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 101.218.107.210 (talk) at 14:22, 4 July 2014. 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
June 2025
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


June 28

01:55:58, 28 June 2014 review of submission by Silandcoreng

Hallo,my draft has been rejected because the "submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability". This is my first page in English Wikipedia, and I am writing on a Russian director living and working mainly in Italy. All the sources I have found directly linked to him are in Italian, but quite relevant in Italian theatre publications, and I would like to be sure that the rejection is not related to lack of relevant sources because of a language/cultural problem (that is: for an Italian theatre professional, someone cited by XXX is an interesting artist, but for an English professional the name XXX can mean very little...). The page on Italian Wikipedia didn't meet any problems, but maybe there are different parameters. If this is the problem, how can I solve it? Main question is about how can I point the notability of the subject. In fact, he is one of the few theatre directors using a technique called "structural analysis of text" originated by successors of Stanislavskij at the MXAT and GITIS... This is the reason of notability for this person in the theatre field, but I had no idea on how I could write it. All the theorical books about this technique are in Russian and there are no traces in wikipedia about it, except the Hermeneutic page wich I included in the "categories", and that is in fact quite general. I also cited the Italian articles in which the technique is explained, or those written by actors telling their experiences through this technique. How would you suggest to make this reason of notability explicit? Shall I go in the technical details, explaining what this technique is? Or shall I write a Wikipedia Article about it so that I can link the person page to the technique page? Or is it enough if I add this peculiarity in his biography, as I wrote it to you? Thanks! Silandcoreng (talk) 01:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Every Wikipedia has its own rules. Perhaps that is incorrect, but it is how it is. WIth regard to your draft, I cannot read non English references, so I will give you a general answer and hope someone else will give you a fuller one. For a living person we have a higher standard of referencing. Every fact you assert requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS. I'm sorry not to be able to be specific. Fiddle Faddle 13:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Silandcoreng, I accepted it. It needed considerable readjustment & shortening to meet our format, and the English style needed improvement , both of which I have done. Very few routine biographies of living people with uncontroversial careers in enWP actually have individual references for each routine fact if a general reference at the paragraph level is given. They are however required if they are contested, controversial, or judgmental. I consider the existing ones sufficient, but if someone wants to challenge it, the specific page numbers for the printed sources will need to be added. We also need publication details for the review in La Repubblica, and any other available reviews. DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will improve the article and my contributions in Wikipedia. It was very useful to read Timtrent and Cullen328 comments and to see the work that DGG did to the article to meet the minimum standards. Thanks a lot for your work, your kind welcome and your help! Silandcoreng (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

17:31:43, 28 June 2014 review of draft by 173.233.126.178


173.233.126.178 (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's empty.WHat is your question, please? Fiddle Faddle 13:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 29

14:35:04, 29 June 2014 review of submission by Relativityman

I am not requesting a re-review. All I want to know is WHERE IS THE REVIEW DRAFT AND THE REVIEWER'S REMARKS, SO THAT I CAN EDIT IT? Relativityman (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All Capitals is SHOUTING and impolite. The decline notice on your talk page leads directly to the draft. It is ad Draft:Natural Relativity. Fiddle Faddle 14:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

16:59:00, 29 June 2014 review of draft by SongsforLulu

Dear Wikipedia editor,

This is my first Wiki article and I have a few questions:

With regard to references:

Is it enough to cite a reference or do I need to justify why I’ve cited a particular reference (for example if I say that somebody is German, do I need to show Wikipedia where in the source article this is mentioned (i.e. by quoting the relevant passage)? If so how do I do this? Where the source article is not in English, I’ve added the original sentence(s) and a translation after the reference. Is this the right procedure? See references [4] and [31]. Do I have to specify that a source quoted in the references is a blog, an online magazine, a website, a press release, etc.? In reference [30], the link to Wiki article If I Loved You: Gentlemen prefer Broadway does not work. Any idea why? When I quoted a publication name in the references, I’ve followed your guidelines and used a double apostrophe, however this didn’t italicise the name and I had to do it later manually, where did I go wrong? (I put the apostrophes in the right place outside the double square broackets). I’ve noticed that when I click on the blue arrow button after the name of an article, I am redirected to that article and I can then come back to my Wikipedia page (by clicking on the left arrow button on the top left hand corner of the screen). However if I do this a second time I am unable to return to my Wiki article. Is this normal?

Other questions:

With regard to categories, I’ve noticed that the subject of my biography is listed under J (for Jörn) and not under W (for Weisbrodt). How do I change this? With regard to the two photos, I’ve emailed Mr Weisbrodt’s office asking them to fill in your permission template and I will get back to you as soon as hear from them. The photos URLs are:

/media/wikipedia/en/5/5e/Music_Mob-22-016.JPG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2013_TimesTalk_Joni_Mitchell_photo_davidleyes-0345.jpg

Thank you very much for your assistance and I look forward to hearing from you.

Lulu 16:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

@SongsforLulu: I will answer some of this. Others can come and play for the rest {{Smiley}
You may quote snippets using the 'quote=' parameter in the {{Cite web}} (etc) template series of citation templates. The snippets should be short and directly relevant to the item you are citing. You do not need to specify what you are soucing, just the title and url (if it has a url) and the date written, author, and the date it was accessed, assuming it is an online resource. I;ve not read WP:REFB - I'm hardcore, and do it all manually - but I imagine fondly that it contains all this. Some of it is in User:Timtrent/A good article, too.
We never, not ever, use Wikipedia as a reference. It is a user edited source, so, by definition, is unreliable.
With Categories there is a magic word, {{DEFAULTSORT}} that is intended to handle it. The best way to learn is to find another biography and see how it is used there, right at the foot (edit the article and look in the edit tab).
I'm not a copyright expert on submitting material. I will leave that to others. There is a way of signifying that you are seeking permission, I htink, but I don;t want to mislead you. Fiddle Faddle 17:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

18:32:42, 29 June 2014 review of submission by Aliciasotomayor1

18:32:42, 29 June 2014 request for review by Aliciasotomayor1

My big question is how can I add a photo, do you have steps to do itAliciasotomayor1 (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In order to add a photo you must first upload it. To be allowed to upload it you must either own the copyright, or have registered formal permission form the copyright holder, or the photo must already be available freely (a complex topic I will not cover here)
Once uploaded you insert it into the document thus where you replace the name example.jpg with your file name after upload. There are sizing parameters. If you get stuck deploy {{Helpme}} on your own talk page and ask your question there. A helpful weditor will drop by and answer your question there.
I've answered your question here, but it is outside our normal scope, which is to handle article submission and review problems. Fiddle Faddle 09:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The user is unable to upload files as their account is neither confirmed or auto-confirmed. They would need to use Files for Upload; however, before they start to thing about images they should probably address the more pressing concerns of the text -- specifically, that they haven't written any. Bellerophon talk to me 19:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

19:16:45, 29 June 2014 review of submission by 154.5.121.207

154.5.121.207 (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I recently submitted an article on the history, provenance, story and premiere of 'Pauline', a new chamber opera given its world premiere in May 2014 at City Opera Vancouver. Its libretto was written by Margaret Atwood (a well-known author) and music by Tobin Stokes. The event was reported across Canada, the States, and the United Kingdom, and sold out all five nights. It was Margaret Atwood's first opera, Tobin Stokes' fifth, and the first ever about poet, writer and performer Pauline Johnson. The latter is the subject of a major essay in Wikipedia.

To my surprise, the article was declined.

That said, I appreciate the invitation to review; that said further, there is no point, really. If it fails your test, it fails. No one takes it personally.

Thanks,


Dr Charles Barber (MA, DMA Stanford)

I hope you are not giving up. Do, please, edit Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pauline (chamber opera) to make it acceptable, or merge it as suggested. We want articles, and the review process is designed to help you to construct them. Fiddle Faddle 19:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC). .[reply]
Hello Dr. Barber. I wasn't the reviewer, but I'm a member of WikiProject Opera and took a second look at the draft when I saw your query here. The problem was that at the time the draft was reviewed and declined in February, the opera had not even premiered yet (it did not premiere until late May), and you had provided no references apart from its official website. We cannot accept articles like that. We require references in the article showing significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it, in reliable published sources. However, now that it has premiered, there are multiple published reviews and articles about it. I'll be adding them to the draft and updating it and then I'll move it to article space. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 30

00:01:09, 30 June 2014 review of submission by 86.129.239.39

My request, along with a large number of similar requests, was deleted _without a response_ at 17:42, on 28 June 2014‎ by Anon 108.23.88.129 - see [1]. Is it not reasonable to ask why / understand why this request was deleted??? 86.129.239.39 (talk) 00:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@86.129.239.39: I'm not sure why that content was deleted. 108.23.88.129 may have experienced an edit conflict and removed your content by accident. In any case, Category:Thames Water already exists and has only 31 articles in it, so I see no reason to create Category:People associated with Thames Water. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

06:05:14, 30 June 2014 review of submission by SongsforLulu

Hello!

I'm not sure if I'm putting this in the right place, but I just wanted to let the reviewer know that I have reduced the number of citations as requested. There is only one place where there are three citations, and removing any of them would mean the information within the article is not verified, so please leave these.

With regard to the sexuality categories, I have found a direct reference, but because it refers to a category I don't know where to put it, so I'm pasting it here:

Brunette, Patrick “Lumière sur Jörn Fugues, Montreal, 22 March 2013. Retrieved on 30 June 2014. “J’imagine que c’est à ce moment que j’ai réalisé que j’étais gai.” (Translation: I guess it was then that I realised I was gay.) 

I have replaced the "Gay men" and "LGBT people from Germany" categories, I hope this is acceptable to you.

Lulu


Lulu 06:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@SongsforLulu: The reference is fine, What you need to do is to state within the artticle that the gentleman is gay in a suitable manner ([personal life section, naturally), and use that reference to support it. This is one time when a directly quoted interview is appropriate as a reference because it supports something that only the subject can confirm. Unless someone else reviews it first, ping me on my talk page when you have handled this and I'll be happy to accept the article. Good work. Fiddle Faddle 08:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

06:48:41, 30 June 2014 review of submission by Green1234678

Green1234678 (talk) 06:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I was modelling my article on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_Direct I am just wondering how I can improve mine?

@Green1234678: First, re-write the article in your own words. There's evidence of close paraphrasing from a couple websites including the Budget Direct article. If I google any random sentence I should not find that sentence somewhere else. Second, you'll need to find reliable sources like newspapers, books, and magazines. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

11:59:08, 30 June 2014 review of submission by Bwinterbotham

I am not positive that I have properly sent my Lillian Masebenza Draft page in for review. I want to be able to get this page up as quickly as possible. I thought that I submitted it several weeks ago but I have gotten no confirmation or response since then. Could you tell me if it has indeed been submitted? And if so how soon I should hear back? Thanks

Bwinterbotham (talk) 11:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bwinterbotham, your submission has been submitted for review and, as of this post, may take around a week to be reviewed. APerson (talk!) 14:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

14:33:21, 30 June 2014 review of submission by GHMason12

We just received word that our article had been rejected, and a note saying we could write to find out why. It would be most helpful knowing the reasons for rejection and to learn if there is anything we can do to correct this. Thanks. GHMason12 (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@GHMason12: Perhaps the reviewer could have added a little more information. It is there, but sometimes we forget that folk are very new to this and are not quite forthcoming enough. The main issue is the referencing. We require references from significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. The references that you have, kin the reviewer's opinion, and in mine, do not meet those tough criteria. All other issues are supplementary. I'll make a couple of style edits in the article for you to see that element, and you do need to read the link you were left in the comment.
Ask the reviewer, or me on our talk pages, for more help, or ask here, too.We want articles here, though it can feel as if we do not when we puch an article back for more work. Fiddle Faddle 15:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

18:38:37, 30 June 2014 review of draft by 184.145.17.144


This is not being copyrighted. The content from the other page is also our content. I do not know how that WikiFolks page got put up. This Wikipedia page was previously deleted and just trying to get it back up. Please advise.

184.145.17.144 (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The other site is correctly licenced. If that is the only original source of this information it is not a copyvio. However if the original source has different licencing a different discussion is required. Fiddle Faddle 18:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

21:07:17, 30 June 2014 review of submission by Dstephenlindsay


Dstephenlindsay (talk) 21:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer says that I have not provided independent evidence that the subject (Larry L. Jacoby) is notable. The first paragraph reports that (a) the Association for Psychological Science selected Jacoby as a 2013 winner of the William James Fellow/Lifetime Achievement Award, (b) the Society for Experimental Psychology awarded him the 2013 Norman Anderson Lifetime Achievement Award, (c) he is on the Thomson Reuters list of highly cited researchers, and (d) Harzing's Publish or Perish credits Jacoby with an H index of 66 and 21,469 citations. To my mind these are four powerful pieces of external, independent evidence of notability. It is possible that in the reviewer's judgment these are not sufficiently notable accomplishment, but that seems unlikely because I know that Wikipedia includes entries for many psychologists whose records are much less notable than Jacoby's (e.g., there is one for me, and my record is very modest compared to Jacoby's). I am at a loss as to what the reviewer requires in the way of evidence of Jacoby's notability. Steve Lindsay

@Dstephenlindsay: The reviewer has given you some links to follow. Have you followed them? For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every fact you assert requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS. The submission and review process is intended not only to provide articles that will probably survive any future challenge, but to give you a good grounding in what is required. We do not allow articles of a lower standard to act as precedent for any other article, that is the primrose path to disaster. Idiocracy gives you an indication.
Ask yourself how each of the references you have given in the article meets the requirements for significant coverage which is about the gentleman and is in WP:RS. If it fails any part of that then it is not a reference. Fiddle Faddle 21:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dstephenlindsay: I had previously declined this article. I have retrieved my rationale form the history PLease do not delete it since it forms a record and a guide to you and future reviewers. It seems I have given you this advice (above) before. Please take it on board. This is your set of pointers. Fiddle Faddle 21:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

21:51:13, 30 June 2014 review of submission by 204.16.157.10

Hi there! Just wondering why the page for West Agile Labs was declined. It's an up-and-coming tech consultancy in SF, and is relevant to the city's technological landscape. Thanks!

204.16.157.10 (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you been back to the article, where I left a concise comment about the rationale? The message on your talk page does mention it, but I suspect we need to improve these notifications to include a detailed rationale on talk pages too. Fiddle Faddle 22:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
so we do, because about half the questions here could be answered by doing this. DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

22:54:45, 30 June 2014 review of submission by Alexander Urbelis

I would like to know why the article was rejected and hope to resolve the issues so it can be posted as soon as possible. Many thanks. Alexander Urbelis (talk) 22:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you been back to the article, where there is a concise comment about the rationale? The message on your talk page does mention it, but I suspect we need to improve these notifications to include a detailed rationale on talk pages too. Fiddle Faddle 22:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


July 1

01:01:34, 1 July 2014 review of submission by Aryal.mani

I am very new to wikipedia. I used to feel free to write in the blogs but I have faced difficulties to write here. I want to know the weak points of my article so please help me to sort out problems Aryal.mani (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Aryal.mani: The weak points of Draft:Urban hydrology (where the draft is now) are that it lacks references. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL will give you a start, but you need authoritative references for every fact you state or you run the risk of the article being termed Original Research. Even then you need to be careful to write in a neutral tine. Think "Dull but Worthy" and you are pretty close. And you must never draw your own conclusions, only report the conclusions of others. User:Timtrent/A good article may be of some use to you. Above all, do not rush. The better a draft is the fewer reviews it will need. We want you to get it right. It's very different from blogging. Fiddle Faddle 07:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

09:56:53, 1 July 2014 review of submission by RK Samarpan

{{Lafc|username=RK Samarpan|ts=09:56:53, 1 July 2014|page=

Samarpan(author)

There is no reason to refuse the article. The author has written quite a few books which are all well documented. People want to know more about him, and his books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RK Samarpan (talk • contribs) 09:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@RK Samarpan: I see you are asking about Draft:Samarpan (author), and there was a need to decline it for you to do more work. For a living person we have a higher standard of referencing. Every fact you assert requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS. The reviewer was more concise in his comment, but it means the same thing. Your references are about th ebook, which is fine, but we need additional referencing for the other facts you assert in the draft. I think you may benefit from a mentor. Please check out WP:Mentoring to see if it will help you.
If people want to know more about the author then you need to write a fuller and better referenced article.
If you just want to go ahead, please edit the draft, and resubmit it when you are ready to. Read User:Timtrent/A good article for some guidance. Fiddle Faddle 10:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

10:00:28, 1 July 2014 review of submission by Brefin123

I need help writing two pages. One for a company and one for the company's founder

Quintessentially Events is an international event management company based in London

Caroline Hurley is a British/American event planner and entrepreneur, founder of Quintessentially Events.

Can someone please write these up for me...I have been trying for days and I keep getting rejected, I could really do with some help, its really really important that I get these pages up as soon as possible :) thanks Brefin123 (talk) 10:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC) Brefin123 (talk) 10:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Brefin123: The thing is, it;s not important to get any page up as soon as possible unless one is being paid to do so or has a similar conflict of interest. One thing Wikipedia has is time. I suggest that you check out WP:Mentoring to gain expertise in what I hope is a hobby, not a career. User:Timtrent/A good article will help you.
We can give you advice here. The advice really never differs:
  1. Seek out references. For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every fact you assert requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS. For a non living thing we really need the same, but the citation part is optional. Me? I make it mandatory for anything I write here.
  2. Write your article based on the references, and only based on the references
  3. Keep your tone neutral. If you think "Dull but worthy" you are pretty much there
  4. Write only what an interested reader wishes to see, not what you would like them to read. Wikipedia is not a PR organ
You may see this in different words in different places on Wikipedia. When you translate it the answer always comes out the same. If you cannto find references, online, in print, or broadcast, then you may have to face the fact that the person or the entity is simply not notable in Wikipedia terms. But nothing is ever urgent for us, and you need it not to be for you, either. If this is a paid commission always use the WP:AFC route and always declare your interest. Fiddle Faddle 10:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

12:23:29, 1 July 2014 review of submission by Mwilkey


Mwilkey (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Smart_Love_Preschool_and_Smart_Love_Family_Services on June 13 and have not yet received any response as to whether it was posted. It doesn't loook like it has been but there has been some edits. Can you tell me where it stands? Thanks Maureen

@Mwilkey: You never submitted Draft:Smart Love Preschool and Smart Love Family Services for review, hence it was never reviewed. I have since submitted it on your behalf. I will tell you from my examination that you seem to lack the necessary reliable sources for general notability. I would also be careful in defining Intrapsychic Humanism so that it's germane to the subject but also clear for general readership. You have only one good source, which is The Chicago Tribune. I would jettison the others and start over. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth mentioning that pre-schools, kindergartens and other educational establishments below secondary education level are not normally considered notable enough for Wikipedia. If the establishment can be shown to meet the WP:GNG then it may be accepted, but I doubt this will be possible in this case. Bellerophon talk to me 18:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

18:14:37, 1 July 2014 review of submission by Mharrison98

My article was denied because of my sources, but I don't understand why. In Wikipedia: Notability it says that there is not a required number of sources, just multiple. I have two reliable sources (a news video/spot) and an article from a city newspaper, the Charlotte Observer. My other three resources were blogs or Kickstarters, which I understand aren't reliable now, but they did prove that there was a Kickstarter and that Leonard Maltin did support the Kickstarter. All of that was also stated in the Newspaper article.

Secondly, it was denied because there was too much information for "just" five sources. But most of the information was from the Charlotte Observer article, which was quite extensive. There is plenty of information in that article and the video to write the, frankly, relatively short article.

Martin Hill, while perhaps not the most publicized, is a notable figure. He is trying to preserve a very important part of Hollywood history.

Also, would finding auction records for the cameras help at all? Thanks! Mharrison98 (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mharrison98: First, let me emphasize that Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. While this might be important to you, it's not to us. Second, you can't use anything like auction records because they are primary sources, unpublished, and not necessarily reliable. Third, Wikipedia strives to have every article as accurate as possible and this is achieved by insisting that text remains tied to independent and reliable sources. When you have a lot more information than you have in-line citations for, especially about a living person, we have a problem. YouTube isn't a reliable source either, so you're left with one article from the Charlotte Observer. It would appear based on this post at UNC Charlotte and this other mention in the Charlotte Observer that Martin Hill is really only notable for one event and that is being the subject of a film for a college event. That doesn't pass muster. I hope that explanation makes sense to you. Wikipedia is a complicated place and articles written by newcomers typically don't fare well because of a steep learning curve and many prevalent misconceptions about how things are done here. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris troutman: First of all, I appreciate you taking the time to explain things to me. I do have a few more questions though. Are youtube videos not reliable even if they're posted by a reputable news source? (Which, I grant you, Around Carolina does not appear to be. I thought it was part of the Time Warner Cable News, but it doesn't appear to be. I'm very sorry about that.) Secondly, the first article you linked to in the Charlotte Observer is not about Martin Hill. It's about a person called Michael Knox. Here is the article that talks about Martin Hill: "Charlotte Observer. Third, if I can find another source, aside from the Charlotte Observer article, and I directly cite the information from the article (with footnotes, which I now understand. I couldn't seem to get the reflist thing to work, but now I get it) could my article be accepted? Also, once that documentary comes out will that be a reputable source? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mharrison98 (talk • contribs)
@Mharrison98: Take a look at our notability criteria. I see nothing in there that Martin Hill would qualify with. In regards to the link I provided, open that article, use the old "ctrl+f", and type in "Martin Hill". You're welcome. You need to scrape up every passing mention you can find. Based on what I've read, I don't think the sources you'll be able to provide will ever make the subject appear notable. I think Martin Hill is practically a low-profile individual and should not be covered in an article. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

18:55:49, 1 July 2014 review of submission by Kristengray

Hi. I'm writing this page for my boss who is a multi-platinum selling music producer. It is very important that he has a wiki page for his career and he has so much work that is notable, credible, and popular that needs to be open information. I don't know why my page keeps getting declined but can someone help me determine why? Is it an issue with editing? Where do I start? Kristengray (talk) 18:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kristengray: First, you have a conflict of interest. Thank you for being open about this fact. Please remember while editing Wikipedia that your editing has to have a neutral point of view. This is not a public relations firm and we don't care if someone thinks they need to have a wiki page.
Because the subject is still alive, we require in-line citations so we can point to exactly which source supports each claim in the article. For example, your lede paragraph says: "Joseph is best known for his production on: “Man Down,” by Rihanna". Says who? What source makes this claim of notability? That sentence needs to have an in-line citation following it. Also, you have phrases like: "Joseph’s musical dexterity has enabled him to secure work with a variety of artists". Really? That sounds like puffery and if true it needs to have some serious sourcing.
The good news is that you have a couple independent, reliable sources at the bottom. You should be able to move them to the text in the article they support. Selling platinum albums is enough for notability but your sourcing must improve. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

23:17:51, 1 July 2014 review of draft by Biologymoon

I need help putting together my submission. Can someone look at it and help me. Thanks Biologymoon (talk) 23:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Biologymoon: Your submission has no independent sources. You can't use any organization's website as reference for that organization, especially absent other sources. I recommend finding newspaper articles, magazine articles, and books that talk about this organization and writing based on the information in those sources. If you need help with editing, post to the reward board. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More specifically, it is about a local branch of a large organization.We do not usually consider such branches notable. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2

00:45:57, 2 July 2014 review of submission by Missionedit

Hi, I reviewed Draft:Andrew Brook and declined it for the sources not showing the subject to be notable. But I'm having second thoughts, and would like another opinion. Thanks! ~ Anastasia (talk) 00:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC) Anastasia (talk) 00:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Missionedit: The author contacts you on your talk page so now you have doubts? What criteria does the subject pass? WP:GNG? No. WP:PROF? No. The article asserts the subject is a Rhodes Scholar, but where's the sourcing? The Rhodes scholars list at Oxford says no. We can't develop notability based on the subject's own publications and I doubt there's much notability from those other articles. You were right to reject on notability. I also agree with your comment about layout. The text just looks painful. We need to bring back paid editing because at least those folks made pretty articles. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

04:45:08, 2 July 2014 review of submission by Josire12

I have been updating Teso College Aloet page but the comments on top of the page are still there when do they go away?

Any help that you can provide will be much appreciated.

Thanks John. Josire12 (talk) 04:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Josire12: This help desk is for drafts. You can ask your question at Wikipedia:Help desk or at the Teahouse. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

09:42:05, 2 July 2014 review of submission by Noirdeer

Hello Wikipedians, These days I have been writing an article for pCloud - a cloud storage service, however, my article had been rejected for a second time and I really do not understand why. The first rejection was basked on problematic reference pages, and I understand this. However, I don't see an explanation about the second rejection, because the reference list was entirely changed and it does not contain any advertising websites or websites related to the service in any way. Please, advise. Best regards, Nelly Karaivanova Noirdeer (talk) 09:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Noirdeer: I see an explanation of the second rejection. Have you visited Draft:PCloud and looked at the comments nder the boxes that decline it? It is a concise explanation. If there are parts of it you would like help with please ask specific questions in this thread. Fiddle Faddle 10:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

11:10:10, 2 July 2014 review of submission by 93.45.178.185

How long will still take revision for my page having added references to my last draft?

Thanks!

93.45.178.185 (talk) 11:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews are at the discretion of the volunteer reviewers, who try to take the oldest first, and do not tend to review those where they have insufficient skill. The best answer I have is "as soon as we can". Fiddle Faddle 11:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If this draft were to be reviewed in its current state, it would be quickly declined. I have had a look at the draft and at the web caches of the former Italian Wikipedia article of which the draft is a direct translation. The article was multiply-deleted on the Italian Wikipedia as an advertisement with no independent sources. In fact, it was deleted and re-created so many times that the title and its various permutations of capitalisation have been salted. See [2]. On June 17th, its creator, Utente:Amedeo Leone, was blocked for three months for disruption and block evasion using IPs. See [3]. The tone of this draft (like the Italian WP article) is promotional and written as an alternative web page for the publication rather than an encyclopedia article. There are no independent sources attesting to its notability. The Prismanews article appears to be press-release based and all the rest are self-published sources, sources directly connected to the publication, or sources which do not mention the subject at all. The publication's founder and editor Romolo Reboa has some notability because of his involvement in the "Laziogate" scandal—Francesco Storace was sentenced to a year and and a half in prison and Reboa was sentenced to one year, but the convictions were overturned in 2012. However, that does not make his publication notable. I can give you no further advice apart from re-reading the advice given to you many times at Discussioni utente:Amedeo Leone, Discussioni utente:109.114.110.70, and Discussioni utente:93.45.178.185. Please also read the advice in Italian at Wikipedia:Pagine promozionali o celebrative and in English at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Pinging Tim Trent. – Voceditenore (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Out of my scope, I fear. I do not read Italian. Fiddle Faddle 17:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

16:32:56, 2 July 2014 review of submission by Jds319

I've submitted an article for consideration "Parviz Kambin" twice. both times it has been rejected because the editor states that the references are verifiable. I am trying to correct this but so far have been unsuccessful. I do not understand what is missing from my references. This is the last communication I received from the editor.

Dear @Jds319, the references must be verifiable, see WP:VERIFY. For example, consider this reference from the AfC in-process: Savitz M.D., Martin (2005). The Practice of Minimally Invasive Spinal Technique (2005 ed.). AAMISS PRESS. p. 581. How could it be verified? --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ)(Support) 14:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC

Please help me to understand what is wrong with this submission. Jds319 (talk) 16:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at your article, Draft:Parviz Kambin, and leave what I hope you will view as useful comments on it. A reference is a reference is a reference. What us important is that it is independent of the person (a peer reviewed scientific paper can count because of the peer review, even if they are the author), is significant coverage and is in a WP:RS. It is ideal if one can also link to an online version, but it is not mandatory. Fiddle Faddle 17:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done PLease come back here for new questions. I am also happy to take questions on my own talk page about my specific comments if you find any of them difficult to implement or understand. Fiddle Faddle 17:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 3

02:56:09, 3 July 2014 review of submission by Khan.207

Khan.207 (talk) 02:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC) I am trying to submit an article regarding Jawaid Akhtar Pasha, Urdu author. It was rejected due to lack of verifiable resources. I have hard copy documents that can verify all the information included in my article. However, this information is not available electronically, because it is in Urdu, is old or not many copies are available. How can I proceed so that the important work of a well known Urdu scholar can be included on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khan.207 (talk • contribs) [reply]

@Khan.207: As the reviewer noted on your draft, you lack any independent and reliable sources to establish notability. Further, some of the text has been copied from www.jawaidakhtarpasha.com/, which is not allowed. Wikipedia does not use self-published sources. Sources don't have to be online; You can cite newspapers, magazines, and books if you provide the title, author, name of the publication, date of publication, etc. Sources don't have to be in English either, although I personally refuse to accept articles if I can't read the source material. (I don't read Urdu.) Since this person is living, you'll have to use in-line citations. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

06:14:21, 3 July 2014 review of submission by Edwengineering

I really don't understand this gibberish. Can anyone tell my why my wiki page was declined? Was it because of the external link? Edwengineering (talk) 06:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There will be an answer on the draft shortly. Fiddle Faddle 07:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done But your initial message did not endear you to me, and I nearly ignored you. This is not a business, this is run by volunteers. Try to be less confrontational when you ask for help. It gets you better help. Fiddle Faddle 07:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I did not mean any disrespect. It is just all these brackets are confusing and I did not know if my message was even going out. So we can't describe a business on Wikipedia?

A notable business, yes. An advert for it, no. Your own business is WP:COI, so not really, no. And not with that username, I fear. Fiddle Faddle 07:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

09:55:47, 3 July 2014 review of submission by SongsforLulu

Message for Timtrent, sorry if I'm not posting this in the right place.

Dear Tim,

Thank you for your prompt reply. I hope you get this message as I still haven't found a straightforward way of contacting you!! I don't want to state that Mr Weisbrodt is gay within the article. I find it inappropriate and unnecessary. I don't like to categorise people in this way and I felt uncomfortable about putting it in the Catebories box to be honest, although I can see this info might be interesting/helpful to some readers. I was wondering if you would accept putting the reference in the External Links section, they've done something similar in the Rufus Wainwright's Wiki entry with regard to some information that was not contained in the article itself. If this is not acceptable to you I'd rather remove the references to Mr Weisbrodt's sexuality from the Categories box.

Thank you and I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind Regards,

Lulu 09:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done Accepted. Now it must take its chance in the hurly burly that is WIkipedia. On to your next article! Fiddle Faddle 11:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

11.00 3 July 2014 Request for guidance on article about Richard Pine

Can I have help with this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Richard_Pine Simon Baddeley (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sibadd: I have left a comment at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Richard Pine which I hope you will find of use. Fiddle Faddle 11:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

11:57:01, 3 July 2014 review of submission by Made for Movement

Made for Movement (talk) 11:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hi need to know why my article was not approved. If there is any chances I can do to get it approved, I would like to know.

Have you visited User:Made for Movement/sandbox where the reviewer has left a succinct comment? You have also created Draft:Made for Movmement. Please work on only one of these.
If you need someone to expand on the rationale for not accepting the draft please come back here and ask in this thread, or enter into a conversation with the reviewer who declined the article. Their rationale seems sound to me. Fiddle Faddle 12:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved your most current version to Draft:Made for Movmement; please make all your edits there, don't create multiple copies. I have left clear comments at the top of the page. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I've redirected the third iteration of the draft to the same. Bellerophon talk to me 22:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

16:24:12, 3 July 2014 review of submission by 103.247.50.163

pls tell me why my page is rejected ,,I need to how can I make those error correct to be accept on wiki as a page 103.247.50.163 (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

16:27:59, 3 July 2014 review of submission by Bourneon

Pls give me guide line to make this article accepted .. Need some help Bourneon (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bourneon: Your submission has no independent and reliable sources. You only have links to that company's website, which is not allowed. Also, "Division" doesn't have any claim to organizational notability. Articles about businesses have to be neutral, about notable subjects, and well-sourced. You also cannot use Wikipedia to advertise. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

16:49:27, 3 July 2014 review of submission by 192.95.197.60

192.95.197.60 (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC) why did shhoop da whoop get deleateds[reply]

@192.95.197.60: Because it was nonsense. Please read WP:FIRST for help. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

22:55:10, 3 July 2014 review of submission by Thefutonshop


This submission appears to be taken from http://blog.thefutonshop.com/2011/09/history-of-futon-shop.html. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. We cannot accept copyrighted content taken from websites or printed sources. Note that copyright protection is granted to all works automatically, whether it is asserted or not. Unless stated otherwise, assume that most content on the internet is copyrighted and not suitable for publishing on Wikipedia. Copyrighted content can be cited as a reliable source if it meets Wikipedia's guidelines; however, your submission must be written in your own words, and in continuous prose.

We run http://blog.thefutonshop.com/2011/09/history-of-futon-shop.html. I wrote that so how is it copyright infringement? If you mean duplicate content than that is another issue.

How do I fix this problem? Can I use this text being that I wrote it? Or can I reference it in a more accurate way?

Do you need me to rewrite it all because of duplicate content?

Thefutonshop (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Thefutonshop: Please be aware that Wikipedia is not here to advertise for you. Your submission has to assert some notability and that can't be done by citing that company's own website. While I recommend you re-write that content in your own words, you could donate that text to Wikipedia which would eliminate the copyright issue. I'm not sure why this wasn't addressed before, but your username is in violation of our policy plus you obviously have a conflict of interest. Please read WP:FIRST and perhaps learn about editing Wikipedia before you continue. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

23:39:22, 3 July 2014 review of submission by Lauriemonk

I don't understand why the article has not been accepted. I contacted help desk and they advised me of the changes I needed to make, which I did. Can you advise me what it is that is missing that will get this article accepted? Lauriemonk (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems notable through her association with Seven the Hardway. Needs copy editing for neutrality, but after three declines on notability grounds, I see no point in dragging this out any further. It's in the main space. You may continue to improve it there. Bellerophon talk to me 06:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 4

00:52:23, 4 July 2014 review of submission by Victorychristiancenter2014!

Victorychristiancenter2014! (talk) 00:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me with getting an article "Jimmie A. Ellis, III" accepted. The draft was declined on July 1, 2014. My instructions are to add citations to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject. I would like to use government and media citationS and recognitions. Of course there are hard copies of the documents but how do I cite them correctly for the article?

The hard copy sources must be published for them to be useable. See WP:INTREF for help on adding references. Also, I'm afraid your username violates our username policy, you should look at changing it, and you appear to have a conflict of interest where this draft is concerned, so please remember that Wikipedia operates under a principle of neutrality Bellerophon talk to me 07:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

10:28:29, 4 July 2014 review of submission by 122.163.241.82

122.163.241.82 (talk) 10:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore, IP of indef spam-blocked user. Bellerophon talk to me 13:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

13:24:41, 4 July 2014 review of draft by DurhamLass62


DurhamLass62 (talk) 13:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I am trying to create a page on our local newspaper the Teesdale mercury User:DurhamLass62/teesdale_Mercury which has been the local paper since the 19C. It is a proper newspaper, with an historical archive section, http://www.teesdalemercury.co.uk/ http://www.teesdalemercuryarchive.org.uk/tm-history My question is: Can I use these sources to write an article about itself? Sorry. Very confused. DurhamLass62 (talk) 13:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Yes, you can use those sources to support basic facts about the paper, but you will need to find reliable third party sources to demonstrate some dimension of notability for the paper. Bellerophon talk to me 13:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

14:22:35, 4 July 2014 review of draft by 101.218.107.210


101.218.107.210 (talk) 14:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC) Article of india is the most precious detail for citizens of an indian. It is the very important that every one know about article of its country.[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=615577416"