Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by D4web (talk | contribs) at 18:03, 18 June 2014 (→17:50:39, 18 June 2014 review of submission by D4web). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
  • Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.
Ask a new question
Please check back often for answers.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions

04:23:34, 18 June 2014 request for review by Mdnoorna



June 11

07:24:30, 11 June 2014 review of submission by GettingFactsRight


I'd like help in understanding why the Enchanted (book) Wiki page was rejected.

GettingFactsRight (talk) 07:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GettingFactsRight. Draft:Enchanted (book) was declined for the reasons given in and under the pink boxes on that page. Click on the links in the decline reasons for more information. Let us know if there are any aspects of those guidelines that you need more explanation of. In particular, bookseller sites are not independent sources about books that they are selling, and most book review sites are not reliable sources for Wikipedia. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing

Hello,

I have read a good deal of the articles provided by Wikipedia on how to properly reference an article for creation, but I want to clarify something. Does a certain percentage of the information on a Wiki page have to be refeneced? For instance, for a very simply, basic introduction of a company within an article, should the company's official website be referenced or is it considered common knowledge? This kind of information normally cannot be found through any other sources (such as through the news).

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hengtian (talk • contribs) 07:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hengtian: Hi! Yes, very basic information about a company can be referenced to the company's website, such as the type of business they are involved in, where they are based, and who owns it. This kind of reference is called a primary reference. However, primary references cannot be used to demonstrate why a company is notable (important enough to be in Wikipedia), that is what secondary references are needed for. Bellerophon talk to me 17:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

08:16:36, June 11, 2014 request for review by KJH2014


HALLO! WHILE MY DRAFT IS AWAITING FOR REVIEW, CAN I AMKE FURTHER CHANGES IN THE MEANWHILE. THANK YOU KJH2014 (talk) 08:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you can Rankersbo (talk) 08:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

08:44:35, June 11, 2014 request for review by Dinauzan


Hi

I've been trying to create an article in wikipedia for a long time. I've added references. I've done the one hour tutorial. I've done my best for it to comply with all wikipedia rules. But my article is never accepted, and it's quite frustrating because I never get to know why. Could anyone please have a look and tell me what's wrong with my article? I'd be really thankful.

I'd like to write other articles and edit existing ones, but if I don't manage to get even my first article online, how can I write other ones?

Thanks in advance for your attention!

Best regards, Dina — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinauzan (talk • contribs) 08:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dina. At least one of your article submissions was deleted because you had copied text directly from the organisation's website into Wikipedia. You cannot do this as it is a copyright violation. Another issue was the overly promotional wording. Encyclopedia articles should have a neutral and factual tone. Phrases like, "comprehensive and welcoming dynamic centre", "community-driven organization dedicated to enhancing the quality", "pioneer organisation", "inclusive role player", "universal values" and so on are not neutral and factual. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

09:20:03, 11 June 2014 review of submission by Bloosteak


What is the best method for establishing notability in a video game? The specific genre I'm dealing with is dancing games such as dance central, dance dance revolution, and dance evolution. For example in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dance_Evolution is the fact that they were at E3 the part that makes the game notable?

What about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliffhanger_(video_game)?

I do have third party sources that talk about DANZ BASE, but I'm not sure if that's what makes a video game notable.

Thanks

Bloosteak (talk) 09:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bloosteak: To evidence the notability of a video game you need to add multiple, independent, reliable sources to the article. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources for an extensive list of sources that are normally considered 'reliable' for this purpose. Bellerophon talk to me 17:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

09:26:23, 11 June 2014 review of submission by Stats sanx


Hi My request for creating a page on data editing keeps getting rejected and I get comments saying that the topic is discussed on pages which does not discuss this. Is there anything else I can do to get my page accepted? Thanks Stats_sanx Stats sanx (talk) 09:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Stats sanx: I have re-submitted your article for review again as the previous review was not very thorough. I have also changed the page name to reflect the difference between Data editing and what you are writing about. I am waiting for another reviewer to come and give a second opinion. Bellerophon talk to me 17:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

09:28:24, 11 June 2014 review of submission by Fredrikstang

Hi, I don't know if I have filled in this question part right, I have to admit I find wikipedia very complicated. I recently tried to set up a wikipedia page about the Standing Commission of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, but after almost two months waiting for a review it was declined due to copyright issues. I have written a email (based on a template letter on copyright permission I found on wikipedia) to the Standing Commission asking for permission to use sentences and paraphrase some of their website in order to make a wikipedia page about them (I also sent what my text would be when it would be put up on wikipedia). I received an email in return saying that I was granted permission to use their website and text, but what I am now wondering is what do I do next? How can I set up the wikipedia page again and show that I have permission to use copyrighted material without editors (?)/wikipedia declining it or deleting it? Thank you very much for your time and I hope there is a solution to this. Fredrikstang (talk) 09:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC) Fredrikstang (talk) 09:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Fredrikstang: You need to follow the instructions at WP:DCM. Basically, you need to email proof of permission to one of Wikipedia's OTRS agents. Having permission to reproduce the text does not guarantees that it will not need to be rewritten to some degree. All Wikipedia articles must comply with our policy on writing from a neutral point of view. Bellerophon talk to me 16:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

12:43:42, 11 June 2014 review of submission by Andre2273


Andre2273 (talk) 12:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Andre, your submission Draft:Magalhaes Brothers was declined for the reasons given in the pink box at the top of that page. Click on the links in the decline reason to learn more. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

13:11:06, 11 June 2014 review of submission by Nmwalsh


I have submitted this article three times and so far it is not accepted. Can you tell me what I should do to get it published? I have made sure that it does not read like an advertisement and it is written from a neutral perspective. So far I can only offer one reference from an independent source which mentions the company. We cannot find any more.

Nmwalsh (talk) 13:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there is only one independent source that discusses the company, then it is not yet notable by Wikipedia's standards so we cannot have an article about it. Note that sources do not have to be online. Printed sources like newspapers are fine too. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

14:25:59, 11 June 2014 review of submission by AndrewCharalambous


AndrewCharalambous (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Posted on behalf of Andrew Charalambous by J.rox jim at suryalondon.com

Hi

I am new to wikipedia when it comes to submissions

My article was rejected by JustBerry and the reasoning given was that it was an attempt to be humorous, rather than factual, or a hoax, it is neither.

Can this please be looked at again, as i feel the article is being unfairly censored.

if proof is required to my identity, let me know what you require.

Additionally, if there is a section which you feel is out of turn, please let me know and we can discuss further

The Article in question can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AndrewCharalambous/sandbox

Kind Regards

Andrew Charalambous

Where do I begin... Firstly, Mr Charalambous (or whoever is acting in your behalf) Wikipedia actively discourages Autobiographies, for reasons explained at WP:AUTOBIO. Secondly, Wikipedia has a policy of writing balanced articles that discuss a subject impartially. Indeed, our neutral point of view policy is one of the founding principles of Wikipedia. Biographical articles should include facts about the person in question that demonstrate why they are notable enough to be in an encyclopedia, and discuss the balance of their life and work (including the bad bits) according to our policy on biographies of living people. Looking at the references in this submission, it appears Charalambous has received enough media attention to be considered notable per WP:GNG/WP:BASIC, but not as a politician. On that basis, we can have an article on him, but not in its current form. Far from being neutral, the submission reads like a glowing endorsement of Charalambous. More problematic, is that many of the journalistic sources listed do not support this saintly view; some of them are rather critical of Charalambous and his work. Paradoxically, if this article were to be published, we would have to block your user account per our username policy, unless you can prove who you are to one of our OTRS agents. Even then, you would be discouraged from editing an article that is about you. Bellerophon talk to me 16:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

15:18:55, June 11, 2014 request for review by Soup&Squiggles


Hello there - I recently attempted to create a page for the CEO of Lionsgate UK, Mr Zygi Kamasa. It came back with an alert that the content was copyrighted. I'm not sure how this is possible and wondered if I could get a fuller explanation. It does appear on his IMDB page as well but that's because I put it there.

Thank you so much for any help in this matter.

Best, Soup&Squiggles Soup&Squiggles (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Soup&Squiggles: The assumption is that if word-for-word sentences are found elsewhere (other than Wikipedia mirrors) then information was unlawfully copied. Typically if you want to donate content you wrote read WP:DCM. However, if the entity for which you originally wrote asserts copyright of that material then Wikipedia likely can't use it. Alternatively, re-write the same material but in different wording. You might consider the reward board for help. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

15:50:19, 11 June 2014 review of submission by Tweetsmarshal


I have tried severally to create a page for a skoolcheckout application, all to no avail, cus it keeps getting deleted. I've used the sandbox thingy to request for approval, which was also was disproved. What next do I do? The application is authentic, as I have used it myself.Tweetsmarshal (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC) Tweetsmarshal (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article went straight into mainspace, not AfC. It is presently listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skoolcheckout. Bellerophon talk to me 17:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

17:41:18, 11 June 2014 review of submission by Roxannereid


This article on super prime real estate has not been approved several times, and just wondering if can get some more detailed feedback on this and how it can be made better for approval. Perhaps the way it's written or maybe the formatting is incorrect? There are several resources to back up the definition, so figuring it must be something else being done wrong. Thanks!

Roxannereid (talk) 17:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you used inline citations (WP:REFB) then it would be possible to see which of the facts in your article are based on which of the sources. The first of your sources I looked at did not mention the phrase "super prime" at all, which is not exactly encouraging. The heavy use of "reports" is also concerning, as these tend to be issued in order to hype something. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

18:33:17, 11 June 2014 review of draft by MCelentano


MCelentano (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, how do I view an article I've created? I just submitted one for review and I looked under "Contributions" and all it has is all the times I've edited the page before I submitted it for review.

Thanks, Morgan— Preceding unsigned comment added by MCelentano (talk • contribs)

Click on the link Draft:Hollywood and Swine on that page (or indeed here), and it will take you to that page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, do not be too discouraged if it is declined at first. The lengthy piece in the Guardian is a strong indication that it is most likely notable. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

19:41:01, 11 June 2014 review of submission by Kendeyl

HELP! I hired someone to help me edit my page and he STOLE it and put it live under his name. This is unethical and he did not do the work!

(cur | prev) 15:40, 10 June 2014‎ Lyndasim (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,079 bytes) (+5,079)‎ . . (←Created page with ' Microjobs are companies that are in relations between employer and advertisers for minor stains on the Internet, such as writing artic...') (thank)

How can I get his page deleted and resubmit it under my name?

Thanks for your help.

The edited page is below:

Micro Jobs

Micro jobs are temporary task-type jobs of all types. These jobs are booked through the Internet. Work may include online or in-person jobs, such as writing articles, translating text, virtual assistant, handyman, nanny, dog-sitter or errand-runner, etc.[1] The income varies depending on the job and the commission charged by the micro jobs website. Contents 

 [hide]

• 1 History • 2 Controversies • 3 Advantages • 4 Disadvantages • 5 See also • 6 References History[edit] World War II sparked the beginning of temporary work, when housewives were employed to fill jobs vacated by men deployed to war. Employers found temporary workers attractive, as they could be hired as needed and often worked hours which did not require payment of benefits and detailed paperwork. Additionally, companies could try before buy, and hire only stellar employees for full-time positions. The number of temporary workers steadily increased.

The Internet changed how workers find jobs. Websites made it possible for workers with an Internet connected device (computer, smartphone or tablet) to find virtual jobs both in their current city and worldwide.[2] Worker vetting processes, and on-line job review systems, build trust; which allows strangers to connect with increasing frequency.

On-line micro job marketplaces offer a venue for workers, or newly-termed micropreneurs, to grow their business by building up positive reviews and star-ratings. The micropreneur may then launch the business and become a traditional business owner if desired. In the past, workers were forced to rely on classified advertisments or word-of-mouth for jobs which, in real, offered no safety measures and no information in regard to the person posting the job. Additionally there was no way to find temporary jobs on a real-time basis or post that a worker was available that afternoon.

Controversies[edit] Micro job workers are independent contractors and are legally responsible for their actions. The law is murky, however on the relationship between micro job workers and marketplaces where workers find jobs. Lawsuits are expected to test this connection. In January, 2014 the Kuang-Liu family, of San Francisco, Ca.; filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Uber and driver Syed Muzzafar. The accident, which caused the death of their 6-year-old daughter and injured two other family members, was allegedly caused while Muzzafar was fulfilling a driving job from Uber. [3] Individual auto insurance policies do not cover commercial activities, which may result in denials of claims if drivers are working for hire. To prevent legal complications, some ride service providers are requiring their drivers to purchase commercial insurance. Legislation for micro job worker issues remains unclear and unresolved. Advantages[edit] Micro jobs allow people to earn income to pay rent, expenses, or just have fun.[4] Young workers may also use micro jobs as a great first step toward independence. Having a micro job can help with resume building, can build future business relationships, and may evolve into full-time work. Disadvantages[edit]

  • Most jobs don't pay benefits
  • Work may fluctuate
  • Workers can't rely on steady paycheck
  • Finding quality jobs may be difficult
  • Work and life balance challenges
  • Quarterly taxes
  • Solitude

Most micro jobs don’t pay benefits. Also work might fluctuate, which means workers can’t rely on a steady paycheck. Other disadvantage include difficulty in finding quality jobs, managing work and life balance, and the solitude of online work. Indeed, the micro job area is a world can bring stress and pressure. See also[edit] • Samasource • Amazon Mechanical Turk • InnoCentive • Human-based computation • Ubiquitous human computing • Citizen science References[edit] 1. Jump up^ http://workathomemoms.about.com/od/Micro-Jobs-Crowdsourcing/a/What-Is-A-Micro-Job.htm 2. Jump up^ http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybuilder/2012/07/27/cant-get-a-job-get-a-micro job/ 3. Jump up^ http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/28/us-uber-accident-lawsuit-idUSBREA0R02820140128 4. Jump up^ http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/the-pros-and-cons-of-%E2%80%9Cmicro jobs%E2%80%9D-165853116.html


Best, Kendeyl

Here is the revised page Kendeyl (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kendeyl: First, be advised that paid editing is highly-discouraged and you or the editors you hire could be banned dependent on the conduct involved. Second, per WP:OWN neither you nor anyone else own any article on Wikipedia. Any edits made here are donations to public domain. If you felt that this article was proprietary work product then it shouldn't have been brought to Wikipedia. The existing article has been nominated for deletion. If it is deleted, the same reasoning for that deletion would likely apply to your draft, too. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems a little complicated: From the history of the article, it seem they did improve the article a little bit, which in practice is the most you can expect from a paid editor. Volunteers usually do better work, and an experienced editor did further improve it; you then seem to have improved it additionally yourself. Though we strongly discourage paid editing, a paid editor can only work under either his regular user name or an invented one for the particular article--it is not physically possible for him to work here under your user name, unless you give him your password, which would be an extremely bad idea (or unless the arrangement was for him to work off line, and send you a version you could then add). I'll give my own opinion at the afd, and I think I shall also look at other work from the apparent editor. DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 12

00:02:52, 12 June 2014 review of submission by Buuser


I based the original submission of this article on a similar article about another BU neuroscientist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hasselmo

This reference had even fewer references than the first version of the article about my mentor, but is published. Why is that?

Buuser (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was published in 2006 when unregistered and new editors were still able to create articles directly in the mainspace. It is therefore possible that it did not undergo any form of substantial review. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

03:48:01, 12 June 2014 review of submission by Rdellsh

Hi, The reviewers said that the references in my article does not prove our notability. Can you please tell me how I can improve it? For example, what kind of websites will be better for our references? Thanks a lot! Rdellsh (talk) 03:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper articles about the company, though preferably not just interviews, would probably be the best type of sources to prove notability. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

06:11:11, 12 June 2014 review of submission by Subash Raj Rajah


SR Rqj. 06:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, the article was declined as the subject does not seem to be notable enough as a sportsperson. Please see our criteria for the notability of athletes. Aside from these reason, your article needs a longer lead and more information about the subject itself, and you should indicate why you think this person is notable or worthy enough for a Wikipedia article. You might find this useful as a guide. Thanks! Darylgolden(talk) 10:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

06:17:36, 12 June 2014 review of submission by Fa7006164


Fa7006164 (talk) 06:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC) why my article was declined ?[reply]

User:Fa7006164/sandbox was rejected for the reasons given in the pink box at the top of that page. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Referring the contributor to a form notice is not always the clearest or friendliest way of giving help, but the notice is in fact quite specific: the topic of the article Customer satisfaction already exists in WP. Furthermore, your draft is just a one sentence definition, and encyclopedia articles are expected to be substantial. If the subject interests you , why not add material to the existing article? DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

10:09:24, 12 June 2014 review of draft by Alistair79


I'm not sure why it wont let me save this draft!

Alistair79 (talk) 10:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to having the grey box at the top indicate that your article is not submitted for review, I already fixed that. Darylgolden(talk) 10:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Buldana Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. Buldana Reg. No 267 (Multistate)

10:24:23, 12 June 2014 request for review by Vsdongre

11:57:32, 12 June 2014 review of submission by Vsdongre


Respected sir

we buldana urban largest society in Asia. We are here for information purpose, not for marketing purpose. because lots of students are doing studies on our society and they are requesting information from us. and also we wish to have our information on Wikipedia but for general use not for marketing purpose.

so please please guide us for proper way to update our information on Wikipedia.

for more information our website is www.buldanaurban.in

Vsdongre (talk) 11:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC) Vsdongre (talk) 11:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

13:05:31, 12 June 2014 review of submission by Balamura


This article has been rejected (Pizza Republic India, is an franchise of pizzeria chains that offers a wide range of pizzas, pastas and side dishes from burrito, pita pocket to salads. Pizza Republic operates as standalone restaurants large dine-in restaurants and express kiosks.

Pizza Republic Founded by Ramakrishnan, first Pizza Republic opened in Chennai, India in 2013, they have operations at Chennai, Tirupur, Coimpatore & Jaipur.

http://www.pizzarepublic.in) Balamura (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for telling us that this article has been rejected. What are your questions about the rejection reasons? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

14:23:43, 12 June 2014 review of submission by 64.28.247.169

I would like to request information about why my article was denied. I would like access to the review. Thank you. 64.28.247.169 (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello anonymous IP editor! Unfortunately, since you don't have an account, this is the first edit for the IP you are currently on, and you didn't specify what "your article" is (url, pagename, topic), we have no way of knowing where to go to be able to help you understand. You may consider creating an account which will make it so much easier for other editors to help you in the future or reply to this message telling us where your draft is. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 19:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

16:42:47, 12 June 2014 review of submission by Arturo Barajas Saavedra

Hi! I recieved a notification that my article submission was declined, and the reviewer encourage me to ask int his forum the reasons why it was declined, so if anybody could tell what went wrong (because this is my very first submission) I'd appreciate that.

Arturo Barajas Saavedra (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Arturo Barajas Saavedra: It was rejected as Original research, something that often happens when one starts to write on Wikipedia at first. This is discouraging when one has put a lot of work into something, but all is not lost. This is precisely what this process is for. The reviewer is experienced and you may want to engage with them on their talk page for specifics. I'm about to go and have a look at the article myself and will leave some comments there. Fiddle Faddle 09:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

18:58:41, 12 June 2014 review of submission by Mosiur Rehman


I want to create a page in the name "Phoenix Of My Heart" because it will the page of my newly published book. I don't know why it has been declined but I really want to know. Please help me so that I can make that page. Mosiur Rehman 18:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

When your book is a huge success and is widely written about in independent reliable sources, like literary review magazines and such, then someone else will create an article about it on Wikipedia. Until then, Wikipedia does not require an article about your book. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

22:01:50, 12 June 2014 review of submission by Hans Honk


Hello, i wrote an article about Jessica Wilde, a person i know and which approved what i have written in it. Why did you not accept my article Hans Honk (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your answers are at your draft User:Hans Honk/sandbox --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Hans Honk: Put simply, no-one knows who you are or what your motives are. No-one knows whether what you have written is the truth or is defamatory. No-one knowns whether you know the person or not (and we really don;t mind whether you do or not). We cannot publish such material, probably anyway, certainly without full independent references in WP:RS. Wikipedia is not a gossip column. It accepts porn stars and similar folk under well established criteria. This article as t stands is totally unacceptable. Fiddle Faddle 09:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated this submission for speedy deletion as it contains too much questionable and contentious unsourced content. I would remind the submitter that they are writing about somebody's daughter (or perhaps somebody that only exists inside their head). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

01:56:49, 13 June 2014 request for review by Janisadore

Hello, I've submitted an article, which was rejected. I added material, including more references by third-party publications, and it was again rejected. It sounds like the tech business and industry journals i've cited (including TechCrunch, Gigaom, and Wall Street Journal) are not recognized as valid citations by the editors who reviewed. I've since added a Financial Times citation as well. Is it possible to request a reviewer with knowledge of tech industry publications, or are such industry publications considered by definiton invalid?

In the meantime, I'm working on expanding the article further, but I wanted to get some advice on the validity of the citations before I put too much more work into it.

Thanks for any help you can provide.

Janet Janisadore (talk) 01:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Welcome! Is it Draft:Ecwid that you are talking about? Or another page? Your message is not so easy to understand. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at it, some of the citations are mere notices, or routine notices of funding, or mentions in an article without any substantial discussion of the specific subject (like the Huffington Post article) . Some others are clearly just press releases, like ref. 3, or Businesswire. The WSJ article is a press release, not an article: it says, right at the top, in red, "The Wall Street Journal news department was not involved in the creation of this content. PRESS RELEASE". You should limit it to those references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. What works best is true 3rd party product reviews in depth. If you have them, then there's the basis for an article. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

01:58:10, 13 June 2014 review of submission by Mikey909


Mikey909 (talk) 01:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have a problem. I have been asked by a friend, musician Rick Rosas, to post his bio on Wikipedia. He is a noted session bass player for such professional musicians as Neil Young, Joe Walsh and the Buffalo Springfield.

I wrote up his biography but couldn't find a way to include the references I used, almost all were from Wikipedia. The article was rejected. I have edited many Wiki articles but haven't uploaded anything in years. I don't recall this being so complicated before. How do I include the references and how do I type in the small numbers to indicate those references?

Thanks, Mike Thomas

Hey Mike! Which music magazines or newspaper music reviews or things like that wrote about Rosas? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Mikey909, for footnoting see WP:Referencing for beginners. Also note you cannot cite Wikipedia on itself, that would be circular logic. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

03:47:56, 13 June 2014 review of submission by Bloosteak


Bloosteak (talk) 03:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Symbol opinion vote.svg Comment: No extensive coverage in independent nor reliable sources, therefore non-notable. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)"

This is an arcade game and it's sold in China and Southeast Asia. I have a reference of Chinese media covering its launch. Arcade games are generally not reviewed in gaming media. How is it possible to establish notability in this field? Is there a list of qualified Southeast Asian or Chinese media?

See similar wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dance_Evolution Also lacks notability but is approved

Existence and launch is not sufficient to prove notability. You are welcome to continue to work on and improve the article Dance Evolution if that is what you are interested in. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

05:12:54, 13 June 2014 review of submission by BeaumontStreet


Hi Just checking if this submission has been received and is waiting for review? Thanks

BeaumontStreet (talk) 05:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it has and is. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

09:41:35, 13 June 2014 review of submission by Hpcn8888


As suggested by the Reviewers, I have revised above entry with major content and notable revisions on 24 March 2014. Please advise status of review and any comments? Many thanks Henry

Hpcn8888 09:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpcn8888 (talk • contribs)

Your submission, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Successful Business Dealings & Management with China Oil, Gas & Chemical Giants was declined by Libby norman on 18 March, and has not been resubmitted since then. You can resubmit it by pressing the blue submit button, but I advise you not to do so at this stage as the article still reads like a promotional piece for a book, that is largely only cited to self-published and primary sources, and is likely to be declined again. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U:Hpcn8888: To be a little more exact, what works best are book reviews providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. Not Amazon, not reader-contributed content, but reviews in major professional or trade journals. DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

10:15:43, 13 June 2014 review of submission by KM1977

I want to check only that I have submitted my wikipedia draft page to teh correct place. I clicked submit draft in sandbox and it says that it was submitted but when I went to teh AFC page I could see it was in my personal page. Do I need to go to teh yellow box under my draft box in sandbox and move it to another location for review? KM1977 (talk) 10:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your submission is queued for review and should be reviewed at some point. There is still a backlog of around 450 submissions as I write this, but attempts are being made to reduce this. One point I would make is to have a read through our guidelines for reliable sources for medicine to check the sources you have supplied meet these. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

11:40:58, 13 June 2014 review of submission by Mulayrahul


I had submitted the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Vikas_Joshi. It was declined and the reason cited was that the references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability. I have added neutral references - industry articles, articles from business publications, interviews as well as the awards and speaking engagements. I request a re-review to understand what else will be required.

RM (talk) 11:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've already submitted the draft for another review, so you don't need to request anything here separately. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Demiurge1000. The reason I requested review is that, if there is something that needs to be added/changed, I would rather know it sooner than having the article declined again for the same reasons. RM (talk) 12:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Accepted, now live. Bellerophon talk to me 14:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

12:11:32, 13 June 2014 review of submission by WhistleblowerOz

I submitted my first page this morning but I cant find it any where. how do I find out whether I submitted it properly WhistleblowerOz (talk) 12:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your only edit to Wikipedia under this account is here, and you haven't told us what the article is called, so I'm afraid I cannot help you. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

16:04:40, 13 June 2014 review of submission by Almhath


Almhath (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have been trying for months to develop an article for Joseph F. Ware, Jr., founder of the JFW jr Advanced Engineering Lab at Virginia Tech and flight test engineer in charge of everything at Lockheed Skunk Works from the P-38 Lightning to the U-2 and the SR-71. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Joseph_F._Ware,_Jr.&oldid=611708040 I have been learning the process to create the article. But I am not finding the status of my latest revision (5 June). Can anyone tell me or where I go to f ind it? Or how to fix it if it's not okay?

Joseph Ware, Jr. is well regarded at Virginia Tech and at the Lockheed Skunk Works. His contributions have been extremely notable in the area of aerospace engineering, U.S. defense and reconnaissance.

I have many photos, many of them originals that I have taken, including such as one with Jack Real https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Real , friend of Joe's and whom Joe hired at Lockheed, Willis Hawkins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willis_Hawkins , friend and former executive at Lockheed...etc.

I am his wife, widow.

It seems to me that the article I've been trying to create for Joseph F. Ware, Jr., is at least as specific and authentic, but I'm having trouble doing it right per wikipedia's guidelines? I'm guessing?

And finding someone to help at Wikipedia is almost impossible. EXAMPLE: I get referred to the Teahouse, but when I type my question (like the first paragraph here), and end with 4 tildes, still the Ask my Question button on screen does not illuminate, and I cannot click it.

Thank you for any help you can give.

Thank you Jenna Ware (wife/widow)

˜˜˜˜

Hi. I had a look for sources, and Cmdr Ware does appear in several, not least the Virginia Tech laboratory named after him. To me, that qualifies him under our guidelines on academics as a named appointment in a significant academic institution, so the article should be passed. I have now done this and it can be found at Joseph F Ware Jr. I have also added it to the Military history WikiProject, who may be able to help develop it further. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete my account

kindly delete my username and user page

delete my account

kindly delete my username and user page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonface Momanyi (talk • contribs) 17:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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!) 16:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

18:49:16, 13 June 2014 review of submission by EBstrunk18

Hello, Recently, I submitted an article for creation on an ice cream company called Salt and Straw. I am in no way affiliated with this company, other than I once ate their ice cream and wanted to know more about the company. While looking at Google results, I believed the company would easily pass the WP:CORP threshold. Plus, I really wanted to create my first article. Unfortunately, it was declined because of the very thing for which I originally noticed subject: notability. After reviewing the page again and moving references around and adding another, I'm confident the company would pass the notability threshold. However, I understand that my view could be skewed since I'm the one creating the page. If that is the case, and I'm missing something, could someone please indicate what the secondary source are missing. Maybe WP:CORPDEPTH? Something else? Any thoughts, comments, suggestions are more than welcome. Thanks for all your help!EBstrunk18 (talk) 18:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EBstrunk18 (talk) 18:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is one of our longstanding dilemmas. The notability of the establishment at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Salt and Straw seems to depend upon the many published discussions in the press, based primarily on the oddness of its flavors. This is intrinsically not a very secure basis for notability, but some of the discussions are substantial and in adequately reliable sources for the subject. They presumably are based to some extent on press releases, but I think the coverage is nonetheless genuine. It is therefore notable by our general guideline WP:GNG. But it may none the less not be suitable for an encyclopedia -- the policy here is WP:NOT NEWS, which supersedes the GNG. In a situation like this, no individual should make the decision--I would normally at this point accept it, and let the inevitable Articles for Deletion discussion decide.
But I suggest you improve the article first. It was not obvious to me from the article what the press coverage was about: I had to go read the sources. You need to add a few sentences to the article indicating this to the reader, because that's what the reader will want to know. And to make this clear, the references should be used to support the relevant parts of the article, not all listed generally at the end: Since most of the comments are about one particular flavor, the reverences for that point should go in the text after that statement. DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG! Thanks for the helpful comments. I'll make the changes, then resubmit, and see how it goes. Again, thanks for your help. Best regardsEBstrunk18 (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC) 22:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

19:25:13, 13 June 2014 review of submission by Piwowath

why was it declined? Piwowath (talk) 19:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is apparently Draft:North Mountain Lookout. (It would have helped me to say that when you asked the question) The key problem is that it needs more specific references. You referenced darringtonareabusinessassociation.com and summitpost.org, but you need to specify the exact link to the relevant website page for the first, and the specific link, and the day of publication and article title for the second. You then need to put the references i the text of the article so we can see what they actually support. See WP:REFBEGIN for the method. I am not sure whether this campsite would be considered notable , but it would help greatly to find additional sources, such as from printed guides to the areas or mentions in books or other published sources. DGG ( talk ) 21:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

20:24:40, 13 June 2014 review of submission by MarkMillerITPro

I tried to clean up the categories into the "box" of categories, but upon hitting preview, I couldn't see the result. Anyone willing to put the article's categories into the nice looking box format? MarkMillerITPro (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MarkMillerITPro (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can probably see the result correctly if you edit (then preview) the entire page, rather than just the last section. However, it would be better to leave the categories where they are until the draft is accepted, because those type of categories are only supposed to be in accepted ("mainspace") articles. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! TY! MarkMillerITPro (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


June 14

09:53:21, 14 June 2014 review of submission by HectorDavie


I have created the new page "Canal d'Entreroches" (English), and have added links from a number of other pages. As far as I can see, only one of these links works (from "Éclépens"), and others link to "Mormont" ('redirected from Canal d'Entreroches'). I also cannot add my English page under the 'Language' header on the sidebar of the French or German pages entitled "Canal d'Entreroches" (Q1032679) - I receive a message that the Mormont page (Q1948256) is already linked. These seems to be a conflict here that I cannot resolve without your help! (Pages such as the index page "Canals in Switzerland" have both links - the link to "Mormont" should be suppressed as it is unhelpful.) HectorDavie (talk) 09:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


June 15

21:47:05, 14 June 2014 request for review by Pat Kelso

Moved from a very unlikely location on an editnotice talk page

Gentlemen, the below is self-explanatory. I hope you might help.

Dear Mr. Vanitas: I would like to submit (resubmit?) my editing of Perspective projection under Perspective (Graphics), https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Pat_Kelso/sandbox&action=submit, for review. It seems to be blocked by a "black list"(??) If you might give me a pointer, it would be appreciated. (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pat_Kelso/sandbox) Pat Kelso (talk) 23:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello Pat Kelso, I'm not really a technical guy, so suggest you enquire at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk instead, to reach a wider/savvier audience of reviewers. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Pat Kelso (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pat Kelso, I've moved your sandbox draft to Draft:Perspective (Graphics) as you seemed to be requesting and I have placed a draft template on it, as it appears you have not finished it yet. I notice you have another submission at Draft:Perspective projection, what would you like to do with that submission? Bellerophon talk to me 21:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Mr. Bellerophon I am still feeling my way along here. It is my understanding that my first draft, of Perspective projection, a subsection of Perspective (Graphics), was declined because of a "black list." I do not what that is though it sounds ominous. What I would prefer is to zap that submission. As I am still updating my editing of the piece, I would prefer not to submit it until I feel it is in better shape. There are errors in the published article as it now stands and I plane to keep the errors and show the corrections. By the way, is it more convenient for you to correspond through this site or my talk site? Your indulgence if appreciated. Pat Kelso (talk) 03:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Pat Kelso, your first submission was declined because it seemed to duplicate an existing topic Perspective projection which, interestingly, is merely a redirect to Perspective (graphical). To be clear, the reason your submissions have been declined is because you appear to be trying to write articles about subjects that already exist on Wikipedia. Any message you got about a blacklist was simply because you put a link in your submission to website on Wikipedia's blacklist. You won't be able to save a page if it includes a blacklisted URL, I had to remove one such URL from your sandbox in order to move the page to the title your requested. Bellerophon talk to me 08:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

02:56:38, 15 June 2014 review of submission by Bloosteak


Bloosteak (talk) 02:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable sources list does not cover China/SE Asia and hardly any arcade sources (arcade gets a small % of coverage that consoles get). What could I possible source to make my article notable? I already have one Chinese media.

03:17:23, 15 June 2014 review of submission by Bloosteak


Bloosteak (talk) 03:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this article is about as notable as all the other arcade dance games sans dance dance revolution. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pump_It_Up

@Bloosteak: other pages do not set a precedent for this one. If poor p[ages were allowed to set a precedent WIkipedia would mimic Idiocracy. Fiddle Faddle 21:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

03:25:06, 15 June 2014 review of submission by Svarshavsky


I have edited and re-submitted my article a while ago. Is there any chance to know if it has been accepted? Thank you. Sergei

Svarshavsky (talk) 03:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has not been accepted yet; it is still awaiting its next review. You will be informed on your talk page the next time it is accepted or declined. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

06:55:44, 15 June 2014 review of submission by Dhayalan94


Dhayalan94 (talk) 06:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC) ISKCON Ipoh... this is my page .... and ithave been deleted and this is what stated --> This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC [14:49] <dhayalan> kindly plz help me....why deleted ...im new and this is about non profit organisation then hw coud there be any advertising or promotion... so plz state what i shouldnt include on the article[reply]

Obvious troll. Somebody block them please. Bellerophon talk to me 09:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

08:33:18, 15 June 2014 request for review by FAcebook88

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ahmed Sabbour OR Draft:Ahmed Sabbour

Please I need to know the reasons behind the decline of my article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FAcebook88 (talk • contribs) 08:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@FAcebook88: You are confused. You are dealing with two different copies of essentially the same article plus a third article like the other two so I'll address each separately.
None of these submissions can be accepted. Please read all of our content guidelines before you attempt to continue editing. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

09:47:58, 15 June 2014 review of submission by Diana.dya07


Diana.dya07 (talk) 09:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Diana.dya07: It is not in English. This is the English Language WIkipedia and articles in non English tongues are not appropriate. Fiddle Faddle 22:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

16:40:44, 15 June 2014 review of submission by Righttrack


Questions re: comments on newly published article

An article I wrote on musician Eliot Lewis was just published. However, there's a notation on it that "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view." I was asked by Mr. Lewis' manager to write the article, but I don't know Mr. Lewis. Are there specific passages in the article that caused this concern? What do I need to address to get this notation resolved and removed?

Thank you!

Righttrack (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is conflict of interest per se. Fiddle Faddle 17:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ... I didn't realize Mr. Nichols identified himself as Mr. Lewis' tour manager. Phil Nichols created the righttrack account and was going to write the page, then contacted me to do it instead. Since he had entered the basic bio information and discography, I wrote teh rest of the page in the righttrack account. But my name is Kellye Norris. I'm a freelance journalist with about 20 years of experience in print and online communications. Check me out on LinkedIn. (I'm the one in Dallas.) BTW, I have my own Wiki account now--username KellyeN1220. Any future pages will be written in my account under my Wiki user name. Righttrack (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KellyeN1220 (talk • contribs) [reply]

I should add ... I wasn't paid to write Mr. Lewis' page, and I did all my own research. I worked for free because most of my paying clients are technology companies, and I wanted the opportunity to write about something besides application virtualization in a private cloud. Righttrack (talk) 02:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC) KellyeN1220[reply]


June 16

00:23:48, 16 June 2014 review of submission by Drowning Worms


Hello there, I'm afraid I just had my first submission rejected. I would like to address the issues and resubmit but I have included as many references as I could think of and don't think there is anything in there that's not verifiable. I believe the person I have written about is noteworthy enough to deserve inclusion, but I'm not sure what to change. Can you help me by making some suggested edits? Thanks in advance and apologies. Best wishes, James Drowning Worms (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Drowning Worms: I'm going to leave a comment on the draft for you. Fiddle Faddle 19:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent: Thanks Tim - I really appreciate you taking the time - most useful. Drowning Worms 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

01:58:22, 16 June 2014 review of submission by Garryanas

Thanks in advance for helping me. My article was rejected on two claims. First, the authors notability. A quick look into wiki shows me that several authors that are less notable have been included. Here is one example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathaniel_G._Moore

Next, the citations were questioned. However, they are all from publisher websites, so I am not sure how verifiable they can be. When I look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah_Willis_%28Canadian_author%29 it seems that she has the same or similar sources.

Please help me to clarfiy how or if I can improve this article. Otherwise, is it possible to have another editor look at it for a second opinion.

Thanks again.Garryanas (talk) 01:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC) Garryanas (talk) 01:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Publishers publish books, and booksellers sell books, so they are not independent sources such as are required to prove notability on Wikipedia.
The existence of other inadequately referenced articles is, I'm afraid, not a reason to create more.
Citing substantial independent reviews of Little's work, for example in major newspapers, might be the best way of establishing her notability. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

02:26:19, 16 June 2014 review of submission by Granitedesk


I am pleased that my new article on author Daniel James Brown has been accepted. I find it if I enter Daniel James Brown in the Wikipedia search box; however, I don't get a result when I Google "Daniel James Brown Wikipedia". Next steps? Thanks in advance for your help. Granitedesk (talk) 02:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Granitedesk (talk) 02:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has been five days since the article was accepted, so give Google a few more days to catch up. I can't see it where I would expect in Google either yet. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

04:08:47, 16 June 2014 review of submission by Maniac1992

I need help with my article but can't find reliable sources

Maniac1992 (talk) 04:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

05:34:03, 16 June 2014 review of submission by Mcgama88


I humbly request review toward the submission via sandbox, as I view the index case in trisomy, or downs syndrome, to be rather of interest to a wide population as live birth incidence has been suggested at 1/1000. Further, the suggested data allows mature female care providers a mechanism of reduction in live birth numbers.

I submit that details of this submission deserve your care and addative resource. To allow the interested observer a time scale, an early woodcut suggested case observation in the 17th century. The subsequent increase in population will allow some actual case numbers in world specifics to emerge. Further, the larger coherent viewpoint to reader is that there should be some hope toward theraputic. While not discussed specific to the topic, I suspect a certain regard for research view would be premised in that an advance in model presents a view towards a difficult chromosomal assay.

Mcgama88 (talk) 05:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcgama88: no Declined Your submission looks like original research, not an encyclopedic article. Your submission has no sources at all. Much of your submission, like your post above, is incoherent and I can only assume that you're not a native English-speaker. In any case, your submission is too technical and lacks enough context for the general reader. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

07:04:54, 16 June 2014 review of submission by Nmwalsh


Nmwalsh (talk) 07:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to Wikipedia. Somebody has commented that my company page is not sufficiently notable. How do you make a company page notable. I have shown it's origins, shown it's standing in the Chamber of Commerce, it could not be said to be advertising since the activities of the company is implicit in its name "Admiral Pest Control". What else should the page have so that it is acceptable. Nmwalsh (talk) 07:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is established by references showing significant coverage of the organisation in independent reliable sources. WP:42 summarises this. If such coverage does not exist, then nothing you can do will make the organisation notable. Incidentally, the Chamber of Commerce would not be considered an independent source for this purpose.
Looking at your draft, there is certainly some coverage of the organisation in local and specialist publications, even if some of it is not really about the organisation as such, so I will leave it up to someone else to consider the re-review that you have requested on the draft. If you can add any more press coverage, that might help.
Looking at the topic as a whole, the organisation does seem to be a relatively unremarkable - albeit successful - small family firm in operation for less than a century, so would not normally fit within Wikipedia's requirements for an encyclopedia article. Despite another editor's comment, I am not sure that trying to create an article about Jeff Jones would fare any better. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

12:10:51, 16 June 2014 review of submission by Karinsoika

Hi, I am struggeling to get the above draft reviewed. What I do not quite understand:

Question 1: Is there a different policy of accepting submissions, depending on the country? I had ZERO problems to get http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Schotter accepted. What I want is just an English version of it, with identical content, for international readers. I am trying since April... Are US-submission guidelines different from German guidelines? Isn*t there a GENERAL Wikipedia line?

Question 2: Is there another way of offering an English version of an German Wikipedia article?

Question 3: TimTremt declined the article as in his eyes ist is a "List of Movies" - is creating https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_movies_by_Robert_Schotter&action=edit&redlink=1 an option for me? And linking that article then to the German Robert-Schotter-Article?

Question 4: What is the Robert Schotter page supposed to contain then? Private information? Went to school... travelled to... married... divorced...hobbies?? Is that really of public interest? Isnt an award won not enough to extablish notability?

Thanks and regards, Karin

Karinsoika (talk) 12:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The German Wikipedia does have different standards and a slightly different culture to the English one. For example, article length is watched more closely on that Wikipedia compared to here, while we focus more stringently on content and referencing. The article over there was created in 2009, and may have just had a better chance of slipping through the quality control net.
As for what needs to be done here, simply put, the article should talk about what reliable sources such as books, magazines and newspapers have said about him, which will probably be his film career and the critics' responses to it. His personal life is generally irrelevant; while it would be useful to know his date of birth, we err on the side of caution when dealing with articles about living people. I had a look for appropriate sources via a quick google search, but didn't obviously find anything, though there is another Robert Schotter who is a US Marine who has some coverage. This is a shame, because if I found one source, I could point at it as an example. You might find some success doing a search through German newspapers if any are online. Unfortunately, without those sources to hand, we can't reliably determine why Schotter is important, which unfortunately means he can't have an article at this time.
There is a process by which articles in other languages can be translated into English - see Help:Translation - but the guidelines for notability and reliable sources will still need to be adhered to.Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ritchie333, thank you for your very helpful reply. I'll give my article another try soon... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karinsoika (talk • contribs) 13:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

12:17:28, 16 June 2014 review of submission by Shantu.khanduri


Shantu.khanduri (talk) 12:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first line of your draft read "Understanding Competitor Price Monitoring and Why You Need It for Your Business". I have marked it for speedy deletion as blatant advertising. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

17:55:13, 16 June 2014 review of submission by Warrenchase


Recently corrected bare link references on an article that was accepted but set under "Start Class" level. Is there another vehicle for review after changes like this have been made? As the article is added to/improved and additional references are linked to it will it improve from "Start Class" upward?

Warrenchase (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The lower levels of article quality can be reviewed by anyone on a relevant project, though in practice these can get out of sync and are often ignored. The major exceptions are good articles and featured articles which require a formal review, especially for FAs which undergo a rigorous review process. If you think André Harvey (sculptor) is now at C-class, simply be bold and change the assessment tags on the talk page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice Ritchie333 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrenchase (talk • contribs) 19:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

18:02:55, 16 June 2014 review of submission by Dadonnino


I would like help on how to get this article submitted. I and my colleagues have been attempting this often for a few months now, and with only basic knowledge of Wikipedia it has been proving much more difficult than originally thought.

Please help! Thank you Dadonnino (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dadonnino: There are no shortcuts, I fear. The draft article, if reviewed today, would be declined because it has no inline citations, and is about a living person. Take it slowly. Read WP:REFB, WP:CITE, and add references. The issue you will face is that there are tough criteria for references. They must be independent of the person, must be significant coverage,and must be in WP:RS.
By the way, your mention of colleagues will cause some questions to be asked. We have a "One person, one account" policy. You are very welcome top collaborate with your friends and colleagues as long as either you alone operate the account, or they create accounts and join in as distinct editors.
One thing that will help you is WP:Mentoring. Do consider it. There are, as I have said, no shortcuts, but you will find mentoring a very useful learning tool. Fiddle Faddle 18:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft:Grant Sorensen

Accepted move to Grant Sorensen as a Australian volleyball article Molly (talk), 18:19 16 June 2014 (UTC) Accepted move to Grant Sorensen as a Wikipedia article, Molly Ann (talk) 18:21 16 June 2014 (UTC) Accepted move as a article on Wikipedia Molly (talk), 18:37 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Please stop using the accepted template. The draft will be reviewed soon enough and this page is to ask for help. This load of stuff just put me off reviewing it. We're human, you see. Fiddle Faddle 18:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

19:19:23, 16 June 2014 review of submission by Ruba.atallah


Hi I would like to know what kind of authorization i need to obtain from the owner of the photo to be used in the info box? in this case Mr. Salameh is the owner of the picture i used and later was deleted. Thank you for your kind help in advance Ruba.atallah (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Wikipedia:DONATEIMAGE covers what they would need to do. There are a few options there; any one of those options would be enough. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

20:03:48, 16 June 2014 request for review by Amaya3562


My name is Amaya and I am an intern at Intellect Press in Wilmington NC. I have articles about the magazine I want to upload on Wikipedia, and I've edited 10 articles in order to be able to do so. However, I don't know where to go from here still. Where can I upload the article? Thank you for the help, Amaya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaya3562 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Amaya3562: The lesson here is that you should have waited for our reply. You created Intellect Press after posting this question and that article is going to be deleted. Please read our guidance on writing your first article as well as our guideline on reliable sources and an explanation of general notability before you make further edits to Wikipedia. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft:Desmond Mayberry

Accepted move to Desmond Mayberry as a article 86.15.162.137 (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC) Accepted move into article space 86.15.162.137 (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

21:34:06, 16 June 2014 review of submission by Sandra-nyc


Sandra-nyc (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I created a second article as a draft however I can't find it anymore. My sandbox allows me to see the first article I created only. Do you know where I can find my second article?

Thanks in advance!

Best regards,

Sandra Delabaere

@Sandra-nyc: Are you referring to Draft:Sanjay Laforest? Darylgolden(talk) 23:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 17

01:09:34, 17 June 2014 review of submission by Joffanaut


Joffanaut (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC) Just requesting some assistance. WE created a card game we'd like to publish on Wikipedia. Is there anyway we can get a source for the accuracy of this type of article when the authors are the actual source?[reply]

@Joffanaut: Wikipedia is not a place to publish your ideas. You cannot use self-published sources so your submission cannot be on Wikipedia. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

01:14:32, 17 June 2014 review of submission by Badnet123

My submissions has been rejected twice and I simply do not understand! I provided a number of objective references and still... Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Badnet123 (talk) 01:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Badnet123: We can separate your sources and the content they support into three groups. First, you have sources like AllMusic, EBay, YouTube, and the like that aren't reliable. All of the information supported by those links should be removed. Second, you have links like Pandora, mpressrecords, and the like that are selling music in some way; they're not critical sources for notability. The information they support can stay but they don't make the subject notable. The link to ASCAP doesn't mention the subject so it can't be used for notability purposes. either. Finally you have TV.com and Billboard. I don't think those two get the subject past our notability criteria for musicians. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify what Chris is talking about here, Billboard is probably the best source you have. It's got a track record of printing content with a good editorial reputation, and can be trusted to give a reasonably neutral and unbiased opinion on things. Unfortunately, it's only got a short amount of column space devoted to the subject. Still, it's a reliable source and should remain. AllMusic can be used as a reliable source, particularly with regards to reviews, as they can only be written by professional authors such as Ritchie Unterberger, and even discographies can sometimes be acceptable, though they should be used with more care. To sum up, if you can find more magazine or news sources like the Billboard one from a Google Books search, you should use those in the article, as it will become more obvious that we are dealing with a notable subject. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

02:31:01, 17 June 2014 review of submission by Seattle2311


Seattle2311 (talk) 02:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted two creations on June 13 and 14th. One titles Richard (Dick) Welsh and the other National Association of Reversionary property Owners. I submitted both and both came back with critiques which I tried to address and then resubmitted. But I have not heard back on either one. I am afraid that I am not up to speed on Wiki nuances. Can you tell me when my submissions are now and some critiques I need to address?Seattle2311 (talk) 02:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)?[reply]

@Seattle2311: I've invited you to try the Wikipedia Adventure as you need to learn the actual coding in Wikipedia. Each of your submissions lack reliable sources. Using your own EarthLink website doesn't cut it. Neither Dick Welsh nor NARPO is notable as there's no evidence that they have general notability or biographic/organizational notability, respectively. Neither submission is currently submitted for review so you can get those issues fixed before trying again. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

12:20:14, 17 June 2014 review of submission by Thejaswinij


Thejaswinij (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That submission was declined on 16th June for the reasons given at the top of the draft page itself. Were there some parts of the reasons for the submission being declined that are unclear? If so, please let us know which parts are a problem so that we can try to assist you further. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

14:35:56, 17 June 2014 review of submission by 1.175.216.77


1.175.216.77 (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That submission was declined on 16th June for the reasons given at the top of the draft page itself. Were there some parts of the reasons for the submission being declined that are unclear? If so, please let us know which parts are a problem so that we can try to assist you further. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

17:37:22, 17 June 2014 review of draft by Cnorthin

Thanks! I am in the process of creating a page. I have laid out the full article; my only trouble is with the sidebar template. I have found the page that explains how to format the headers, but this page does not explain how I can split the information into columns (e.g., "Founded" in bold, and "2004" unbolded, on the same line, separated by a uniform amount of space.

In my sidebar, for example, I want to have the following fields:

Founded 2004, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Key People Eugenie Birch

Hopefully this makes sense to you. I was having a hard time finding a page to explain how to do this. Thank you!

Cnorthin (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cnorthin. Infoboxes are a little more primitive than you might be hoping!
It works like this:
  1. Choose an infobox (e.g. Infobox company, Infobox person, Infobox musician). Use that template
  2. You then (mostly) have to use the fields already defined in that infobox, e.g. at Template:Infobox company you can use key_people = as it says on that page.
  3. You don't get to define your own labels and data (mostly)
Perhaps take a look at the infobox templates on a few existing companies to see how it works? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

20:27:41, 17 June 2014 review of submission by Nicole Cuillierrier


Hi there, this was an article on Wikipedia before and I have resubmitted as it was deleted some time ago. I am wondering what the article is missing to be published on Wikipedia. I would like to make the necessary changes and resubmit if possible. Please advise!

Nicole Cuillierrier (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)Nicole Cuillierrier Nicole Cuillierrier (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nicole Cuillierrier: I assume you are the social media strategist I've read about. I also assume then that you're familiar with the BBS concept of "Lurk moar." Your submission doesn't have sources that are both reliable and independent. Because of that, it does not appear the subject has either organizational or general notability. And if you are who I believe you to be, you have an apparent conflict of interest. All of the linked guidance is available for anyone to read. Had you consulted that guidance before submitting a draft you could have saved everyone some time. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

21:02:47, 17 June 2014 review of submission by MarkMillerITPro


Review of Draft:4INFO

Hi Timtrent.:Hi DGG.:Hi Drumlineramos JordanKyser22 or any other editor. I'm *confused* I had 250 references when ®amos said, "Although I commend the editor for the plethora of verifiable references" & he did imo an awesome job of wikifying the article for me. Then @Timtrent said the references were pr, & I went thru & got rid of the one I found that was I think prwire, Then @dgg pointed out possible notability on the basis of market share, and to my surprise I found references from Nielsen on basis of market share for multiple years, in several arenas. Now JordanKyser22 declined the article saying there's a lack of notability & references.

MarkMillerITPro (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 18

07:19:10, 18 June 2014 review of submission by 122.170.38.169


Hello Sir/Madam,

We have tried submitting Mr Rizwan Koita's profile here, but we faced some resistance saying that the content submitted is promotional in nature. We tried checking other similar profiles for individual wiki pages and found the language used on the similar lines. It would be of great help if you educate us regarding the concerned areas so that we can accordingly make the required changes.

Awaiting your guidance over the same.

Thanks & regards, User - Draft:Rizwan_Koita

122.170.38.169 (talk) 07:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Existing similar Wikipedia articles are of little use as examples unless they are of recognised quality. A list of recognised Wikipedia Good Articles about businesspeople can be found at Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society#Businesspeople. These would be better to use as examples to work from.
Another issue for your draft is establishing notability. If another editor's comment is correct, that a substantial proportion of the references provided do not mention Koita by name, then this may be insufficient to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. Adding additional independent reliable sources that discuss Koita in detail would be required.
In addition, you should aim that the bulk of the facts stated in the article are sourced to reliable sources using inline citations. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

16:18:05, 18 June 2014 review of submission by Hiranyakeshi


Hiranyakeshi (talk) 16:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC) Declined for reliability of ref. Pl let me know how wiki judges reliability of ref. Do they read the ref? Or there is any automatic method? I am new to this subject of creation of articles and editing wiki. Pl give full guidance, esp on editing and reference acceptability criterion. Who are the administrators? What functions they have? Any qualification in the subject needed? Will revert on getting replies if still have any doubts. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Hiranyakeshi (talk • contribs) [reply]

Hello Hiranyakeshi. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources as linked for you on your declined draft is a good place to start reading about how reliable sources are identified. www.academia.edu does not appear to satisfy Wikipedia's requirements as an established publishing house whose publications can all be assumed to be reliable. Wikipedia administrators do not have any assigned role in assessing the reliability of sources; such discussions can be contributed to by all editors. If you have any more questions just let us know. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Hiranyakeshi: Try reading all of these:
I've also invited you to take try the Wikipedia Adventure. After you complete that, most of your questions should be answered. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

17:50:39, 18 June 2014 review of submission by D4web

I have been having a bit of trouble getting this page submitted. It has been declined twice now due to a lack of reliable sources, but I am having trouble figuring out how the sources are unreliable. The messages from the reviewers was a bit vague and I could use the help improving the sources. Could someone please tell me which sources are being referred to as unreliable and why?

also if I have a picture to use for this post, what would be the best way to add it?

D4web (talk) 17:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

17:52:59, 18 June 2014 review of submission by Bogetveit


Bogetveit (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can I get some help to make a better layout and also put in the pictures from the <Norwegian Wikipedia site Thank you

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=613457330"