== Review of [[Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Knanaya Catholic Church]] ==
== Review of [[Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Knanaya Catholic Church]] ==
Hi there, i was wondering if you could delete the redirect on the name of the topic i would like to create. For example my articles title name is "The Knanaya Catholic Church" and that redirects to the topic "Knanaya". I was wondering if you could remove this redirect, because the Knanaya Catholic Church is topic that talks about a Metropolitan Sui Juris Church of the Catholic Church while the page "Knanaya" talks about the Knanaya community they are two separate topics.
Hi there, i was wondering if you could delete the redirect on the name of the topic i would like to create. For example my articles title name is "Knanaya Catholic Church" and that redirects to the topic "Knanaya". I was wondering if you could remove this redirect, because the Knanaya Catholic Church is topic that talks about a Metropolitan Sui Juris Church for Knanayas of the Catholic Church while the page "Knanaya" talks about the Knanaya community they are two separate topics.
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.
I'm a new user, so this is probably a silly question. I checked the review results for my contribution and it said the article I submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. What does that mean? The article I created has been accepted, or it is in for the review of next round? Thank you!
It means your article met the basic criteria to be included on Wikipedia. As K7L says, it has been accepted and moved into Wikipedia's main article space. There are no other 'rounds'. Of course, now it is in article space, expect other editors to join in and edit it, improve it or clean it up. Congratulations anyway on getting your first article accepted! Sionk (talk) 12:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at your article briefly, I think most of your references are good. Since this is a Biography of a Living Person (BLP) in-line citations are required for important information. I changed one of your external links, in the second sentence, into an in-line citation to show you an example. The page editor has a built in citation tool to help with this. See WP:REFB for information on how to use this tool. There is also information on doing it manually and what is required at WP:CITE and WP:ILC. I also moved then infobox to the top, that is where it should be. If you need more assistance you can contact me on my talk page, or post back here. -- :- ) Don00:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, This is the great help. I will complete inline citation and will let you know for further review.
Hi there,
Could I please check that the page I have created for "Martin Shervington" is currently under review?
I would like to add a photo and more personal information as well, could you let me know how I can undertake that task?
This is my first wiki page and I thank you in advance for your help.
Warmest regards, Linda Dee
Lindadee10021 (talk) 11:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the page contained many unclosed tags; you need to close a <ref> with </ref> and not another <ref>. That's problematic as an article about a living person with no references at all is not likely to be accepted.
Articles about people tend to require extra caution so as to ensure that they are accurate, that they are not an attack on the subject or conversely an advertisement for the subject. As such, a biography of a living person must cite reliable sources for every claim made and be neutral in tone. Reliable sources are also needed to establish the subject's notability.
I've closed the </ref> tags but haven't looked at the rest. If you want to attempt to make further corrections, just go to the page and click the 'edit' link at the top. Photos normally can be added only if they're not copyrighted (or are under a compatible free licence), see files for upload. K7L (talk) 12:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the image is on Wikipedia (or Wikimedia Commons) using [[Image:Dr peter allen.png|thumb|Dr. Allen]] will give the image at right: File:Dr peter allen.pngDr. Allen
Note that images need to be public domain or under a free license; you cannot use copyrighted materials and the image description page must identify both the source of the image and the free license used.
To get inline citations, such as <ref>[http://www.bcmj.org/proust-physicians/proust-questionnaire-peter-allen-md Proust questionnaire: Peter Allen, MD, BCMJ, Vol. 53, No. 9, November 2011]</ref> see Help:Footnotes and Wikipedia:Inline citation. It may also be helpful to look at existing articles (click 'edit' to see the wiki code) to see how they format text and citations. K7L (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Review Process
When an article is submitted, who reviews the article? Can any established wiki user evaluate a new article or is there a more formal process? Thank you.
A new user cannot review articles as creating the page (if a submission is accepted) requires ability to move pages. There is, however, no requirement that a reviewer be a Wikipedia administrator or hold another specific qualification. K7L (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, unfortunately not many people here will have the time to write your article for you. A few paragraph spaces and a little bit of punctuation would help make it more readable. The big problem you need to sort out are the sources, which only briefly mention Jannat Shahid. See Wikipedia's golden rule, if there is no substantial news coverage about her, she's probably not well-known enough for Wikipedia. Sionk (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've submitted the article draft Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/JoJo Ryder multiple times for review, however, the submission-received box does not appear at the bottom of the page. Not sure what I'm doing incorrectly.
Hi. I am trying to put up an entry on a very well known DJ/Producer Leo Zero and it keeps getting knocked back, can you tell me why this is please, and advise me how it needs to be worded in order for it to appear on Wiki?
Simple - it needs references! See Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners, but in essence, the way you should write a new Wikipedia article is start with references from reliable sources - books, newspapers, magazines, anything that's got a likely reputation for close fact checking and editorial control, lest they get sued. Blogs and forums are no good as anyone can say anything on those without any proper checking. You need several, ideally four or five to make a good article, then write up in your own words what the sources say about the subject. And that's about it, really! --Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What else do you need to formally make a page for Steve Schlanger at this point? We have provided many references and if you were to simply google his name, you would find more than enough resources to support the validity of his page. Thanks.
I am writing to inquire why the article that I created, "Jeremy Cloward," has been deleted?
Thank you,
Laurie Mason
It is unfortunate that no-one explained this to you before it happened, not very polite, in my view. It looks like the article was speedily deleted because notability hadn't been asserted. Articles about living people are deleted quickly if they do not clearly explain why the person is important. Did your article go through the Articles for Creation review? Sionk (talk) 22:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
hello. you and a variety of other folks have given me some good pointers
on how to fix my initial effort at writing for Wikipedia While my
edit isn't complete and i need to add some pictures and get some information
back from the national register of historic places, i'm wondering if you
could take a moment to look it over and see if i'm on the right path.
thanksAbearfellow (talk) 21:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two reviewers have given you some specific advice on the draft article. Wikipedia isn't meant to be a travel guide, so things like map coordinates, directions and distances are undesirable. Sionk (talk) 22:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion? You might want to look at {{Infobox NRHP}}; there is a space for one set of co-ordinates which is used on most of the WikiProject NRHP articles. The featured article on the Statue of Liberty, for instance, has (40°41′21″N, 74°2′40″W) listed right in the infobox. Clicking on the co-ordinates provides various options to obtain an online map, so there's usually no need to provide detailed turn-by-turn directions in the article itself. Avoid telling the user "do this" or "turn here" in the article but provide just enough info that the reader would be able to find the landmark on a map.
To link to another Wikipedia article, don't use the full address (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...whatever...) as just placing the name of the page in a double pair of square brackets in your text will generate a link, [[Kaibab National Forest]] gives Kaibab National Forest, for instance. A Wikipedia article is not a reliable external source (if there's info in an existing article you want to cite, see what sources the original page cited and cite those directly) but if there are articles that provide any relevant information to your topic, link to them. For external sources, use inline citations (the <ref> and </ref> tags). 66.102.83.61 (talk) 06:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of a named reference is that you must provide the reference in full the first time you use it, for instance <ref name="ClarkBlanche">http://blancheclark.example.org</ref> and then any subsequent re-use needs just one self-closing tag like <ref name="ClarkBlanche"/> (with the / at the end) because all of the info was already provided the first time you cited that named source. For this to work, the first use must be there with all the info, otherwise the subsequent attempts to cite the same source can't find that named tag and give errors. Also, in the ==References== section of your article, just put {{reflist}}. No need to manually list individual references again, as those are generated automatically from the <ref> tags in your article. I've made the change and the error went away. K7L (talk) 01:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I submit an article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cloud office, but it is declined due to "lack reliable resources". It's the first time for me to create articles in Wikipedia, hoping experienced creators would give me some hints. Thanks all
In simple terms, we need references to reliable sources (see WP:RS), newspapers, magazines, websites, etc., that talk about your subject "Cloud Office". This to prove that Cloud Office is a notable subject worthy of inclusion in the Wikipedia (see WP:GNG), and also to verify {see WP:V) that in information in your article is accurate. Your first and last references appear to be broken. The second and third reference do not mention Cloud Office at all. Therefore you do not have any reliable sources. -- :- ) Don13:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, it looks like we have an article on cloud computing. I'd tried an on-line search to see if ZhuCloud, the specific product advertised in the proposed article on "Cloud office" is notable but it appears not to be (I only get irrelevant results). The article appears to be promoting a point of view that applications currently on the desktop should be moved to outside servers. It needs to be WP:NEUTRAL and merely present balanced facts without advocating for either group of vendors. K7L (talk) 13:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The MEDIS Study
Hello! I am the Head of the MEDIS study and i am trying to upoload an article describing the study design and aims... ofcourse, as the study has more than 30 publications in medical journals in all these papers the design and aims has been presented. But the papers are not free of charge ,and are not an encyclopedia and does not have the reputation that Wikipedia has ... So, can you pls delete, modify whatever you want in my article in order to be OK for citing it in Wikipedia. Thank you in advance.
Demosthenes B. Panagiotakos, DrMed, FRSPH, FACE
Associate Professor in Biostatistics-Epidemiology of Nutrition
Director, Graduate Studies
Dept of Nutrition and Dietetics
Harokopio University of Athens
70 Eleftheriou Venizelou Str.
17671 Athens, Greece
Tel. <redacted>
Fax. <redacted>
That would be wonderful. I think the people you need to see are at WikiSource. You will need to provide information for the copyright release. The copyright policy page is here and the help pages are here. Thanks very much for your offer. -- :- ) Don13:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To whom it may concern.
I tried to create an article for the award-winning international director of recently renewed Sundance/TIFF fame BEN LEWIN but the reviewer denied it publishing on the grounds that the person wasn't notable enough. I find it bizarre that I linked to a handful of preexisting wiki articles on films that he wrote and directed in my article, yet the writer/director himself wasn't notable enough. Please allow the page to go up, or make the page yourself. He has a film coming out in October called The Sessions.
(Odl1991 (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Wikipedia's basic notability criterion is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and coverage should be based on such reliable secondary sources. The sources provided are not reliable (such as IMDb or blogs), not independent (such as his film company's website), or they provide only trivial coverage (such as the books on British emigrees or Rotten Tomatoes). Notability is not inherited; it's entirely possible to be a director of notable movies without being notable. Right now the reliable sources don't even confirm the basic biographical facts. My suggestion would be to look for newspaper coverage of Lewin himself (as opposed to his movies). Huon (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The LA Times piece seems to be an opinion piece (the URL even calls it a blog), not an article, which is much less reliable because there's no editorial oversight - in fact, opinion pieces are often held to be reliable sources only for the commenter's opinion. If multiple other newspapers have written about Lewin, please base your draft on those sources. Huon (talk) 05:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is, but there's a massive backlog of unreviewed submissions, and it may take some time until yours is reviewed again. Please be patient. In the meantime, you could improve the draft by adding inline citations and footnotes to clarify which of the references supports which of the article's statements. See also WP:Referencing for beginners. Huon (talk) 19:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am still awaiting confirmation of publication on the above article - it has been 8 days. Is there anything I can do to help this situation? Many thanks. (Mr Rabbit8 (talk) 18:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]
The article is awaiting review, but there's a massive backlog of unreviewed submissions, and it may take some time until yours is reviewed again. Please be patient. You can continue improving the article during the wait (and thereby improve its chances of being accepted); for example, Facebook and YouTube are usually not considered reliable sources. But there's nothing you can do to speed up the review itself. Huon (talk) 19:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yankee Pasha
There exists an entry under the name of "Yankee Pasha" in Wikipedia. It is about the film titled "Yankee Pasha". Since this film is directly based on a novel with the same name, I decided to add a new entry for the book and linking both. However, my entry was not accepted and declined on 1 September without taking into consideration my afore mentioned explanation.
I didn't mind and enriched the entry but this new version is not being reviewed by any editor authorized to accept new articles. What needs to be done ?
The problem is that the book doesn't appear to be notable. It doesn't inherit the film's notability, but must have received significant coverage of its own. Most of your references provide only trivial coverage, and some of the others are not reliable. The best of the bunch seems to be the Saturday Review article, but that's currently cited almost as much for its own existence as for what it says about the book, and "significant coverage" is usually interpreted as "more than one good source". If you could dig up more of the positive reviews mentioned in the draft and base the article on what they have to say, that would greatly improve the draft. It's currently awaiting another review, but since there's a massive backlog of unreviewed submissions, that may take some time. Huon (talk) 19:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chandrika Balan
Dear Sir/Madam
Many thanks for your support and cooperation. I wanted to add the picture of Chandrika Balan to the article which is now appearing in the Wikipedia. I notice that many of the people in Wikipedia has their picture also on the right hand side box. I have the picture but do not know how to upload. It is the picture she has sent to me.
First of all, since the article on Chandrika Balan has been accepted long ago, this is technically the wrong help desk. Next time, please use either the general help desk or maybe ask at the Teahouse, which specializes in help for new editors.
Ms. Balan supposedly holds the copyright to the image. If she is willing to release it under a free license (such as the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License), it can be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons via their Upload Wizard. You must provide proof of the image's license by contacting the people at OTRS per email (their address is "permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org"). See the example release form for what to tell them.
If the copyright holder of the image is unwilling to release it under a free license, it cannot be used on Wikipedia. For living persons such as Chandrika Balam it is assumed that a free equivalent exists or could be produced (say, by photographing her in public), which precludes the use of non-free images. Huon (talk) 23:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To demonstrate the subject's notability you must provide significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject - in particular, sources other than the organization's own website or websites trying to sell the product. Maybe it has received some reviews in independent publications with editorial oversight, such as newspapers? Huon (talk) 00:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Conceiving this article we were aware of the two mentioned ones and their contents. We also subjected them to minor revision and they were cross-refenced in the present contribution.
In the last decades Cre was the recombinase, which was most frequently used until it turned out that its uncontrolled expression leads to a variety of cytotoxic effects (reviewed in the publcations by Turan et al.). Moreover, new members emerged within the Ser-rec family (e.g. PhiC31 integrase), which gain increasing relevance. The combination of these enzymes enabled the present, comprehensive toolbox for gene (re-)engineering.
For historical reasons the common classification of recombinase subfamilies (integrases, resolvases/invetases) underwent multiple changes and continues to do so, leading to a lot of confusion. This triggered our update of nomenclature in Fig. 1 in accord with the recent contribution in FASEB J. 25, 4088-4107 http://dx.doi.org/10.1096/fj.11-186940 .
This sounds like a possible conflict of interest: Even though the results were published in peer-reviewed journals, I don't think it's a good idea to base an entire article mostly on your own research. In particular, it's probably too early to write an article about your own proposed nomenclature unless it has been accepted by others (and then it might be better to cite not your original work but a review article). Furthermore, major parts of the draft (such as the first section's second and third paragraphs) seem entirely unsourced. While the site-specific recombinase technology article is in pretty bad shape too, it does seem to be the natural home for information on SSR properties and applications. Huon (talk) 11:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your immediate answer. I kindly ask you to consider the following: the two articles bei Turan et al. are invited reviews, which are based on recent results in the communuity. Each of these reviews covers around 100 quotations of which original work from our lab is a minor contribution also. The nomenclature also is not our construction but rather follows the current trends an reflects the majority of quotations since ~2010
Anorther point to remind: Our Wiki-contribution "Recombinase-mediated cassette exchange" was commented in April 2012 to be an orphan. We do whatever we can to follow your advice. We will also be glad to add more quotations to the first and second paragraph of the present article as you suggest.Juergen Bode (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am struggling with the phrase reliable source - the accounts from a government department (externally audited) are hardly unreliable surely . The annual account quoted is one of 2 where the collection is mentioned .
Cocklecanoe (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To me the problem is less one of reliability (see WP:RS for a discussion of what constitutes "reliable sources") but of notability. A notable topic must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject - which your sources are not. Furthermore, the draft was a carbon copy of the CMSM website which presumably comes under Crown copyright; it therefore was a copyright violation. For that reason I have blanked the page and nominated it for speedy deletion. Huon (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Username StevenRRusso
Micro-Tokenization submission in my sandbox that was declined..... I simply do not understand. This is a brand new technology that was vetted and substantiated by the CIO of the goverment improvement team..... Since it is new there is no other definition anywhere...
I am the creator....... — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenRRusso (talk • contribs) 14:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the technology is so new that there were no reliable sources for it. Wikipedia content must be verifiable from such reliable sources; furthermore, significant coverage in such sources that are independent of the subject is required to establish the subject's notability. There may also be a conflict of interest when you write about your own creation. It may be best to wait some time until there are independent reviews of this technology, and until someone not directly involved in its development writes an article. Huon (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a massive backlog of unreviewed submissions; the oldest are more than two weeks old. Please be patient. However, your draft has severe issues that you should address before it gets reviewed - otherwise it will just be declined. Most importantly, you don't show that the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject: YouTube is not considered reliable, and the Los Angeles Informer piece is not an article, but written by a PR specialist, presumably working on Komsky's behalf. Thus, the topic appears to be non-notable. You should also use inline citations and footnotes to clarify which reference supports which of the article's statements. Furthermore, your username suggests you may have a conflict of interest. It may be better to wait until someone not as closely associated with Komsky and Stockton writes on them. Huon (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Analytical Infrastructure page I wrote was declined due to lack of cited references which are not self-referencing to Wikipedia (makes sense). My question is does 1 citation from a book (Fourth Paradigm book) provide enough to serve as an article? This is a new field (kind of like Big Data) which came up within the past year, however there is a limited amount of articles written on the subject.
A single source is usually considered not enough to satisfy the notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources". It may be better to wait a little until more has been written about the subject. Huon (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does everything look good before I end up submitting it?
Max "the Diesel Wiesel" Misch
Max "The Diesel Weasel" Misch (born in January of 1983) is an Elite level raw powerlifter. He is currently ranks #5 in the 165lb weight class with a 570lb deadlift, and also ranks #14 with a 1295lb 3-lift total.
Military years
Max's first experience in any gym was to help prep Max for Basic training. Max ended up joining the US Army in 2001 till 2003, during this time he received his Tank qualifications. In 2003 Max ended up leaving to Iraq for a Combat Deployment. After the Deployment he ended up with a Honorable Discharge, and on getting the Discharge Max ended up moving back home..
2004-2006
2004: after moving back home, Max enrolled in Queensboro College
while Max was in enrolled, he would start back up in the gym.
After Max meeting José, he would start Competing in Strong Man meets in 2005-2006. Max would compete in 175/200lb weight class, with no luck.
2007-2012
2007: When Max’s videos made him disliked on forums and youtube, Jesse Marunde (2nd place finish @ Worlds Strongman 2005)would contact Max.
2008: Max had trained for a little while, before taking the first step on the platform in May of 2008. Max would get a total of 1005. Max had entered a meet for SSA in December of 2008, and would make a total of 1125.
2009: Max was named Male best lifter in March for the SSA, by totaling 1140
2012: In May of 2012 at the IPA South Jersey Rumble, Max became Tied for #48(RAW) on powerlifting watch lifter Ranking.
June 2012: Max had made his best total for 1295. Max would be ranked #14 for the 161lb class with the #5 dead lift, and #12 squat.
There are several issues. Most importantly, sources are very weak; interviews are basically Misch speaking about Misch, not quite the independent sources we need to establish his notability. Furthermore, I couldn't find one interview; that leaves us with a single weak source which does not in fact confirm several of the draft's contents. If that is resolved, the draft needs some wikilinks to other articles (such as powerlifting), and a little more context. He "currently ranks #5 in the 165lb weight class with a 570lb deadlift"? In what list? Best in the US, best worldwide? What is "currently"? Which organization maintains that ranking? (The interview, by the way, says he was 18th in the 2009 PowerliftingWatch.com raw lifter rankings at his best.) Or take the 2004 event: "After Max meeting José [...]" - who is José, and why is his meeting with Misch relevant? There are also style issues: For example, we should refer to Misch (and to others) by last name, not by first name. Huon (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having a little difficulty having the two photos I uploaded for my article Majestic Theatre (Madison, WI)/Dmmiller23 to appear. Is it because the article is still being reviewed, or is it a technical slip-up on my part?
Dmmiller23 (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly do you need help with? There's already an example of ref tags that works exactly as it's supposed to do, but the text enclosed in those tags is just "1", which is not a very good reference. That should instead be the source, but since I don't know what source it was supposed to be I cannot change it.
I have some doubts about the proposed list in general. Firstly, I doubt there are secondary sources for that information, which would raise issues of notability. Secondly, sorting the characters by novel leads to quite a lot of redundancy; the clan leadership remains unchanged throughout most of the novels. Maybe it would be better to turn the list into a table with one entry per character and some remarks about appearances? Also, the list provides very little context, not even a link to the main Warriors (novel series) article. Huon (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One, I did not put a link yet, because i just started the page. Two, I did not know how touse the ref tags. And three, i got all the cats by reading the books! So i think i got it under control now- Let me see if i'm correct. Many thanks, Spotted_Leaf11 (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)Spotted_Leaf11[reply]
That submission was in the wrong place; it wasn't at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/York Region Environmental Alliance, but at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Organizations, which is meant to hold requests for others to write articles and not for drafts you have written yourself. That page is currently a mess and needs some serious reverting to an earlier, uncompromised version. For example, I believe your draft wasn't rejected but simply overwritten by someone else who pasted his own draft in the same (also wrong) place.
The main problem with your draft is that it doesn't establish the organization's notability by showing it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject: Four of the five references are the YREA itself, and the fifth is just a trivial mention without any details about the YREA. Huon (talk)
Thomas Pantin 1762 - 1820
Dear Susan,
Many thanks for reviewing the entry for Thomas Pantin (my great,great,great,great Grandfather).
The family have over the years kept extensive documents from Thomas Pantins business. With the help of a genealogist we have started to thoughely investigate file and document the information we have for the company he started in 1788.
Having read up on reliable sources I've since taken some sections of the article out until we can submit evidence to back it up. This is work in progress.
I would be grateful if you could review the article again with this additional information.
Sir Paul Pinder - information from the V & A museum.
History of the Firm by the former Managing Director Herbert Pantin in 1932 If you require I will send you the full scanned copy printed by Roberts in London EC4 if required.
Photograph of company incorporation documents for the Pantin company signed with his seal.
A photo of one of the many letters from 88 Smithfield. This was the building Thomas Pantin set the business up in when he left the employment of the Pindar's.
Company house registration number 00247711 this relates to the original company. Although this listing is shown as dissolved the microfiche held at Company House details the history going back to 1930 when it first became Limited. Prior to this it operated as a partnership.
I hope this goes someway to backing up this modified article.
Hi Matthew, unfortunately there are still no sources listed for your article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Thomas Pantin 1762 -1820, therefore it is likely to be declined again for the same reason. We need to see a range of authoritative published sources listed to (a) prove the subject is notable enough for an encyclopedia (b) verify the information is true. Unpublished primary documents are not suitable sources for a Wikipedia article. Of course, there are plenty of genealogical websites that will welcome your research, but not here. All the best! Sionk (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be a little more specific about the kind of help you need? This help desk is not meant to request others to write articles for you (there's Wikipedia:Requested articles for that), and I expect few of the editors here will own those books - you might be better off asking for that kind of help at the talk page of WikiProject Children's literature.
But there is a more basic issue: In order to be considered notable, the RiverClan cats must have been covered in a reliable source that is independent of the topic - that is, not just in the novels themselves. I doubt such sources exist; thus, it seems unlikely that the RiverClan cats are a notable topic of their own. Furthermore, a bare list of names without context isn't all that helpful. It may be better to add some information on the principal characters to the Warriors (novel series) article or to the articles on the individual books, but even that would require secondary sources. Huon (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you can provide reliable secondary sources, such as book reviews, discussing the cast of characters, I'd indeed say that the list cannot become a Wikipedia article. There's no need to get rid of the draft (after all, such reliable sources might still become available in the future), but I wouldn't invest too much effort in a list that seems unlikely to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. See also WP:LISTN for notability of lists. Huon (talk) 11:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how we could concisely describe a term with so many disparate meanings. Which of them should we describe? Anyway, this help desk is the wrong place to discuss the development of a disambiguation page. Try that article's talk page to propose changes. As an aside, I doubt the word "Hellenism" has been used for 5,000 years and would like to see a reliable source for that claim. Huon (talk) 03:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to create an article about a person who is clearly famous/notable (a simple google search of his name, "Ben Lewin," will yield results to prove this quickly) and not being able to post it due to questions of the person's notability... My references are good. My article was misjudged in my opinion. However, it really should be published ASAP since Ben Lewin has a new film coming out and many people will be searching for the wiki article which should have existed long ago.
-O — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odl1991 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, a Google search is not a good indication of notability; see WP:GHITS. I have explained above why your references are problematic, and I, for one, agree with the reviewer that your draft does not establish Lewin's notability. Anyway, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and there's no need to create articles for people of dubious notability in anticipation of a certain event - quite the converse: If his new film generates some publicity and Lewin is discussed in reliable sources in that context, maybe we can use those sources to write a well-referenced article. Huon (talk) 05:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Anybody help for me? I fixed my contribution on Gyula Koi (reliable sources etc.). I wait for to change my contribution as a normal Wikipedia entry. Is the task of patrollers or who? I wait for the solution... Alkabala (talk) 06:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In order to become a normal Wikipedia article, that draft should indeed be reviewed again; you can submit it by add ing {{subst:submit}} to the very top of the draft. However, the sources you have given are all primary sources such as papers written by Gyula Koi; in order to establish his notability, we need to show that he has received significant coverage on reliable sources that are independent of him - that is, that others have written about him. Thus, in its current state the draft is likely to be declined again. My suggestion would be to look for newspaper coverage or for scholarly articles (written by others!) discussing Koi's work. Huon (talk) 11:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I cannot read Hungarian and thus cannot check the additional references you have provided. Sources need not be in English (though that's obviously easier for our readers), but it may help to add translations of the relevant excerpts; see WP:NOENG for details. Another issue: You should use inline citations and footnotes to clarify which of the references supports which of the article's statements.[1] I have provided an example; you can edit this section to see how the footnote was created. See also WP:Referencing for beginners for additional help with references and footnotes. Huon (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My article about "Relativity" was rejected. As it is a collection including many award-winning stories by a multiple-award-winning author, I'm not sure what more I needed to do to make it worthy of inclusion.
Do I need to add more reviews? I found many in blogs, but won't add those.
Notability is not inherited; it may be possible that the individual stories are notable without the collection itself being notable. Additional reviews would help, but they should be published by reliable sources - Doug's Book Reviews is a random guy's website without any indication of editorial oversight, for all I can tell, not a reliable source. The same would hold for reviews on blogs. The SF Site is better because it does have an editorial staff, but our notability criterion of "significant coverage" is usually interpreted to mean more than one good source - the more the better.
Furthermore, Wikipedia content should be based on what the reliable secondary sources have to say about the subject - I believe most of the current draft is not based on the reviews and seems unsourced. Huon (talk) 11:59, 16 September 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) 15:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've created an article called Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Amy Myers. No, it's not the Amy Myers (now Amy Myers Jaffe) who is a Middle East oil expert, but a British mystery writer who has penned dozens of books.
Obviously, in addition to the usual bit about creating a new page, I also have to tackle the disambiguation, but I'm not certain how to do so. Could you please advise?
I don't think disambiguation is all that necessary; Myers and Jaffe don't share a last name. If you want to make sure, the easiest way would be hatnotes, for example {{for2}}, like this:
Your draft is currently heavily based on primary sources such as Myers' own website and her books. The only secondary source, the Goodreads profile, probably has very little editorial oversight (it looks like user-submitted content) and may not be all that reliable. Wikipedia content should be based on reliable secondary sources. Huon (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm trying to propose a new article called Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Types of Songs, but I'm having trouble, in that when I submit it, it seems to either go blank or to be the same thing twice. I'm unclear as to what I'm doing wrong. I think it's ready to be resubmitted, but I'm nervous about submitting it blank or with multiple versions of itself. Any thoughts?
When you follow the instructions in the message box and click the "click here" link provided in the box, a new (empty) section is added to the end of the draft that contains only the review template and a comment informing you that saving that edit will not blank your draft. You can also re-submit the draft manually by adding {{subst:submit}} to the very top.
However, I don't think you provide sufficient sources. The only source is a Merriam-Webster encyclopedia article on ballads that's used multiple times even though it has nothing to say about song types in general or, say, reels in particular. That's obviously not enough. It may be better to use dedicated books on music theory. Also, the song article itself discusses types of song in some detail; you don't mention quite a few of those types (such as art songs, for example). Huon (talk) 20:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article cites nature journal as authoritative source along with alzheimer's association web citation. I can't why this article was rejected for lack of authoritative source of information. This is a scientific article need to be evaluated by someone with enough knowledge of scientific literature the least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venkatms11 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You do have good sources, but do they really support the draft's text? For example, which paper recounts the debate about the significance of β-amyloid and the significance of the Swedish mutation in that debate? I don't have access to the full papers right now, but judging by the abstracts they're not review articles. See also WP:MEDRS for the sources required for medical topics. Huon (talk) 01:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the image comes with a free license, you can upload it to the Wikimedia Commons via their Upload Wizard. Once it has been uploaded, you can add it to the infobox via the "| image = " line (if the uploaded file were named "Atiya - 2011 by Atiya.jpg", it would appear already, but commons:File:Atiya - 2011 by Atiya.jpg does not yet exist). The picture tutorial explains how to add images outside an infobox.
However, the draft has serious images that should be fixed. Most importantly, it cites no sources whatsoever, but we need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (in particular not Ayita's own website), both to establish her notability and to allow our readers to verify the article's content. All Wikipedia content should be based on such sources, and you should use inline citations and footnotes to clarify which reference supports which of the article's statements. See also WP:Referencing for beginners. Without sources, the draft will not be accepted.
Furthermore, your sandbox currently contains two copies of the draft. They seem to be identical, but to avoid confusion, you might want to remove one of the two. Huon (talk) 02:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I missed that. In that case we can either just leave them both alone (they aren't submitted for review anyway and will probably remain stale), or we can nominate one of them for speedy deletion as a duplicate - that should be uncontroversial maintenance (G6). Huon (talk) 02:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To Whom it may concern, my article "Ghapi" was rejected. It seems it's considered to be advertising. Yes it is about a musician, although I felt I cited many different sources. Could someone please assist me in figuring out if it is only that I need to cite more sources or that the entire article is in question.
[Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ghapi]]
Ghapi Musician (talk) 06:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That article's sourcing relies heavily on YouTube links, and those are not reliable by Wikipedia's standards. If they are Ghapi's music videos, they would also be primary sources, not the independent sources we're looking for. That leaves us with four "news" sources. First of all, you should use inline citations and footnotes to clarify which source supports which of the draft's statements. Also, I have doubts all of those sources are reliable - I have no idea what the last two are, but they don't seem to be published with a reputable publisher. Even worse, the article contains claims that are not supported by any of the sources - for example, none of them mention the KANNA award or Ghapi's recording studio. Also, the draft's tone is anything but encyclopedic - take for example the section "You've probably seen Ghapi at:" - no, I certainly haven't (and I suspect very few readers will have - there's nothing probable about that), but even if it were remotely probable, a neutral heading such as "Venues" or "Appearances" would be preferable (of course we'd also need a source to allow our readers to verify that information).
In summary, you don't need more sources so much as better sources, and you need to make sure that the article's content corresponds to what the sources say about Ghapi. There may also be issues of notability (which would make Ghapi an unsuitable topic for a Wikipedia article in the first place) - if we remove all the primary and dubious sources, very little remains, probably not enough to satisfy the criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". See also WP:MUSIC for more specific notability criteria. I expect better sources on Ghapi (such as news coverage) exist, but the article should be based on those good sources. Huon (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Love's Journey
Hi, pls let me know why my article is rejected. Pls help. I have made it very very neutral and cited good sources like from The Economic Times, Oneindia etc.:(
The Econnomic Times article may be a good source, but it's hidden behind a paywall; I cannot access it. Many of the other sources are of much lower quality: One is the book itself, another two claim to be primary sources written by the book's author (one of the two, the Faridabad Metro piece, isn't, for all I can tell, but it's just a collection of images anyway), BookChums seems to be interested in selling the book (except it's out of stock) and probably isn't reliable by Wikipedia's standards, and so on. But there are also stylistic problems with the article itself: For example, the very first sentence should tell us what Love's Journey is:
Love's Journey is a novel written by [...] (preferably clarifying the genre of novel - a romance? A Bildungsroman?)
Also, statements on Wikipedia should not begin with "it seems" - if that's what the source says, such a statement needs to be attributed to the source: "According to critic John Doe, it seems [...]" But in fact, the source for that statement doesn't say the author seems to have narrated a real life story - the author is asked and replies it's a work of fiction. That's a very free interpretation of the source - so much so that I'd call it original research. Even worse, the source for the "bestseller" claim says nothing of the sort - the website linked to doesn't even mention Love's Journey.
In summary, your sources might be sufficient to write an article about the novel, but you should get rid of the unreliable sources and those who mention the book only in passing or not at all, and you should make sure the article's text follows what the remaining sources have to say about the book. It may help to have a look at featured book articles; while of course a brand-new article need not be of "featured" quality, the example of articles like Starship Troopers or The General in His Labyrinth may clarify what style we're looking for. Huon (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation is the way to go; your article will probably receive a name such as "Crawlspace (US band)". If you think it should have a certain disambiguating term added to its name and don't want to leave that to the discretion of the reviewer accepting the submission, I'd suggest adding a line to that effect to the top of the draft: "Article Title should be Crawlspace (whatever)."
What do you do about subjects for which there are no published books, like recent words or phenomenon?
my topic of creation is "wootoop" which only became an issue in 2010. The newspapers have references but it is mostly discussed on the blogosphere, since the governor that coined the term, was endorsed by both newspapers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D1islandgal (talk • contribs) 10:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Newspaper articles are also reliable sources, but most blogs are not because they have no reputation for fact-checking and no editorial oversight. If there's insufficient coverage in reliable sources, the topic may not be notable enough for an article (yet). Anyway, two thirds of your draft seem to be about Governor deJongh, not about Wootoop - don't turn an article on a neologism into a coatrack. Huon (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Apparently I'm tripping today as I simply can NOT find the please review link after editing one of my contributions!
Re.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Anthony_Wile
I've gone through this article yet again, added about 10 more references from various websites, removed pretty much every adjective I can find in the page so what's left looks to me like a straight-up encyclopedia entry on an individual.
Could someone PLEASE a) tell me how to request another review (if this is not the way to do so) and b) tell me if there's ANYthing left on that page that's peacockery, fluffery, flattery, whatever :)
Hi there, i was wondering if you could delete the redirect on the name of the topic i would like to create. For example my articles title name is "Knanaya Catholic Church" and that redirects to the topic "Knanaya". I was wondering if you could remove this redirect, because the Knanaya Catholic Church is topic that talks about a Metropolitan Sui Juris Church for Knanayas of the Catholic Church while the page "Knanaya" talks about the Knanaya community they are two separate topics.
Done The submission template now correctly appears at the bottom. A412 (Talk • C) 00:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
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) 15:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
