't process any type of permissions documentation. Contact would have to go through WP:OTRS.

If you'd like your draft restored in order to copy it, see WP:REFUND. My suggestion would be to write a new article using your paper as a source as well as your other sources together rather than re-create a copyrighted work. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Review of Draft:Craig Henderson

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Haileesettle (talk • contribs) 15:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Haileesettle . I have removed the copy of your draft which you had pasted in here. The link to it sufficient. Can you let us know what your question is or what sort of help you are seeking with the draft? Voceditenore (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Local 77 Duke Labor Union

Hi, I was just wondering if I could receive edits for my Wikipedia article on the Local 77 Labor Union. Thanks. Karenli2014 (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Karenli2014. What do you mean by "receive edits"? Are you asking for someone to help you with the draft? Or are you asking for a review? You have currently submitted it for a review (half an hour ago). Unfortunately, a review may take more than 3 weeks. The Articles for creation process is very highly backlogged. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Hexagon Geospatial

Hi,

There is a note on my talk page that the article I submitted, Draft:Hexagon Geospatial, was not accepted because it contained copyrighted information. I don't understand.

None of the text of the article is copyrighted. It does include copyrighted images - the Hexagon Geospatial company logo, for example. Is it possible for you to look back and see if it was rejected because of the copyrighted images? Or if there was something else in it the reviewers thought was copyrighted?

Aren't company logos normally copyrighted? If yes, then how do other people include them on pages they create for their companies?

The page has been deleted for me, but I am hoping you have a record of it somewhere.

Thanks, Slhuff (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)Slhuff

This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Please consider checking out WP:REFUND. Hope this helps! APerson (talk!) 00:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Slhuff, According to the administrator who deleted the draft [5], it copied or closely paraphrased the text at http://www.hexagongeospatial.com/products/data-management-compression.aspx and other pages on that website. That website is clearly marked © Copyright 2014 Intergraph Corporation. As such, it will not be refunded. You will need to re-write the draft in your own words. But before you try that, I strongly suggest that you read:

• Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations, especially Question 1
• Wikipedia:Copyright violations
• Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)

And if this applies to you, also read:

• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, i.e. "Do not edit Wikipedia in your own interests or in the interests of your external relationships."

Voceditenore (talk) 08:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Review of Draft:Rick Rosas

Hi, I am having difficulty with the submitted article on Rick Rosas. The references are confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikey909 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@Mikey909: Please would you explain your rather large question in bite sized chunks? Before you do, please read WP:REFB in case it helps your thinking.

Remember that references are intended to corroborate facts you have asserted in the article. They must come from significant coverage independent of Rosas, and in WP:RS Fiddle Faddle 20:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Review of User:Liam.bertuzzi/sandbox

I was woundering why my great important article didn't make it through and I would like the honest truth pleaseLiam.bertuzzi (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

To quote the comment left by the reviewer:

It appears that your submission is either an attempt to be humorous over being factual, or is an obvious hoax. As Wikipedia strives to contain only factual entries, we can not accept your submission at this time.

I think this more or less sums it up. APerson (talk!) 00:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Liam.bertuzzi. you already asked the same question here and received an answer yesterday [6]. Your behaviour and your "article" is disruptive and wasting everyone's time. Please stop it now. Voceditenore (talk) 07:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Neudesic,_LLC

Hi there,

I'm new to posting on Wikipedia and am hoping to gain an understanding of what I can do/change to have my article published post rejection; Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Neudesic,_LLC

Appreciate any/all help!

Best, schansler

Schansler (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Schansler. The reviewer left some good guidance and links for you on your draft. I'm assuming you haven't read them? In any case, please read the following which apply to all editors, and especially to ones who are writing about subjects with which they have an affiliation:

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not advertising, marketing or public relations
• Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations, especially Question 1
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, i.e. "Do not edit Wikipedia in your own interests or in the interests of your external relationships."
• Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)

Voceditenore (talk) 07:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Review of Draft:Fashionbi

Why my article was declined? Could you provide us with a better guidelines so we can post it correctly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fashionbi (talk • contribs) 23:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Fashionbi, did you read the reasons for the decline at the top of your draft, click on the guidance links you were given, and read them? Your draft was blatantly promotional and had no references whatsoever, let alone ones to independent reliable sources, e.g.

Fashionbi is an multicultural company, headquartered in Milan, Italy and Shanghai, China, which empower professionals to make smart decisions in the fashion and luxury industry.

The fact that you cannot even see how promotional and inappropriate the text is for an encyclopedia is a prime example of why Wikipedia strongly discourages editing with a conflict of interest. If you want some guides please read the following:

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not advertising, marketing or public relations
• Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations, especially Question 1
• Wikipedia:Copyright violations
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, i.e. "Do not edit Wikipedia in your own interests or in the interests of your external relationships."
• Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)

Please do not submit the draft again until it is written in a neutral point of view, and referenced to multiple independent sources.

Voceditenore (talk) 07:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

June 4

Looking for guidance and help for creating good wikipedia page

Hi Wiki,

Our wikipedia was tagged as copyrighted information and promotional. Do you have a guide or helpful resources in creating page for our organization?

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks,

--Designthatrock (talk) 01:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Designthatrock, your deleted draft Draft:Limitless Ventures Inc. was a blatant copy of http://www.limitlessventures.org/about/.

The fact that you cannot even see how promotional and inappropriate the text was for an encyclopedia is a prime example of why Wikipedia strongly discourages editing with a conflict of interest. If you want some guides please read the following:

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not advertising, marketing or public relations
• Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations, especially Question 1
• Wikipedia:Copyright violations
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, i.e. "Do not edit Wikipedia in your own interests or in the interests of your external relationships."
• Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)

Voceditenore (talk) 06:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Review of Draft:Asia Pacific Vision

Dear sir or madam,

I am confused why the article was declined, perhaps there's something I can fix and resubmit again? Thanks.

Warm regards, Paul Hongkong2015 (talk) 02:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear sir or madam, I'm not sure why my article was declined. Is there anything I can do about it? The link to my article is

Draft:Asia Pacific Vision

Many thanks for your help in advance.

Regards,

Paul Mak

Hongkong2015 (talk) 06:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Paul. I don't blame you for being confused. This was a draft about a clearly real news agency but was declined with the following reason given:

The proposed article is not suitable for Wikipedia. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles on fictional subjects should cover their real-world context and contain sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance—not just a summary of the plot.

The reviewer (User:JustBerry) was using an automated script and most probably checked the wrong reason for the decline by mistake. My impression from the four references you've used is that this subject probably would meet the criteria for inclusion (See WP:ORG). I suggest that instead of simply listing them in a separate section, you add them as inline citations (see Help:Referencing for beginners) and perhaps find more sources, e.g. "Faux better or worse: fact and fiction are blurring as the taste for faux-news rises." in Television Asia (April 2004). Also be aware that Wikipedia articles about companies, especially if written by editors associated with those companies, come under special scrutiny (and rightly so). My advice would be to shorten the article, and make it it as matter-of-fact, neutral, and boring as possible, i.e. written in encyclopedic style. It's current style is not too bad as company articles go, but there's still room for improvement. Voceditenore (talk) 07:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll also ask User:DGG, who is especially experienced in reviewing articles like this, if he has some further input on this. Voceditenore (talk) 07:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

First, I must apologize for the bad reviewing. Our use of this script is an anachronism--it is too susceptible to error, and anyone qualified to review should be capable of writing a proper delete reason that explains the proper reason in detail. Myself, I almost always write a custom message and almost never use the script. The sooner we get rid of the entire current AfC structure, the better our reviewing will be. The problem with the article, as I see them is primarily the rather informal promotional tone, It will help to remove all, or almost all adjectives. Then let me know on my talk page. DGG ( talk ) 09:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I concur with DGG's use of comments. This reviewer was indulging in a series of unlikely reviews. and had been discouraged. I hoped all had been caught. Hongkong2015 you deserve our apologies. Accidents happen, even in the best regulated houses. Fiddle Faddle 11:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Review of Draft:4INFO

*confused* First I made the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:4INFO with about 250 citations, then https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Drumlineramos does what I thought was an awesome job wikifying it, & now it's rejected because of not enough citations. I'm also confused how to leave Drumlineramos a message. TY! MarkMillerITPro (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi MarkMillerITPro. I am the reviewer who declined the article today. I can only review what I see, and I hope my comment on PR (etc) is useful for you. To send a message to Drumlineramos you simply visit their talk page at User talk:Drumlineramos, create a new section and ask your question of them.

It is by no means unusual for Wikipedia editors to disagree, but our overall objective with the WP:AFC route to to do our utmost to ensure that an article that is accepted is unlikely to be challenged for WP:N or WP:V, and references in WP:RS that are about the entity and independent of the entity are vital in this. Being nominated for deletion hurts. Being declined is simply a delay. Fiddle Faddle 18:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Timtrent.*chuckle* Cool. TY!

MarkMillerITPro (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Timtrent that an article accepted at AfC should be able to pass AfD, but when uncertain, I usually accept it. There often is doubt, because even after many years of experience there, I am not able to predict what would necessarily happen at AfD, where decisions are sometimes rather peculiar, or at least random. A possibly acceptable article should not depend on my personal guess, and I think it best to let it take its chances . Additionally, articles exposed to view at AfD often do get improved during their process there; certainly they have a better chance of getting community attention there than they do here. (Some editors have said that a 50% chance of passing AfD is good enough to accept--I try to use a higher standard of at least 60%, but numbers aren't all that meaningful.) DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Timtrent.:Hi DGG.:Hi Drumlineramos. Today I stumbled on an article I hadn't seen about King of SMS and AdMob of SMS. I added it. Anyone willing to take a look & let me know it's ok?

MarkMillerITPro (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Timtrent.:Hi DGG.:Hi Drumlineramos. Then I remembered another article, & I've added it. It's citation #13. imo that would help with "significant and independent coverage of the org". Could you 3 or someone else take a look & let me know if that was helpful?

MarkMillerITPro (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Timtrent.:Hi DGG.:Hi Drumlineramos I stumbled on an article I had seen before, that also may help with "significant and independent coverage of the org". Altho I added it, it's citation 16, imo it's a little clunky how I wrote it, and you may have a better idea.

MarkMillerITPro (talk) 18:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Timtrent.:Hi DGG.:Hi Drumlineramos I think I fixed the clunkiness. Let me know if you think the draft needs something further. TY!

MarkMillerITPro (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I was doing something else today & found yet another article regarding notoriety. I think this draft is ready for publication. TY! 22:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• I looked at it, and, since it appears there may be sources for notability on the basis of market share, I made a preliminary pass at editing it to remove the unusually extensive promotionalism. Listing every imaginable see also and category is promotionalism . Giving a "for example" illustration of the firm's advertising technique is promotionalism. Listing more of its social marketing sites than its own website is promotionalism,

I have not yet checked to see which of the references are based of press releases; possibly most of them are, in which case they will need to be removed. I think it would probably pass AfD, but I am reluctant to accept an article with such sources. I am not sure why I contributed this amount of work to an article in a subject in which I have no interest, except perhaps to demonstrate the almost inevitable low quality of coi editing. DGG ( talk ) 01:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I looked at the edits. No problem from my perspective.

MarkMillerITPro (talk) 01:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Help request

The article I drafted Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The African Americans: Many Rivers to Crosswas declined because I improperly used in-line citations and subheadings. Before I try to resubmit, can I get some help on this?

Thanks! Kmburke76 (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Kevin

@Kmburke76: Thank you for coming here. As the reviewer in question I'm not sure how best to answer your question. Is it that my explanation was unhelpful, or do you need more technical help? I do not visit this page regularly, so, if you need a fast answer from me rather than from others, please {{ping}} me Fiddle Faddle 17:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Neither was reason to delete the article. The only reason I do not accept it immediately is that it is written as a press release,and I wonder if it is not copied from one. Please omit judgments and adjective, use fewer & shorter quotations,and rely less on Gates. As for headings , see Help:Cheatsheet.(hint: look at the code of exiting articles) But this could have been improved later, trivial matters of style are not a reason for rejection. As for references, we prefer but do not require that every significant fact have a source that is obvious, and it's preferred that every paragraph at least have one. But except for BLPs, they are required only for facts likely to be challenged, and I do not see any. Except for a BLP, or a contentious article, this too is a matter of improvement, not rejection. Articles do not have to be perfect, justgood enough to holdup at AfD. DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Review of submission by Technical 13 (contribs•talk)

What does everyone who monitors this page think of the new header for each section for those that use the ask link in the header? I did it for multiple reasons, first, it's a pain to find which section they commented in when there are multiple "Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Your submission name here" sections. Second, since we are dealing with mostly new users here, it will be nice to have a nice big link to their contributions in the header (in case they actually sign and are using the default signature). Third, since we are scattered with submissions in User:, User_talk:, Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/, Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/, Draft:, and Draft_talk: now, it would be just too unmanagable to leave it as "Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/" or even change it to "Draft:". So, I eliminated that element all together. I'd be happy to add a preload template that will allow them to add a link directly to their draft in a {{La}} style template if that is wanted and people think it will be appropriately used. (I might even be able to create a custom substitutable template that will check if there is actually anything on the page they list (and try to find the most plausible namespace if it's not quite where they say it is), but that will take me a little of experimenting)... Let me know what you all think. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Probably a good idea (or something like it), Technical 13. But wouldn't it be better to post this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation for more input? Most of the people here are very busy just replying to queries about submissions. Voceditenore (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Technical 13, your original heading here read:

Review of submission by [[User:Technical 13}}|Technical 13}}]] ([[Special:Contribs/Technical 13}}|contribs]]•[[User_talk:Technical 13}}|talk]]

Did you intend those stranded curly brackets and non-working links? I've edited to what I think you meant it to look like. Please change it back, if it's not what you meant. Voceditenore (talk) 16:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Ye, thank you, and I've fixed it in the preloadtitle in the actual link. Thanks again.. The reason I posted here instead of there, is you are the people that have to see them and navigate with them all the time.. You are the directly affected audience. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support but with a question. What happens when the same editor opens a new section every tome they come here. Some of the editors here are very new and not yet in 'flying solo' mode. I agree (in advance) that it is a smaller problem than the one you are solving. Fiddle Faddle 17:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I considered that, and the only possible solution is to add a time&date to each header. If it's wanted, it can certainly be done. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
• Okay, so I've started to work on the preload template (and more specifically the template it will rely on for the links to the draft [{{Lafc}}]) and you guys can check them out and follow my progress as I work on them. Time for me to head to class now, but I'll work on this more later. The preload is at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/preload. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 14:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I almost forgot to mention, I've also added a navigational box in the lower left corner of the page that will be static as you scroll up and down through the requests so it will be easy to get to the top, toc, today's requests, and bottom of the page. I can expand that or collapse it upon request. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 14:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Review of Draft:Sébastien Dewaest

Accepted Moved to Sebastien Dewaest for me, recreate again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.162.137 (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)‎ Delete moved to restart a Sebastien Dewaest will becomes a article for users — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.162.137 (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)‎

Hello 86.15.162.137. You cannot accept your own article unless you are an autoconfirmed registered editor, but today I accepted it and moved it to article space. I also created a re-direct for it from Sebastian Dewaest. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 06:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Review of submission by Abbeyokuns (contribs•talk)

Hi Reviewer,

please does it mean when i write something in the sandbox it can go live to become an article..? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbeyokuns (talk • contribs) 20:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Abbeyokuns. Work in your sandbox will only go into article space if you move it there or if you submit it to Articles for Creation and a reviewer accepts the draft and moves it into article space. However, your sandbox is visible on Wikipedia (and to some search engines). I see that User:Abbeyokuns/sandbox was deleted because it contained copyright material from http://www.vanguardngr.com/2014/03/player-can-bribe-keshi/. You cannot paste copyright text anywhere on Wikipedia, including your user pages. If you want to work on a draft, you will need to write it in your own words. Voceditenore (talk) 07:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

June 5

Review of submission by FloLau123 (contribs•talk)

Regarding the submitted page titling as "Poman Lo", will appreciate to advise the reason for declining the relevant submission. It will be grateful to share the tips on how to pass the submission review. Thks a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FloLau123 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello FloLau123. Your (Draft:Poman Lo) was declined for a lack of inline citations. These are important for biographies of living. people. I have now formatted your references as inline citations. However, before re-submitting, I suggest you find further press coverage of Ms. Lo. I suspect she would met our criteria for inclusion if you can find further independent sources. The one you already have, a lengthy article about her in the The Standard (Hong Kong), is a good start. Look for more like this. Also a reference for the fact that the children's series she devised and produced has won an award. Note that while it is preferable to have references in English, you can also use ones from the Chinese language press if necessary. Hope that helps, Voceditenore (talk) 07:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Review of submission by 69.171.187.22 (contribs•talk)

Could someone take this information for me and write an article on it in order for a wiki page to come into being later? http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4471193/?mode=desktop&ref_=m_ft_dsk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.187.22 (talk) 05:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello 69.171.187.22. This is a help desk for editors who are working on drafts. This is not the place to request that someone write an article for you. If you wish to request that, please go to Wikipedia:Requested articles. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 06:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Regaining use of Ambrosia10/sandbox after a redirect from there to Draft:Charlotte Cortlandt Ellis after draft has been accepted.

I was drafting my first article for Wikipedia in my sandbox and submitted it for review. I wasn't surprised that the reviewer declined to accept the article but he/she instead redirected the draft article from my sandbox into a Draft:Charlotte Cortlandt Ellis page. After some work my first article was accepted today but I am unsure now how to get the use of my sandbox back in order to plan my second article. I know there is probably an easy fix I'm just such a novice at this that I'm not sure what it is. Could you help?Ambrosia10 (talk) 05:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from User:Ambrosia10/sandbox)

Redirect page

1. REDIRECTCharlotte Cortlandt Ellis

Ambrosia10 (talk) 05:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• Hello, Ambrosia10. I've removed the redirect from your sandbox. You can go ahead and use it for your next draft. In future, you can do that yourself for any pages in your own user space. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 06:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Review of submission by Chow Sang Sang (contribs•talk)

Hello! This is Chow Sang Sang. Noted that my article is not accepted. Could you explain why it's not accepted? And could you give me specific examples or point out some lines in my article which are not accepted, for my easy understanding and I can improve it as soon as I can. Thanks very much!

Title of my submission: Chow Sang Sang (Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Chow_Sang_Sang) Chow Sang Sang (talk) 07:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately not, you have asked this question a little too late. The article was declined at the beginning of December last year, and as you hadn't done anything about it in over six months it was assumed you had lost interest in developing it the article was deleted. If you do want to continue working on this article, please follow the instructions on your talk page for recovering the deleted page.

Please be aware before continuing that writing about yourself is strongly discouraged. Rankersbo (talk) 08:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Review of Draft:Tom De Beuckelaer

Dear reader,

I have a question regarding my submission of the article on Tom de Beuckelaer. Draft:Tom De Beuckelaer

My submission got declined, because the references do not adequately evidence the notability. However, six independent references of different countries are used to support the notability of this article. Not many articels are supported by references of so many countries. In my opinion, significant evidence has been provided to support that this article is worthy of inclusion. Therefore, I would like the submmission to be reconsidered. In the case it is still not accepted, I would appreciate more thorough feedback.

Pantapasin (talk) 10:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Scott McDonald

Greetings. I would appreciate any help in improving the article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Scott McDonald. I have received helpful feedback along the way and have done my best to follow the sage advice and provide accurate sourcing. Unfortunately, the article was rejected, with feedback saying "Public relations mentions and internal industry mentions do not show notability."

At this point, I do have to admit I am a bit confused. I have sources in this article from BusinessWeek,the NY Times and Wharton School of Business among other notable and independent sources. Sources referred to as "internal industry mentions," are actually citations from independent B2B publications.

As this was my first attempt at submitting an article, I had originally borrowed sourcing ideas from an existing page for a person in a similar role as Scott: the CEO of the Boston Consulting Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Lesser. Rich Lesser's references include links to a press release, his bio on BCG's site and his LinkedIn account. After my first round of feedback, I cleaned out similar references for Scott. Would it help to re-include them? Just want to make sure I am following proper procedures. I do feel the article in it's current state does meet the standards of notability as posted on Wikipedia, and surpasses the standards set by pages already approved. Thanks much in advance for your review. (Kingman13 (talk) 12:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC))

Review of submission by 78.186.147.222 (contribs•talk)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Biotekno http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biotekno

Hello,

my new post was deleted couple of times with the following comments: u sayfa silinmiş. Sayfanın silme ve taşıma kaydı referans için aşağıda verilmiştir.

16:38, 4 Haziran 2014 Eldarion (Mesaj | Katkılar) Biotekno sayfasını sildi (Madde 6: Kayda değer olmayan oluşum: .) 16:58, 29 Mayıs 2014 Eldarion (Mesaj | Katkılar) Biotekno sayfasını sildi (Genel 11: Reklam amaçlı sayfa: .) 08:12, 14 Mayıs 2014 Eldarion (Mesaj | Katkılar) Biotekno sayfasını sildi (Madde 6: Kayda değer olmayan oluşum)

I have tried to get comments from the modereator but my comments were also deleted :)

I would like to change the page moderator or get a detailed explanation.

Thanks. (78.186.147.222 (talk) 12:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC))

This help page relates to the English Wikipedia. If you wish to ask a question regarding the Turkish Wikipedia, you need to do so there. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Review of submission by SlatersGarage (contribs•talk)

Hi, all... My recent submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dean M. Brenner was rejected a couple weeks ago, and I was hoping for some clarification as to why... The feedback I received had said something about "submissions for a fictional character," which didn't make sense to me, as the subject of my submission is, in fact, real... Any additional input you can provide that would help me edit my submission into acceptance would be most appreciated. Thanks, SlatersGarageSlatersGarage (talk) 13:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@SlatersGarage: This was part of the JustBerry mess. I am re-reviewing the article now. Fiddle Faddle 14:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Review of Draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Maciek_Pysz

Hello

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Maciek_Pysz was not approved yesterday on the grounds that the subject is not notable enough. I checked the notability guidelines for musicians when I created the article and I am sure the subject meets them so I would like to know how to improve my article so it can be accepted.

He has two albums ( one released, the other in the studio for release later this year) on a major UK Jazz label which has many famous jazz musicians in its catalogue. He had reviews of his debut album in 4 major jazz newspapers (not blogs) including All about Jazz (a major US jazz magazine) and Jazzwise which is the major UK jazz magazine. One of the people in his trio is already in Wikipedia ( Asaf Sirkis) so he is connected to a notable person. He is connected to another notable Wikipedia person (Aar Maanta) by appearing on Aar Maanta's album. I put accurate references to all 4 reviews. He received funding from UK Jazz Services (after applying against a lot of competition from other talented musicians) for touring and recording, so the quality of his work is very high and that is valdated by his having received funding for both recording and touring.

Also was there a problem with my referencing? Each reference is verifiable and opens the correct page to the reference. One article is from a magazine to which I provide a month and the author of the review. How do I improve the referencing with the sources I have?

I do not know how else to make the subject notable. Please help. Thank you.

Marycjames (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Marycjames

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jerry Cooke (Yuri Kutschuk)

My wiki article is not an autobiography. Yuri Kutschuk is deceased, Oct. 18, 1921 - Oct. 27, 2005. He was a famous LIFE & Sports Illustrated photographer, like Neil Liefer and Alfred Eisenstaedt, who have wiki pages. Please advise on how to have my page reviewed again with the least delay, without re-entering all the information on the page? And, will I still need to change the username? I look forward to your answer. Thank you. Yurikutschuk (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Review of Draft:Sacha Dunable

 Done this draft is may be done - 86.15.162.137 (talk), 15:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC) Accepted move to Sacha Dunable as a article for Intronauts, per Reviewer 86.15.162.137 (talk), 15:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)  Added as an article on wikipedia, we should redirect to Sacha Dunable, 86.15.162.137 (talk), 15:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Review of submission by Enaronch (contribs•talk)

What was the reason my article was declined? I'm the manager of the artist that I'm writing about. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enaronch (talk • contribs) 17:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Your article has been declined as it is written in Chinese. This is the English Wikipedia, either write your article in English or rewrite it on the Chinese Wikipedia. Darylgolden^(talk) 01:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Review of User:Jessegalebaker/sandbox -- Warning message from system

I submitted new article content from my user sandbox. The yellow "Review Waiting" box is there; however a warning message also appears:

Reviewer tools[show] Warning: This page should probably be moved, but a page already exists at Draft:Sandbox.

Is this a problem? Jessegalebaker (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Review of submission by Northcotemusic (contribs•talk)

Hello, My article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Northcote (band) has been approved and classed as "start class". I have made the recommended edits. When will I know when it has been re-assessed and/or when it has passed official review? Northcotemusic (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@Northcotemusic: It has been approved, you say? That is it. It has been approved. See Northcote (band) Fiddle Faddle 07:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Review of Draft:Some Kind of Fairy Tale

In this draft article I submitted, at the bottom of the page it says "Draft waiting review." But at the top of the page it says "Draft not submitted for review." Which is correct? Is there anything I should do to facilitate the review? Jack Orion (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@JackOrion217: It is a foible of the various 'behind the scenes scripts', you need not be concerned. Technical 13 is this something the rewrite of the scripts is handling? Fiddle Faddle 22:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• Not yet, but I'm hoping to have a fix for that when I get working on the guided tour pages for draft space (which will move the submission status off the actual draft on to the /editnotice page). There most certainly should be a fix in the next 6-12 months (maybe sooner if I ever get "that" kind of free time to dig in). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Review of submission by Beatnik Party (contribs•talk)

Hello, editors:

I am wondering what else I would need to link to in order to qualify this band (see link at end) for notability. They are on a "major" indie label (as far as they exist) with four LPs, and they are constantly touring nationally. I don't want to link to their gigs page in the article just to prove it, since that seems silly. They've had write-ups in many publications, but not yet any national papers or magazines (such as the NYT). The articles that I thought were relevant and notable, and still accessible, I linked to. (They did receive a mention in the New Yorker's Talk of the Town, but hey.)

The thing is the band is by its nature probably always going to remain somewhat under the radar. They are probably one of the premier examples of "chamber pop" in the country, but that's not exactly a chart-busting genre. I also see a whole lot of bands that are less notable in many respects but who have managed somehow to get an entry.

Please do be assured that I am in NO WAY affiliated with this band besides liking them. They have no idea who I am and I've never met them. I just thought they deserve at least an acknowledgment of their existence. What else do they need to do or provide in order to prove their notability that I have not included in the article as it stands? After reading the notability guidelines, it seems like they are pretty well qualified.

Thank you for your help!

This is the first article I have ever submitted, so please excuse anything I am doing wrong here!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cuddle_Magic_(band)

Beatnik Party (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

19:39:35, 5 June 2014 review of submission by Technical 13

• Technical 13 (talk · contribs)
  • Example (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Example (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • User:Example (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Fiddle Faddle, this should address your concern of multiple sections by the same user. The template I created, {{Lafc}} should be able to take just about any pagename form and return if there are any pages with that name in Mainspace, WT:Afc/ space, Draft:, or the user's userspace (may have issues with drafts that are directly on their userpage or more than one subpage deep, still working on that). I think this is an improvement over my last modification, what do you think? All comments on the changes are welcome. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 19:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@Technical 13: Well, yes, but look one section below Fiddle Faddle 22:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• Fiddle Faddle, they didn't quite read the instructions and made half of a wikilink... I hadn't thought about that possible error, but it would be easy for the responding helper to fix (like I just did) and as you can see, the template found a submission in both Draft: and Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/ so that will need to be addressed and see if a merge is appropriate. ;) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• Seems it found a redirect and an article, but I see what you mean. Keep going. Fiddle Faddle 22:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• I do need to fix it to SUBST that template or the username won't be what it is suppose to be.. (thinking out loud)... Unless I create a new parameter to make the username static... Fixing that part... Also trying to fix the talk page links as they are off... — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

22:04:52, 5 June 2014 review of submission by DRHaken

• DRHaken (talk · contribs)
  • Helen Hoover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Helen Hoover (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Review of Draft:Long finned Perth Mint Surgeon Fish

I am doing this for a school project, it is all 100% false, i plan to keep it on wiki for 2 weeks, i am proving to many teachers across the world that wikipedia is a viable source, and that people will edit it , probably within minutes, if it does go life. My teachers always say that Wikipedia is not a viable source because ANYONE can edit it, but this is not true, it is the MOST viable source since ANYONE can edit it, it is the most updated collection in the entire world, i couldn't of asked for a better library.

Thanks,

              Bennett

207.68.250.104 (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@207.68.250.104: I think you've successfully proven your teacher's point. Hoaxes aren't allowed on Wikipedia so I've nominated your draft for deletion. I appreciate your enthusiasm and I encourage you to register for an account to become a regular editor. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Taylor Steele (filmmaker)

I am trying to create an article on filmmaker Taylor Syeele titles Draft:Taylor Steele (filmmaker) who is a notable subject, the article has been rejected 4 times and i am addressing each problem but still being rejected, can i please have some advice on the latest rejection as the reviewers comments are the same as first rejection and those issues were addressed, thank you Peterogers88 (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

01:09:54, 6 June 2014 review of submission by Arnlodg

• Arnlodg (talk · contribs)

I'm in sand box (learning about wiki and editing) This is my second draft, Could you critique encylopedic tone and sources, thanks. Arnlodg (talk) 01:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

June 6

08:01:49, 6 June 2014 review of submission by Schmuels

• Schmuels (talk · contribs)
  • Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dov Schperling (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I have re-edited the text, and added many relevant sources. The pictures I uploaded were deleted but I don't understand why. I would like some help. Thank you--Schmuels (talk) 08:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Schmuels (talk) 08:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

14:54:19, 6 June 2014 review of submission by Flowervr

• Flowervr (talk · contribs)

I've gone over and over and cannot find why it is being rejected. I've even looked at other sites that have same kind of info. Please help! Flowervr (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)