Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

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

Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

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

Ask a new question Please check back often for answers.

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

April 19

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mushroom Group

The article reviewer's issue / question was that:

{{afc comment|1=If Mushroom Group shares the same birthday/date as Mushroom Records, surely they are the same entity?

In reality, the Mushroom Group started with Mushroom Records and one other company(Mushroom Music Publishing) simultaneously. In 1998, Mushroom Records was swallowed by Warner and became defunct, but the Group has grown to contain almost two dozen subsidiaries which are listed in the article.

My question is - how do I resubmit without encountering the same issue / question.

(203.37.171.134 (talk) 05:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC))

You could try to write a history section which clearly sets out the company structure; explicitly stating that Mushroom Group is/was the parent of Mushroom Records and other divisions/subsidiaries. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Boston Marathon Explotion WIKI of PUBLIC INFORMATION

Might this be the right place for all public info to be gathered about the Boston Maration Explosion?

Is this the right forum for an index of youtube video's from people phones ect?...and not so much commments as "facts" derived from the video's. ...which might prove help full, vs just hearing on the news what clothes suspects were wearing....the facts easiest to change.

I think we can develop a "BIG BROTHER" Wiki related to all information regarding 'Boston Maraton Explosion'....

I would like help in this regard, Pls and thank you, Richard Jacoby. RichJacoby@hotmail.com RichJacoby (talk) 08:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia articles are meant to be built on citations to secondary reliable sources, such as the work of professional journalists. We do not host collections of anything and everything related to any particular incident, nor is any article meant to be a mere collection of links to youtube videos, etc. See also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

My Article was Found 'Blank Submission'

Hi,

My Article for Creation, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Prof. Arun Kumar Sinha, was declined and when I tried to find the reviewer's comments, I found written, 'sorry we can not accept blank submission.' What does it mean? My article had almost 3500 words. How to move further--please guide.

best

Saramohanpur1940 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saramohanpur1940 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• This is because of a technical reason - much of the text was commented out. I have fixed this so the article's body is now visible. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I found it so neatly arranged. Have re-submitted for a review. Hope it will be accepted for Article Creation on wiki.

best Saramohanpur1940 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saramohanpur1940 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lee Harold Letts, III

How can I edit the title of an AFC? I want to change it to "Lee H. Letts" because he is better known with the less formal name.

article draft: Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lee Harold Letts, III

Marion Simons (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)Marion Simons

I have moved the draft to the preferred title. Huon (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Sources/Article Submission Declined

Hi:

We have been trying to submit information for Dulce Beatriz since March, 2013. It has been declined twice stating that it needs more sources. All the information in the submitted article is included in the sources mentioned in the References page.

Please advise on this issue.

Submission by Artisan Media

Regards,

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dulce Beatriz

Artisan Media — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artisan Media (talk • contribs) 17:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, as the reviewer said, you should use inline citations and footnotes to clarify which source supports which of the draft's statements. For example, which source says that Beatriz and her husband were named Ambassadors of Culture in 1977? I can't tell. See also WP:Referencing for beginners for an introduction to Wikipedia-style referencing. Secondly, her website, her husband's book and her papers are not independent sources; they are likely to be one-sided or biased. The Spanish book you cite doesn't seem to have been published with a reputable publisher; I doubt it would be considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards. That leaves us with the Golden Pages of the Cuban Exiles which may indeed be a reliable, independent source that covers Beatriz in some detail, but on its own it's not enough to establish that she is notable by Wikipedia's standards. Huon (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Thank you for your response.

Dulce Beatriz is a well-known artist internationally. Most of her publications are just her paintings. Biographical data only come from those sources and are from a long time ago considering she was born in 1931. Her art work is found on the web in places such as http://www.ebay.com/itm/RARE-ORIGINAL-DULCE-BEATRIZ-ARTIST-PROOF-ETCHING-DRAWING-PAINTING-SIGNED-FRAMED-/110991178243 http://www.artnet.com/galleries/artists_detail.asp?G=&gid=284&aid=2159&ViewArtistBy=online Her papers are held in the Library of a respected University: http://proust.library.miami.edu/findingaids/?p=collections/findingaid&id=1054 and there are small bios on the web but they aren't reputable published sources. Her husband co-authored the book, but isn't that usual for subjects of biographies to be involved in the process? Is he being penalized for putting his name as a second author? In terms of the "Ambassadors of Culture in 1977," they have a physical certificate as proof for it. Is there somebody we could send it to? There are many Wikipedia biography pages that have virtually no sources or references, certainly, much fewer than we are offering. How did they get their pages approved? She is in her later years in life and it is likely we won't find new publications. Is there any way we can sanitize this article so it meets guidelines or is there anything else we can provide?

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dulce Beatriz  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artisan Media (talk • contribs) 19:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC) 

Wikipedia content should be based on published third-party sources. In short, we don't want her publications, we want what others have written about her - and her husband is hardly a third party. If, for argument's sake, Beatriz were a talentless hack, likely neither her husband nor a biography he co-authored would say so. The physical certificate is not a published source - we cannot expect our readers to visit Beatriz and take a look. If no third party has written about that award - say, a newspaper article - then it probably isn't that significant anyway.

And while other problematic articles exist, that's not an excuse to create more. Each submission must stand on its own merits.

The way to improve the article would be with additional reliable sources such as articles in newspapers or in reputable arts magazines that cover Beatriz in some detail. As I said above, you should also use footnotes to clarify which source supports which of the draft's statements, and if parts of the draft cannot be based on reliable, independent sources, we may have to remove them. Huon (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Banff International Research Station (BIRS)

It looks like I have submitted this article for review 3 times. The latest draft has not been submitted. Can I delete the past 3 submissions and make the current draft the only submission for review?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brentkearney (talk • contribs) 18:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the duplicate submission templates, but your sources seem to be a blog and the BIRS' own website. Those are not the reliable, independent sources Wikipedia content should be based on, and they won't suffice to establish the research station's notability. You should look for newspaper coverage or articles about the station in reputable magazines. Huon (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

April 20

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Banff International Research Station (BIRS)

Sorry, I've submitted revisions again :-\. Could someone please delete all but the most recent submission? Is there a way that I could do that myself?

I've added a bunch of 3rd party references, including links to news media, government websites, and funding agencies.

I would like to upload images -- logo for BIRS, photo of the facility --, but apparently my access level isn't high enough. How can I make that happen?

Thanks!

Brentkearney (talk) 00:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Done by Davidwr with this edit. You can easily do so yourself: The submission messages are created by code like this: {{AFC submission|||ts=20130420002109|u=Brentkearney|ns=5}} Remove excess instances of this code, and you'll get rid of the duplicate submission templates.

The logo is likely copyrighted and not released under a free license. Wikipedia's non-free content criteria say that such logos may fall under fair use, but that they must be used only in articles proper, not in drafts. Thus we cannot upload the logo yet. Once the draft is accepted, you can either use WP:Files for upload, or your account may be old enough that you may use the File Upload Wizard yourself - that only takes four days and ten edits.

Regarding the photos of the facility, did you take them yourself? Do you own the copyright? Are you willing to release them under a free license such as the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License? If so, you can upload them to the Wikimedia Commons via their Upload Wizard. If the images aren't freely licensed, we cannot accept them because free equivalents likely could be produced.

Regarding your references, you still cite multiple unreliable sources such as the blog or press releases. For Wikipedia, sources are reliable if they are subject to editorial oversight and have a reputation for fact-checking, something most blogs and all press releases don't share. You could cite the BIRS' own press releases for uncontroversial details such as the founding date, but claims of "remarkable growth and success", for example, do require a third-party source that has indeed remarked on the success - or more precisely, that claim would even require a third-party source that called the success remarkable. Huon (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Prof. Arun Kumar Sinha

Hi

Can anybody give me feedback about this article "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Prof. Arun Kumar Sinha" submitted by me for a review. It was earlier declined on technical grounds for being 'blank submission'. Some of the editors have made it cleaner. Can anybody suggest, how does it read--good enough for acceptance. How to improve.

awaiting a response. thanks.

Saramohanpur1940 Saramohanpur1940 (talk) 04:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd say there are currently two problems with this draft: The sources and the tone. Five of the ten sources are authored or co-authored by Sinha himself. Aboureading is a blog, and while blogs are borderline because they are often self-published and not subject to editorial oversight, what we cite are the comments - definitely not a reliable source. Both The Extraordinary Saga of an Ordinary Person and The Strong, Brown God apparently were written by Sinha's sons and should be considered primary sources, not the third-party sources Wikipedia content should be based on (and quoting the latter in its entirety is a copyright violation). The Centenary Year Presentation seems to have been written by members of the college in order to celebrate the college - that would again be a primary source. That leaves us with a single reliable, independent source: The Times of India obituary. That is not enough to base an article on, and once again we should summarize in our own words what the sources say, not quote them verbatim. Furthermore, large parts of the draft currently don't cite any sources whatsoever. You should try and find more good sources: Newspaper articles about Sinha, or peer-reviewed scholarly papers discussing his work (written by others, not by himself or his sons!). For the technical details of adding Wikipedia-style footnotes, please see WP:Referencing for beginners. If some of the draft's content cannot be verified from such sources, it should be removed.

So much for the sources. The second issue is the draft's tone. The draft currently reads like an essay and repeatedly expresses the author's opinion. Wikipedia articles may cite other persons' opinions when they are relevant (say, "John Doe writing in the Journal of Anglistics, called Sinha an exemplary scholar."), but they should not express opinions of their own. Huon (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Houn, I am so very thankful to your comments. Largely, I agree with you. The article "The Extarordinary Saga of an Ordinary Person' is about Prof. Sinha's father written by Prof. Sinha's elder brother--and published in a reputed newspaper of its time way back in 1965. That source, I think should be given more waightage and some quotation from it to just underline the family environment of Prof. Sinha should be in order. However, I will try to find some more independent sources.

Tone, I would review again so that there is some objectivity in presentation. I hope to continue receiving your guidance. Thanks again for making the write-up look neater.

best Saramohanpur1940 Saramohanpur1940 (talk) 07:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

NEW EDUCATION POLICY 1986

WHAT IS THE HISTORICAL EVENTS THAT TOOK TO CREATE NEW EDUCATION POLICY 1986 AND WHAT IS THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN IT? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.204.99.163 (talk) 08:46, 20 April 2013 (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. Two further issues: You shift key seems to be stuck, and it might help if you added which country you're inquiring about. The answer might depend on that. Huon (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of User:KFFOWLER/sandbox

I'm not sure that I have managed to submit my latest article because I cannot find it listed in the queue for review. Maybe there is some confusion over its title. It should now be Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The M. Elizabeth Osborn Award. It is a revision of my earlier submission of an article titled Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/M. Elizabeth Osborn which was rejected. The new article is focused on the award itself, named for Ms. Osborn, although of course much of the copy (about 50%) is the same and might perhaps cause some confusion. My question is simply, Is the new piece in line for review? Thank you! KFFOWLER (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

You have submitted it correctly; I've moved it to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/M. Elizabeth Osborn Award since the award is more commonly referred to without the leading "The". I don't think the draft will be accepted, though, since it is heavily based on primary sources, several sources mention neither the award nor Osborn, and the content about Osborn is far too detailed for an article about the award; see WP:COATRACK on that. Huon (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Huon! I appreciate the quick response and also your advice. I will do some further editing in hopes that by the time it is reviewed it can meet standards. KFFOWLER (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Published poetry containiong contest winners in the years 2007-2008

Just after the twin towers were attacked and the '911' call for war was made. I wrote a poem about about the toweres. I let a freind read it and she submitted it to a poetry contest. I recieved a letter saying that my poem would be published in a book of poetry, consisting of winners. I no longer have a copy of the poem. It was under my married name Dawn Adams. However I am unsure if she added a middle initial or name and I'm not sure she spelled my last right. Here are the possibilties: Dawn Adams, Dawn Addams, Dawn M. Adams, Dawn M. Addams, Dawn Marie Adams, Dawn Marie Addams.

My question is: How do I find this book? My only copy of the Poem was destroyed in the fire. It was named 'Twin Towers' or 'United we stand' somethng along those lines. Is there any way for me to find this poem and or the book so I can order it. It was either the same year as the towers wre attacked or within the next year. I wrote it the day of the towers, and it's possible she even put it there then.

Can you help me find it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.250.252.208 (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we can help you with that; I'd say your best bet would be asking your friend about whom she sent the poem to. I tried searching with Google Books, but without either the exact name of the author or the poem's title that's like searching for a needle in a haystack. Anyway, this is not the right place for such questions; you may want to ask at the reference desk instead. Huon (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/European Young Chemist Network

Dear,

I would like to get some advice regarding my writing style concerning the following article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/European Young Chemist Network.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyoungchem (talk • contribs) 21:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

That tone sounds rather promotional ("was given the opportunity to build on its success seen at previous congresses", for example), and you don't cite any third-party sources. You should summarize what independent sources have to say about the network in a dry, neutral tone. You may also want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest. Huon (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

April 21

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alexander Karasyov

This article is actually a translation of the Russian Wikipedia site. I was told to create the article first, then the Russian site could be imported. There are no English sources. What can I do that the article is created? Thank you for your help. wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alexander Karasyov KomarKomar KomarKomar (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with the reviewer's rationale; while that's rather hard on those of us who don't speak Russian, per WP:NONENG non-English sources are acceptable, though English sources obviously would be preferred. However, quite a few of your Russian sources don't seem reliable to me - for example the Russian Wikipedia (just like the English Wikipedia) is not considered a reliable source. Several others just look like websites without editorial oversight to me. Huon (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Huon,

Thank you for your reply. I can see your point. If I had English sources, I would, of course, use them.:)

All of the resources I used - apart from the Wikipedia source (which I included to indicate that there is actually a Russian version of the article) - are reviewed sites. Would it help if I explained what the sources are? I could provide some sort of short summary.

They are literary journals and platforms that are reviewed by critics/reviewers. In other words, not just anyone can be put on these platforms.

KomarKomarKomarKomar (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Megalit apparently calls itself the "Eurasian coffee portal" - are its author biographies really subject to editorial oversight? The Bunin and O. Henry Prize sources look like the organizations bestowing these awards - third-party sources would be much better. Huon (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Huon,

Thank you for your reply. I will check once again and then re-submit.

Would it be a good idea to leave a comment somewhere for the editor to give reasons for the use of foreign language (non-English) sources. I would not want to have the article rejected on these grounds again. KomarKomar (talk) 05:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Megalit is a portal for literature journals: only for authors published in Russian literary journals.

It has nothing to do with coffee. :)KomarKomar (talk) 05:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/LIFE IS SUCKING THE LIFE OUT OF ME

has this article in review or declinedReisae (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

This article has been declined and has been re-submitted for another review, but you haven't addressed the problems the reviewers pointed out. You still don't have evidence of significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. The best of the bunch is the JunkArchive review, but for all I can tell that's just a blog without editorial oversight, not a reliable source. Huon (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

April 22

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/heart attack

suppose the person had a blood test previous day and the result is that he may not have AIDS virus and the next day in blood test what will be the result ? he may have AIDS virus or not? how — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.221.28.42 (talk) 05:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia cannot give medical advice. You should see a doctor. Huon (talk) 14:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Inserting uploaded image to infobox

Hello,

I'm trying to insert an uploaded logo image to an infobox for the article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/CellNetix

The uploaded logo file name is: CellNetix_logo.png.

I wrote earlier about this subject, but I don't understand the answer I received, below:

Once the image is uploaded, you'll have to check the respective infobox's documentation to find out how to add the image to the infobox; unfortunately not all infoboxes are standardized. Many take a simple "|image=Filename.ext" parameter without any additions, even without the "File:" prefix. Others use more complicated code; for example, {{Infobox company}} displays logos if you use a "|logo=[[File:Filename.ext|XXXpx|Description]]" parameter, where "XXXpx" is the size of the image and "Description" is the image caption; 220px is a standard value for the size, I believe. The template's documentation should always provide a list of parameters for that template and an example of use. Huon (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

In the infobox code under "logo," I don't see any documentation referring to how a file should be inserted. Can you tell me EXACTLY what I need to type in, using the file name CellNetix_logo.png? For example, if I use "|image=Filename.ext", would I enter "|image=CellNetix_logo.png.ext"? Do I need the quotes?

Thanks for your help.

I have added the logo with this edit. I'm sorry for being unclear before, by ".ext" I meant the file name's extension, here ".png". Since the infobox you use is {{infobox company}}, you'll need more complicated code than just |image=CellNetix_logo.png - for this infobox, the parameter must be |logo=[[File:Filename.ext|XXXpx|Description]], here: |logo=[[File:CellNetix_logo.png|220px|CellNetix logo]] The quote marks are not part of what should be added. The template description does have some information on the logo, but not much more than I've said here. Huon (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Article on 'Miscellanies'.

An article I wrote on Miscellanies was declined because it was considered that the article already exists at Anthology. I have since tried to make it much clearer in the article lead how miscellanies are different from anthologies (historically and aesthetically), and have included an internal section link (Succession of anthologies) to later in the article where I further discuss recent criticism arguing for the distinction between anthologies and miscellanies. I also direct attention to the section "Significance and recognition", where I quote Michael Suarez:

The miscellany, then, typically celebrates – and indeed constructs – taste, novelty and contemporaneity in assembling a synchronous body of material. It should be distinguished from the anthology, which honours – and perpetuates – the value of historicity and the perdurance of established canons of artistic discrimination in gathering texts recognized for their aesthetic legitimacy.

Not only are miscellanies considered different from anthologies, but there is a growing body of literary criticism attending to their importance. I have tried to include a range of quite specific information about the growth and decline of miscellanies, and have repeatedly referred to how they were succeeded by anthologies. Before the article is considered again, is there anything else I can do to make clear that miscellanies are quite different from anthologies? and that there has been enough written about them to warrant their treatment as a separate, though related, subject?

BridgenAJ (talk) 10:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be resolved; Ramaksoud2000 is about to accept the draft as soon as the redirect that currently occupies its place has been deleted. Huon (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes this is correct, a review is now in process. Thank you for the reply. BridgenAJ (talk) 08:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

how to add ISBN #

How do I add info to a "Named reference"? I can't figure out how to get back into it once it is made. Marion Simons (talk) 12:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)Marion Simons

I believe you already found the solution. One instance of the named reference is created by code like this:

<ref name=Salmon>{{cite book|last=Salmon|first=Robin R.|title=Brookgreen Gardens Sculpture, Volume II|year=1993|publisher=Brookgreen Gardens|location=Murrels Inlet, SC 29576|isbn=0-9638206-1-3}}</ref>

There you can add parameters to the {{cite book}} template. Huon (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/net mobile AG

Dear Wikignome,

thank you very much for reviewing my article about net mobile AG. Thank you for your support. Unfortunately, you declined my article because of citing. I would be very happy if you could specify whether this refers to some few citing problems or all and how I can improve them as it is my first article on English Wikipedia.

Thanks a lot before hand for your support. Bspielberg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bspielberg (talk • contribs) 13:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Many of your sources are primary sources such as net mobile's own website or a press release. Wikipedia content should be based on reliable third-party sources such as articles published by newspapers or reputable trade magazines. You have some sources of that type, such as the Reuters article, but they provide very little detail about the company itself. For example, I don't think any of the independent sources discussed net mobile's three divisions. Huon (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Article about Yael Neeman

Dear Editors, I have submitted an article entitled 'Yael Neeman' twice and each time it was rejected. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Yael Neeman The second time was because of insufficient number of references. There were six reliable and objective references, and I have now added two more, as well as re-editing the text for more objectivity. Several of the references are in Hebrew, and I was wondering if perhaps this was the reason for the rejection. Please advise how to proceed in order that my article might be accepted. The Hebrew version of the article has been on Wikipedia for several years. Thank you, Zahar65 Zahar65 (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Sources four through eight don't cover Neeman in any appreciable detail; I don't think any of them writes so much as a single sentence about her, much less an entire paragraph. Sources two and three look like lists of Neeman's own works. To establish her notability we need others to have written about her, for example newspaper articles that cover her in some detail or reviews of her work in literary journals. Regarding the Hebrew version of the article, the various Wikipedias have different standards, and the fact that an article exists in one language is not on its own a valid rationale to create it in another language. See also WP:Other stuff exists. Huon (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I'd like to address your comments, since some of the references are in Hebrew I think perhaps you may not have understood them: Sources 4-8 do mention Neeman, and are from reliable sources as requested by Wikipedia (newspaper and government websites) that prove the point it's referencing. For example ref 4, regarding the sentence in the article stating that Neeman was at the top of the bestseller lists shows the printed article with Neeman at no. 1. There are many such lists as she was a bestseller for months. Should I include others? Ref 5 is the official Book Publishers of Israel site showing Neeman as a recipient of the Golden Book award (the sentence in the article that it references). Ref 6 and 7 are two sources (government and newspaper) proving her a finalist for Israels most prestigious literary award, the Sapir. Ref 8 is a government site showing her winning a special grant for English translation. Regarding Ref 2-3 they are both respected literary journals who have published her work - one Israeli and one international. Ref 1 is the official Israeli Lexicon of Writers website detailing her achievements. In the external links section of the Yael Neeman article there are several Newspaper articles about her as well. Is more required than this? Thank You, Zahar65 (talk) 03:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't really interested in what Neeman herself wrote, no matter where it's published, but in what others have written about her. Notability is established if she was the subject of significant coverage in reliable third-party sources - that is, mutltiple sources that write at least a paragraph each about her. This coverage should then form the basis of the Wikipedia article. For example, I expect a book that was at the top of the bestseller lists for weeks has been reviewed by literary critics - such reviews would make a good source. You already have two reviews published in Haaretz among your external links, but don't summarize what they say about Neeman or the reception of her work. Or the Golden Book Award may have been the occasion for news articles about her? Those would also be good sources. List entries, however, are not significant coverage. They may be used to flesh out an article, but they cannot form its basis. The Lexicon of Modern Hebrew Literature, which for all I can tell is in no way "official" and isn't even hosted in Israel, may serve as a source, but on its own it's not enough either. Huon (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Quixey

This article has been submitted and rejected three times. The first time for not adequately establishing notability with reliable sources, and then twice for sounding like an advertisement. The difference between the second and third submission was drastic - all "wikipuffery" was removed and all sentences are statements pulled from the sources, which seem to have been established as reliable, otherwise another note would have been made about them.

Please advise how to improve this article to read like a true encyclopedia entry, giving specific examples as to what language needs work. This article will continue to be resubmitted until it is approved, and it would be much preferred to have all the knowledge necessary to make it an adequate submission before entering it a fourth time, as opposed to going through the weeks-long process again and again because the rejection comments haven't been specific enough.

Thanks for your help.

Vb7490 (talk) 19:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi guys,

Still no response here -- please advise when you have a chance. Really appreciate the help!

Vb7490 (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I've asked the reviewer to explain his rationale here, but that may take some time. Huon (talk) 02:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Huon. Look forward to it.

Vb7490 (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Since the last review of 28th March by FoCuSandLeArN the only edit I could see was a change of one word (Here), since this does not resolve the issue that the previous reviewer rejected for, I also rejected it. Please request information from the previous reviews as to why that also declined it before - Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 00:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

With respect, that's not true. Between the second and third submissions, the text was significantly stripped of flowy language and advertisment-like prose. You can notice that the third submission was significantly shorter in overall length than the second. Is it possible to review this latest submission as an independent entry, and not base its credibility on the previous rejections? I really have made every effort to comply with the feedback given, and would appreciate further help getting an accurate review.

Vb7490 (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Policy Studies Organization

Hello! I have been working the last couple weeks to add several more reliable sources to an article i hope to create at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Policy Studies Organization. I am wondering how i can re-submit it for approval, and or if I can have someone review it before i do so. Any advice will be greatly appreciated. Many thanks! Whitney Shepard (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

You can re-submit the draft by following the instructions in the "Submission declined" message box: "When you are ready to resubmit, click here." However, I don't think the earlier problem has been addressed. Maybe I missed something, but the vast majority of your sources seems to mention the Policy Studies Organization only in passing, or not at all. To be considered notable by Wikipedia's standards the organization must have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable third-party sources - that is, multiple such sources that write at least a paragraph each about the organization. Huon (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Q. Walker

Comment: This is either meant to be deliberately misleading, or is simply misguided. The only reliable news source that says anything of any substance about Walker is the NYT "Play It Again, Vladimir" article. The remainder of the sources (and much of this draft article) are not about Walker, but about other things - JFK's speech, Ganymede Software, Zenph Sounds etc. Please cut out the parts that are not about Walker and find some independent, reliable coverage that talks about him in reasonable depth. Sionk (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's go with misguided. Of 36 references, 9 don't mention Walker, but are present to substantiate a claim (6, 8, 9, 15, 16, 21, 30, 33, and 34).

6 - JFK's speech was without other reference on Wikipedia (could be removed), but not relevant to the article.

8 - reference to the journal, but not a substantiation of his father as editor.

9 - backup for claim of family connection.

15, 16, 21 - no mention of Walker, but substantiates claim about commercial success of companies he founded.

30, 33 - video examples of commercial work for company he founded.

34 - no mention of Walker, but substantiates claim about commercial success of company he founded.

The other references discuss Walker and his work in context, including video and audio interviews.

Discussion of Ganymede and Zenph are relevant to commercial application of his work as a computer scientist.

Ah! None of the publications are used as references (and they are primary sources -- although I chose first appearances, rather than later journal appearances that might be considered more reliable). I don't know the syntax for "making a publication also be a reference" -- a pointer to an article where this is done well would be welcomed.

Very specific editorial assistance is welcomed. Thanks -- ResearcherQ (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Sources that don't mention Walker at all should not be used in an article on Walker; that would be original synthesis, something we should not engage in. Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent such as newspaper articles or articles in reputable magazines about Walker. To establish his notability we must show that he has received significant coverage in such sources. Many of the sources that are about Walker don't satisfy this standard. For example, the first two were written by Walker himself and thus are not independent. The Triangle Business Journal article only mentions Walker in passing; that's not significant coverage. YouTube is user-submitted content and not considered reliable. SIUE reporting on its own award is not an independent source. I don't think the North Carolina Symphony is a reliable source that's subject to editorial oversight. And so on... I haven't checked all the sources, only the first ten, and so far Sionk seems to be correct that these sources do not establish Walker's notability. Huon (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks -- on the case -- ResearcherQ (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

April 23

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ryonet

Hey guys, I'm kinda new here. Any ideas of what can I do to improve this article?

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

Thanks! JohnQB (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

That draft is heavily based on primary sources such as Ryonet's own website or press releases, and interviews aren't quite the independent sources we're after. Entire sections are based on such sources; we prefer articles published in newspapers or reputable trade magazines, written by third parties. The tone is also not as neutral as it should be; for example, "unfortunately" is not a word we should use. Huon (talk) 01:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Marc Thorpe Article

I have been trying to post this article on Marc Thorpe for the past month and continue to be declined.

I received this last Comment from LionMans:

Comment: Although I cleaned up the article a lot and made it more readable, it is still lacking in third-party reliable sources. Most of the sources are a copy of the biography he sends out to others or form sites selling (or advertising) his items. A lot of the references barely mention him or only in passing or are interviews with him. Article needs more reliable sources about him but unaffiliated with him or his work. Other than that, I think he would meet Notable Person standards. LionMans Account (talk) 03:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I would like to know, how many more references do I need to get approval, there are already 14 plus for links to articles and interview??

Can post printed magazines as references from his website? If so, how do I submit printed magazine references to Wikipedia?

Please help! Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClairePijoulat (talk • contribs) 00:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not the number, it's the quality. Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspapers or reputable art magazines. To establish that Thorpe is notable, we require significant coverage in such sources - multiple good sources writing at least a paragraph each about him. Your sources largely are primary sources such as his own or his mother's website, and many don't mention him at all.

You can cite print magazines as references; you'd have to provide enough bibliographical information to allow our readers to look up the source in a library - the name of the magazine, the publication date, the page number, the author, the title of the article and so on. You don't need to link to a scan of the magazine - there may even be copyright issues with that. Huon (talk) 02:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/አሉምኒ ፖርታል ዶችላንድ

Dear Sir or Madam,

thank you for commenting my input. What I actually was tying to do with the alumniportal Deustchland page was translating it. Not editing but translating it into my mother language. How do I do that so that the page could be available in Amharic also?

Thank you for your assistance!

sincerely,

FinifineFinifine (talk) 05:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

You do it on the Amharic Wikipedia, not here. This space is only for articles in English. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Robert Esperti

I am attempting to add a picture to this entry, but I have used both the "insert" type icon at the top of the page and have typed out the code in longhand, neither of which successfully made the picture appear in the preview setting of the page. Is there something I am missing?

Thanks! AbbeyCharles (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)Abbey

I'd strongly advise you to concentrate on adding sources for your article. There aren't any at the moment and, as it reads like someone's CV, it's unlikely to get very far here.

See Wikipedia:Picture tutorial for advice about adding images. Sionk (talk) 16:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem was a little more subtle: You once tried to close a footnote with a <ref> tag instead of </ref>. I fixed that; now the image appears (along with a paragraph or two of text that had also gone missing due to the wrong tag), but it's a photo of the wrong Bob. More descriptive image names would be helpful... For all I can tell you haven't uploaded a photo of Esperti yet; such a photo would have to be available under a free license such as the CC-BY-SA License. Wikipedia cannot accept non-free images of living persons. Huon (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Portuguese sources need to be checked

Some of the sources cited in WT:Articles for creation/Júlio Resende need to be checked for WP:RS by someone who can read Portuguese, to see if the Notability requirement is met. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Test Construction Strategies

I was wondering if there were any specific recommendations for areas that sound that they are not neutral. I have added a few sources to support the critiques, but am unsure if there are any other areas. Any other specific feedback would also be very much appreciated, as this is my first article.Raak1jd (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe the issue wasn't so much that the draft sounded non-neutral, but that it looked like original research that hadn't been published before. All Wikipedia content should be based on reliable published sources such as newspaper articles or papers in peer-reviewed scholarly journals. I haven't looked up your sources (I'm not at a library right now), but they seem to be just the kind of sources we'd want to have. However, it seems as if parts of the draft still aren't based on sources. Huon (talk) 02:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks for the feedback!68.188.226.29 (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

April 24

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/10 West Studios

Is it normal for a user User:LionMans Account to delete sections in an AfC submission and then leave the article for someone else to review? 009o9 (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)009o9 (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

It's slightly unusual, but it's permitted. Almost all pages on Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The account sure looks like a vandal operating under a new name -- I'll readup on the MOS for vandalism. Thanks! 009o9 (talk) 00:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

MD Rabbi Alam

MD Rabbi Alam

I am trying to create a page with titled "MD Rabbi Alam" which was deleted by you in the past. Here is the reference page for Mr. Alam [1]. Please advice me how can I be successful in creating this page.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaty87 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles or articles in reputable magazines. Ballotpedia looks like user-submitted content to me, without editorial oversight: That's not a reliable source. However, some of the sourcs listed in Ballotpedia's article, such as the St Louis Post-Dispatch article, may serve as sources for a Wikipedia article as well (others aren't useful; in particular Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source, and the "MD for Missouri" website isn't independent). If MD Rabbi Alam has received significant coverage in such sources, you can use the Article Wizard to write a draft by summarizing what the reliable sources say about him. Your past draft was deleted because it was considered unduly promotional - Wikipedia articles should maintain a neutral point of view. Huon (talk) 03:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. What do you think about this source?
1. MD Rabbi Alam MD Rabbi Alam
2. A Democratic Party caucus chairman vying to become Missouri’s next secretary of state is a 9/11 Truther who has associated with a radical Muslim cleric and trafficked in anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.

MD Rabbi Alam is an Obama campaign ally and Missouri-based Democratic activist who chairs the National Democratic Party Asian American Caucus (NDPAAC), a Democratic National Committee-sponsored organization that liaises with Asian minorities.

Alam, who was born in Bangladesh, served as a “satellite campaign manager” for then-candidate Barack Obama and the Democratic Party during the 2008 elections, and has since been invited to the White House. MD Rabbi Alam titled as Secretary of Truth when Ran for Missouri Secretary of State

3. Muslim Missouri Democratic Party caucus chairman launches 9-11 Truth PAC Muslim Missouri Democratic Party caucus chairman launches 9-11 Truth PAC

4. MD Rabbi Alam organizing Million Muslim March on 9/11/13 Muslims to march on White House next September 11th Press TV Published January 31, 2013, MD Rabbi Alam is the founder of AMPAC

5. ATTENTION Bare Naked Islam (BNI) READERS! Muslim stealth jihadists plan to hijack this year’s 9/11 Anniversary of the Muslim terrorist attacks on our nation with a ‘MILLION MUSLIM MARCH’ in Washington DC to demand special treatment for Muslims MD Alam's TV Interview on Trento Vision

6. Tom Trento of The United West interviews MD ‘Rabbi’ Alam, the Muslim who is behind Million Muslim March in Washington DC on 9/11/13 Tom Trento of The United West interviews MD ‘Rabbi’ Alam, the Muslim who is behind Million Muslim March in Washington DC on 9/11/13

Please let me know. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaty87 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I have already commented on the use (or lack thereof, more precisely) of Ballotpedia. I'm not sure about The Washington Free Beacon; it looks like and billets itself as a newspaper but seems rather biased ("Dedicated to uncovering the stories that the professional left hopes will never see the light of day", it says); you may want to ask at the Reliable sources noticeboard for more input on that. The Presstv.ir piece is an opinion piece and would be considered reliable only for the author's opinion, not for statements of fact. BareNakedIslam definitely is not a reliable source, and I doubt they're notable enough for us to even consider their opinion. Huon (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

What about Ballotpedia?

MD Rabbi Alam in Ballotpedia [2]

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaty87 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I said it before: Ballotpedia looks like user-submitted content to me, without editorial oversight: That's not a reliable source. Huon (talk) 01:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

hi

hi,

i want to "JPet Store" total information means which are supported,how deploy in apache tomcat based web server? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.219.194.12 (talk) 05:33, 24 April 2013 (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) 05:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Meg Barker

Has my application for Meg Barker's page been submitted? How do I know??? The instructions aren't clear at all - this is the third time I've edited this page and it seems to disappear into the ether............. I'm not a computer programmer, I just want to add a new page! What have I missed?

Tibbybendall (talk) 13:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Your draft has been submitted for review. I've removed an older duplicate draft and did some copyediting (for example, we should refer to Barker by her surname, not her given name). The main problem is that you should use inline citations and footnotes to clarify which of your references supports which of the draft's statements. See WP:Referencing for beginners for an introduction on how to add footnotes.

The "disappears into the ether" is probably due to the technical details of the submission process: Submission adds an almost-empty section to the end of the draft, but does not blank the draft itself. I expect you just saw that almost-empty section. Huon (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cordell & Cordell

Hello,

I have a question regarding the denial of submission of an article I created Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cordell & Cordell. The reasons for denial were "the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable." After reading the guidelines on notability, it states the organization "is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources."

My submission included roughly a dozen of the country's most elite, respected, and reliable media outlets covering the Cordell & Cordell law firm and its principals, including, but not limited to The Wall Street Journal, Time magazine, CNN, and Huffington Post. To me, that certainly qualifies as a notable organization that is subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.

Will you please expound on the reasoning behind the denial or what sort of other reliable, secondary sources you are looking for if the aforementioned do not suffice? Due to the lack of archived articles in some instances, I could not include links to other profiles in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal (a profile in addition to the WSJ article already cited in the submission). I do have PDF copies of those articles if it would help to upload those and include that in the submission.

Thank you for any input you can provide.

Matt Mattallen1979 (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I was hoping for sources with greater depth of coverage - so that Cordell & Cordell could be seen as a notable law practice, not merely rent-a-quotes. The sources are reliable, but their articles were about the current state of divorce law, child custody, mens rights, etc. and didn't give much insight into what C & C does when not talking to the media. There is no requirement that sources be online, so if your offline sources are better, use them and resubmit. Kilopi (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Marc Thorpe Question

Hello,

I created a new Publications section for my article on Marc Thorpe to have Third Party references as requested.

However, I received a message from Huon stating I need the Third Party references in the "Draft". Where in the Draft do I need to include Third Party References and how do I "summarize" what the Third Party references say?

I would like to do this edit in the best way so to get approval and need some help.

Thank you Claire— Preceding unsigned comment added by ClairePijoulat (talk • contribs)

Take for example Thorpe's family. You currently cite his mother's website and his father's faculty page, neither of which mentions Thorpe himself and neither of which would be an independent source anyway. Instead you should cite a third-party source that discusses Thorpe's family background in some detail, and you should summarize in your own words (I'm sorry, but I can't really explain the word "summarize"; are you really saying you're not familiar with that term?) what the source says about Thorpe's family. The same goes for all the other content: Your references are to primary sources, often the websites of organizations directly involved in the relevant event that mention Thorpe only in passing, or not at all. Huon (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Contact Gallery, Norwich, 1986-1999

Hello, Re: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Contact Gallery, Norwich, 1986-1999 The submission of this article has been rejected because there is not sufficient viable evidence. I have put in links to various websites of organisations involved at the time. Do you need more than just the website link? There were also organisations where the NALG was registered as a charity and funded from. What sort of evidence would you require from them other than say a quoted charity number which I have given?

Thank you for you help, Woodbutts (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

There are two problems. Firstly, you haven't linked to any websites. For example, http://Norwich%20Rosary%20Cemetery is not the cemetery's website; that would be http://www.norfolkchurches.co.uk/norwichrosary/norwichrosary.htm. Secondly, Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles or articles in reputable arts magazines. Organizations that were involved would be considered primary sources, not independent ones. To be considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article, the gallery must have been the subject of significant coverage in such independent sources; the organizations where NALG was registered as a charity would likely not provide that significant coverage (and those it was funded from once again aren't independent). Huon (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dan Haerle (2)

Hi, I need to find out how to properly reference the information I am including in an article on my friend, and former teacher, Dan Haerle. All of the information that I have in my article is either information that I have obtained from Dan or information that I have interviewed him concerning. How do I go about providing a reference for this material at the end of the article?

Mike Myers Mmyers6167 (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

In short, not at all. Wikipedia requires reliable published sources that are independent of the subject, such as articles in newspapers or reputable magazines. There's no way for our readers to verify what Haerle told you, and even if there were, Haerle is not an independent source on himself. Huon (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Chris Clodfelter

This page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chris Clodfelter was declined due to lack of notability in the area of MMA. Can it be reconsidered due to his muay thai notability rather than his MMA experience? MMA notability requires participation in 3 top tier MMA organization competitions. Muay thai is Clodfelter's area of primary notability. If he has participated in 3 top tier Muay Thai organization competitions will he also meet notability requirements? If so, I can gather proof of top tier muay thai experience to include. Thanks for your help! Leighthal17 (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd say you should show that the article satisfies the general notability guideline: That Clodfelter has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of him, such as articles in newspapers or reputable sports magazines. The article currently doesn't show evidence of such coverage. We'd need mulitple good sources that write at least a paragraph each about Clodfelter. Huon (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Association of Professional Declutterers and Organisers UK

Can someone PLEASE tell me why - after countless updates over the past year - the article I submitted and re-submitted for creation entitled The Association of Professional Declutterers and Organisers UK as still not been approved. I seem to have made all the changes requested, but still it remains unapproved. What am I doing wrong please?

We have our annual Member's conference on 13th May 2013, and I would very much like to have it live by then please.

Many thanks! Cherry Rudge

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChezzaPink (talk • contribs) 21:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem is with the draft's sources. Wikipedia content should be based on what reliable sources that are independent of the subject have to say about it, and to satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria, the organization must have received significant coverage in such sources. The Guardian and the Telegraph are reliable sources, but they mention the Association only in passing - that's not significant coverage. Most other sources are not reliable by Wikipedia's standards. Unless much better sources can be found, I doubt the Association is notable. If you're associated with the APDO, you may also want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest. Huon (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

April 25

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chennai Super Kings-Royal Challengers Bangalore rivalry

After re-submitting the article for review, because it was declined, should I remove the decline template at the top of the page or let it stay? --Tary123 (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Let it stay. It serves as a historical record until the draft is accepted and will let the next reviewer see what the past problems were, making it easier to check whether those issues have been fixed. Huon (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for letting me know! --Tary123 (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The Word Network on Wikipedia

To whom it may concern,

I am the web manager for "The Word Network" and wanted to look into the reason behind why our wikipedia page was deleted from your site?

I have looked through your recent changes and have found nothing on where, why and when this page was deleted?

We are the largest Urban and Gospel Channel in the United States and broadcast via cable, Direct TV, Verizon fios, AT&T Uverse into over 88 million homes. We are now broadcasting in over 200 countries world wide via satellite. Our audience depends on the information we had up on your site and demand that we figure out what happened to "The Word Network" wikipedia page ASAP.

Kindly,

Storyofthebrad (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why your posting here as the article in question doesn't seem to have come through the Articles for Creation process, however I will answer your question.

The article The Word Network was deleted from Wikipedia in November 2012 because it was a copyright infringement. See WP:Copyrights for information on what is and isn't allowed. Every entry has to follow certain guidelines and policies, the overriding one being the general notability guideline, specifically WP:CORP for this entry. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 20:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Raines (dPhil)

Take another look. It's a hoax. The accomplishments are impossible. Check the dates for Meischer, Kossel, Levene and Astbury, or the imdb ref, or the one to Watson & Crick. DGG ( talk ) 18:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

So you're saying it got declined for the wrong reasons? If you feel it's a blatant hoax, see WP:CSD#G3. Huon (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of User:Brandonboy4334/MY FRIEND KENT DUNN

hello? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandonboy4334 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, how may we help you? Huon (talk) 02:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Category section won't recognise certain links

In the above page, which I am currently working on, the Category section will not recognise two categories which I know to exist i.e Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/List of Irish Novelists and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cromwellian conquest of Ireland

Also I would like to change the main title from 'Seek the Fair Land', to 'Seek the Fair Land (Novel)'. Is this possible?

Thank you.

Wildmountainscene (talk) 10:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)