Main page

Talk page

Submissions
Category, List, 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

May 16

Review of Draft:Essaï Altounian

Can you please tell me why me article was declined?

Aniina21 (talk) 03:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Aniina21:

Declined "Reads like an essay, poor formatting, no inline citations. Needs a bit of work on it." I declined it a second time for good measure. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/iThEC

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/iThEC This is the very first article I've ever written in Wikipedia so I'm not at all sure I dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's. Why does the box "Draft article not currently submitted for review." appear at the top? I already clicked twice the "Submit your draft when you are ready for it to be reviewed!" button. Thanks for your time, Czkraal (talk) 08:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

viktoriya ananyan

i would highly appreciate an article about ballet dancer Viktoriya Ananyan because she deserves it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.132.125.135 (talk) 12:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had a very quick look around for reliable sources that discuss Ananyan in detail, and could find very little, even in the Dutch language. So possibly she is not yet notable enough by Wikipedia's standards for there to be an article about her. However, if you can find such sources, or reliable sources that confirm that she meets Wikipedia:CREATIVE, you could list the sources in an entry at Wikipedia:Requested articles. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Re: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Altared I recieved a message that the article was not accepted, and it stated “…Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission…” Please help: Where do I find this? Who is the reviewer? Where are the comments? Please advise. Thank you.Contributor4376 (talk) 12:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Altared Re: “Altared” article rejected - Hello; I read the reviewer comments from "FoCuSandLeArN", and the notability/verifiable rules, and it seems that my article has met the criteria. There are hundreds of articles on Wikipedia of bands that have lesser notability and verifiability. Please advise. Thank you, Contributor4376 Contributor4376 (talk) 12:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sonoma Barracks

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sonoma Barracks Please remove the draft from the review queue I’ve revised ‘Presidio of Sonoma’ to incorporate the additional information. Thank you. Dean95452 (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Too late, I reviewed and accepted it a few hours ago. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like this has caused any problems, but a few more eyes on both articles would be appreciated. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Matt Katz-Bohen

Hi! Would you please look at my Wikipedia draft article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Matt_Katz-Bohen

And I have created a Talk page for it where I walk through the ways that Matt is indeed a notable musician. Thank you!

````Michelle```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michelle.Shinn (talk • contribs) 16:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please resubmit it and I'll accept it (it will still need a lot of work though). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Kankaraj sarma/sandbox

how session start in php?--Kankaraj sarma (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)--Kankaraj sarma (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kankaraj sarma. This page is only for questions about submissions to Wikipedia through the articles for creation process. You can try asking your question at the computing reference desk. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 20:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Beny Tchaicovsky

I would like to learn if the article I wrote about an artist bio is ready to be reviewed and accepted. I have been working on it and learning how to create a wikipedia article. I would really appreciate to get a feedback about this article which is waiting to be reviewed. I would like to know if there are mistakes I need to correct further? it has been a learning process since I started working on it in February, researching and noting all the 3rd part references to this artist's achievement. Thank you for your feedback in advance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Melitta2012/sandbox Melitta 21:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melitta2012 (talk • contribs)

To editor Melitta2012: One problem that is still there is external links. According to Wikipedia's guideline on external links, they should not be used within the main text of the article. Some of the links can be transformed into footnotes. It's okay to have a sentence like this: "His paintings have been exhibited in France,^[1] Germany,^[2] Brazil^[3] and the United States^[4]." Links to his work should be removed. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 20:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 17

Help

I was reviewing your response and was wondering exactly how do I prove the content in the article, and avoid copyright infringement upon a book. I was planning on building this article over time as I won't be able to do it all at once because of time constraints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superhero97 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Superhero97. Essentially, you write the article in your own words and cite your sources. The most common and "technologically advanced" way to cite your sources is to use footnotes, those little numbers:.^[1]

The unoffical two-step guide to footnotes:

Right after some information that comes from a specific source, add the code <ref>[Source information here]</ref> The source information should include title, author, date, publisher, and so on. If you want, you can use citation templates in the source information to make a consistent format automatically.
```
Some information you got from a book.<ref>[A book]</ref> Something you got from another book.<ref>[Another book]</ref>
```
At the end of the article, add the code {{reflist}} in a new section called "References":
```
== References ==
{{reflist}}
```

Reply if you have any more questions. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 20:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm afraid I'm a bit confused. I submitted an article:Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joan Walsh Anglund At the top of the page is the statement, "Article not currently submitted for review." At the bottom of the page it states, "Review waiting." Have I actually submitted my article, or is it sitting in limbo? Please let me know so that I can submit it correctly. Thank you so very much. Tony Davies (jwafan)Jwafan (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jwafan. Don't worry, it is submitted. To avoid any further confusion, I've removed the "not currently submitted" notice and moved the "review waiting" notice to the top.

While you're waiting, you can continue improving the article. You should definitely cite more sources to show notability; otherwise it is likely to be declined. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 20:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Your submission name here Catherine Burks-Brooks

I need to know why my submission was declined please i need this for a school assignment Eatienza1 Eatienza1 (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note, submission is at User:Eatienza1/sandbox.

Articles for Creation submissions can take a very long time to get reviewed, for example a month. There is also no guarantee of the article being accepted when it is reviewed. So this is not an ideal task for a school assignment. You may wish to give whoever is marking the assignment the direct internet link (some neophytes call it a "shortcut") to the work you have done, which is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eatienza1/sandbox

In the meantime you could read WP:CHEATSHEET and WP:REFB for how to improve the layout of your submission. It would also benefit from additional reliable sources to help demonstrate the notability of the person. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Communication Challenges with Agile distributed Virtual teams

What does it mean when an article is rejected because "it reads more like an essay than a Wikipedia article?" What corrections do I need to make to it to make it better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Precious745 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles should be a balanced synthesis of what authoritative sources have said about the subject. If your article contains your own opinion, or opinions/arguments that haven't been widely expressed elsewhere, it is likely to be rejected as 'essay-like'. Because I can't find the draft you refer to, I can't really comment specifically than that. Hope that helps! Sionk (talk) 10:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 18

Review of Cornforth - Profile

Hi, I am most curious about why my article submission was declined. It was done to link with the information you have about the Makaton Vocabulary and my involvement at its' inception.

Many thanks for your assistance in this matter. Anthony Cornforth (Tony) --Acornforth (talk) 12:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acornforth (talk • contribs) 12:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your article could have been declined for several reasons, in all honesty. It is unsourced (all Wikipedia articles need to be verifiable). Also (as the current decline reason says) it does not explain why the subject (YOU) is 'notable'. Autobigraphies are strongly discouraged on Wikipedia, I'm afraid. This one seems to be nothing more than, dare I say, a life story of an unremarkable person. If you have achieved something remarkable, or widely recognised, then this will need to be described and well-sourced. Sionk (talk) 10:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

can you please explain me why my article got rejected ? and what al modifications have to done after resubmitting it. please detail it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bibingt (talk • contribs) 16:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm presuming your article is an autobiography. These are strongly discouraged. In this instance, your only source is your own website. Wikipedia isn't a place for everyone to write profiles about themselves. Subjects need to be important and/or widely known. Sionk (talk) 10:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:1stArtHistorian/sandbox

Hello,

I'm trying to improve an article I wrote titled Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paul Kuniholm Pauper.

I want to learn how to logon to live help chat as well.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paul Kuniholm Pauper

Thanks,

1stArtHistorian 1stArtHistorian (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Julie de Libran

Hello, I submitted for review an article about a fashion designer yesterday: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Julie de Libran but at the top of the page I still see the message "Article not currently submitted for review." Can you please confirm that my article has joined the long list of articles waiting for review? Also, do you recommend only citing sources in english language magazines or newspaper or does it make sense to cite foreign medias too? Thank you so much for your help! Best, MichelleMlevlev (talk) 19:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Draft:Julie de Libran has been submitted for review (see the yellow review box at the bottom of the page). It may be a while before someone looks at it, there's a long queue at the moment. Good luck! Sionk (talk) 10:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, Seeking advice on how to improve Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paul Kuniholm Pauper and resubmit. Article on artist who has been exhibited in several museums, written about in museum catalogs and elsewhere in the press. Photos of artist by credentialed press such as Ericka Schultz (Seattle Times) and Jen Graves (The Stranger). Hoping these references are adequate to support article. 1stArtHistorian 19:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1stArtHistorian (talk • contribs)

Hi ArtHistorian, unfortunately your article isn't great at the moment and, if I was reviewing it, I would decline it because of a lack of independent, reliable proof and its promotional nature. Wikipedia articles need to be be based primarily on news/magazine/book sources which are independent of the subject. Your article seems to be primarily based on museum/gallery websites and publications which aren't independent or neutral. On top of all that, the article is riddled with non-neutral, promotional art-speak, more suitable for a promotional artist press pack than a Wikipedia encyclopedia article. I'd recommend you get back to basics, writing a simple, neutral article based on the couple of news articles/reviews you have found. Good luck! Sionk (talk) 11:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nugra Salman Prison

Hi, i have submitted an article (nugra salman) very famous prison notorious political prison in south iraq, i was a prisoner there with my family when i was only 6 years old. However the article declined and i was disappointed. Any advice on how to make this submission successful? Many thanks . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariwan27 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mariwan27: The declination by LukeSurl explained why it was declined; you should read that.

Let me give you my two cents: first, you make claims like Nugra Salman being "the most notorious desert prison in Iraq" and "The heat in the prison was overpowering". Both of those might be true but you don't properly source those assertions. You list a few general references, only a couple of which are reliable. I recommend sticking to sources like PBS, The New York Times, The LA Times, and The Chicago Tribune and stay away from other websites. When listing books like Gendered Experiences of Genocide, you need to provide page numbers for other editors to examine. WP:CITE discusses this. There also appears to be a potential neutrality issue since this is a point of contention with Kurds. Regardless of what did or did not happen there, Wikipedia seeks unbiased coverage not inflammatory invective.

The onus is on you to prove to us that your submission meets our criteria. Nugra Salman prison is an actual place and it perhaps ought to be written about. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 19

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mdrake3

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mdrake3 Hello, I am having trouble posting an article, George Brooks, to Wikipedia. What am I doing wrong? What do I need to do right? Thank you.Mdrake3 (talk) 03:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi

I recently created an article that was rejected. There was no explanation as to why? If possible could someone point me in the right direction I need to take for re-submission or possibility's as to why it was rejected.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Penshurst_Victoria/sandbox

The article is at the above link

Thank You

Penshurst Victoria — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penshurst Victoria (talk • contribs) 06:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Peter_Olsson_(Motorsports_driver)

We would like to get some information up about Olsson's expertise in chiropractic care. He has run a successful practice in Bedford UK for almost a decade now and can provide copies of his qualifications and multiple patient testimonials - but unfortunately hasn't been interviewed in local press or anything about it - so it's a little difficult to provide the types of citations we would like to provide.

What would we need to provide to include a few sentences about his practice? Thanks for any guidance you can provide. Mstephens01 (talk) 06:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We do not permit this encyclopedia to be used for marketing and promotion of a medical practice or anything else. To whom does the "we" in the prior post refer, anyway? --Orange Mike | Talk 11:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hussein Sabbour

Please I need to know why my article is declined while I am writing about a very notable character in Egypt who constructed many famous projects in Egypt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FAcebook88 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your article was deleted four times, which suggests the community are generally not satisfied that the person is as notable as you think. For comparison of a subject who we do think is notable in Egypt and has designed famous projects, have a look at William Willcocks, who designed the Aswan Low Dam. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The spelling of Tzemach Feldstein was changed to Cemach which is incorrect. I changed everything back to the correct spelling of "Tzemach". I was not able to change the spelling in the article header. Would you please do it so that the article is correct? respectfully js luterman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luterman (talk • contribs) 12:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft:The American Association of Anthropological Genetics

I recently received the following comments on the rejection of a Wikipedia page that I authored.

"Though the organization is notable, the article is written as a press release, and was probably copied from a previously ublished source. We already have an on their journal Human biology (journal)--consider expanding it, and restricting this article draft to the information about the Society as such."

I am new to Wikipedia authoring, so I am not sure how to edit the page the address the concerns raised. First, I am not sure what is meant by "written as a press release." I have never written a press release or a Wikipedia page, so I am not sure how they should differ from one another. Any feedback I can get on this would be helpful.

Second, I assume the reviewed was trying to say that the article was "copied from a previously ublished>>>unpublished source." This is simply not true, so I am not sure how to fix that. I was interested in writing an article about the organization, so I contacted two of the founding members to ask them questions and get suggestions from them on further reading. I combined these sources with my own firsthand knowledge as a member of the non-profit science organization.

Last, the reviewer suggests expanding on the Human biology (journal), but I am not sure why. They are connecting organizations, but also separate entities.

This is my first Wikipedia page and I am very excited to improve it to meet the reviewers expectations. Any advice or feedback would be most appreciated. AJGenetics (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)AJGenetics[reply]

@AJGenetics: I'd like to clarify: the wording sounds promotional, as if it were a press release. Often that sort of content is copied from somewhere else. It is as likely that you are too close to the subject and wrote this content yourself. I did notice the sentence "Annual AAAG meetings are held in conjunction with the annual meetings of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists (AAPA)" is copied from anthgen.org unless they copied from Wikipedia. Citing content does not excuse violating copyright. The article's wording is too flowery and the detail is unnecessary. Without many independent, reliable sources, much of that content should simply be cut. The recommendation is that you merge content about the association into the article about the journal until there's enough to be spun-off into a separate article. Finally, the association doesn't have a definite claim to any notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hilco Global

Hello, I recently submitted an article about Hilco Global for review and it was flagged as advertising. I am unsure why this happened and would like some explanation as to why this has occurred and possible how to fix it. We have found that many of Hilco's competitors are on wikipedia and we tried to use a similar template to draft our article. please advise at your earliest convenience. Thank you!

BenHilco (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)Ben[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Polacheck's Jewelers

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Polacheck's Jewelers[edit] Hi! I am new to Wiki, and I'm not sure how long the review process takes for articles? I think it's been stuck in articles for creation for some time now. Also, when i created the account, I thought that I was supposed to create the account under the article name, not my own. My email address is correct in there, but I can't change the username.

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Polacheck's_Jewelers 207.178.218.34 (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)RH

You will need to add references showing that the business has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. See Wikipedia:VRS for more information on this requirement. Once you have done so, you could resubmit the page for consideration by putting {{AFC submission}} at the top of it. There was previously a Resubmit button on the page, but you removed it in one of your edits. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

hi! i made the requested changes, can you let me know if there is anything else i need to do or if it's approved?

Review of User:GreenLips/sandbox

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bill Haney

Need some help - trying to help an ex-client (currently retired) get posted. No- I am NOT doing this for money or pay. Just trying to get a guy on Wiki that should definitely be there. He's been involved as an author, publisher, or project mngr with over 200 books.

Also pinging User:Aggie80 to reply here please. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pinged! See Talk The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for yours. I take the blame for giving people the impression that there is money being exchanged or that Mr. Haney is still an "active" client. He has been retired for some years now. That doesn't stop me from admiring him and being grateful for his mentorship to our company. He simply loves books and we create books. He has shared his vast knowledge, experience and to some degree, contacts with us all free of charge and out of the goodness of his heart and as previously mentioned, his love of books. Thanks again. GreenLips (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GreenLips (talk) 15:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft:Daniel James Brown

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Daniel James Brown

I've edited the submission for author Daniel James Brown in response to reviewer's Chris Troutman's feedback. Please verify that the second version has been correctly uploaded. The message for the initial submission is on the top of the page after the second submission, making me unsure if the second version uploaded properly. How are edited resubmissions handled? Do they go to the end of the queue? to the original reviewer?

Thanks for your help. I'll get the hang of this.

Granitedesk (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They just go into the queue, not in any particular location or order, and anyone who wants to can review them.

I have this question, or comment, for you. Barnes and Noble is a bookseller, right? If so, how is their comment about this person's work of any use in proving the notability of this person, based on what you have already been told? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Turkish Philanthropy Funds

Hi, According to the reviews since I have last submitted the post, there has been corrections and new edits to the article that we have written. I would like to ask if the article will be submitted for submission and if there are any edits that need to be made in the meantime.

Thanks, Ipek Ib598 (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 20

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jasson Austin

Please help me to improve this article.

Shoneeee (talk) 05:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:SANTABABES/sandbox

SANTABABES (talk) 10:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)SANTABAESSANTABABES (talk) 10:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hugo Chavez (1954-2013)]]

We already have an article about Hugo Chávez - you are welcome to help improve it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the sandbox has been deleted as a copyvio. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected again

Please can you explain why this has been rejected yet again, despite it being exactly the same format as this entry - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armaguard

Thanks

Armagard (talk) 11:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent reviewer of Draft:Armagard Limited declined it because the references do not establish the subject's notability. The reviewer never mentioned "format". The existing article you refered to is a very poor example - I expect it to be deleted soon. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and so it has been DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The two sources shown are from independent publications highlighting Armagard's award-winning status. If these are not satisfactory please could you tell us what is as the notability section and other 'helpful' resources are unclear.

Thanks.

@Armagard: You can disagree if you like but it's not up to you. You have essentially one source, the British Chamber of Commerce. The two URLs are both from that organization and about the same Thursday 28 November 2013 award. Any Chamber of Commerce is really only reliable for the awards they hand out as they're in the business of promoting business. Add reliable sources in order to meet notability criteria or the general notability guideline. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bo Barry

Can you tell me why the above referenced submission was declined? 68.40.41.10 (talk) 11:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the review? It's the pink box at the top of the page. There is an additional review comment below the box. A number of links to useful guide pages are included in the review - please follow those links. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons in the decline template are very general, and the guide pages they make reference to are extremely extensive and detailed instructions, that are applicable to related problems in many different types of articles. I assume that if someone comes here they want advice specific to their actual article, and we ought to be prepared to provide it, rather than just send them back again to what apparently they did not adequately understand. The very purpose of this help page is to offer personal advice.

More specifically, we need references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases. The existing references are from a not-very-reliable newsletter, the advertising site he himself developed, the same site in the form of a newsletter on Facebook, and his own twitter. If what he has done is notable , there will be better sources that are truly independent of him, such as newspapers or trade magazinesIf you can find them, add them and resubmit the article. If not, there's no possibility of an article at this time. DGG ( talk ) 16:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Martin Watier (May 17)

I would like to know what I have to do for my submission to be accepted. What kind of references should I add? Thank You.Danie Roy (talk) 14:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The criterion is multiple significant roles. See WP:ENTERTAINER Some of the roles listed would be sufficient if he were the actor , not just the voice actor. In practice, articles about voice actors usually need to show that the specific contributions have been recognized by a major award, or by articles in major publications discussing him. It is possible that the cinemaniax article might do so, but it seems to be a dead link. DGG ( talk ) 18:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Martone Cycling Company

Did you read the sources I put down? They talk about the basket and the chain as a brand signature. I did not elaborate or use any sales terminology. There is no subjective language whatsoever in the article. I was very careful to phrase nothing in the article as it might be in an advertisement. If the article needs more sources, there are hundreds, but I didn't want there to be more lines of sources than there were lines of text. The company IS notable because it has been featured in dozens of newspapers, blogs, and magazines. It is also the ONLY bicycle brand (that I know of) in the niche that it occupies: high-design. Please, tell me exactly what needs to change to get this article accepted. I don't think the reviewers looked at the sources or did any research on their own to confirm the "notability." I basically just said, This is a bike company. It started here. You can recognize it by such and such. The colors are etc. How is that an advertisement? NickMartone (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has been questioned as to whether it's the best way to do things, but at present, reviewers are not required to do research of their own to establish a subject's notability. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the problem is sources. Looking at them, the first is essentially a press release, followed by some comments, not a full product review, in Huffington Post, a source we consider less than fully reliable. The second is a press release-product notice The third is another press release. The fourth, from Elle is an interview with him where the editor let him say whatever he wanted to: in other words, pure publicity. However, it does show that a reputable mainstream magazine thought him worthy of coverage. The fifth is another press release/product notice.

The requirement for references is that they provide substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. None of them really do that--they are minor notices, based upon press releases, or, in the case of the interview, not truly independent.

If the article were submitted to mainspace, it would be nominated for a AfD discussion, and the consensus would probably be to delete it. What you need is at least one better source: a full review, or an article about the company. DGG ( talk ) 17:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that the submission might have better been rejected under the "notability" (companies) criterion, rather than as an advertisement. Would be interested to know if DGG agrees... though I accept it doesn't make a huge difference since both decline reasons provide similar links (but different emphasis).

The one aspect that did seem overtly promotional was the use of the near-meaningless phrase "design-oriented". It may mean something to marketing people, but it means nothing to encyclopedia editors. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

actually, yes. The reason I gave was exactly the notability criterion. The article was not primarily or greatly promotional, but basically descriptive, and should not have been rejected on that grounds. Describing a good product does tend to promote it to those interested, but this cannot be avoided if we are to have articles on products or companies--we have to say what they are or what they make. The test is whether the amount of detail is so great as to be only relevant to a prospective purchaser. For example, in this case, if they had described indetail the different models. The description of the different colors might be viewed as somewhat promotional. The product is described in the references as appealing more to fashion than to practicality, and it would not be unreasonable to have indicated that in the article.

As for the amount of explanation needed, if someone asks why the sources aren't sufficient, we have to explain why, which means looking at the sources. In fact, we should do that before rejecting/accepting an article in the first place--because otherwise, how can we say that they do or do not support notability? What we don't normally do at AfC unless we want to is look for additional sources ourself-- though I point out that in listing for deletion at AfD or prod or speedy, we are strongly advised though not absolutely required to do just that--see WP:BEFORE. DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft:Moodie Black

Hello,

I received an email that my article, wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Moodie Black, submitted for review, had been revised. It seems that article is still awaiting review, however. I just want to know if all is well with my article and that it is still in queue for review. Thank you. Jhiatus3 (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Jhiatus3[reply]

Yes this draft is awaiting review. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Avers (band)

Hi was wondering why the page I wanted to create titled Avers (band) was declined? Biancaalexia (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Biancaalexia. This submission was declined because it was blank; you had not entered or saved any text or references. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article about myself was declined. Why? I am verified on IMDB and other interne t sources. Can you tell me what I did wrong? Michael Daevid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uspinme2 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Writing an article about yourself is discouraged, as explained in Wikipedia:AUTOBIO. A likely difficulty is that Wikipedia does not consider IMDB a reliable source. We have a notability guideline for actors at Wikipedia:NACTOR, so any article would need to demonstrate how you pass that guideline using independent reliable sources. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 21

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

Russian text removed, but some of the links are unavoidably russian.

E Guano (talk) 00:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some "cleaning up" of WT:Articles for creation/Anatoliy Lesnikov however the "Prizes and Awards" section needs to be changed quite a bit - it would be best if you could list each award on a separate line. Please clarify what "( rezh.Ya.Lapshin )" and other similar text in the section mean - "rezh." is obviously and abbreviation of a Russian word that needs to be translated. Another unclear part is: "Graduated from the All-Union State Institute of Cinematography, Faculty operator (1977)." What does "Faculty operator" mean? Is it a type of degree or diploma? If you can clarify and fix these problems the draft will probably be acceptable. BTW I found no Russian wikilinks in the article, only one reference in Russian so that is not a problem. In general it needs more references - most of the sections have none at all. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft:Supersingular Isogeny Key Exchange

Hello,

I submitted an article for creation a while ago and the submission was declined 12 days ago. The comment was that the article needed a layman's description of the material as an introduction. I have added that introduction as suggested by the editor and resubmitted it. Was I supposed to bring the changes to the attention of the editor who requested the changes? How would I do that.

Thanks,

Carvalho1988 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carvalho1988 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carvalho1988. In general there is no particular need to inform the editor who originally declined the draft article; the draft is now awaiting another review, so it might get its second review from the same editor, or it might get it from a different editor. If you did want to leave a message for the editor that originally declined it, you could do so at User talk:Hasteur. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Carvalho1988: I'm not comfortable with the technical aspects of the content so I've asked for help from WikiProject Computer Science and WikiProject Cryptography. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fiona Kotur (Marin)

Hi everyone! I'm glad that my submission was reviewed. However, would like to know what part have to be improved to have it accepted. Have a nice day! Kotur (talk) 05:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kotur. Your submission actually seems to be at Draft:Fiona Kotur (Marin). It looks in fairly good shape, though I have not looked into the references in detail. Probably the most important thing to do now is to sort out the references. Please refer to Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for how to do this. If you have any problems, please come back to us and we'll try and see where you're having difficulty. Once the references are sorted out, you should be fine to resubmit this draft for another review. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for creation/AM10001/ Definition of a practice manager

Hi, I am trying to add an article. First I was told it wasn't notable and I needed more references. Then my colleague added references and the whole article was deleted from my sandbox because it infringed copyright. Was this because a different computer was used? I then found a similar article on General Manager with a number of category sub headings under it such as Hotel and Sport , so I edited that to add a new sub heading, Healthcare, which fitted my article. Now that has completely disappeared as well. What should I be doing? AM10001 (talk) 06:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AM10001. Remember that you can click View History to see what edits have been made to an article, and the edit summaries explaining why. In this case your addition to General manager was removed in this edit with the edit summary "nowhere does it say general manager".

I can't see the content of your deleted sandbox, but at Wikipedia:COPYPASTE it is explained that you cannot copy and paste material from other websites (or books) directly into Wikipedia unless the material is explicitly licensed with a license acceptable to Wikipedia. Instead, you should summarise the sources in your own words. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stigol LLC

Hello! Can you say when review period will be finished, because the month is passed. Maybe I have to correct something or if everything is OK, can you check again? thank you a lot! Miatanton (talk) 09:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This submission has been declined; please see the reasons and links on the submission page itself for the reasons why and how to improve it. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk: Pierre Bergian /Rosannarobertson

Hi - I wondered what I need to change in my article to get it published? Does it help if I link (?) all of the words such as 'Belgium' and other words that have a Wikipedia article about them already?

are there notes from the reviewer as to how I should change the article?

Many thanks in advance, RosieRosannarobertson (talk) 11:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rosannarobertson - I took a quick look at Draft:Pierre Bergian and the first big red flag I saw was that in the first sentence you mention the galleries that represent the subject - complete with "references" to their respective websites. That just shouts "Advert!" Move the mention of the "representatives" much further down - or leave it out entirely - it's not particularly relevant to an encyclopedia article. The external links list is also far too long and many of the links look "spammy" too. Trim it down to only the subject's own website - which no doubt contains links to galleries and exhibitions anyway. As far as adding WP:Wikilinks yes you could do so, but don't overlink - common words, countries and well known major cities don't need links. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft:Oiles Corporation

Why was my submission rejected? Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Oiles Corporation thanks 64.208.153.193 (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@64.208.153.193: See WP:NOTADVERTISING. Also, you have no reliable sources. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zdenek Hanka

Hi - I would like to check the status of an article I submitted for review in April. I understand there's a backlog, but the status pane shows that the article is not currently submitted for review, but at the bottom it shows that it is. Can you please advise? The article I'm referring to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Zdenek_Hanka Zdenek Hanka.

Thank you very much - I appreciate your response. Sincerely, Zuzana Wilcox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuziwiki (talk • contribs) 16:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Zuziwiki:

Declined Your submission has no reliable sources and fails to meet WP:AUTHOR, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:GNG. The matching article on Czech Wikipedia is itself marked for cleanup. Per WP:CIRCULAR, the Czech article can't be used as a reference, either. Finally, puffery like "He masterfully blends mystery and suspense with everyday life, creating a captivating form of fiction" is ridiculous. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have just received notice (from Chris Troutman) that my submitted article has been declined due to an apparent lack of sources verifying the subject's notability. In the original submission I included links to the author's published works, publishers (legitimate and well known in the Czech Republic), as well as links to interviews on national radio, blogs and readership websites, etc. An identical Wikipedia entry exists on Czech Wikipedia (where it clearly meets the 'notability' criteria), so it seems unfair that the same content does not suffice for English entry. The lack of English sources about this aouthor is precisely the reason why we are hoping for publication on your Wikipedia site - the author is hoping to publish and distribute in Canada, but without an English-language entry at a respectable site such as Wikipedia, it is tough to approach publishers. Please advise what information you are looking for, specifically, I hope you can help. Sincerely, Zuzana — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.177.43.70 (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@206.177.43.70 and Zuziwiki: "we are hoping for publication on your Wikipedia site - the author is hoping to publish and distribute in Canada, but without an English-language entry at a respectable site such as Wikipedia, it is tough to approach publishers" Who's "we" ? If you're working for a publisher, trying to advertise for this author then you should just quit now. Read my initial response above as your claim "An identical Wikipedia entry exists on Czech Wikipedia (where it clearly meets the 'notability' criteria)" is patently false. Keep talking and I'll nominate the Czech-language article for deletion. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, I was simply asking for guidence, since I know Wikipedia to be a platform for learning. There's no need to threaten me with deleting the author's article - it was published and serves his European audiences, 'marked for cleanup' as it may be. I'm not advertising for a publisher or anyone else - I'm a reader and the author's supporter living in Canada, and believe his popular works, some now translated into English, should be shared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.177.43.70 (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zuzana. A good start in improving the article would be to remove all of the "blog", "blogspot" and Wikipedia sources as references. Then see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners to see how to format the remaining sources as inline citations while also providing information about their content, instead of just having them as bare URLs. It would then be easier for reviewers to see which of the sources are reliable and independent, and which of them support which statements in your draft. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi, I was just wondering why my article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Society Brand Hat Company was not approved.

Thanks!

Pete

Petewilliams1987 (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pete. It seems Draft:Society Brand Hat Company has been declined as "This submission is not suitable for Wikipedia. Please read 'What Wikipedia is not' for more information", but it is not clear to me that this is an appropriate decline reason in this case - Wikipedia, does, after all, contain articles about companies that previously existed. Perhaps User:JustBerry could comment.

However, the references provided do not presently suffice to prove the importance of the company. So for example one of your references is merely a 20th century newspaper that happened to contain a job advert for the company, and another seems not to mention the company by name at all. The sources provided need to not merely confirm that the company existed and did business, but also to establish its importance and significance - and that independent reliable sources wrote about it in detail. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely, that's the reason why I declined; agreed. Please ping me (including mentioning User:JustBerry) or leave me a talkback on my page in the event you have any further questions/issues you would like to clarify with me regarding the submission review. --JustBerry (talk) 06:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 22

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jinisys Software Inc.

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia, my draft article has been declined. Please help me figure out how to improve my submission. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jinisys_Software_Inc.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordzden (talk • contribs) 02:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lordzden, please see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for how to add references to independent reliable sources that support the statements in your article and also demonstrate why the company is important or significant. Suitable sources in this case might be articles in newspapers or major online news sites (not press release sites) about the company. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft:Azhar Sabri

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Azharsabri — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabriimam (talk • contribs) 05:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sabriimam. I have declined this submission. Please see the notes and links on the submission page itself for the reasons why. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Re Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/R King Crawford I have been acting with permission on behalf of a friend who is not computer-savvy - Australian artist Robert King Crawford - in order for him to be listed by Wikipedia. I would have thought the submitted references confirm notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcus Of Oz (talk • contribs) 06:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Marcus. There are a number of problems with that submission. First, Wikipedia articles should describe their subjects dryly and factually. They should not consist mainly of lengthy quotations from the subject. You could take a look at some recognised Wikipedia Good Articles about artists at Wikipedia:Good articles/Art and architecture#Artists and architects to get an idea of this.

Secondly, the sources provided are not specific enough to prove the individual's notability. For example, we know from your submission that the Herald Sun mentioned him in its 20th May 2005 edition, but we don't know what it said about him. And we don't know which of the statements in your submission can be verified by checking that May 20th piece. See Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for how to better lay out and clarify your references.

If the five publications you mention all had full-page articles about him, he's almost certainly notable by Wikipedia's standards. If they only had brief mentions, it's possible he isn't. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Aytaj-BIF/sandbox

Dear Wikipedia Team,

I have submitted an article about a project that my organization together with other with other partners implemented. it got rejected. The project might be interesting for people to seek to know about smart specializations and regional development. Most partners are non-profits and the project is sponsored by European Commission,

Could you please inform me why it got rejected? Wikipedia page is one our project outcomes. Please help.

Aytaj— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aytaj-BIF (talk • contribs)

User:Aytaj-BIF/sandbox was rejected for the reasons given at the top of that page. Please see the reasons there and click the links included for more information. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Aytaj-BIF: Also, WP:NOBLE. It's not an issue if you represent a non-profit or a corporation; Wikipedia is not here to represent anyone and neither should you. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Welcome Chinese

Hello, Please, let me know why the submission of my article has been declined.

ThanksHeavyRiff (talk) 08:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:JustBerry, could you clarify your review of User:HeavyRiff/sandbox/Welcome Chinese please? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft:Matt Young (Actor)

I was just wondering why my article was rejected and what I can do/ improve to get it accepted please 124.170.103.41 (talk) 10:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NicholeConolly and 124.170.103.41: Your submission doesn't appear to meet WP:NACTOR, so you'll need more reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jack Womer

I have submitted a well written article about Jack Womer, a well known veteran and hero of World War II.I have no idea why my article keeps getting rejected, except that it may have something to do with the format in which a reference is cited. Can someone please explain to me specifically why my article continues to be rejected, and exactly what I need to do to get it right? I am an accomplished author with over forty publications, but I am new to submitting articles to Wikipedia and I find Wikipedia's instructions and requirements for article submissions to be confusing. Thank you. Steve DeVito Scdevito (talk) 11:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scdevito - I have reverted the latest incorrect review - the draft does comply with the inline citation requirement. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Condense 'AfC decline' banners

Is there any way to condense the 'AfC decline' banners. One article I've done some work on (Draft:RepRisk) has three banners. If the banners could be shrunk (at least the older ones) in some way that would be great. May via collapse and expand, a method similar to Template:WikiProjectBannerShell would be ideal (in my opinion). Jonpatterns (talk) 11:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello! I had a query, if I wanted to make a page english and french, how would I go about it? For example, I have just created an English page, however I also want to make it readable for a French audience - how would I go about doing this?

Look forward to hearing from you, Kyla — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylajwoods (talk • contribs) 13:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ivy Ross

hi there, an article i submitted for review was rejected, and i was wondering if someone wouldn't mind helping me understand which parts of the article are problematic? i would really appreciate any feedback!! Delcydrew (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look notable to me. Many vice-presidents in larger companies are not. Check out WP:REFB for how to make your references work properly. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Can you please tell me why me article was declined? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.96.92.52 (talk) 18:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not if you won't tell us which article it was, no. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Jeffrey S. Aronin article

Greetings Wikipedia!

If an article is new material that I just submitted about 15 minutes ago, is it really true that it can't be posted for close to a month?

If there a way (or something that I could have done) to just post the article quickly and not undergo a review? Or do all articles have to be reviewed?

Thanks so much for your help!

Martha Russis

Aileron3000 (talk) 19:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that's no problem. You can post the article right away just by moving it straight to mainspace. Do be aware that if you do so, it will most likely be deleted right away. By contrast, if you get it accepted after review, recent research has showed that it has 95%+ chance of not being deleted. It's your choice. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

How can the wording be changed to make this work for publication? Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/DailyFX

Xvargas (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ecotourism Australia

I am wondering why my article submission 'Ecotourism Australia' was declined and how it can be improved to be accepted. Jdatea (talk) 01:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft:Donavon Hill

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Donovan Hill

Hello,

We would like some more information as to why this article lacks context. There is a limited amount of information as the topic of this page has been amalgamated with another and no longer exits without the topic being compromised.

It is a page about a Architecture firm and is completely relevant to this context.

Hope to hear from you soon.

Will Ausarch gkjdwc (talk) 02:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ausarch gkjdwc: First, you have two separate versions, one in draft and another in articles for creation. Shall we assume you want the former rather than the latter? Second, I don't personally agree with the "lacks context" critique. Your submission(s) lack reliable sources and have no claim to notability. If there's a limited amount of information on the topic then the article probably shouldn't exist. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chris,

Thanks for your help

Ausarch gkjdwc (talk) 05:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Purps (Producer)

I was wanting to know EXACTLY what I need to do in order to get the mentioned article approved.Guerilla323 (talk) 03:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerilla323: Remove all the unreliable sources (99% of the websites you listed) and all the content based on those sources (99% of the article). Find reliable sources and write content based on that. If you do exactly that, this article will be accepted. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]