Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, Sorting, FeedShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subjectReviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives

Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

• This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • For questions on how to use or edit Wikipedia, visit the Teahouse.
  • For unrelated questions, use the search box or the reference desk.
  • Create a draft via Article wizard or request an article at requested articles.
• Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
• Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.

Ask a new question Please check back often for answers.

• Top of page
• Table of Contents
• Today's posts
• Bottom of page

May 16

I do not know the my article is passed or not

Hi, I want to know the exact condition of the article "Tao Jingzhou", is it deleted or declined? Or it is being reviewed now? I have waited for two days for the result. 204.155.226.3 (talk) 07:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.155.226.3 (talk) 07:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The draft article is HERE. It is waiting for a review. Two days is not a long time to wait, some articles are waiting for over one week at present. All the same, you have not addressed any of the problems described by the previous reviewer so, in order not to waste your time, please follow their advice. Sionk (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Function Points

I had published a draft version of the submitted article in my blog fuctionpointanalysis.wordpress.com, I have deleted the blog, and have resubmitted a version that is revamped, with complete references, and as suggested by the reviewer Chris along with the advantages and disadvantages of applying the same. Being my first submission, I request that you could help me sort this out.

Thanks,

Kind Regards, Ruben. Rubengeradmathew (talk) 08:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)Rubengeradmathew

 Declined. Insufficient sourcing to establish notability. See WP:VRS Pol430 talk to me 21:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Safetray

Hi there,

I've submitted an article for creation - Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Safetray - but I can't see it in the list of submitted articles over any of the last three days, and the box to say it's been submitted is still at the bottom of the page, while the top box still says it's not submitted. Could someone put my mind at ease that it has been successfully submitted, or point me in the direction of how to fix it if it hasn't?

Thanks,

Carolinewhitham (talk) 10:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)Carolinewhitham

Anything with "Categories: Pending AfC submissions" at the bottom has been submitted. This appears to be fine. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Accepted Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 15:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Kinkreet, really appreciate it! Carolinewhitham (talk) 09:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Carolinewhitham

Please help me do my homework

hi im doing a project in school about the celts im wondering if u will tell as much as possible about where they came from and the story tellers please. !!!! i need your help as fast as you can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.200.37 (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

We will not do homework for you. Read the article on Celts and [1] and do it yourself. Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 14:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

i need help to intrepid fmla, family law. 167.234.14.241 (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC) donna

does F. M. L. A. also include protection for single parents caring for dependent children without serious health problems?167.234.14.241 (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC) donna

Please use the Reference desk for this sort of queries, thanks. Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 15:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Information Based measure of Disagreement

In the Review of my article (Articles for creation/Information Based measure of Disagreement)a section has been identified as posing a potential copyright issue, as a copy or modification of the text from the source(s) below http://www.dcc.fc.up.pt/disagreement/other.php) (Duplication Detector report)

I want to clarify that this page http://www.dcc.fc.up.pt/disagreement/other.php was also writen by me and it was a draft page of my page http://disagreement.med.up.pt

Now I deleted the draft page http://www.dcc.fc.up.pt/disagreement/other.php and I edited the text of my article to avoid any potential copyright problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csantos.cristina (talk • contribs) 15:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/NIPS School of Hotel Management

How to Post Photographs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.46.213 (talk) 18:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Files for upload. France3470 (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

How can I adjust rejected article.... (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Harmony By Karate (Chowa-Kai Karatedo))

Hi, this is in reference to the article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Harmony By Karate (Chowa-Kai Karatedo) I have submitted it twice now, in an effort to satisfy the reference requirements, and it has been rejected both times. My intention with submitting this article is genuine--it is not for the purpose of promoting the organization, etc. However, this karate school is a present-day part of the lineage of the Shorinjiryu‎ Karatedo. I have also seen on Wikipedia articles about other martial arts schools. Therefore, I do not understand what more I can do to publish this article, and feel it is a significant and encyclopedia-worthy topic. Please do advise as I have put a lot of work into writing this article according to Wikipedia guidelines.

Thank you very much for your time.

FarYnsand (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Accepted Needs quite a bit of work... Why are random letters capitalized? Pol430 talk to me 21:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

May 17

Hello, I am an employee at Chicago White Metal Casting Inc. and I tried to create a page for our business. We are an established metal casting company and this year marks our 75th anniversary. You can see our website here: www.cwmdiecast.com. All the information I put into this article is from company documents about the history of the company and we would really like to get a page up, especially since we're one of the most recognized metal casting compannies in existance with a rich history and great story.

Thanks,

Dan — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChiWhiteMetal (talk • contribs) 11:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

 Declined. See comment on submission. Pol430 talk to me 22:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Personalized Audio Messaging

Hello I am looking to contribute to the Wikipedia community and am having difficulty identifying what I may have done incorrectly. The contribution I submitted was: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Personalized Audio Messaging and this appears to be declined for not adequately supporting through sources.

I have several sources cited throughout the entry as well as more general material at the end. What else should I have provided? Is it that I did not reference those sources properly? This is a rapidly emerging field and is becoming more and more mainstream. How do I revise my submission to match the Wikipedia requirements?

Wmiller9 (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)wmiller9Wmiller9 (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I left a comment at the submission page. Hopefully that will give you more of an idea of what your next steps should be. The key is really digging up the best possible sources you can, preferably, books, newspaper articles and journals. If the material cannot be adequately sourced it might be best to omit it entirely. France3470 (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Don Gutterideg: Poet

Hi!

I'm puzzled by the reviewer's comments. There already are footnotes in the article. Is it a question of them being improperly formatted?

Are the footnotes the only concern?

Thanks

Floorwik (talk) 13:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)floorwick

It looks to me like you have 'inline' citations, but not in the normal Wikipedia format. It may be a good idea to ask the reviewer on their Talk page what additional concerns they had. However, if it was me reviewing the article I would suggest that the the article needs at least one more news or book source, to establish the notability of Gutterideg. The article currently relies only on the Oxford Companion. Sionk (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Neoweb

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Neoweb My intial submission was rejected. I made corrections to the original article and wanted to explain why i think this entry meets the Golden Rule; however I did not see any place or way to enter my explanation (TALK?) to the reviewer who will eventually decide on my article's fate (after pressing SAVE and RESUBMIT) YSchary (talk) 14:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

When I get to the live help chat screen and after some check in, I am requested to enter my question, but cannot type or make any entry on the screen.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by YSchary (talk • contribs) 14:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Accepted. Pol430 talk to me 22:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bruce Clark (Legal Scholar)

I wish to edit but at the bottom of the page the phrase appears bracketed in code "Please don't change anything and press save." What is the significance of this and can you estimate when I will be able to edit? Thank you.--Evarose3 (talk) 16:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The message is just to stop people accidentally deleting the submit for review box, not to prevent one from editing. Unfortunately because of how the system is, new tags appear at the bottom instead of at the top where they should be (which is rather confusing for all involved). There is a bot which is supposed to come along and format these tags but it often runs slower than one would like. I've manually reorganized so things should be clearer now. Hope that helps, France3470 (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It does help a lot. And so promptly. Many thanks. Best,--Evarose3 (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/RF Binder

I recently submitted an article about a public relations agency in New York that was turned down because of notability. I disagree with the decision. This agency has offices across the country, has won numerous awards, and has many notable clients. While it is a subsidiary of a larger operation that already has a Wikipedia page (Ruder Finn), I truly believe the agency deserves its own page. What recommendations do you have for continuing to try to have this published? Thanks. Gjh1588 (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually it was declined on verifiability grounds. The sources you have provided are not reliable enough or numerous enough to verify the claims you have made about the company's notability, or establish its notability per the WP:GNG. Pol430 talk to me 22:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Yoga Swing

Good day, I am in the process of rewriting a submission due to lack of verifiable resources and the tone of the article. Please let me know if we´re headed in the right direction and what the article needs still? Thank you! Marchild (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Get rid of 'names and terms', 'styles' and 'set up and use' sections. Wikipedia is not a directory or how-to guide. Pol430 talk to me 22:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I was modeling those sections after the example of the wiki page Hammock As i noticed those sections were kept in for that article. So technically they shouldn't be part of the hammock page either? I can get rid of them, just wondering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marchild (talk • contribs) 22:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MyMajors

Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/MyMajors Hello, my contribution Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/MyMajors was reviewed, but I had a few questions.

The reviewer stated "This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the general guideline on notability and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia."

I was hoping for more clarification on why my current resources were not notable or verifiable. I referenced the notable and verifiable pages, but do not understand why those references are not accepted. I have an external reference to a newspaper, national news media, state school district, award for the contribution topic, and 11 total resources to the topic. I need some help on what other types of articles or resources I should include or find, or if there was any other reason the article did not meet the criteria based on the reviewers decision.

Emiliocallie3 (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Emiliocallie3

It is a borderline decision in my view. The MSN article is very good, principly about MyMajors and its creator. The Kansas City article talks about MyMajors, though it isn't the principle subject. Because MyMajors seems to be a business as well as a web tool, Wikipedia editors will be 'twitchy' about accepting articles unless they are very convincingly sourced. Maybe one more news/magazine reference would tip the balance? Sionk (talk) 00:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

May 18

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Down Autograss Racing Club

Hi, I have tried to use the help page and direct contact but had problems entering it, anyway: I submitted an article on Down Autograss, of which I am the founder member (Cavan Ferrie) the submission was refused on the grounds of non verification. This is the 25th anniversary of the formation of the club and is surely by now an established organisation under the regulation of a national governing body (national autograss sport association) I can verify my ID and therefore as the founder, also any factual information. I trust this information will resolve the problem/issue Kind regards, Cavan Ferrie (Cavan in Crete) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cavan in Crete (talk • contribs) 10:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

No, we require that submissions have references listed therein, that 'verify' what you have written. These references need to be reliable and independent, several of them. See the verifiability policy and WP:VRS. Pol430 talk to me 17:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/IC 840 HYDERABAD-NEW DELHI

Hi there... regarding the article I wrote I added 2 different references and still an automatic reply appears saying that's not enough... why? Can you help me please! I was involved in that incident that the article speaks about, so i care about it. thank you rafeekRafeekwal (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Not notable enough for a stand alone article, per WP:AIRCRASH. Merge with Indira Gandhi International Airport. Pol430 talk to me 17:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Logicalis.

Hi there,

I am curious as to why this has been rejected; the company is notable as it is a top 50 (24th) largest IT company in the US, it employs several thousand people globally and has numerous awards this year - all referenced from independent sources... any clues as to why it is not considered notable and the references are being ignored?

BenWalden (talk) 12:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Accepted passes the AfD test. Pol430 talk to me 17:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Bruce Clark (Legal Scholar)

I asked a question (#7.4) and got a quick and satisfying answer but now I keep getting Help Desk matters on my watchlist that have nothing to do with me. How can I stop getting these notices? Thanks.--Evarose3 (talk) 12:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

When viewing this page, click the 'unwatch' tab at the top. Pol430 talk to me 16:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Brian stacey

Dear reviewer

I am having trouble finding other references on line for Brian Stacey, mostly due to the fact that he died in 1996 and there is not much on-line from then or earlier.

At this stage the draft webpage relies mostly on a report from The Age newspaper. The Age is one of Australia's oldest and most reputable newspapers - surely it is a reliable source?

The draft article includes many objective facts that go to establish Mr Stacey's notability - for example that he conducted various high profile musical performances in Australia, such as "Phantom of the Opera" etc. These are objective facts referenced in one of Australia's most reputable newspapers. I do not understand why that is not enough for publication - it seems no less supported than many other article on Wikipedia.

I would be most obliged if you could please review the draft article again.

Neapolitankids (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Reviewers are very unlikely to accept an article without multiple sources i.e. newspapers, magazines or authoritative books. They do not need to be online sources, though if they are offline please try and provide enough information to make verification a possibility. Sionk (talk) 02:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

My baby brother in Columbia S.C. prison

<redacted> due to BLP issues. Wikipedia is completely the wrong venue for this kind of thing. Pol430 talk to me 17:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

May 19

Resubmitted article

Hi - I'd be really grateful if the article i've written on the Transport (Conduct) Regulations could be assessed and passed this time please. The subject matter is clearly notable. Conduct on public transport is a major issue in Victoria and the regulations are one of the prime control measures over misbehaviours. They are notable on that ground alone let alone that thousands of people are fined under them every day and would appreciate a lay explanation of the mater. I've added some general references, including extracts from newspaper articles, which support these points. As a general observation, can I say that it is really deflating when you have your article rejected with minimal feedback. You spend hours sometimes days writing the things and adding all sorts of text, formatting and links and you get what seems to be a cursory examination and a rejection of a line or two. It seems entirely contrary to the purpose of the Wikipedia project. No doubt many would be contributors have simply given up after this new editorial policy came into play. Anyway, please reconsider... Thanks Manticore83 (talk) 00:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

A topic's notability is established when there is significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The article has some secondary sources that do not mention the Transport (Conduct) Regulations 2005 (the Herald Sun articles [2][3]), and the only sources mentioning the article's topic are the regulations themselves and the regulatory impact statement, both of which are primary sources. Therefore the topic does not appear to be notable. Huon (talk) 02:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I've revised this article again. This time it includes a heading with the title "Notability of the regulations" and references to recent newspaper articles (from Melbourne's only two daily newspapers I might add) and extracts from those articles which specifically mention the regulations. I could add hundreds more references but this is entirely unnecessary in my view. I ask that the article be reviewed again please. A review of the current editorial policy though is more in order though. Manticore83 (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

To me that looks like passing mentions, not significant coverage; the Herald Sun does not discuss the regulations at all beyond citing a website for what they supposedly say on a single subject, and The Age is little better. These sources are not detailed enough to allow us to write an article on the regulations, and articles (or even just major sections) should not be based on primary sources per WP:PRIMARY. As an aside, lengthy paragraphs of quotes raise issues of copyright violation; we'd have to reword that. If you want to change editorial policy on notability, WT:N would probably be the place for such a discussion, but I doubt you'd be successful. Huon (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I won't take up the offer. You clearly don't want the article. You asked for secondary sources which I provided. Those secondary sources are from the two daily newspapers here with circulations of over 500,000 . Not sure how much more public you can get than that. You seem to think this is hicksville down here. It's actually a State of 5 million people with a major city (Melbourne) of nearly 4 million, larger of course than most US cities. The city itself has been voted as the world's most liveable on many occasions. I could spend more hours gathering other material (if you do a google search, there are thousands of references to this document) about something that affects millions of people each day and under which thousands of people are fined. But, frankly, why would I waste my time any further actually trying to inform people about this subject when the editors here are as they are. You have to hope that somebody sets up an online encyclopaedia project someday. One that actually believes in people giving their time freely with an encouraging editorial staff to contribute to the sum of human knowledge... Manticore83 (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Saint John Labatt Trojans Rugby Football Club

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Saint John Labatt Trojans Rugby Football Club

Hello,

Within the past couple weeks I submitted our Trojans RFC History to put on Wikipedia. Wikipedia did not accept my submission because it was copied from the trojansrfc.com History section. I am the president of the Trojans RFC and we authorize you to use this submission. It's our best document of our history that we have. Is there any possible way this submission can be used?? Please advise. Thank you.

Peter Fitzgerald President Saint John Labatt Trojans RFC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.166.53.190 (talk) 02:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

To be used on Wikipedia, the text would have to be released under a license compatible to Wikipedia's own CC-BY-SA license. If you want to do so, you would have to send a mail confirming the licensing information to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org". For details see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. But since the tone of that copyrighted text is rather unencyclopedic (talking about "our club", for example), rewriting it would probably necessary anyway. Huon (talk) 02:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Regional Airline Association

I don't think I'm adding my redirect correctly. Nor are the instructions on the Wikipedia:Redirect page clear enough for my peanut mind. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 03:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you really want to add a redirect. If you want to turn your article into a redirect, the line of code

#REDIRECT [[RAA]]

would have to be put at the very top of the article (before the {{AFC submission}} template), but then the article's text would no longer be readable; instead everybody trying to look at it would automatically be pointed to the RAA page. A redirect page itself looks like this: Redirect page to RAA. But since the RAA page contains no information about the Regional Airline Association, redirecting the latter to the former would not be of any help to our readers. If you really want to request a redirect and not an article, you can do so here. Huon (talk) 10:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey thanks Huon. So many little hidden wikipedia: pages. First new article for me, so I appreciate the help. I submitted the redirect, so I guess it's time to submit the new article as well. Best, --XB70Valyrie (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chuckleton Williams

Chuckleton Williams was born on september 1, 1939. he was born in an African villiage just outside the country of Rwanda. Both of his parents were leaders in the tribe. In 1945, his tribe was attacked by an unknown tribe. Both Chuckleton's parennts were killed. Cuckleton was one of the lone survivors of his tribe. He decided to leave and start a new life. He travled by foot to South Africa. While on his journey, to make some money, he began work as a giggolo. Once he reached South Africa, he traveled to the USA by flight. Now he serves as director for local plays around the area of Albequerqe, New Mexico. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.53.164 (talk) 13:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

What kind of help do you require? Huon (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/This Day Will Tell

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/This_Day_Will_Tell is the article draft in question. Is there a certain number of inline citations I need? Also, if I have links in the "References" section, do I need to use info from those references in my article? I'm thinking that could be what's holding me up. --Whoisscott (talk) 19:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)Whoisscott

You need inline citations for anything controversial/likely to be challenged and any direct quotes. However, your sources are generally a problem at the moment. Sources are used for verifying the information in the article. They are also used to prove the notability of the subject, as per the 'golden rule'. See WP:CITEHOW to see what sort of information your need to tell us about your sources. Sionk (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

May 20

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Air Safaris (NZ)

How do I attach a photo to my article as it needs a picture thanks.CHCBOY (talk) 15:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

You can upload an image to Wikipedia at Special:Upload. For more detailed help on uploading images to Wikipedia, have a look at WP:Uploading images. Please make sure that the image is either free content or usable under Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content. If the image has a free license (such as CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, or GFDL, you can instead upload it to the Wikimedia Commons via their Upload Wizard. Once you uploaded the image (either to Commons or to Wikipedia itself), you can add it to the article by using code like this:

[[File:Example.jpg|thumb|left|Image description]]

That will produce a thumbnail on the left of the text. The airline infobox also can display an image (that's supposed to be the airline's logo); just substitute the line

| image =

by

| image = Example.jpg

and, if necessary adjust the image size by adding

| image_size = 250px

or whatever size looks good in the template. There is also a tutorial with more information on the wikicode for images. Huon (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Three Skeleton Key article submitted

Please delete my submission of a new article called "Three Skeleton Key". I no longer need it. It is currently pending.

There was already an article with that name, but it was only a redirect page to Escape (radio program). "Three Skeleton Key" was an episode on "Escape".

I deleted the redirect code in the existing article and replaced it with the coding for my article.

Thank you. Pfa (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

May 21

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sam Kwang Elementary

Hi, yeah, my school wants to me to make a wikipedia page for them because they're Korean. I have tried to send this in but for some reason I keep getting told that I haven't referenced it correctly. The website should be enough. It's an elementary school... Please, help me make them happy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessecpence (talk • contribs) 03:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The topic of your submission does not appear to be notable. Articles need to be referenced adequately with reliable sources that are independent of the subject - this does not include the school's website, as it is affiliated with the subject. The article is also very short and provides insufficient context. →Bmusician 03:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Proximagen Group plc

Last time I was on the live help chat the feedback was that the page was fine but to add dates to references, but after re-submiting I still dont get approved. Any feedback someone can give to improve it please? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Proximagen_Group_plc

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Proximagen Group plc

Thank you

Itguyatwork (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I've accepted this submission. joe•roe^t•c 18:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Karol Berger

I don't understand why my review was not accepted. I do cite reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophia432sophia234 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The sources you cite are all primary sources: Books written by Berger, his own university, the websites of the societies whose awards he has won. What would be required to establish notability are secondary sources, sources not affiliated with the subject. Was there independent news coverage of the awards? Has someone written a book about Berger, or discussing his views? I expect such sources should exist, but we'd have to add them to the article to clearly establish notability. Huon (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this helpful response. I have now added several secondary sources. Would it be possible to approve the article now ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophia432sophia234 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Extra sources are always nice, but I think in this case they weren't strictly necessary. Per WP:ACADEMIC, there doesn't have to be secondary sources directly about the academic; we can just use reliable sources to show their scholarly work has been highly influential. That Berger holds a named chair, is a member of a prestigious scholarly society (the Polish Academy of Sciences) and has been the recipient of several prestigious awards is evidence that his work has been highly influential and therefore shows notability. Primary sources are perfectly acceptable to verify those facts. joe•roe^t•c 18:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Androzene Article

Hello, How long is an article normally under review for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Androzene (talk • contribs) 18:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I see your submission has been reviewed now, but I'll answer anway: usually a few days at least, we have a very large backlog and a shortage of volunteers to review submissions. joe•roe^t•c 19:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Coralhead

HI, I have been editing the draft above. I have added links to other wikipedia articles in the body of the article. Can you tell me if I have added too many? Are some types of links preferred or discouraged?

For example I have linked to terms like alternative media and public interest, which I think can use explanations.

I have linked to organizations like NPR.

I have linked to well known people who are in wikipedia like Michael Pollan.

Are those all useful links or have I gone overboard?

OR should I just wait until I submit the article for review and get feedback then?

Any help with this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your time and trouble.

Frogtoed (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

There are written guidelines in the manual of style, but I think you have the knack of it: link where you think a reader might want more information on a related topic, or explanation of a specialised term; don't link unrelated topics or self-explanatory terms.

The AfC process is mainly about determining whether the topic is suitable for inclusion and the article conforms to our broadest standards. We don't get hung up on style issues like under- or over-linking. But you're welcome to seek feedback on that sort of thing while the article is still at AfC (either here or on the submission itself), or later (at the main help desk).

On another topic, the "See also" section conventionally contains links to other Wikipedia articles on related topics that aren't linked. Links to other websites should go in an "External links" section. Again, there's a manual of style section explaining in more detail. joe•roe^t•c 19:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Picturepark Digital Asset Management Software

Re: Articles for creation/Picturepark Digital Asset Management Software

This article was just declined with the references being cited, but I'm not sure what I could do to improve the references. This is the entirety of the public information that's available on the company. Further, the statements made in the article are not outlandish or promotional in nature, and all can be verified at the links provided.

This is my first time submitting an article to Wikipedia, so perhaps this is something simple that I've misunderstood.

Any suggestions you can offer would be appreciated.

Thank you!

David Diamond — Preceding unsigned comment added by AirDiamond (talk • contribs) 18:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem with your submission is not that the facts aren't cited (it meets the verifiability criteria, in Wikipedia jargon) or that the content is promotional in tone, it's the notability of the product itself. The basic rule of thumb for notability is that the topic of an article should be discussed in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the topic. It's confusing because we use references for different things – to verify facts and to show the topic is worthy of inclusion – and a reference might be fine for one purpose but unsuitable for the other. In this case, your references verify the information in the article, but because they're directly associated with its topic (the official website of the product and the company), they can't be used to show the topic is notable.

If, as you say, the official websites are all the publicly available information that exists, I'd suggest that neither the product or the company is notable. joe•roe^t•c 19:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gletcher

I received the message below regarding the creation of my article on Gletcher:

"The reviewer left the following comment about this submission: This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources."

I would be happy to give references and cite sources for this article, but this article is about a brand new company, and there is no way to reference it. If there are any suggestions on what steps I can take to get this article put on Wikipedia considering the circumstances, I would greatly appreciate your assistance.

Thank you, Dinulya123Dinulya123 (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

If the company is brand new and nobody have written about it, then it is not notable enough for inclusion. Wikipedia is not a directory of every company and practically speaking, as a tertiary source, we can't write about something if we have no sources to cite. joe•roe^t•c 20:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, but I just realized that I made a mistake. It should say that Gletcher is a brand new product, and not a brand new company. I apologize for my error.

Therefore, since it is still brand new and original, there is no place to get references or cite it. The only reference I can offer is a link to this product's website.

So again, if someone can please advise me on what I can do next to get my article about the new product Gletcher on Wikipedia considering the circumstances surrounding it, I would greatly appreciate it.

Thank you, Dinulya123Dinulya123 (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Being a brand new prioduct without reliable secondary sources still means that it's probably not (yet) notable and that Wikipedia should not (yet) have an article on it. Wait until some independent reviews in reliable publications are available, then write an article based on those sources. Huon (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Faulty Expressions

This page "Editing Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk (new section)" is too cryptic to understand. I know you understand it but the rest of us do not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsalsburg (talk • contribs) 22:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. What exactly was unclear, and how could we improve it? Huon (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Faulty Expressions

My submission was rejected with the following message...Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Faulty Expressions .................... The reviewer left the following comment about this submission:

The content of this submission includes material that meets Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

....................

The reviewer seems to contradict himself, the message above says that my submission meets the standard but then it says to cite sources using footnotes, I am the source of the material, what next is there to do? My submission is based on the faults people make in Speech. Words as sounds coming from someones mouth cannot be reproduced on the printed page, only text can be written. The text in my submission is logic, accumulated over years of careful observation of people speaking on TV, Radio, and in Public. Example; the word "Burnt" is in the Dictionary, but is obsolete, as is the word "Whilst". You will not hear People speak; "Whilst I go to Market, fetch a Pale of Water" for the same reason, the Word, "Burnt" should not be used, unless you are writing in the style of 16th Century England.

Faulty Expressions are defined nowhere in Literature. A book referenced in my Submission contains a Chapter: "Glossary of Faulty Expressions" which decades ago, may have inspired me, but my Submission contains none of the content in that book. My Submission is original thought. Jsalsburg (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

That note means that there's content which should have inline citations - it meets the minimum standard for material that requires inline citations. Your own observation unfortunately is not suitable as the basis for a Wikipedia article. We cannot accept original research; that's one of Wikipedia's core policies. Instead, article content must be based on reliable secondary sources, and inline citations are necessary to show which part is based on what source. Otherwise our readers would have an exceedingly hard time trying to verify the article's content. Huon (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

May 22

Qualian Technologies Private Limited

Qualian Technologies Private Limited involved in Outsourced Development Activities Of the US customers headquaters in Chennai,India.And Also involved in Enterprise Solutions Implementation for Small and Medium scale Industries in India.Qualian is Certified Partner of Open Bravo,Developing Industry specific ERP solutions based on Open Bravo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roopa Raj (talk • contribs) 06:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I have moved your submission to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Qualian Technologies Private Limited. It has no references and needs some reliable secondary sources to establish the company's notability. As it stood it would have been eligible for speedy deletion. Huon (talk) 10:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Guy Benveniste

I have provided 13 references you do not want me to add as references the many many published reviews of his work that appeared in professional journals I hope!Nadialebon (talk) 07:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, the references should be turned into true inline references by using the <ref></ref> tags. Secondly, all but two of the references are primary sources; reviews of his work published in professional journals would indeed be highly preferable to Benveniste's own books and articles. (References 12 and 13 also seem to be the same, except one is the Chinese translation? Why not use the English version twice?) Huon (talk) 10:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

About my SAMYG article

i don't know what to remove/add on my Article to make it thru the Wikipedia page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/SamYG been denied 4x. Please Help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdnghtluv (talk • contribs) 08:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The article needs reliable secondary sources to allow readers to verify its content and to establish the subject's notability. Currently the sources do not support much of the article's content, at least one of them (the blog) is clearly not reliable, and furthermore the article's tone is anything but encyclopedic ("umm..."?). Huon (talk) 10:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Why can't I see Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/BackTweets in the Submissions list?

Hi,

I created Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/BackTweets on May 20, 2012, yet I can't find it in any of the bot's lists for articles submitted/ reviewed/ rejected...

Why is this? Please help!

Thanks, Sarah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rezoff (talk • contribs) 10:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I have added a submission template to the article; it should be added to the list of pending reviews as soon as the bot updating the list catches up. You might want to re-check the references; one pointed to an image on the Wikimedia Commons that has since been deleted as a copyright violation. Huon (talk) 10:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/H. J. High Construction

I am writing an article about H. J. High Construction. I want first of all to apologize to Excirial (I believe he's the one who reviewed my article) if I seemed pushy about getting responses to my question. I am new to Wikipedia and I had no idea what kind of backlog editors face in reviewing articles. Unfortunately, I am one of the least tech-savvy people on the planet and I find Wikipedia very confusing and hard to manage (yep, I'm that technically incompetent). I am currently revising my article according to the editor's instructions, including formatting my references in an acceptable style (using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Referencing_for_beginners_with_citation_templates). I have another question though:

Is there some kind of template for the boilerplate information I see on other construction companies articles? Specifically, the "Contents" box and the box that includes information like the TYPE of company; INDUSTRY; FOUNDED; HEADQUARTERS; KEY PEOPLE; SERVICES: EMPLOYEES and WEBSITE? I imagine the answer is quite simple but, being the techno idiot I am, I am unable to find it. I would appreciate your showing me how to create these templates so I can finish my article and resubmit it.

Thank you very much for your help and (in my case) patience.

Dan McDonald D102653A (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The template used by the construction company articles I just had a look at is {{Infobox company}}. See this example of the template in use and the parameters it takes; Hoar Construction shows the finished result. If in doubt, you can leave most of the parameters empty. The preview is a good tool to check if what you wrote really has the effect you want it to have; templates can be tricky, and it's easy to accidentally break one so that the entire article becomes unreadable. Huon (talk) 13:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Huon, for showing me where to get the infotemplate. Now I have a question about references. I am reformatting my references using (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Referencing_for_beginners_with_citation_templates). This format requires the inclusion of the reference's date of publication and the page numbers. However, several of my references come from online articles that do not provide dates and page numbers. What should I do?

Thank you, Dan McD — Preceding unsigned comment added by D102653A (talk • contribs) 15:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You can omit most of the parameters; page numbers and publication dates are optional. Websites of course do not need or have page numbers, though some give publication dates (online editions of newspapers often do, for example). Please note that the <ref></ref> tags are supposed to be in the article proper, right after the statement for which the reference is meant. They will produce the standard Wikipedia notes^[1] (this one is just a fake), and the {{reflist}} template in the references section will then automatically display the list of references to be linked from the note. I have moved the {{reflist}} below the references so you can see what it produces. Huon (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Buttignol, Rudy

Hello, I have submitted an article Buttignol, Rudy. This message came up at the beginning of the article and I don't know what it means and what to do. I am afraid of losing all of my hard work. MB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbuttignol (talk • contribs) 17:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, RE: Buttignol, Rudy and the message. Here it is: "Subject of my article is... This sandbox is in the Wikipedia talk namespace. Either move this page into your userspace, or remove the {{User sandbox}} template."

What does this mean and what do I do. I am afraid of losing my work. MB M. Buttignol 17:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

That article had a {{User sandbox}} template, which is supposed to denote sandboxes and test pages in user space. It was copied to the article draft from your personal sandbox at User:Mbuttignol/sandbox. I have removed it, along with the "Subject of my article is..." line that didn't seem to belong either. Huon (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/H. J. High Construction

It's me again with more questions .... 1. A number of the references in my article cannot be linked back to a website or a publication. For example, one of my references is a proclamation from the city of Orlando—I have a copy of the proclamation but ... how would I submit it to Wikipedia so that you could verify it? I also use a magazine's Book of Lists as a reference, but I can't send you the book. How should I proceed?

2. I want to revise my article using my sandbox. How do I save my revisions on the sandbox, so I can quit the page and then come back later and continue editing?

Thank you,

Dan McD — Preceding unsigned comment added by D102653A (talk • contribs) 17:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's answer these in the opposite order: You can edit your sandbox in just the same way as every other page; it has not yet been created. You can save your edits to that sandbox exactly as you would save the edits to any other page, including this one. Note that the sandbox carries a hatnote generated by the {{user sandbox}} template; if you copy the draft back to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/H. J. High Construction, don't carry that hatnote along, or it will produce an error message (see question immediately above).

Regarding the references: Books and magazines need not be available online to serve as references. You can provide author, title, publisher and publication date, the ISBN or ISSN, and for magazines the issue (if you don't know all of that, provide as much as you can). For example, Google Books provides some of that information for the 2010 Book of Lists, though it apparently does not have the 2012 Book of Lists. Similarly, I would expect the proclamation has been published somewhere. If you didn't already have a copy of that proclamation, what information would you need to find it? That's what you should provide the readers with. Some of Orlando's proclamations are apparently hosted on their website; I found one about the Vietnamese New Year, but not the one about H. J. High Construction Company Day. If some independent news source mentions that proclamation, that would be even better than the proclamation itself. If all else fails, you can provide a link to the company's web page about the proclamation, but that's a primary source, and unless someone else has taken note of the proclamation, it will not count towards the company's notability. Huon (talk) 18:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Buenos Aires Rojo Sangre

Last time this AFC was declined it was with the note: "This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the general guideline on notability and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia."

How do I prove this? And where do I submit proof of notability?

I feel it should be included in an encyclopedia beacuse of the mere fact that filmmakers, movielovers and people working with genre film all around the world would want to be able to look up and reference this festival. Why? Because this festival is one of the important ones focusing on indpendent genre film, it takes submissions from all around the world and gives out awards from an industry jury. The festival is also accredited and recognized by the Argentine National Film Board (FIAPF member INCAA.gov.ar) as a festival of importance.

I could always add more external links and citations, but after having this AFC rejected 3 times I fear this alone wouldn´t help.

Thank you for any light you can shed on this subject!

Sincerely, Pia Huss

Pia Huss (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Your "proof" is the kind of thing you've just said, and should be stated in the article itself and backed up by reliable sources. Looking at your submission I do think you've done this by linking to coverage in a number secondary sources. It's unusual to put them as external links instead of references (the external links section is to give the reader "further reading" not really a place for sources) but in my opinion that's no reason to decline the submission. joe•roe^t•c 20:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

May 23

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lisette Lagnado

Hi folks, I've tried to create an article but someone said it doesn't have "reliable sources". I put three sources as References that I really think are very reliable. Aren't they? If not, why not? thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.197.141 (talk) 02:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

They seem to be primary sources, websites of organizations with which Lagnado is affiliated, not sources independent of the subject. I'd say the problem is not so much that the sources are unreliable but that primary sources cannot establish notability; secondary sources (such as newspaper articles or other sources not affiliated with Lagnado) are required. The UOL interview is probably the best in that regard, but more would be better. Huon (talk) 02:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tsotne Mirtskhulava

Tsotne Mirtskhulava (.Georgian: ცოტნე მირცხულავა; July 25 1920 ) was Georgian and Soviet scientist hydrotechnician,hydroreclamation expert. The foreign member of the Russian Academy of Agrarian Sciences (1997), the member of the USSR Academy of Agrarian Sciences (1973), the full member (with 1993) the Georgian academy of Sciences, the Doctor of Engineering (1961), the professor (1964).He is often referred by the Russian version of his name,Tsotne evgenievich Mirtskhulava(Цотне Евгеньевич Мирцхулава) The contents to [clean] 1 Biography 2 Scientific activity 3 Awards and awards 4 References to [govern] the Biography

Was born on July 25, 1920 in the city of Poti(Georgia) in a family of employees. Finished construction faculty of the Georgian industrial institute (The Georgian polytechnical institute — nowadays the Georgian technical university) and upon termination of institute worked in oil Georgian state Compani " Gruzneft " where passed a way from the foreman to the Vice President of Georgian Oil Company. In 1953 defended the master's dissertation and in 1954 it was invited to work in the Georgian scientifically research institute of land improvement and a water management (nowadays institute of a water management and engineering ecology of academy of Sciences of Georgia) the senior research associate. In 1960 defended the doctoral dissertation, and in 1968 he headed institute. Since 1953 taught at the Georgian polytechnical institute (nowadays the Georgian technical university). For many years there was the expert of the United Nations on fight against floods and the associate editor of the magazine «A land improvement and a water management» (Moscow). Died on March 17, 2010 it is buried in Tbilisi.

Some of main works of : 1. Erosion chanels and assessment of their stability, "Kolos", 1967, p 180 2. Injhenernie metodi raschota I prognoza vodnoi erozii (Engineering methods of water erosion design and forecast), M "Kolos" 1974, p. 272 3. Reliability of hydro-reclamation structures. Moscow, "Kolos", 1974, p. 272 4. Reliability of large channels, M. "Kolos", 1981, p. 318 5. Reliability of drainage systems, M. "Agropromizdat", 1985, p. 236 6. Osnovi phiziki mekhaniki erozii rusei (Principles of Physicas and mechanics of bed erosion) L. "Gidrometeoizdat", 1988, p. 304 7. Reliability of hydro-reclamation installations, A.A. Balkema Publishers, Brookfield, p. 297, Roterdam 8. Basic Physics and Mechanics of Channel Erosion. Netherlands. Delft, 1990, p. 261, Netherlands 9. Ecological safety Methodology of reliability estimation of water development projects, Tbilisi, 1993, p. 472 10. Ecological Safety, Tbilisi, 1992, p. 436 11. Risk How to Risk Wisely (Examples with Solutions), Tbilisi, 1998, p. 206 12. Soil Erosion (Mechanism Prognos), Tbilisi, Academy of Sciences, 2000, p. 454 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.134.212.175 (talk) 05:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

References added but still declined

Dear Wikipedia team,

I am new to the wikipedia experience and am in the process of creating my first article. My article regarding the City Sikhs Network was created and was declined originally because I wrote it in the wrong style! I updated the style so its in the encyclopedic sytyle (to the best of my ability) and have added much more referencing showing secondary sources to support any comments. I think from what I can see the article is still under review but is there anything else that the article needs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manojwaheguru (talk • contribs) 07:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the references you have used generally have nothing to do with the subject of the article. In the list of directors at the bottom, for instance, you give over 20 references for the list. But in looking through those references, most are nothing more than some random news article in which that person's name was dropped, typically without any mention of City Sikhs whatsoever. You need to confine yourself to references that actually pertain to the article at hand. If you want to reference that Jasvir Singh is a director of City Sikhs, only use references that say precisely that. Do not point me to three random videos of Singh talking about everything else he does. The reviewers are not going to approve an article if they cannot verify its contents, and that is difficult when over half the references never mention the article's actual subject. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Equal Pay Day

Is it possible to just translate the German entry for Equal Pay Day for an American Entry? Thanks, kateFileunderk (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The German article seems rather Germany-specific, and more significantly, it seems to be based on primary sources. While you could translate it, you would have to find reliable secondary sources to back up the content. It's probably easier to write the article from scratch based on those sources than to translate and source the German one. Huon (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Astroguard

Hello,

My article is rejected because of unreliable sources.

I checked other companies' wikipidedia page to better understand my mistake. For instance, Chint's page' sources name only their own website.And their article is on line. The same for Addidas, most of their sources are websites links (which, by the way, no longer work.

My page sources are the official website, the secondary websites and all the documents certifying the company.

I dont understand why my sources are rejected whereas they are all on internet.

Could you give me, please, some advice so that my sources can be approved?

American Development (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC) American

Other articles with insufficient sources exist, but that's not a reason to create another one. Each article has to stand on its own merits. What you need are reliable secondary sources, that is, sources not affiliated with the subject (ruling out the company's website) known for fact-checking and accuracy. You might be able to find news pieces about the company, maybe even a scholarly article on the new fabric they developed. For comparison, Adidas has among its references various books by reputable publishers and articles by Deutsche Welle (though the link is indeed broken), Der Spiegel, India Times and the New York Times. Huon (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bruno Chikly

Hi I resubmitted the page "Bruno Chikly" has it been rejected a 2nd time or we are still waiting for a reviewer for this page, I am not clear?

Thanks,

Bruno C — Preceding unsigned comment added by BChikly (talk • contribs) 19:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

It's still awaiting a review, but currently the first three paragraphs are copied almost verbatim from this website, apparently a copyright violation. I also saw that the vast majority of references are primary sources (for example the articles written by Chikly or the websites of organizations he's affiliated with). Wikipedia requires secondary sources: Sources independent of Chikly discussing him or his work. You may also want to have a look about Wikipedia's guideline on autobiographies: Writing about yourself is strongly discouraged. Huon (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Nagged to Ed

I have submitted an article titled "Nagged to Ed". I finished it and pressed the save button, and submitted it for review. I submitted it weeks ago, and no word on whether it got approved or not. So, can I find out what happened to it? Thanks. StaleCupcakes (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

There were two problems: Firstly, your article is in the wrong namespace and should be moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nagged to Ed. I'll do the move once the talk page has been deleted to make room. Secondly, you hadn't added the submission template; I have done so. Since there is a severe backlog, a review may take some time even when the technical problems have been resolved. Huon (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

May 24

Rejection of "St Martins Youth Arts Centre" (created by Sheldon Kepler)

Could you please tell me why Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/St Martins Youth Arts Centre was rejected? Sheldon Kepler (talk) 01:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Because there is no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. One of the references is the business register entry (that's not significant coverage), and the rest is the organization's own website, a primary source. Establish notability requires sources independent of the article's subject. Huon (talk) 01:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Welcome Back, Brotter

After adding a plethora of new sources for my original submission, my latest update was also declined.

This is very troubling.

I made all the requested changes.

And yet, it says the entry is unsourced or contains unreliable sources.

I was wondering what sentence, fact, or word is unsourced or unreliable.

These are incredibly reliable sources. If they weren't, they would be sued for libel.

The sources are so credible and newsworthy that Wikipedia has Pages for them.

Many other BUTV10 shows were also granted Wikipedia Pages.

Those Pages do not even contain half of the sources on the Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Welcome Back, Brotter.

In fact, those BUTV10 shows come nowhere close to the amount of press coverage given to "Welcome Back, Brotter."

Please help me get this post accepted as soon as possible.

I need as much help and assistance that Wikipedia can offer.

Patrick 69.125.10.131 (talk) 01:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Accepted It could still do with better sources, for example secondary sources not affiliated with Boston University. Huon (talk) 11:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dead Nedry

is there anything to be done or should the Dead Nedry page just be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.38.36.166 (talk) 05:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I currently do not see which of the notability criteria for musicians Dead Nedry is supposed to satisfy, and I'm not sure whether the Encyclopedia Metallica counts as a reliable source. Unless notability can be established by showing significant coverage in reliable sources, I don't think there is much to be done. Huon (talk) 11:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

 Discussion ongoing...
at User talk:AndrewN#Question about article for submission

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System

The lead text is a copyvio - it is practically identical to the first paragraph here. I don't know how to deal with this as I have no experience of the system here. Roger (talk) 06:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a copyright lawyer and cannot tell whether that text was sufficiently different from the original not to run afoul of copyright - the source is obvious, but it had been reworded a little. For now I have reworded it some more; this should now be ok. If you still consider it a copyright violation, I'd suggest blanking the paragraph and leaving a comment about the reasons for the blanking. Huon (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

reasons for disapproval of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/CBRNe World (Magazine)

I've been instructed to post a question here to find out why my article was not approved. Can anyone explain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lugturn33 (talk • contribs) 08:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

While the article has a bunch of references, the first few that I checked were not reliable secondary sources. Significant coverage in such sources is required to establish a topic is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Furthermore, you should cite your sources using footnotes so readers can verify whether a certain statement is indeed backed up by the references. For example, I couldn't find a source for the OPCW criticism, and the only OPCW-related source I did find didn't mention the magazine at all (it was also a primary source, published by OPCW itself). Huon (talk) 11:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Huon,

Thank you for your comments. I suspected the problem lay with hte references and I have filtered these, retaining what i would deem to be reliable sources. the OPCW reference refers to the CBRNe World convergence, at which the director general gave the keynote address. I refer you to http://www.opcw.org/news/article/opcw-director-general-addresses-global-cbrne-conference/ What do you make of my revisions, and what further suggestions do you have for my article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lugturn33 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

For info, editor has spammed a ton of articles with links to the magazine, contributions on the face of it appear to be entirely promotional for this magazine. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is of course not fond of this kind of promotional linkspam, and I believe all instances have been removed. Regarding your article, it still reads like an advertisement ("unprecedented influence in the military and civil defence industry"?), uses weasel words ("noted for his candid editorial style" - noted by whom?), does not use inline citations or footnotes (I'd have to do some major searching to find out which, if any, references support the above statements), uses primary sources (such as the OPCW source, and actually most others as well), and uses sources that do not even mention the article subject (again, such as the OPCW source) or provide no more than a trivial mention that cannot serve as a basis for the article's contet (for example the European Commission's Event website, which mentions the name "CBRNe World" without any context or elaboration). If these are the best sources to be found, the topic does not appear notable enough for its own article. Huon (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nelson M. Cooke

Concerning this article: The person's name shows about 15 books listed at the Library of congress, from 1942 up to 1992. Several of those books are mentioned within the article. Why wouldn't you regard that as notable? --87.144.240.178 (talk) 12:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Because books written by Cooke are primary sources. Notability is established by significant coverage in secondary sources: Other people writing about Cooke or discussing his work. Huon (talk) 13:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Would you regard it as primary source, if one of those books has four or seven releases at McGraw-Hill? I would regard this book relyable with high demand through readers. Cook might show unnotable, if it were 15 different books, each with one release in a small book-shop, but this? --87.144.240.178 (talk) 13:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

That's still a primary source, though independent reviews of such high-demand books are likely to exist. The reviews would be secondary sources. Huon (talk) 13:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/H. J. High Construction

I am confused about sandboxes. I believe I have a sandbox (Creating User:D102653A/sandbox) where I can work on revising and recrafting my article, etc. However, on this page it also reads: When you click Save page, your changes will immediately become visible to everyone. If you wish to run a test, please edit the Sandbox instead. I don’t get it. What I’d like to do is: 1. Get on my sandbox, do some revising, and save that work as I would a word doc on my computer. 2. 2. Move on to some other task, and then come back to my sandbox later to continue revising. Why can’t I just save the work on my sandbox and be able to come back later and continue my work?

Also, I recall seeing somewhere about how a CONTENTS box is automatically created … but I can’t find that information now. Do you know where I can find it?

Thank you,

Dan McD D102653A (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The sandbox is a wiki page like any other; what makes it your sandbox is its name (User:D102653A/sandbox is a sub-page of your user page) and the template {{User sandbox}} which creates a hatnote declaring the page your sandbox. The note about your changes immediately becoming visible is a standard note that appears whenever you edit any page at all; the part about "editing your Sandbox instead" doesn't take into account that you are already editing your sandbox; you can safely disregard it. The sandbox indeed behaves just as you want it to, and you can edit it, save the changes, and later return to the sandbox to edit it some more. Other people will be able to see your sandbox and your edits to it (once you save them), and they could edit it, but they usually won't do so unless invited or unless there's some serious breach of policy going on, like a copyright violation. Huon (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Questions Regarding Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nina G. Vaca

Hello, I recently recieved notification that my references for my new page, linked below, did not show the notability of the subject. I now know that references to her company's website are frowned upon and am finding the information from other more reliable sources. However, on the Wikipedia:Notability (people) page it says that all press releases are unreliable/non-notable sources. Is this true even if the press release is not given by the prior or prior to any affiliation with the person? In particular, I am referring to a press release given by Comerica that talks about Nina Vaca being appointed to the Board of Directors. If this is not considered notable or reliable, I will look for another notable source with the announcement. Thank you for your help!

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nina G. Vaca

Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Press releases are indeed not considered reliable secondary sources. Firstly, they are primary sources (the authors of a press release are are usually affiliated with one of the actors in the event mentioned, in your example with the company to whose Board Vaca was appointed), and secondly, a company's press releases rarely have the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" Wikipedia requires of reliable sources. If you can find a secondary source, that would indeed be much preferable. Huon (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I will look for an alternative secondary source. Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 16:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Magnetic Eye Records

I recently wrote an article on Magnetic Eye Records that was denied. why was it declined for publication? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blksn (talk • contribs) 17:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Blksn, your article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Magnetic Eye Records was declined because the sources you referenced do not indicate the notability of the topic. It is a similar issue to the one that I had. Your sources are primary sources and thus do not indicate notability. If you can reference reliable sources written by third party trusted authors (secondary sources), then your article will have a better chance of being published. In addition, you mention accepting submission requests within the article. The article is intended to be purely factual and not used as an advertizing tool; it needs to be unbiased. The other big thing that I noticed was that you used not inline citations and thus it is very difficult to tell what information is verifiable and what information is not. Best of luck with your article! Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Picturepark Digital Asset Management Software

I understand the concept of something not being notable, but that test seems to be applied without much consistency in some cases. For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canto_Software

What is so notable about this company? They are in the very same industry as Picturepark, and they even write their entry like it's paid advertising.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulus_(software)

Here they talk about their product using the same text they make available on their website.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celum_Imagine

Here's another similar vendor that's smaller than Picturepark, and far less relevant in the market. The "sources" they cite are websites they own, and links from press release announcements. If that's all that's required, please let me know if the following are acceptable:

http://www.cmswire.com/cms/digital-asset-management/picturepark-connects-dam-solution-to-sharepoint-015633.php http://www.cmswire.com/cms/digital-asset-management/dropbox-connector-for-picturepark-released-015294.php http://www.cmswire.com/cms/digital-asset-management/dam-lowdown-picturepark-connects-to-sharepoint-a-dam-primer-and-a-webinar-015743.php http://www.cmswire.com/news/topic/picturepark http://idm.net.au/blog/009049-picturepark-launches-sharepoint-dam http://www.wan-ifra.org/articles/2012/05/15/sharepoint-digital-asset-management-layer-from-picturepark http://www.wan-ifra.org/articles/2012/04/26/picturepark-to-present-at-woodwing-next-wave-tour-in-new-york-and-los-angeles http://digitalassetmanagementnews.org/vendors/picturepark-integrates-with-sharepoint/ http://digitalassetmanagementnews.org/vendors/picturepark-integrates-with-dropbox/ http://enterprise.it-enquirer.com/2012/05/15/sharepoint-gets-picturepark-dam-layer/ http://enterprise.it-enquirer.com/2012/04/27/picturepark-adds-dropbox-capability/ http://www.fair-news.de/pressemitteilung-585048.html http://damfoundation.org/press/picturepark-announces-dropbox-integration/ http://news.thomasnet.com/fullstory/Digital-Asset-Management-Software-syndicates-files-for-secure-distribution-614039

These articles were all posted from websites that are considered to be leading sources of news for the Digital Asset Management industry. Picturepark *is* a reputable vendor that has been in business for more than a decade.

Please help me understand what makes these other two digital asset management vendors worthy of a Wikipedia article while Picturepark is not. If they have provided you with some special information that you require, I assure you can provide the very same (or more) for Picturepark. I was just trying to present this listing in an understated, unbiased manner that supported the non-commercial quality and focus of Wikipedia.

I don't mean to me problematic, but I'm a big believer in fairness and equity.

Thank you for helping me better understand this!

I've looked over the articles you mentioned... Each one does not meet Wikipedia guidelines, and has been tagged for deletion by an Administrator. I will look over your article more thoroughly in a few moments, but right now, the article does not appear to be notable for inclusion. AndrewN ^talk 18:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/H. J. High Construction

I want to include my subject's logo in my article (see The Haskell Company article for reference). • How do I upload this image so I can place it in my article? • Where do I place the logo in my article? • Also, will a CONTENTS box appear automatically in my article (my article has 4 sections plus an introduction).

Thank you,

Dan McD D102653A (talk) 18:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd recommend you spend your time getting your article suitable for Wikipedia, before adding 'bells and whistles'. Sionk (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

While I entirely agree with Sionk about the bells and whistles and the necessary improvements (in particular the non-encyclopedic tone the reviewer mentioned), I'll nevertheless answer your questions: A content box will indeed appear automatically when you have sufficiently many sections; however, your section headings currently do not follow standard Wikipedia styles and therefore will not be interpreted as separate sections by the automatism that produces the contents box. I'll fix that in a minute; you can then have a look at my changes to your draft and their effects. General information on section headingss can be found at WP:HEADINGS.

You can upload an image via Special:Upload; more detailed help is available at WP:Uploading images. But since the logo will be copyrighted and Wikipedia's policy on non-free content requires that non-free images be used in at least one article (and drafts do not count), uploading should wait until the article has been accepted. Otherwise the image will likely be deleted on copyright grounds.

Once you have uploaded an image, you can add it to the article by using code like this:

[[File:Example.jpg|thumb|left|Image description]]

That will produce a thumbnail on the left of the text. The Haskell Company uses an infobox to display the logo (and other standard company information); help on infoboxes is available at Help:Infobox, and you can have a look at the Haskell page's code that produces the infobox for an example in action (it's the part that starts with "{{Infobox company" and ends with "|homepage = [http://www.haskell.com/ www.haskell.com]|}}"). One word of warning, though: Infoboxes are tricky, and it's easy to accidentally break one so that the entire article becomes unreadable. Use the preview to make sure your edits have the intended effect. Huon (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/H. J. High Construction

Thank you, Huon, for fixing the section headings in my draft. I see how correctly formatting the headings "automatically" creates a content box. Regarding the other items from my previous inquiry, I'll worry about the subject's logo later on. I've rewritten my article so that—at least in my estimation and those of the people I've shared it with—it seems to have the desired encyclopedic tone and style. I will resubmit my article tomorrow and see where we go from there.

Thank you,

Dan McD