Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:45, 31 July 2013

Main page

Talk page

Submissions
Category, Sorting, Feed

Showcase

Participants
Apply, By subject

Reviewing instructions

Help desk

Backlog
drives

Shortcuts

Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

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

Ask a new question
Please check back often for answers.

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

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

July 25

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Neville Evans Collection

Hi,

I submitted an article in May and was wondering why it was turned down. Can you please give me some help to get it submitted?Thenfc (talk) 11:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft doesn't cite any reliable sources that are independendt of the subject, such as articles in national newspapers. We need such sources both to allow our readers to verify the article's content and to establish that the topic is notable enough for an article in the first place. Huon (talk) 03:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Your submission name here

Why not accepted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayank.aptidude (talk • contribs) 14:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft - Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/aptiDude - doesn't reference any sources at all and the text is full of promotional language. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Your submission name here

How can I get my article approved? I am creating an article for a soccer organization and every time I try to submit it, it does not get approved. It has sources and is just stating the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbrownuysa (talk • contribs) 16:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Utah youth soccer association - All your references are from the organization's own website, which proves only that it exists. To prove notability you need to show that people who have no connectiuon at all to the organisation have decided that it matters enough to write about. Newspaper or magazine articles would be the most likely sources for this type of organization, if they exist. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:DALI.br0!

Dalibor Markovic odnosno palma ili DALI.br0 je oduvek bio cigan i imao mafijaske slike na drustvenoj mrezi fejsbuk. Njegov cale je patuljak i dzibra na roze ponici u fraku u potrazi za novim pristalicama pokreta roma. Cak i u osnovnom obrazovanju su svi mislil da je on cigan. To se vidi kad ga je uciteljica jurila sa toljagom da mu je nabije u cmar zato sto je on ukrao flomastere. DLI.br0 je ipak bio pametan i sakrio se u WC kabinu pa je uciteljica sutirala vrata u zelji da mu furiozno promrndz cmar sa toljagom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.222.79.30 (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English Wikipedia, we only accept articles in English. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ahuda International school

My article was rejected stating it looks more like an advertisement , can you help me get it accepted

That article is very short on third-party sources, and it contains some rather promotional-sounding claims such as "internationally recognized", "intensive training", "making library time at AIS informative, dynamic and enjoyable" and so on. That last one clearly is not the appropriate tone for an encyclopedia article, and for the others you'd at the very least need third-party sources. Huon (talk) 03:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cabascas

Obvious troll

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Cabascas is a country in the Irish sea and durin WW2 it used to be one of the 'evacuating islands'. It's capital is Rando and it's biggest is Rando.

Celebrating Colour Day in Rando with colorful boats

Cabascas is a general island country in the Irish Sea. It has a democracy called British Isles Community Democracy with 17 goveners.

It's history is during the WW2 it used to be an evacuating island(where some chidlren and parents go to if there is now-where else to go) and it had nearly 534. During the British Tropical War(1956–1964) Cabascas invaded the whole of the French islands, Carribean and Malta most countries called Cabascas, King of the Tropical.

Populations:

1999-156 2000-443 2001-559 2002-1,450 2003-1,257 2004,2008-2,035

Cabascish Writing ≤–°₪§|↔•₴₥≤ඇරඣඪඐණටຣໜຽສຄกฟฟค That says: The love is peace, the hate is war, the peace is the better, the war is the worse.(I) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stitch1100 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael PA

Hi checking in to see what I did wrong? It was declined. thanks K ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendardre (talk • contribs) 19:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many of your references are not reliable by Wikipedia's standards, say press releases or his Google+ page, and for biographies of living persons we require inline citations. You may want to have a look at WP:Referencing for beginners; that page explains how to easily add nicely-formatted footnotes. Huon (talk) 03:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ligefør

Hi.

i'm new to this. How do i get an article public? — Preceding unsigned comment added by C.Dyreborg (talk • contribs) 20:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It will never published here - this is the English Wikipedia - all our article must be in English. Look for the correct language at meta:List of Wikipedias. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References help

I am editing Articles for Creation/ Joseph M. Schwartz. In the preview I get; ^ Democratic Socialists of America. http://www.dsausa.org/our_structure. Retrieved July 23, 2013. Missing or empty |title= (help) ^ Schwartz, Joseph M.; Maria Svart (June, 2013). "The Problem is Capitalism". In These Times 37 (6): 18. ^ Schwartz, Joseph M. (March 29,2013). [www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/social democracy-for centrists "Social Democracy for Centrists?"] Check |url= scheme (help). Dissent. ^ Schwartz, Joseph M. (2009). [www.tikkun.org/article.php/20090226165948636 "How a President Creates Change"] Check |url= scheme (help). Tikkun. [Mark this page as patrolled]

I do not understand Missing or empty title. It is an organizational chart showing his position. The second two references. dissent. and Tikkun. I checked. Both references work.

How can I go back to the reference template to find out what the problem is?

22:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)DuaneCampbell1 (talk) 22:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)22:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)~ Duane Campbell.[reply]

Resolved via IRC. Huon (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 26

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Subversion_Edge

Can you tell me why my article was declined? I added 6 references the second time I submitted it. One of my references is from Forrester Research, one of the two leading analyst firms in this area. The other from well known online journals. This is my first article. Is it possible for you to be specific on what I need to do to improve it?

The article is here: [[1]]

Thank you, Shari (Sg75900)Sg75900 (talk) 02:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You added sources, which is great! I'd like to make some comments on the sources individually, in the order they appear now -

The source by Dana Gardner is a blog - not a reliable source for most things by Wikipedia standards, and not helping prove any notability for the subject (because it's a blog).
I'm not sure how reliable InfoWorld is as a source in general, but the article you have from it looks pretty solid, and is borderline significant coverage (as required for the general notability guideline).
The Forrester link gives me a redirect to this error page telling me the page no longer exists. You may be able to find it again by a search of the company website. As I can't see the source, I can't evaluate it.
The Floss Manual link gives me Google Chrome's "This webpage is not available" page. I'm not technically capable enough as to speculate as to why it's unavailable, and it may just be temporary downtime, but I can't evaluate this either at this time.
The DevX source, like the InfoWorld one, is one that I am unsure of reliability on. On the one hand, it's author is named, and is identified to the point that you should be able to trust that his reputation is behind the piece. On the other hand, my gut screams "blog" when looking at the format of the page. On the first hand, however, it is run by the developer.com network. Giving the source the benefit of the doubt (saying it's borderline reliable), and after taking out the interview parts as unreliable (primary sources), it's borderline significant coverage.
The Wiki, as a wiki, is inherently unreliable as a source.

Combining all of these leaves us with two (borderline to fully) reliable sources with borderline significant coverage. This isn't enough to satisfy the requirement that articles must have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. If you can add more instances of significant coverage, then it should be easier to pass. Happy editing! ~Charmlet ^-talk- 02:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Creators Touch/sandbox

Please note that your account has been suspended as it contains very serious infected files which are used to hack websites. These files are malicious uploaded via open source cms that you use or folders that have 777 permission in your website. There is also a possibility that it gets injected via your php coding.

The only way is to delete the website and re-create again. We can unsuspend the site for 45 min for you to download the website contents,email and database. After which you have to terminate and recreate the website. You cannot upload the same old files as it contains serious backdoors. The issue is quite serious and you must act immediately to avoid any problems to your websites and other sites in the server.

In general, if you are using any open source software such as wordpress, joomla, phpbforum etc, please make sure that the versions are upto date. Do not use older versions of these softwares. Also if you have given 777 permission to any file or folder, please change it to 755 which is the max you can provide in shared hosting environment. If you have enabled frontpage extensions while creating the domain, please disable it while re-creating the account again. Nannapaneni

File:Kick-ass-2-hit-girl-trailer-slice.jpg

Nannapaneni College Guntur

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Creators Touch (talk • contribs) 19:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, do you have a question about the Articles for Creation process? Howicus (talk) 20:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zane Campbell (musician)

Hi,

Can you please tell me what other information needs to be cited. I can't seem to get the citations themselves to be hotlinked. In other words when I click in them it doesn't travel to the bottom where the relevant cite is and highlight it.

Thanks,

Travis Linkwray (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the manually created list of references with the Reflist template which automatically generates the footnotes. I've al;so removed a lot of unnecessary piping in wikilinks. Wikilinks do not use underscores for spaces, they use actual spaces just like normal text. The main problem with the draft is that you simply don't have enough references. In articles about living people basically everything must be sourced. You have a few urls listed under "Sources" but you don't actually cite them yet. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Quantitative mineral resource assessments

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Quantitative mineral resource assessments/Donald Singer

I am confused by the stated reasons for rejection. All citations are to rigorous peer reviewed and respected journals or books. Each statement in this submission has been published before. There are no opinions in the submission. The tone of the submission follows those of other articles on related topics in Wicki. Would you please provide me with one example from the submission of each of your stated problems in this submission? Dsing499 (talk) 22:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not the quality of the sources, but the fact that major parts of the draft don't cite any sources. You say all the content is based on previous publications - which publication confirms, say, the "Mineral deposit models" section's content? Huon (talk) 06:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dsing499, if you move the article into the encyclopedia now, those sections that aren't supported by a "footnote marker"^[13] will probably be tagged with ^{[citation needed]} which will leave your readers wondering if it can be relied on. Also, people use Wikipedia as a starting point in learning, and citations are very valuable for those who want to read a deeper, more authoritative treatment of the subject than an encyclopedia article offers. The second paragraph here explains how more and more students and academics are using Wikipedia in this way. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 27

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ENVIRON

Hello,

I had submitted an article for approval and it was declined with a notation stating it needed a little bit more citations. I did several searches throughout wiki to try and get a better understanding of how many citations were needed or any other guidelines along that route and didn't come up with any results. I have 18 citations in the article and would like to know what "a little bit more" actually means. If I add one will that suffice? Does it need to be twenty more? Would love some guidance as I've seen articles with as little as none to a handful published as I was going through conducting edits. Any help would be greatly appreciated so I know as I continue editing this article to get it published and writing others. Thank you! (Caswivel (talk) 10:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Caswivel. Wikipedia article topics need to meet a level of press or other exposure outlined in this section of our main "notability" guideline. Usually, inclusion in the encyclopedia depends on the topic (in this case ENVIRON) having received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. That guideline section I just linked to explains what that means; and our organisation notability guideline goes into more detail about the notability threshold for organisations.

I've just glanced at the results of a Google News archive search and have seen what appears to be deep enough coverage of ENVIRON in independent reliable secondary sources to justify inclusion of this article in Wikipedia.

May I suggest you take a handful of the news items (actual substantial news, not just company announcements) from that Google search result and incorporate a few of them in the article (2 or 3 should be enough), and list a few more in a section titled "More sources" or similar on the article's "talk page". If these sources satisfy the general notability guideline or the organisation notability guideline your article will be relatively safe from ever being deleted. (If it goes live now, with the current list of sources, you're very vulnerable to an editor challenging it's notability and nominating it for deletion.)

Once that's done, it's ready to move into the encyclopedia, and you can continue working on it there, if you like. Your account is more than four days old and has made more than 10 edits so, if this documentation is accurate, you should be able to make that move yourself by clicking "move" at the top of the article page. I've done it a couple of times myself for other articles and from memory it's pretty straightforward but if you want help with that, or, indeed, with anything else, don't hesitate to ask here or at my "talk" page. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthonyhcole - Please do not encourage beginners to circumvent the proper AfC procedures. A simple move from AfC causes many things such as project templating and categorisation to be broken. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not following you Roger. I'll open a thread on the project talk page. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Confusion (2013 film)

The film is releasing on 29th November 2013

Currently at AfD, but IMHO should have been speedied as spam. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Funicular pain

Can you please tell me why the source is not reliable? Med Dude (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source is reliable but one is not enough - we need a few more such sources. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the verifiability page before I wrote this and it just said text needs a reliable source that confirms the material. The textbook I'm using is pretty solid and it says what I wrote (in different terms, of course). http://books.google.com.au/books?id=MqUkfyfMcBIC I can probably find other sources that also say the same but can't understand why I need to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Med Dude (talk • contribs) 18:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Trying to continue work to edit this article and inserting footnotes. I am unable to view the new edits I've made to check them when I go to read. I only see a smaller portion of the article. There is much to learn and I don't quit easily. Thanks for your kind help. Candice Michelle Lopez (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I fixed the thing that was creating your formatting issue. The cause of the problem was one lone space. Howicus (talk) 22:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually, more than that...I'll try to fix it for you. Howicus (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I figured it out...you were missing a bunch of </ref> tags, that go at the end of a reference. The format is <ref>(text of the reference)</ref>. Howicus (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 28

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Allen C. Meadors

Please show me how to footnote this article. It is more than many that on Wikipedia. Very confusing.

Larry Marsen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pointer22 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:Referencing for beginners yet? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Smart Lock

Good morning,

I would like to know why the submission of Smart Lock article was declined. I understand that being these new to the market there are not too many papers about them. Same as with the Chromecast which has already the article there just based on some of the online magazines articles that I post below. I am writing my Master Thesis for the University of Oxford based on these devices and I think Wikipedia should include this term as it's now widely used across the Internet. Wired Magazine and some other well known IT blogs and sources of information are already talking about them.

Some articles that reference Smart locks:

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2013/06/smart-locks/ http://gizmodo.com/are-smart-locks-secure-or-just-dumb-511093690 http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57587475-76/goji-could-lock-down-smart-home-security/ http://www.engadget.com/2013/06/04/goji-smart-lock/ http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/18/goji-is-a-smart-lock-for-your-home-that-has-nothing-to-do-with-berries/

I believe the spirit of the Wikipedia is to keep knowledge up to date and that everyone is able to contribute to it. When Thousands of people read Smart Locks in those well known magazines and blogs or news agencies they will look it up and Wikipedia and I believe it must be disappointing to not be able to find even a brief explanation that is what I tried to publish.

Thank you very much in advance for your time and attention,

Regards,

Mr. Vansan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Vansan (talk • contribs) 10:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is given in the pink Review template. There are no references. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dodger67, would you mind to have a look at the updates I have posted to justify why the article should go through and let me know if there is anything else I could add or modify to be able to get this knowledge out, please?

Thanks again.

--Mr.Vansan (talk) 11:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the references to the article and resubmitted. It was a bit confusing for me as this is my first article in Wikipedia. Thanks a lot for your help and assistance. --Mr.Vansan (talk) 12:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sasha Bezmel

A new editor has requested a review of this draft User:Raintheone/Sasha Bezmel that myself and User:Raintheone were working on. We did not want this, particularly because we haven't finished working on the article (although we're not far off). Can we reverse/remove/delete the review? - JuneGloom Talk 15:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done submission reverted. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 15:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! - JuneGloom Talk 15:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gil Gutierrez

How can I delete references 21-33 for this article as they do not appear when I select edit but are visible in the Read option?

References 3, 4, 6, 13 and 16 have red text that states: Check |url= scheme (help). Do I need to correct this before submitting again?

Should I give a reference for the Discography section as I looked at other wikipedia pages with this section and they did not have a footnote.

I cite two articles that are originally in Spanish but translate. Should these be deleted?

Appreciate the helpful guidance. Candice Michelle Lopez (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Candice Michelle Lopez (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The references 22-33 did appear at the top of the "references" section itself. I have removed them with this edit. (Feel free to revert that if you want to salvage some of those references).

The references 3, 4, 6, 13 and 16 were to the same Examiner.com article. Examiner.com is not a reliable source and is in fact blacklisted on Wikipedia - thus the error message. It should not be used. I have removed those references outright.

The discography should be verifiable in some way. Usually I'd say a link to a discography on AllMusic or Discogs in the "external links" section suffices for that purpose, but I just checked those and they don't have more than a tiny fraction of the discography in the article, even combined.

Foreign-language sources are entirely acceptable. You may want to note the languae, though: The citation template has "langauge=" and "trans_title=" parameters for the original language and a translation of the source's title. Huon (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kanary Diamonds

Hi,

I would like to know why my article continues to be rejected. Because Kanary Diamonds is a very accomplished artist and I would like to know what more I can do to prove the information verifiable. I have been working on this for a while and I don't know what else to do.

Thank you

Aelshi1 (talk) 23:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as articles about Diamonds in newspapers or reputable art magazines. Your references are, in order, an MTV page that's not subject to editorial oversight and likely written by the artist himself (neither independent nor reliable), an interview (not independent), the artist's own website (definitely not independent) and a broken iTunes link (neither independent nor reliable, has a commercial interest in promoting Diamonds). These sources don't suffice to establish that Diamond is notable enough for an article, and they cannot form the basis of an article in the absence of third-party sources. Huon (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 29

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MAGES Institute of Excellence

Hi, after repeatedly trying to submit a Wikipedia Article about 'MAGES Institute of Excellence', the reason for the most recent rejection is 'This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources' whereas all the sites currently referenced are from very reliable sources. Please let me know what the next step of action should be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magic345 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources, evaluated in order -

Self published profile on a website - not independent or reliable
This may be reliable, but it's borderline - it looks almost self-written by the MAGES school, and it doesn't have anyone's name (a reporter, whoever wrote the story, etc.) behind it.
An information page, not significant coverage (maybe a reliable source, depending on what it's used for)
An advert, self made. Not reliable.
Finally, a self made advert.

Thus, we're left with two instances of possibly reliable sources, one of which is nowhere near significant coverage. That's not enough to establish notability by Wikipedia's standards. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 03:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pentecostal Lam Hon Kwong School

This is just a translation of its relevant Chinese version.

Db368 (talk) 03:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a long standing precedent that secondary schools (broadly equivalent to a US high school or a UK grammar school) are considered inherently notable and all is required is a source proving they genuinely exist. The guideline for notability of high schools has more information. I'll pass your article now. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SA-China People's Friendship Association

Hi,

I submitted this article last week and was declined for not adequately supported by reliable sources. But I think I did put a lot of reference onto the page. Could you please tell me that how I can make it be well supported by reliable sources? Thank you! Rider Chou (talk) 07:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of dealer24x7.com

why my page is deleted? how to improve my article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajlcet001singh (talk • contribs) 07:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stalwart111 explained why your page was deleted here. Until you supply significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources, it's unlikely your submission will be passed for the same reasons, I'm afraid. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk: European Biogas Association/Eba2009

Dear, Thank you for the review and comments. Could you please be more specific in terms of what referencing is expected? Thanks again. Eba2009 (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Eba2009Eba2009 (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles or articles in reputable magazines. The Renewable Enery Magazine sources you cite sound like regurgiated press releases and don't report on the company; they only report what the company says about itself. The footnotes are just a collection of primary sources such as conference websites; those cannot help establish that the EBA is notable enough for an encyclopedia article.

If you're associated with the EBA, as your username suggests, you may also want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest. Huon (talk) 22:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/District Councils' Network

I have created a submission currently titled Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/District Councils' Network. It has been reviewed and declined three times with the same explanation, that citations to secondary sources have been added that are entirely independent of the subject.

However in the edit there are citations which are independent of the subject in the article. For example references 1 and 3 in the article are from independent, reliable sources. Local Government Association and New Local Government Network are two independent sources which have been referenced; I do not understand why the article can not be verified with the previous comment as there are independent sources.

I have also had comments stating that the District Councils Network are a non-notable organisation when rejected. The DCN is not a non-notable organisation; they are a body recognised by Central Government in the United Kingdom, they have had evidence noted in government consultations, government ministers regularly attend their events, they are recognised within the Local Goverernment Association and have 199 councils out of 201 subscribed as members of the organisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajidimond (talk • contribs) 12:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May you please review this article again and if declined be specific about why.Ajidimond (talk) 10:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All that "recognition" by other government bodies is exactly the reason why those same bodies' writings are not accepted as Independent sources. Newspapers, magazines and so on, that have no connection to any level of government at all, are the types of sources you need to use. In terms of the special meaning on Wikipedia of the term Notability there isn't necessarily any connection between "importance" and "Notability". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MichieHamlett

Hello, my submission is still not approved for submission. I've been sited to have a conflict of interest. The reviewer says, "Article creator appears to be the receptionist at this law firm." The content of the article for the firm is objective and notes independent references. The article parallels in similarity to other law firm wikipedia articles that have been approved for submission (ex: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen,_Allen,_Allen_%26_Allen). What do I need to do to have this article approved for submission? Thank you. Tbyers (talk) 11:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC) Tasha[reply]

A conflict of interest means it is generally not a good idea to write about a topic. For example, if I suddenly became a notable musician, it would still be a bad idea for me to write an article about yourself. Have a look at An article about yourself is nothing to be proud of for some problems relating to this area. Just because another article exists on Wikipedia, it does not follow that an article should be accepted here, unless perhaps the other article in question is a good or a featured article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gil Gutierrez

Thanks for your guidance on that blacklisted source. One final issue that I need to fix prior to submission can you help me combine references 4. and 6. into a,b and references 3. and 9. into a, b. Appreciate all the help. Candice Michelle Lopez (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have run Citation Bot on the article, which automatically sorts this out, and your references should now be successfully combined. The article would appear to demonstrate that Gutierrez is notable, both with the references presented, and with a quick news search that reveals other news hits not currently used, so I have passed the article. You might want to have a chat with Dr.Blofeld, who is a bit of a musician buff and might be interested in finding further book sources to help get the article all the way up to good article status (we recently collaborated on Paco de Lucía). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strange layout error

In Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/2012 Motocross des Nations why is the Reflist shown above the table? In the actual text is is placed below the table. BTW does an uncontroversial "routine" sport result listing such as this require multiple independent sources like a "proper" article does? AIUI the notability of such a list is established by the "parent article" about the event. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Submitter forgot a closing bracket. It happens to all of us. LionMans Account (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SP Jermain

Trying to insert a photo in my first Wiki page Help please RRRgr333 (talk) 18:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on the photo. Did you take it yourself, and are you willing to release it under a free license such as the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License so that everybody can modify and re-use it for any purpose, including commercial purposes? Has it already been released under such a license by the copyright holder, or is the image so old that its copyright has expired and it's in the public domain? Then you can upload it to the Wikimedia Commons via their Upload Wizard.

If the image is of a deceased person, is copyrighted and not freely licensed, but no free equivalent exists, you can upload it to Wikipedia and claim fair use; use the File Upload Wizard. However, fair use images must only be used in articles, not in drafts, so you'll have to wait with that until the draft has been accepted.

Once it's uploaded, the picture tutorial explains how to add it to the page. Huon (talk) 22:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rutan & Tucker

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rutan & Tucker Can you tell us if we resubmitted this article correctly? It was resubmitted July 18th. Perhaps you are back logged. Want to make sure we did resubmit it properly on our end. Is there a place that we can check that on our end? Thank you very much! Bilder4u (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Bilder4u[reply]

You edited the page on July 18, but you didn't resubmit it. If it's resubmitted there will be a yellow "review waiting" message box. The next time you can use the blue "resubmit" buttons in the "submission declined" message boxes to resubmit the draft; I'll resubmit it for you now. Huon (talk) 22:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bernard Zaslav

Hi,

I am wondering why the article I submitted for the entry "Bernard Zaslav" had been declined...is there something I need to correct or do?

Bernard Zaslav is a well-known viola player in the classical music world; there has recently been a biography published about his long career.

Thank you,

Allan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musiker1 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That draft doesn't cite any sources. Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles or that published biography, and the article should cite those sources. See WP:Referencing for beginners on how to easily create nicely-formatted footnotes. Huon (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Elder ScrollsV part IV: Azaroth(FanFic)

how do I add Links to my characters and their own backgrounds? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonofthelost (talk • contribs) 23:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you really need to add are reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles or reviews in reputable magazines, to establish that this piece of fan fiction is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. To be honest, I don't expect your tale satisfies our notability criteria, which would mean that we shouldn't have an article about it at all.

For help on links, see Help:Link. Huon (talk) 00:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 30

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The parmelia race

I have written this article to replace the existing article "Parmelia Yacht Race" which contains a number of errors, and I also consider the information given is incomplete. The main error is the statement, "The event was the longest ever staged yacht race at the time."

Four "around the world" races were held in the earlier 1970s.

There were 28 starters in the race whereas the existing article says there were 38. Also, some of the media references shown in the existing acrticle also contain some errors; I consider some of them were due to taking some data out of context.

From 1976 to 1979 I was associated with the planning and management of The Parmelia Race and, just recently, I have been helping Royal Perth Yacht Club review their archives pertaining to the race. The "History" section on their web-page contained the "longest ever staged yacht race" statement and they now recognise it was an error, and have removed it. The club's Archivist has read my submission and he has approved it.

Please advise the best way for me to proceed to correct this situation.

--Parmelia (talk) 07:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are two significant problems: 1 - You cannot write a new article to replace an already existing article, you must edit Parmelia Yacht Race. 2 - You can only use material published in independent, reliable sources.

You might want to suggest to the archivist that they get an article containing all the corrections published in a reputable magazine or newspaper - the club's own newsletter/magazine/website won't be acceptable as it is not independent. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected the link to the draft in the heading. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Oral health and dental management

Oral health and dental management is comes under the category of Dentistry and health care journal like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_for_Healthcare_Quality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_and_Human_Rights_Journal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Journal_of_Health_Sciences Dorisaviram (talk) 12:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem with its "category" - the problem is there are not enough references to prove that it is Notable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering

I need to revise my declined page but when I go to edit, my toolbar is missing. How can I get it back? AcochranASCE (talk) 13:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Halima Namakula

I made the changes that was suggested, Can you please see if my article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Halima_Namakula is going to be reviewed, it has the misplaced submission "M" on it and I don't know how to fix it.--DeeAfrican 14:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemdee Kiwanuka (talk • contribs)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Franklin Martin

Good Afternoon. One of My articles was declined, I reedited and have tried to resubmit it. How do I find out where I can re-submit? It might be under Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Franklin Martin.

Thank you!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelsc27 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Lerner Designs

Hi, I created a new article for creation, called David Lerner Designs, and it says that it is a draft and it is not submitted for review. How can I submit it for review? I think it should be good to go except for I am having trouble formatting the sources so that they are cited correctly as the right number (as in, the number after the sentences are good but the sources at the bottom don't match up). Here is my link for the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/David_Lerner_Designs thank you VivianKGomez (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the final line of the box at the top of the draft, "Submit your draft when you are ready for it to be reviewed!" --ukexpat (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did that, and it brings me back to the same page saying that it has not been submitted. Maybe it is getting this submission confused with an older one? (I tried submitting a page "David Lerner (Designer)" that was rejected, and I am now trying to submit a new one "David Lerner Designs" that is about the fashion line instead of about the designer himself. VivianKGomez (talk) 20:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Henry Fry (merchant)

I need help with my brief article on "Henry Fry 1826-1896". I'm a total novice and this is probably the only article I will ever do. Does Wikipedia have writers who can edit articles & insert images & links? (LizAvison (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC))Liz Avison[reply]

I have moved the article to Henry Fry (merchant) - we use descriptions rather than dates to disambiguate. As to your questiosn, we don't have a separate group of "writers", we are all editors! What exactly do you need help with?--ukexpat (talk) 19:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some minor copy editing and formatting, added this article to the Henry Fry disambiguation page and removed the "orphan" tag.--ukexpat (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Champlain College

On November 10, 2012, my proposed article on the now-defunct Champlain College of Plattsburgh, New York, was rejected as not being definitive:

"This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources."

Dear Szentiványi,

The Wikipedia page "User talk:Szentiványi" has been changed on 10 November 2012 by Mephistophelian, with the edit summary: Your submission at Articles for creation (AFCH)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Szentiv%C3%A1nyi&diff=next&oldid=242757455 to view this change. See http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Szentiv%C3%A1nyi&diff=0&oldid=242757455 for all changes since your last visit. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Szentiv%C3%A1nyi for the current revision

To contact the editor, visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mephistophelian

That's rubbish! I cite my own website because that's where the background info. IS! I cite the only published work. There are only two people left alive who attended that Champlain and are knowledgeable about it and promulgate their knowledge; one is Stratis Simon, whose site went down twice and will not be resurrected but will shortly be recreated on MY site, and the other is ME! Mephistophelian's rigid adherence to your complex rules precludes my adding to the vast fund of information that characterizes Wikipedia. You make it FAR too difficult to post entries (or even corrections). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.71.157 (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found three sources in just a few seconds: http://www.sbmonthly.com/?p=1259 - http://www.plattsburgh.com/index.php/viewvideo/4345/our-little-corner/champlain-college-history.html - http://www.plattsburgh.edu/library/specialcollections/files/champlaincollege.pdf

If the information that only you poses is really as valuable as you claim why don't you write a book, or donate it to a library or a local heritage organization so they can publish it?

Please read WP:AGF, your agressive attitude won't work here. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/2036 Summer Olympics

what is wrong with my page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markjr2401 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:CRYSTAL, it is far to soon for such an article.--ukexpat (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article Question Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bonobos (Apparel)

Hello, I'm currently creating a page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bonobos (Apparel) and one of my paragraphs isn't showing up when I finish making edits. When I'm editing the content is there but when I save there it doesn't show up on the page. Do you know what might be the reason for this? Thanks! Rainor12 (talk) 20:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is usually caused by a missing closing ref tag </ref> - check all your references to make sure they are closed properly.--ukexpat (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I checked and in that paragraph the citation is properly closed, could there be another issue? Here's the paragraph:

In 2010, the company received its first institutionally-driven financing round, raising $18.5 million from Accel Partners and Lightspeed Venture Partners. As part of the round, Accel Partners’ Sameer Ghandi and Lightspeed Venture Partners’ Jeremy Liew, joined Bonobos’ board^[1]

Rainor12 (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it... thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainor12 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Enclos

I would like to receive an itemized list of the reasons my submission has been continually denied. I have attributed each piece of information with reputable media sources: Architectural Record, The Architect's Newspaper, and assorted national trade magazines. Each of these directly reference Enclos and the company's notability.

Thanks.

ARCHjunkie (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this editor has been warned on their user talk page about WP:COI and WP:PROMO, since all their edits concern the Enclos firm. This should be taken into account in determining whether the editor's submited article adheres to our WP:NPOV standard. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Articles for creation/Next Generation Ballet

I have NO clue if my page I am trying to create is submitted for review (Next Generation Ballet) can someone please help? I have typed my draft, saved it, and keep trying to submit but it keeps telling me my article is NOT set to be reviewed. Lindsay.kohn (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You had ended some of your references with <ref> tags instead of </ref>; everything afterwards was interpreted as part of one big, never-ending footnote. I fixed that; the draft is now submitted for review. By the way, if your sources are web sources, you should provide links. Huon (talk) 03:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 31

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/West Brook Wines

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/West Brook Wines Article declined, but I see no comments as to why? I created the article because the winery was referenced in another article with no link. Also, the article on New Zealand Wine pretty much completely ignores the founders of the New Zealand wine industry, which were mostly the Croatian immigrants of the 1920's and 30's, and the local industry they built in Auckland through to the 1970's. I had hoped to start putting together some skeleton articles on these historical wine producers and link them into the main New Zealand Wine entry.

capnjimnzCapnjimnz (talk) 01:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was declined because it cited but a single third-party source, a local newspaper article. (The other sources are the winery's own website.) That's not enough to establish that the winery is notable by Wikipedia's standards. You'll need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles (and not just the local paper) or a book on the history of New Zealand wineries published with a reputable publisher. Huon (talk) 03:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Abernethy

Hi,

I submitted an article just recently and was wondering how I could improve it so it is approved? I know this guy is notable as he is in the Australian media (print and online newspapers) very often, especially in finance and investing.

Matthewtt (talk) 05:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Ravi Sinha.

HI

Its not getting accepted.

Please let me know the exact reason and how to overcome.

regards gaurav

Gauravshrinivas (talk) 08:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^ Wei, William. "The Story Of Bonobos: Turning Good-Looking Pants Into A $15 Million Company In Three Years". Business Insider. Retrieved 18 July 2013.

[1] Wei, William. "The Story Of Bonobos: Turning Good-Looking Pants Into A $15 Million Company In Three Years". Business Insider. Retrieved 18 July 2013.

[1]

@@ Line 460: / Line 460: @@
 [[User:Matthewtt|Matthewtt]] ([[User talk:Matthewtt|talk]]) 05:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
+== Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Ravi Sinha. ==
+HI
+Its not getting accepted.
+Please let me know the exact reason and how to overcome.
+regards
+gaurav
+[[User:Gauravshrinivas|Gauravshrinivas]] ([[User talk:Gauravshrinivas|talk]]) 08:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)