Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:21, 31 August 2012

Main page

Talk page

Submissions
Category, Sorting, Feed

Showcase

Participants
Apply, By subject

Reviewing instructions

Help desk

Backlog
drives

Shortcuts

Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
- 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.

Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions

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

August 25

Review of Wikipedia Talk:Articles for creation/Selina Kyle in popular culture

Hi everyone! I'm new to wikipedia and would love to contribute lots of great ideas! So I was just wondering why my "In popular culture/other media" page for Selina Kyle was declined if a number of comic book characters have it? Just out of curiosity as I am very curious. Karankyle (talk) 13:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the information already seems to be contained in the Catwoman article, which would make this one a content fork we do not neet. Furthermore, most of the content is unsourced, which is itself another reason not to create this article. Huon (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Howard Chase

Dear Moderator, I would be grateful for advice here. I submitted an entry on Howard Chase, but am told "submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability". Presumably the problem is the references, as Prof Chase is senior professor at Cambrige, head of the Shcool of Technology, etc (see entry). The references I provided were: Head of School of Technology: http://www.ceb.cam.ac.uk/news.php/75/howard-chase-head-of-the-school-of-technology Professor of Biochemical Engineering: ‘CHASE, Prof. Howard Allaker’, Who's Who 2012, A & C Black, 2012; online edn, Oxford University Press, Dec 2011 ; online edn, Nov 2011 University of Cambridge: http://www.ceb.cam.ac.uk/people.php?action=view&id=1 Head of the Department of Chemical Engineering: http://www.ceb.cam.ac.uk/data/files/CEBFocus/cebfocus3.pdf Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering: http://www.raeng.org.uk/about/fellowship/fellowslist.htm?Search=Yes&Alpha=All&Page=13&Size=20 Award of the Donald Medal: http://www.icheme.org/about_us/medals/donald.aspx Director of Research and Development of Enval: http://www.enval.com Research group's work on pyrolysis: http://www.ceb.cam.ac.uk/groups.php?id=2&name=biochemical-and-environmental-engineering Could you advise me which of these references you find inappropriate, and what other points you need to have referenced. Best wishes, Chris Carr Hemmingsxyz (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of Who's Who (which is hidden behind a paywall) those references all seem to be primary sources: The websites of organizations Chase is affiliated with, or the organization awarding him a medal, or his own research group. To establish his notability we need secondary sources, such as newspaper articles about him, or academic papers written by others (independent of Chase) that discuss his work. While primary sources may be used for additional (uncontroversial) details, Wikipedia content must be based on secondary sources. The question shouldn't be "what of our content do we need sources for?", but "what do secondary sources say about Chase?" Huon (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Greenville Light Opera Works (GLOW)

I'm quizzical as to why the submission for Greenville Light Opera Works has been twice denied for "lack of credible sources." I've added even more news articles, interviews and television appearances to the references. GLOW is an established non-profit arts organization in the Upstate of SC. I've noticed that Greenville Light Opera Works now has even more references (of the same exact kind) than any of the other local theaters in our area with Wiki listings. Is this process just arbitrary or is there something I'm missing somewhere? Thanks much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christianelser (talk • contribs) 21:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are several issues with those sources. First of all, two links seem to be broken; I have no idea what those sources say. The Metropolitan Arts Council reporting on its own member is a primary source, and we should use secondary sources. The interviews aren't quite independent of GLOW, either. All sources are local; there's not a single national or at least statewide source. With some, such as We are the upstate, I'm not even sure they're reliable - that seems to be a glorified blog, not a news organization. Routine news coverage does not bestow notability, and while arguably one or two of the sources cover GLOW in a little more detail, those are still local sources; that's a little weak.

Also, the draft's content is not supported by those sources. Not a single one of them confirms that GLOW is a "professional 501(c)(3) non-profit performing arts organization". I don't think any of them mentions GLOW Goes to the Opry! or the GLOW School of Music & Drama.

You have collected all the footnotes (the stuff in <ref></ref> tags) at the top of the references section. Those footnotes are supposed to be placed in the article, right after the statement each source is meant to support. If you try to do so, you'll find that most sources don't deal with GLOW in enough detail to be worth citing, and those that do provide some details provide other details than those in the article.

Finally, if, as your user name suggests, you are Christian Elser, the founder of GLOW, you might want to have a look at our policy on conflicts of interest. You may find it difficult to be truly neutral in writing about your own opera company. Huon (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 26

Kasey Lansdale

I'm ready to resubmit my article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Kasey_Lansdale but I can't find the resubmit button that was available the 1st 2 times(yeah, I'm trying not to get discouraged). Any reason why? PKDASD 06:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC) (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PKDASD (talk • contribs)

I have resubmitted it for you; you can do so yourself by adding {{subst:submit}} to the very top. I don't know why the "resubmit" button sometimes disappears; that might be a bug in the submission template.

Anyway, your draft was moved outside AfC space to Talk:Kasey Lansdale. I'll undo that, but that may take some time because Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kasey Lansdale must be deleted before I can move the article back to its old place. Huon (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Andre Diego Fagan

08:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andre Diego Fagan (talk • contribs)

What exactly do you need help with? Your article is currently awaiting review; that may take a few days due to the massive backlog. However, I don't think the references you provide are sufficient to establish Fagan's notability. Two of them are primary sources, the websites of his clubs. Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source. That leaves us with two pages of bare statistics. We need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles about him. Huon (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Undercarriage and crawlers of bagger 288 (largest digging machine)

what is Undercarriage and crawlers of bagger 288 which is largest digging machine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdpsg (talk • contribs) 12:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Please consider asking this question at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what the Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. Huon (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carnival Of Creation

Iranian Progressive Rock/Metal Band — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romeo Lars (talk • contribs) 14:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft at User:Romeo Lars/Carnival Of Creation is empty except for an external link. We require our articles to have some content. In particular, a band must be notabile enough (as determined by coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject) for an article; see also WP:MUSIC for more band-specific notability criteria. Huon (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Blank' article problem

Hello,

I've tried submitting this article a few times, but the reviewer keeps declining it saying it's blank, I can see all the text and links, so not sure what I've done wrong...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Sam_Naz

Please can you help me resubmit it, so that the reviewer can see the text?

Really appreciate your help, Updates10 (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's still the old message from the first review when the submission was blank; it's kept as a historical record until the submission is accepted. I have restored it and re-submitted your draft for a new review; you can safely ignore the old decline message.

On an unrelated note, I don't think the sources you provide are sufficient to establish Naz' notability. The BBC Press Office and the BBC Three Blog are primary sources. TV Newsroom looks like a glorified blog; there's no indication of editorial oversight; it doesn't look like a reliable source to me. That leaves us with the Digital Spy article which barely mentions Naz. I don't think that's the significant coverage we need. Huon (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 27

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Polaris Project Japan

I've edited my proposed page for Polaris Project Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Polaris_Project_Japan) and I want to resubmit it for consideration. How do I go about doing that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaikouTokyo (talk • contribs) 06:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have already resubmitted the draft with this edit. It is awaiting review, but due to the backlog that may take some time. Please be patient. Huon (talk) 12:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resubmitting an article

Hello

I'm not sure why this article was decline and recommended to be merged as other similar TV presenters (with fewer references have been accepted in the past) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Sam_Naz

I've now added additional material and references and would like to re-submit. Could you help please?

Many thanks Updates10 (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I explained the problems with some of your sources in response to your previous question. Of the new references, IMDb is usually not considered reliable because there's too little editorial oversight, and the School News Report sounds like a BBC-supported program reporting on a BBC reporter visiting that very program - I don't think that's truly independent, and it doesn't cover Naz in any detail anyway - for example, it does not confirm that "Sam was born and brought up in Birmingham" (as an aside, we should not refer to her by her given name).

I have resubmitted the article for you; you can do so yourself by adding {{subst:submit}} to the very top. However, I still don't think Naz notability is established by the sources. There may be other insufficiently sourced articles, but each submission must stand on its own merits. Huon (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resubmission

I would like to re-submit my article for creation but I cannot figure out how to resubmit. The article I would like to submit is located here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Queenston_Mining_Inc Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Kfeick (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have resubmitted the article for you; you can do so yourself by adding {{subst:submit}} to the very top. Huon (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble resubmitting a revised article for creation

Hi,

I've updated a previously declined article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Veterinary Clinical Pathology and the American Society for Veterinary Clinical Pathology I've added new references as requested, but I don't see any way to resubmit the article. It does allow me to save the article, but the article is not listed in the pending review section.

Please help me resubmit this article. Thanks Pennypatten (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind the previous request. I figured out how to resubmit from another question submitted on this page, and now the review is in the pending list Pennypatten (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 28

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nubia Santomás

How do I create "reliable sources for a novel of fiction and the author wishes to be a pen name and not a revealed person in order to protect her family? Pritchett1 01:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Pritchett1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pritchett1 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't create reliable sources yourself - that would be original research. Reliable sources about a novel would be book reviews published in newspapers or literary magazines, for example.

I'd also say the plot summary is far too long, and it's written almost entirely from an in-universe perspective; please have a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Plot summaries. Huon (talk) 02:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Judith Fontaine

Dear Sir/Madame,

My article keeps getting declined because the sources are unreliable. I don't understand why they are considered unreliable. Could you please tell me why my sources do not qualify.

My article can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Judith_Fontaine

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Judith Fontaine

Thank you for your help.

Friedafon (talk) 03:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Frieda[reply]

First of all, you should use footnotes to clatify which source supports what part of the draft. It's hard to tell which of the "References that need to be cited inline" is relevant to what.

The external links you give in the article itself don't mention Fontaine; since they're not references, you might want to turn them into wikilings to the relevant articles (ie "Atlantic, Elektra, Universal, BMI, BMG, and EMI") or remove the links altogether and leave plain text.

The references that need to be cited inline are also problematic. The link to http://www.exploretalent.com/gabrielleunon.php is broken; I assume its target is supposed to be http://www.exploretalent.com/gabrielle_union.php - but neither that page nor the other urls provided (sources no. 6 and 8) cover Judith Fontaine in any detail - the last doesn't even mention her at all. That leaves us with the newspaper articles. I don't have access to most of them, but if the LA Times article is typical, they also don't provide details on Fontaine but on the models she has employed. We need sources that cover Fontaine in some detail, not just sources that mention her name, or just her agency's name, or not even that.

The draft contains many very positive lines - "Her incomparable eye for spotting talent; her ability to create an image, and negotiate as a peer with giants of the music industry have earned her recognition and sucess levels rarely seen" - says who? A sentence like that definitely needs a source, and even then we should aim for a dryer tone and give facts instead of laudatory opinions. What talents has she spotted? What exactly makes her success extraordinary? Right now the draft reads like a puff piece. But of course the less explicitly flattering parts, such as her family background, also must be based on reliable sources. I don't think any of the sources you provided cover that. Huon (talk) 04:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Henrik Wenøe

Well, sooner or later, I'll learn and at this time I am quite ignorant. What does this mean: >>This sandbox is in the Wikipedia talk namespace. Either move this page into your userspace, or remove the This sandbox is in the Wikipedia namespace. Either move this page into your userspace, or remove the {{User sandbox}} template. template.<<? What do I do? How do I do it?

Best regards Jesper

This message appears when you create a draft article in your sandbox, and it then gets moved to the main Articles for Creation area. Simply remove the top line that says {{User sandbox}} from the article, and the message will disappear. I've done this for you. I'm afraid I can't really pass the article in its current state as large parts of it don't seem to be attributable to a reliable source and go into detail which probably isn't relevant to the article's subject. The lead sentence of an article should state who this man is, what he does, and why he is notable for it. A personal conversation is never considered a reliable source - it has to be documented by an organisation well known for proper editorial control and fact checking. Hope that's of use. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Portada Online, LLC

Hello, I would like to know what do you suggest to get my article published, apparently the references are not valid, but I do not possess any other articles/interviews or other. What should I do since the references I have are all links to other websites publications? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Secheverria (talk • contribs) 16:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, you need several pieces about the article's subject from newspapers, books and magazines. They need to talk specifically about Portada Online as the main subject and go into it in some depth. See the referencing for beginners guide for more information. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Judy Hall

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Judy Hall

Help!

I've written an article about Judy Hall and it's been rejected due to unreliable source, but I don't know what else to do??? Judy is WORLD famous in her field!

I can't believe this she has over 40 books published in several languages and the Crystral Bible is a million seller.

I used the piece on Cassandra Eason as a refernce and this has far fewer references than I gave.

Sorry about this biut it took me weeks to get the references and I don't know what else to do.

Penmansdays (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the references are primary sources such as organizations Hall (we shouldn't refer to her by her first name unless that's her stage name or something to that effect) is associated with, or her own website. Others are not reliable; for example, the Norwegian astrologer's interview has no indication of editorial oversight; it seems to be self-published. The reviews of her books in BellaOnline are somewhat better, but they don't provide many details on Hall. (I don't think Goodreads is actually a reliable source; I suspect their review is at best user-submitted without editorial oversight, or possibly submitted by the author or the publisher. Most other sources are worse - The White Goddess is someone's private website, I believe.)

For such a best-selling author as Hall, I'd expect some coverage in more mainstream sources, such as newspaper articles. And we shouldn't list the coverage she has received; that coverage should form the basis of our article. Right now we say "she was covered by X" instead of "According to X, Judy Hall is... whatever source X has to say about Hall".

Finally, while other insufficiently sourced articles exist, that's no reason to create more; each submission must stand on its own merits. Huon (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Groopt

Thanks for having a look at the article candidate. May I please request some specific advice on the page that you rejected?

Background:

This entry adheres rigorously to WP standards. I took WP advice and used other authoritative, bona fide, approved and published WP articles as a robust model and editing template. I cited a range of independent, reliable, published sources. It exceeds with confidence Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject. It is encyclopedic and verifiable.

Some thoughtful examples of approved and published articles used as a specific, published model that exceed WP standards are below. Could you please look over these well-established, approved, confident and published WP pages? BTW, do they have peacock words?

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

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

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

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

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

There are hundreds and thousands of other examples for you. This entry matches them precisely. It is a standard, encyclopedic entry. IT is in this reliable format, tone and specific standard.

Could you please reconsider your rejection? The Groopt article candidate certainly meets and confidently exceeds all WP standards. If you have editing advice required to meet WP standards, it is welcome and encouraged.

Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Groopt

Specifics:

There are major WP:NPOV issues with this, therefore I am declining it again.

I am striving to meet WP standards and achieve parity with the examples I furnishd and hundreds/thousands of others. If there are major WP:NPOV then it will be easy to identify just one. I can take it from there. Thanks in advance for you advice. If there is a specific peacock word, simply point it out. Thanks!

Please use reviewers comments in future.

I don't know what that is. Please advise. At your service. Thanks again.

I'll resubmit.

Most cordially,

jheuristic (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I don't doubt that other problematic articles exist, but that's no reason to create more. Each submission must stand on its own merits.

Your draft's sources are rather weak. I'm not sure whether AppAppeal is reliable at all, and TechCrunch and Mashable are something between reliable news sources and blogs. Some newspaper coverage, for example, would go a long way in clearly establishing Groopt's notability. See also WP:WEB for a more specific notability guideline.

Also, your draft's content is at best loosely related to the content of the sources: The "products" section is unreferenced, none of your sources mention "activity streams", I couldn't find a source for the number of employees, and so on. The claim that it "was founded by fraternity members at the University of California, Berkeley" is even contradicted by the source - only half the founders were fraternity members. In short, I don't think your draft does a good job at summarizig what the sources have to say about Groopt. This goes both ways; for example, the sources explain that Groopt is basically free and how it generates revenue - but that didn't find its way into the article even though it's the most detailed information on the business model we have.

Regarding the specifics you mention: Those sound like quotes, but I couldn't find where they're from or what the context was. The NPOV comment doesn't seem to be from the edit summaries or comments left at the draft, and I have no idea what "reviewer comments" beside the decline messages the other "specific" might be talking about. Thus I unfortunately cannot help you with those specifics without further information. Huon (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Chicon59/Atelier national de reproduction des thèses

While waiting for review, can I upload image files into the infobox (photo and logo)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicon59 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can edit the article while it's awaiting review; the more you improve it before a reviewer takes a look the better. However, the draft needs better references more than images - I don't think it currently shows significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject: Both the law and the organization's own website are primary sources, and the "Administration centrale et bibliothèques universitaires" text doesn't even mention ANRT. That's not enough to satisfy our notability criteria.

Anyway, if the image comes with a free license, in particular one compatible with the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License, you can upload it to the Wikimedia Commons via their Upload Wizard, and once it's uploaded you can add it to the infobox; the infobox documentation explains how to do that. If the image isn't free, maybe it can be uploaded to Wikipedia itself via Special:Upload and be used under the doctrine of fair use; however, our non-free content guideline requires such images to be used in at least one article - a not-yet-accepted draft is not enough. Huon (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 29

Submit again for review

I would like to re-submit for review my article but I do not see how to do it. Could you please help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedric71 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can manually resubmit an article by adding : {{afc submission|ts={{subst:CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}|u={{subst:Currentuser}}}} anywhere in the article. As it stands, I still can't pass the article, as the references (two primary sources, a blog and a download site) don't seem to be reliable sources, which are required to establish notability. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An easier way is adding {{subst:submit}} to the article. Mdann52 (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/CrisisX Wikipedia Frontpage

Why was my submission declined? This is for a Runescape server that I play.

There is a wiki page for another server already made: http://www.nrwiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page And it was accepted.

Also, why do I have to wait for articles to be approved? Why can't I just automatically submit them?

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/CrisisX Wikipedia Frontpage Toaad (talk) 10:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be an autoconfirmed user (ie: have an account older than 4 days and with more than 10 edits) to create new pages. However, if you put this article in the main space, it will almost certainly get speedy deleted per Criteria A3 - No content. Just because you can put this in another wiki is irrelevant - this article is not suitable for an encyclopaedia. Indeed, only the fact it is in Wikipedia's talk space saves me from being able to tag it for speedy deletion right now. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Pastorcwabbott/sandbox

how do i move my article from the sandbox to where ever it needs to go to be published?Pastorcwabbott (talk) 12:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be a autoconfirmed user with more than 10 edits and an account older than 4 days to move pages from the sandbox. I've done the move for you and it's now at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Out of Albania --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/my draft

Hi Sir or Madam,

Before publishing an article, can I just create a private link of this draft and share with my friend without login with my user account.

Kun Rmicri (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean exactly, but you should never share accounts with other people as it can lead to you getting blocked due to having had it compromised. There's no reason your friend can't create an account as well and edit the draft in your sandbox as long as you're okay with them doing that. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your friends don't even need accounts of their own to edit your draft; anybody can edit existing Wikipedia pages without having an account. You cannot create a draft on Wikipedia that only you and your friends can edit, but if the draft is in your userspace, for example at User:Rmicri/sandbox, it's very unlikely that anybody will edit it uninvited. Huon (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/International_Award_for_Young_People,_India

Can any one please help me in resolving this. I am not computer savvy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Priyankkgupta (talk • contribs) 17:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read Referencing for beginners? If not, have a read now and it may help explain why your article's getting rejected. On the other hand, if you have read it, can you let me know which bit you're confused about? --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article review Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tyler Moore (Powerlifting)‎

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tyler Moore (Powerlifting)‎

Hello! I created this article for world athlete Tyler Moore and don't understand why it was rejected. He competes at the top level of Powerlifting and is a member of the US World Team. Powerlifting itself is not the most popular sport but, he is competing at the same level as olypians (The World Games is the highest level of competition for Powerlifting). Please help.

User:Coloradopowerlifting (User talk:Coloradopowerlifting)

I think this was probably because a lot of statistics rely on goheavy.net, which doesn't particularly look like a reliable source, while other references, such as coloradospringssports.org only give a vague passing mention to Moore. You need to be able to find sources such as sports newspapers or magazines that discuss him specifically - just having mentions in lists of powerlifting competitors isn't really sufficient, I'm afraid. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Vezzerina/sandbox

Hi, I noticed that above the image in my infobox there is the following text: [[file:|frameless|alt=|]]

How do I remove it, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vezzerina (talk • contribs) 22:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With an infobox, you only need to put the image filename without the rest of the wikicode around it. I've fixed this up for you and moved your article to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fish Meat: Choose Your Farm Wisely, which is the preferred location for it. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Wedding (The Middle)

How do I get rid of the word "User: [insert name here]" from an article title — Preceding unsigned comment added by Austinlauran (talk • contribs) 23:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When a draft is reviewed and accepted, the reviewer will move it into the main article namespace. You can also move it yourself when your account is autoconfirmed (when it's more than four days old and has made ten edits, I believe); see WP:Moving pages. However, for new editors it's recommended to have their new articles reviewed via WP:Articles for creation; in their current shape, neither Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Wedding (The Middle) nor User:Austinlauran/The Wedding (The Middle) cite any sources, and if they were put in articlespace in the current form, they might even be speedily deleted for a lack of content and context. Huon (talk) 00:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 30

Review of User:Thahib/sandbox

My message was in reference to my sandbox page about my "rap alias" i was told to mention notability, i understand that could possibly be evidence of the existence of my name, however i dont have any evidence online that can prove of my rap name eg website references on other website. i would simply like an example of notability and reffrences that i could use as i guideline to use to allow my wiki article to be accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thahib (talk • contribs) 02:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, notability is established by significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles or books published with reputable publishers. There is also a more specific notability guideline on musicians. Sources need not be available online, though that's obviously easier for our readers. But the article content must be based on those sources. For example, I doubt Aaliyah had anything to say about Thahib, and if she had, we'd need a more specific reference than just "Rap music".

You might also want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest; writing about yourself is strongly discouraged. Huon (talk) 02:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The C2D1 Ghost

I was hoping you could help me with specifics about how to support the article adequately with reliable sources: are the sources I've used viewed as not being reliable, should I have more sources, or is it a combination of both? Thank you. Spirit Tune (talk) 03:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are several issues with your references. Firstly, some are indeed not reliable by Wikipedia's standards; for example, Sci-Fi Talk doesn't show any indication of fact-checking or editorial oversight; judging by its "about" page, it seems to be someone's personal website. Equally problematic, it mentions Geneseo only in passing and in connection with 1884 events - I doubt that's the same haunting as the 1985 one, and there isn't enough information to confirm that either way. All the references provided seem to be primarily about some movie or other (or, in one case, about a symposium about a movie), not about the haunting itself, and few provide significant coverage of the haunting. In fact, the Woman Around Town article explicitly does not cover the 1985 events: "What eventually happened to both gentlemen will not be revealed until the movie’s release."

Furthermore, Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources. Major parts of your draft, including the events of the haunting, are entirely unreferenced, and from the sources provided I could not verify that an "injurious bodily attack" occured (to provide just one example).

In summary, what you need are reliable sources that actually confirm the article's content (or conversely, you need content that summarizes what the sources say about the haunting). That's not what you currently have. Huon (talk) 04:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The National Institute of Youth Performing Arts Australia

Hi there I just submitted a new article for National Institute of Youth Performing arts. Has this been lost? This content should replace previous content but the screen flashed back to the original entry that someone else prepared. FGrey — Preceding unsigned comment added by FGrey (talk • contribs) 03:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your contribution is not lost; it's hidden due to a technical trick. You can see it here. But since Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/National Institute of Youth Performing Arts is a redirect that points to another draft on the same topic, namely Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The National Institute of Youth Performing Arts Australia, trying to visit the first page will just send you to the second (there will be a line "Redirected from Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/National Institute of Youth Performing Arts" at the top when you have reached that page via the redirect).

The easiest way to recover your new draft would be to follow the first link I provided, to edit the current revision of the page and to remove the line "#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The National Institute of Youth Performing Arts Australia]]" from the very top of that draft. However, if you are the author of both drafts, it might be better not to bring a second version live again and instead to improve the draft at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The National Institute of Youth Performing Arts Australia which already is much closer to Wikipedia's preferred style and provides some examples of how reference tags are supposed to work. Of course you can still edit the hidden draft to recover parts you consider worthy of being merged. Huon (talk) 04:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How to add if i am not having reference

Hi,

How can i add my details if i am new person over internet and want people to know about me. Can i add my details as an article and it will be over internet or i have to have some reference for myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mishra umesh (talk • contribs) 04:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia's purpose is to let people know what has already been written about in reliable, secondary sources. It is not a platform for advertising oneself to the world. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RADHA SOAMI SATSANG TRUST SHEKHEWAL LUDHIANA PUNJAB [INDIA]rsst 14:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

. Baba Channan Singhji was one of the deciples of great master Baba Sawan Singh ji, who was most loveable obedient, won the heart of his Guru Baba Sawan Singh ji by serving so hard in the fields of agriculture,at Sirsa Sikander pur Haryana India of agriculture land a property of dera Beas . Spiritually enlightened, and get mastery of all senses with blessings of his guru, BABA SAWAN SINGH JI. After completing the spiritual training and blessed with complete spiritual power up to Sachkhand [Anami]. Then by obeying order of his guru to go back to your native village Said pur in disst. Amritsar pb India to spread the fragrance of Naam and to disseminate the spiritual satsang. By getting inner order from his Guru, Baba Channan Singh Ji disseminated the spiritual satsang from 1967 to 2002.In between foundation stone was laid in 1982 at shekhewal Ludhiana of Radha soami satsang trust shekhewal ludhiana pb india now is the centre of spiritualism and "sun Smaad" [popularly known as SMADHIAN WALA DERA] Dera Baba Channan Singh Ji which is the real recognition of poora guru.

RADHA SOAMI SATSANG TRUST SHEKHEWAL LUDHIANA PB.INDIA Radha Soami Satsang trust shekhewal ludhiana punjab [India] lineage of successors:-

PARM SANT TULSI SAHIB JI OF HATHRAS UP [INDIA]INITIATED SANT MAT IN 19TH CENTURY.

FOLLOWED BY *PARM SANT SHIV DAYAL SINGH JI popularly  KNOWN AS SOAMI JI MAHARAJ.
SUCCEEDED BY *BABA JAIMAL SINGH JI FOUNDER OF RADHA SOAMI SATSANG BEAS 1884 TO 1903.
*BABA SAWAN SINGH JI ALSO KNOWN AS GREAT MASTER 1903 TO 1948.
*BABA TEJA SINGH JI FOUNDER OF DERA BAB TEJA SINGH JI SAID PUR 1948 TO 1966.
*BABA CHANNAN SINGH JI FOUNDER OF DERA BABA CHANNAN SINGH JI SAID PUR 1967 TO 2002.
*HAZOOR BABA AMIR SINGH JI FOUNDER OF RADHA SOAMI SATSANG TRUST SHEKHEWAL LUDHIANA PB. INDIA.  NOW SERVING FROM THE PRESENCE OF BABA CHANNAN SINGH JI WITH HOLY SATSANG AT LUDHIANA PUNJAB [INDIA]rsst 14:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 07delhi (talk • contribs)

This is the help desk, for assisting with problems with new articles. Please Click here to create a new article. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Font!

I want to make a wiki about my very own font Crazy Pixel. You can find it here: Crazy Pixel (I am minidonut.)

All Crazy Pixel fonts:

Crazy Pixel
Crazy Pixel Extended
Crazy Pixel Extended Extended
Crazy Pixel Extended Extended Extended
Crazy Pixel Small Caps

Not done yet:

Crazy Pixel Italic
Crazy Pixel Narrow
Crazy Pixel Bold

Mathyman (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there are reliable secondary sources for the font, it's probably not notable enough for an article. Furthermore, it might be better to leave it to someone else to write about your font since you are likely to have a conflict of interest. Huon (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bryan Bell (Technologist)

Hi, I am having trouble submitting my article.

I have tried REALLY Hard to read the directions and then follow them!

I believe my article is called: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bryan Bell (Technologist)

I go to Edit, arrange my text I click SAVE PAGE at the Bootom (and try the preview too, which looks fine)

then: as per the text: You are encouraged to make improvements by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page. When you are ready to resubmit, click here.

I click the "click here" link BUT the page is then BLANK

I am very confused. Please help. -Paul Pdbmusic (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That "blank" page contains a hatnote: "Press Save page to request a new review. A box explaining details about this submission will appear at the bottom of the page. A automated robot will update the page later and remove the draft article box." The article doesn't vanish; instead a new section (which is indeed blank except for the review template and a comment explaining the process) gets added. The draft had already been resubmitted (along with another two copies of the same draft; I removed the duplicates).

However, there are several issues with the draft that make it likely it will be declined. First of all, almost all of it is unsourced; there's but a single interview provided as a source, and that does not suffice to verify all the article's claims. For example, it doesn't mention Michael Jackson or the NBC Tonight Show. Furthermore, the draft's tone is unencyclopedic and laudatory. For example, the one sourced sentence calls Bryan Bell "dedicated to quality and innovation", but the source itself does not - even if it did, it would still be a rather vacusous statement. Also, we should not address Bell by his given name.

In short, the draft needs more and better references (I'm not sure KVR is reliable by Wikipedia's standards), and it needs to follow what those references have to say about Bell. Secodary sources are much better than primary sources such as interviews. Huon (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reference problem

I sent an article about venaky it's a multidisciplinary vision like yuga and we are the reference, we are the beginners of this way of exercise and sports and meditation so I wrote our website as the reference that is being built but the article is disproved and i really don't know what to do...

Venaky a way to insight by mohsen daemi

please help me regards Mdaemiid (talk) 20:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a service to advertise new creations. Unless and until it has been reported on in depth by reliable, independent sources, it cannot be included in Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kurt Rappaport

Hello, I resubmitted the page with additional context (per the previous reviewer's comments). It appears that I've been stuck on #569 in the reviewer queue for some time now. Can you tell me whether the Wiki is indeed to be reviewed again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barrett90035 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're not stuck on #569 in the queue; the entire queue is about 569 articles long (actually by now it's closer to 600). The oldest unreviewed drafts are from August 21, so it may take a few more days until your draft will be reviewed again. Please be patient.

Meanwhile, I doubt the draft establishes Rappaport's notability. That requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. While your sources are clearly both reliable and independent, coverage is minimal: One of the six doesn't even mention Rappaport, three just mention him in a single line as somebody's real estate agent, and the remaining two provide a few more details about his involvement in the respective deals, but little else. Conversely, significant parts of the draft are not supported by those references at all: For example, they don't confirm the number of Rappaport's employees, his business volume, or the details of Rappaport's residence. They even contradict the draft regarding the price of the home Rappaport sold to Tom Cruise. Huon (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 31

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lomisoba

Please help to create this article for me. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.58.92 (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article has not yet been submitted for review. When it is, there will be some delay, because there is currently a large backlog of articles waiting for review.

However, before submitting, it would help if additional reference sources could be found and included in the article, and the articel properly summarize what those sources say. Note that these should be reliable sources such as published books, magazines, or newspapers that have a god reputation for fact checking, and are independent of the subject. There should be substantial coverage in such sources to establish notability, and to allow a reader to verify the content. See Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for more details. DES ^(talk) 04:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I want Information about All Eraserhead's Album in Chronological Order

I want Information about All Eraserhead's Album in Chronological Order — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.45.69 (talk) 03:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See The Eraserheads discography. Huon (talk) 03:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I have resubmitted an article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fukhera Khalid, where I have amended a bit of the information in the article and also the references. Whilst previewing the amended article everything seemed fine, however, after I saved it and sent it to be reviewed the references are being displayed exactly the same as the older article, and it does not show any of the changes I have made, and I am not sure how to correct this, as i've tried submitting it again and the same thing happened. (Mc37OM (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

@@ Line 427: / Line 427: @@
 :See [[The Eraserheads discography]]. [[User:Huon|Huon]] ([[User talk:Huon|talk]]) 03:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
+Hi,
+I have resubmitted an article [[Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fukhera Khalid]], where I have amended a bit of the information in the article and also the references. Whilst previewing the amended article everything seemed fine, however, after I saved it and sent it to be reviewed the references are being displayed exactly the same as the older article, and it does not show any of the changes I have made, and I am not sure how to correct this, as i've tried submitting it again and the same thing happened.
+([[User:Mc37OM|Mc37OM]] ([[User talk:Mc37OM|talk]]) 14:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC))