Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 432: Line 432:


[[User:E.C. Byers|E.C. Byers]] ([[User talk:E.C. Byers|talk]]) 17:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Lisa Byers
[[User:E.C. Byers|E.C. Byers]] ([[User talk:E.C. Byers|talk]]) 17:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Lisa Byers

== why my article is not accepted.ashwini kumar rai 18:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC) ==

why my article is not accepted.ashwini kumar rai 18:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:07, 2 September 2012

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

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


August 27

I have edited my proposed page for Rizk Group by including a sign post at the end with four tildes. I now need to resubmit but cannot figure out how. Can you please helP?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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)

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]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fukhera Khalid

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]

Article re-submitted - now what?

Hello,

I recently re-submitted this article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Okyanos Heart Institute based on reviewer comments, but there is no additional review of the article and it has not been published. Did I re-submit it incorrectly?

Thank you, Jamie Jamiemaloney (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Solomon Isaakovich Pekar

The draft "Solomon Isaakovich Pekar" was resubmitted after it has been declined by Snowysusan. How can I learn about the present status of it? Will I be notified by an email? Thanks. Erashba (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'll definitely be notified on your talk page, and you can also add the page to your watchlist to easily see when the reviewer (or someone else) edits it. I believe you will also be notified by email, but since I've never experienced that myself, I give no guarantee. Huon (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a setting in the Wikipedia general preferences which sends an email each time a user's talk page is edited, only available for those with a confirmed email address set in preferences, I think. I don't think there is otherwise an automated email notification for AFC reviews, but I am not sure. If there is, I strongly suspect it would require that the "email this user" function be turned on in preferences, which in turn requires a confirmed email address, if I am not mistaken. DES (talk) 22:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bodily democracy

I have pressed "edit", added the sources to the text, and continued by "click here". But it seems that the sources disappeared. What to do? Helgenæs (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the page history, your last edits were on August 8. Apparently you haven't saved the page after adding the sources to the text. There's a "Save page" button below the edit box and the box for the edit summary. See also Help:Editing. Huon (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Arnold Anthony Schmidt

I've written the article "Arnold Anthony Schmidt," which has been declined as non-notable. The person received nominations for an Oscar and an Emmy for his work -- what more must he do to be notable?

Fussy Scholar 20:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fussy Scholar (talk • contribs)

The general notability guideline says a topic must have received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." IMDb is not conbsidered reliable because it has very little editorial oversight or fact-checking. His own university website and the book he authored are not independent. My suggestion would be to look for newspaper coverage. Huon (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 1

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gene Basel

Hi,

I have added an additional reference to the Basel page.

In addition, I would like to explain my reason for doing this page. It is the result of research I am doing for a thesis. It is my plan to do a page that references the pilots who were shot down during Operation Rolling Thunder that were stationed at the two air bases in Thailand--Korat and Takhli. I hope to have this done before the 50th anniversary of the end of the Vietnam War as I believe that this event will create a great deal of interest in this military operation. I am certain that reporters and students will be doing research on this subject.

There were 396 pilots shot down--Gene Basel was one of the most decorated and was one of only thirty F105 pilots to destroy a MiG. This was something that was quite extraordinary since the F-105 was no match for the MiG--and out of the thousands of encounters with MiGs, the F-105s did not fair well. (I have added the reference to this today.)

This is my first submission, so any help and guidance is appreciated.

I do feel strongly that this page is very relevant. Basel's books reflect his growing disillusionment with the war and with the leaders at that time. This is not far removed from the ongoing problems of military men/women who wonder whether or not their services are appreciated or relevant. Patzigee (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the draft's sources are problematic. Major parts, such as the "Early life and education" section and much of the "Military highlights and assignments", are entirely unreferenced, and one of the four references apparently is something a close personal friend said that made it onto the blurb for his own book - that's not quite an independent source. And the LA Times article, which is a very good source, is only cited for a quote from Basel's book when there's so much more we could use it for - for example, it confirms his awards (and details what he was awarded one of his Silver Stars for), gives the date of his F-105 training, details his operations in Vietnam, and so on. That source seems severely under-used to me.
I also noticed the draft is at times rather vague. It notes that Basel became a general officer, but not when or what rank he ultimately attained. It states he commanded the 352nd and 354th TFS, but gives no dates. Did he actually command those units or was he just part of them? In the latter case, they would be unsuitable for the infobox. Huon (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Thall69/sandbox

Hi, I have just submitted an article about Charles Noke (via my sandbox, User:Thall69/sandbox) - I think. Can I create another article whilst this is being progressed? If so how? Thanks, Tom.

Thall69 (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved your current draft to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Charles Noke; your sandbox is now a redirect to that page which you can overwrite to create a new draft. You can also create additional sub-pages of your user page, such as User:Thall69/Draft title, to create additional drafts, or you can directly create the additional drafts under names like Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Draft title.
Two side remarks: Drafts should not be categorized in mainspace categories before they have been accepted. The workaround is an additional colon: [[:Category:1858 births]] produces a link to the category page (like Category:1858 births), but it does not add the page to the category. When the draft is accepted the additional colons will be removed by the reviewer and the draft will be added to the categories. Also, the references currently are all added to the very end of the article. They are supposed to immediately follow the statement that's supported by the reference. Huon (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 2

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Garrett Celek

I submitted this page for a week now. I just found out somebody just made the same page I already submitted with the same name. What do I do with this page? 173.78.231.251 (talk) 01:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can just leave it as-is; it will be declined as a duplicate of an existing article which you can improve instead. I believe the draft's level of detail was excessive anyway; I just had a look at some other random football player articles, and none of those I checked provided such trivia as the receiving yards the player scored in a given year. At the very most, a single table would suffice for that information. Besides, until he has actually played for the 49ers, he may be non-notable ber WP:NGRIDIRON. I don't think there's enough coverage to let him pass the general notability guideline. Huon (talk) 02:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

how to get first article published

I have written an article, that has been declined, but can't get a response from the reviewer about next steps. Also, when I press "save" or "preview" in the editing page and in the sandbox, only the opening sentence appears, not the rest of the article. It appears that the entire article is not showing up, but I don't know why.

Article draft is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Emmaeus Davis

E.C. Byers (talk) 17:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Lisa Byers[reply]

why my article is not accepted.ashwini kumar rai 18:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

why my article is not accepted.ashwini kumar rai 18:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=510461640"