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

February 29

References

I am attempting to add and article titled "Joyful Gospel USA. The message I received says I need references. Can a webpage or magazine article be used as a reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbarquet (talk • contribs) 03:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, just make sure it is reliable and preferably independent from the subject, have a look at WP:Referencing for beginners, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources . All the best, France3470 (talk) 03:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dr. Vashishtha Narayan Singh

please any1 can edit it in proper wikipedia format. ifyes plz do it.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uttamsharma2309 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem here is not that the article is not formatted correctly, but that it is not written from a neutral point of view and may not demonstrate sufficient notability. If it conforms to those two policies, it should be good to go. A412 (Talk • C) 03:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Prestel Publishing

Hello,

I don't understand why my article on Prestel Publishing Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/Prestel Publishing wont get published- it isn't an advert, can you let me know exactly what i need to change to get this published?? (Katielovesbooks (talk) 11:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I see three problems here. One, as said by the first reviewer, this needs to demonstrate notability, specifically notabiltiy for organizations and companies. Two, the external links need to be converted to internal wikilinks. Three, it would help if you used in-line referencing to help demonstrate verifiability and notability. A412 (Talk • C) 14:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eckstein, Karl

Hi! Please, check my article Eckstein, Karl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Eckstein,_Karl) once again. Last time I had problems with sources. If it happens again, could you, please, explain what's wrong with them? As far as references №№ 6-11 are concerned, they are references of organizations and I still can't understand why they are primary and not independent, they are not to discuss Eckstein in any detail. Please, help me. Thanks in advance. Lerysik (talk) 13:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The references No 6-11 serve no purpose in this submission, as the URLs you have linked to, do not mention Eckstein at all. Unless those sites actually say that Eckstein is a member of those organizations then they should be removed. Only references 3 and 5 actually discuss Eckstein in any detail; normally we look for at least 3 reliable references that discuss the subject in detail, to evidence the subject's notability. Reference 1 does not contribute to establishing his notability because it is a primary source (his own webspace). If you can add one more independent, reliable source, that discusses Eckstein in detail then the submission can probably be accepted. Pol430 talk to me 18:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot)) I've added some new references and removed others (## 6-11). Hope they will meat the requirements and my article will be published at last)) Please, check it again if it's possible. Best regards)) Lerysik (talk) 12:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi can you please correct the article   Played for the ny express New York cosmos 1985 when they where trying to  come back. Ray claveka was the coach.

Also played for tolido pride. Also I was awarded all american westchester c college 1981. Please check and thank you

Newly accepted article: Josh Burton

Hello! I have worked at WP:AfC/R for years, but I decided to try my hand at accepting/declining real articles today. My first accepted article is Josh Burton. Would any experienced folks like to review the article and let me know if I made the right call in accepting it? Thanks! --Andrew (User:90) (talk) 20:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks well formatted, categories and AFC Project added. But I would definitely not have accepted the article. There are only a couple of very brief mentions of Josh Burton in the cited sources - in fact the vast majority of the coverage is about Josh's dad Steve Burton (you have to watch out which Burton is being referred to, but generally it is Dad). Sionk (talk) 20:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I went through and made quite a lot of 'easy fixes' to the article, which I always think as a reviewer is in ones best interest. For instance, running the bare urls through reflinks and making easy formatting fixes (excessive spacing, bolding etc). And, although I haven't yet had a look at the sources, as Sionk has so excellent examined, I would have hesitated to accept on the basis of the article's tone. Many phrases were, (and still are), quite colloquial and err on the promotional side. Also, the subject being referred to by his first name is a no-no. Even more care needs to be taken in this regards as this appears to be an autobiography, judging by the writers username. Something to keep in mind for the future. France3470 (talk) 20:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the input. I will definitely keep all these things in mind if thinking about accepting an article again. Should the article be nominated for deletion (or moved back to Wikipedia talk space) due to the source issues? I don't want to make that decision myself, as I have already taken one liberty with the article, so perhaps someone else could make the call. --Andrew (User:90) (talk) 21:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be disheartened Andrew, I encourage you to continue to contribute to article reviews at AFC (we need at the help we can get). It's all a learning curve and it is frequently not easy to make a decision on weather a subject is notable. Pol430 talk to me 17:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hardware Sales Inc

Hi! I am the author of this article. Is my first article, and I am using the article for Woods Coffee as a quality reference. I'm very interested in including the table on the right of the screen that summarizes basic info, how is this made? I would also love to receive feedback on the progress of this draft as a whole. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninesies (talk • contribs) 19:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are referring to the infobox. If so, you are looking for the tempalte {{infobox company}}. GO to Template:Infobox company#Usage and copy the full template found there into the top of your submission. Then fill in whatever parameters you can. Examples can be found at Template:Infobox company#Examples. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 19:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/Hardware Sales Inc Thank you, Nolelover. I notice that I need confirmation to use all intended features of this article, namely uploading images. Is there any way to bypass the time/edit count requirements, or be overwritten into confirmed status? I am paid for my time on this website, and that is both my reason for urgency and validation as a contributor. I am not a delinquent.(Ninesies (talk) 20:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Hmm...that's odd, because you should already be confirmed, with ten edits and four days under your belt. Perhaps try again in a little while? Now, are you employed by the hardware company or another entity? Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 20:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, complaining gave me the leg up I needed, we're all clear!(Ninesies (talk) 21:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I'm glad that worked out, but who's your employer? Are you working for the company, or a third-party? This is rather important, as paid editing is really frowned upon here. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 02:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user account is shared, some of the users are employees of Hardware Sales. I have read through the policy and understand the frown, but I am ready to defend my edits and the motives behind them. (Ninesies (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]

It really doesn't matter if you can defend your edits, shared accounts are just not permitted and will lead to a block, even apart from the COI stuff. I very strongly suggest you stop using this account, and create one for each of you. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 17:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joseph Austin Benwell

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joseph Austin Benwell. I have tried submitting the article for review using the 'click here' in the panel at the top of the page (and save), but a couple of days later the article still has 'Article not currently submitted for review' showing in the top panel. Am I doing something wrong? Thanks ¬¬¬¬ DMancestry (the tildes don't work on my keyboard) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmancestry (talk • contribs) 23:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the old tag and moved the pending review tag up. For whatever reason they keep being placed at the bottom of the page and often don't seem to replace the current one. When in doubt feel free to just rearrange them manually. The article should be reviewed shortly, thanks for your submission. France3470 (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 1

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Phosphonium Coupling

the article has been revised accordingly based on all suggestions and comments. when can it be approved? thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greatwall2000 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a backlog of pending submission but I'm sure it will be reviewed shortly. I had a quick look and was immidiate struck by the immense number of footnotes (which I found rather overwhelming), you might want to read over the essay Wikipedia:Citation overkill. All the best, France3470 (talk) 04:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How to delete a not yet reviewed article?

Hi,

I want to remove this draft article. There is not enough help to develop this at this time.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Bogoda_Premaratne

URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Bogoda_Premaratne

Thank you. JC (talk) 05:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done I have put it in for speedy deletion. A412 (Talk • C) 06:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/XOXO The Mag

Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/Sema Ece Toker Hi, I created a talk for the magazine called XOXO The Mag, and I added reliable references and citations from the related sources on the web. I did everything after the reviews and suggestions. Therefore could you please explain the specific reason for not being published? Thank you. Semaecetoker (talk) 13:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since two of your sources are just image galleries and the third is the XOXO website, the problem is that you don't have any reliable, independent sources discussing the magazine in detail. If you can add those and resubmit, that would be great. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 14:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

artictle for creation Jim Ronayne

i resummited my article for creation(Jim Ronayne) last Sunday 26/o2/2012 and i am wondering when it will be reviewed.Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dublin1983 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would estimate another 2-3 days. We have quite a back log at this time. I checked your article quickly and it looks much better, however the Wikipedia can not be used as a reference. Perhaps you can find another reliable reference for some of your items, remove them, or leave them without a citation at this time, with the possibility they may be deleted. :- ) DCS 18:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Indus Creations

Hello folks after following multipe reviews on this articles (and multiple reworded submissions) we still find that the last user went back to the "notability" point At this point there is nothing more we can share about the group. There are over 500 "real" people that follow this theater group on our facebook page www.Facebook.com/IndusCreations

There has been articles about us in MSN! What else are we needing to be more notable?

Any meaningful help here is much appreciated so we can publish this article.

Thanks.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Govenkat (talk • contribs) 20:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From my comment, "Sorry, but the references just don't prove notability. Those are press releases which come from the India syndicate. Its like an Op-ed. These claims of blockbuster and such are unsupported and do not meet criteria. The blog review doesn't count either. Nor do their event calendar or their website." Please read the WP:Notability specifically Wikipedia:Notability (music). None of the 12 criteria are listed for musicians and ensembles. If you can cite at least one of those then it should qualify. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another specific note: If you can't find one of those then it probably shouldn't have an article on Wikipedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Edward Margolies

I am, anew User and have created an entry for Edward Margolies. At the top of the page I have created it is says "This is a draft Articles for Creation submission. It is not currently pending review." Then at the bottom of the page it says: "Review pending. This submission is waiting to be reviewed. This might take several days. There are currently 372 submissions waiting for review at this page."

I am not sure whether or not I have done everything I need to do because top of the page says the article is not currently pending review and the bottom of the page say Review Pending. Can you clarify this for me? I would likek to submit the article. Do I need to do anything further to submit the article.

Thank for your help.

Thecobbrooklyn (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have submitted it for you. A412 (Talk • C) 23:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/H. Reeves-Smith

I am not sure how to express the significance of this person for inclusion in an encyclopedia, as required by Wikipedia - clearly The Oxford Companion to American Theatre (which i cite) views H.Reeves-Smith as significant within his sphere.

This actor is referred to in other Wikipedia articles - inclusions which so far have no means of further exploration within Wikipedia.

Am i to assume IMDb (Internet Movie Database) is not considered usable for references for actors?

(Davidbrookesland (talk) 01:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]

You are correct in assuming that; IMDb, while ok if you're using for facts, doesn't help to establish notability. Really quickly though, take a look at WP:NACTOR, the notability guideline for actors. I'm not familiar with this actor or the movies, so can you tell me if his roles were significant? Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 01:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Genome editing with engineered nucleases

Dear Reviewer, The page is for a medical genetics course, we are students who are trying to write up a review for this method which was listed method of the year 2011 by nature publishing group.

One place which you might consider as "advertisement" (which by no means was our intention) is that Sangamo Biosciences (SGMO) successfully introduced the Delta 32 mutation (a suppressor of CCR5 gene which is a co-receptor for HIV-1 entry into T cells therefore enabling HIV infection) using Zinc Finger Nuclease (ZFN).

Now this is NOT an advertisement - it was simply a fact, any science journalist would report it as this is beneficial for the entire medical community.

We strongly hope you reconsider your decision, as no where can we see any intention of advertising nor could any reader feel inclined to any cooperation or commercial products.

Engineered nucleases are published on wikipedia extensively, including the Zin-finger nucleases and meganucleases. How would those articles not be advertisement whereas an article on the methods using such "product" then be an advertisement? This is inconsistent.

Many thanks Seahorsechipmunk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seahorsechipmunk (talk • contribs) 06:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia the concept of promotion is not limited to commercial products. Wikipedia is also not the place to write reviews of anything, including scientific methods. It is a place to have a neutrally written encyclopedia article, that sticks to the facts and avoids opinions, original research or synthesis, on an independently notable subject. Pol430 talk to me 11:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pol, respectfully, I can't see how you've reached the conclusion this submission is promotional. The fact that it's "the 2011 Method of the Year" is too highly featured, yes, but literally everything after the first sentence is all factual, summary style information with good sources. I can't find any OR or synthesis and though I will concede there is a pretty major problem with the overly-technical tone of the prose, that's not a reason to decline. I've gone ahead and created the article and Seahorsechipmunk I hope you're not discouraged from continuing to edit - these things happen. joe•roe^t•c 17:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jonathan Chapman

Hi, I have accidentally created 2 versions of the article I wish to submit! The article has been declined as a result of there being 2 versions. The correct one that I would like to be reviewed is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jonathan Chapman‎. Please can all others be ignored. Thanks Mmj2love (talk) 09:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done I have redirected the other submission to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jonathan Chapman‎. Pol430 talk to me 12:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Association of Financial Mutuals

I had some helpful feedback on my first attempted submission, and made a number of changes to my draft article before saving it and requested review. However the changes don't appear on the version that was subsequently reviewed, and I cannot now find them. Can you help locate? Martinshaw63 (talk) 10:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You made changes to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Association of Financial Mutuals on the 27th Feb and the submission was re-reviewed and declined for a second time. You have also been editing User:Martinshaw63/sandbox but not since the 24th Feb. Is it possible you got the pages confused with each other? To avoid this problem I have redirected you sandbox to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Association of Financial Mutuals, so everything now appears on this one page. Pol430 talk to me 12:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eckstein, Karl again

Hi! I've added some new references and removed others (## 6-11). Hope they will meat the requirements and my article will be published at last)) Please, check it again if it's possible. Best regards))(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Eckstein,_Karl)Lerysik (talk) 12:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems to be 95% unsourced. Its one item of news coverage is an interview with Eckstein (as acting honorary consul), which means the information is coming from his mouth. To be eligible for a Wikipedia article, people normally need in-depth news coverage in multiple sources, to verify they are notable. If you can add additional news sources, before an editor reviews the draft article, you'll have a chance of success. Sionk (talk) 13:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've added some more sources. Please, check it again and let it be published at last. Thanks))Lerysik (talk) 13:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dan Roman

Dear Sirs,

Please help me understand what is wrong with the page I've created for Mr. Dan Roman - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Dan_Roman

Mr. Roman is one of the most prominent figure of the Romanian IT&C industry, with over 35 years of activity in the field and outstanding contribution in education of many Romanian IT managers.

If there is more information needed, I'll be happy to provide, but as long as two young football players with the same name (Dan Roman) and with very limited reputation have valid Wiki pages, I really wonder what is the problem with the page I've created.

Looking forward for your answer, I thank you in advance for your kind support.

Best regards,

Bogdan.learschi (talk) 13:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC) Bogdan Learschi[reply]

Working :- ) DCS 14:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I realize there are many articles that are not the best, but we are trying to improve everything. Recently there have been stricter requirements at WP:BLP biographies of living people. The reviewer marked two places where he thought there should be a citation given. If you can provide a citation for those two statements, then great, otherwise they should be removed. I may have been even less kind, the first two citations don't even mention his name, and I believe the next two are from companies were he worked. None of those should probably be allowed. You are almost there. You can remove the contentious material and add it back after approval when you can find reliable third party information. Thanks for your efforts. :- ) DCS 14:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sender Films

I have attempted to submit this page for placement a half dozen times and keep getting rejected. Based on many wikipedia articles I have seen, I have no doubt that Sender Films is a significant organization worthy of inclusion. However, I need more help in drafting my article and finally having it accepted. Most of the Reviewer feedback is so vague that I am still at a loss as to what I should edit. Any more specific help in this matter is greatly appreciated. Thank you so much!

Brett Forrest — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forresbj (talk • contribs) 21:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Working :- ) DCS 02:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can imagine how frustrated you are. I have quickly looked at the article, and we have problems. I know how hard it is to be in the hype business and not hype everything. I have moved your article into main space here: Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Sender Films. Now the talk page is available for discussion. Most if not all of the decline templates have a link to more information about what is required based on the decline reason. Unfortunately we are so busy here, that when we find a reason to decline, then that is what is used. If we reviewed everything completely each time, we might have 10 reasons to list, but that would take a lot of time and probably be even more discouraging. Since you have been working on this for a while, I hope you don't mind if I take the next day or so to mark it up and make some notes on the talk page. I will leave a message on your talk page, and if you watch the article's talk page you will know when I have left comments there. :- ) DCS 02:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

my first article

Dear madam/sir My first article was about a great doctor who is directly involved to design robot, who used that Probot for the operation first time in the world. I mean he is the first real robotic surgeon in the world. But unfortunately it is not published. you can find it as the following link; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rajesh_Mani_Lamichhane

I am really influenced by the doctor, seeing his professional knowledge/experience and overall attitude as a doctor, how he is practicing in London, serving people.

Could anyone please help me to gain more information about him and make this article in the wikipedia standard?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajesh Mani Lamichhane (talk • contribs) 23:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's the thing. Wikipedia articles require reliable, independent sources that discuss the subject in significant detail. Now, Youtube is not generally accepted as a reliable source and since four of the other sources are primary, you aren't quite at the level we need to accept the article. The Who's who also doesn't tell us much about Nathan either...it appears to be a paywall of sorts. If you add more reliable, independent sources we would be happy to look at you submission again. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 02:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 3

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Monday Night Comeback

I don't want to sound like a sore loser, but I don't really get how this article is exactly news report sounding. The Monday Night Miracle sounded like one, and this one doesn't really sound like one. Can I get some assistance to give me a "simple" reason why? Thanks. ZappaOMati (talk) 04:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)Zappa[reply]

Nice looking article. However, Glendale we have a problem. Have a look here: >WP:SPORTSEVENT<. Just looking at the article briefly, you might be able to meet notability, but not with citations from nfl.com or blogs. In my opinion, ESPN is kind of iffy, but I don't make the rules. I think if you can find another one or two independent reliable sources that says the game was notable, then I think you have it made. 05:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Why me Article is being deleted

I made 4 or 5 articles about game companies, and all have been deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by GavinP1234 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on Wikipedia must be about notable subjects. That means you can't just create pages about anything and expect them to stay. If a company has been discussed in detail, in multiple reliable sources, that are independent of that company, then it might deserve a Wikipedia article. Pol430 talk to me 09:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

notability

The Wikipedia notability guidelines state that in order to be verifiable, a company must have been noticed by the mainstream media. I have an article for creation that has been rejecte d because of notability issues. However, the article includes a reference to a whole story in one of Australia's major state dailies (although the reviewer called it a minor newspaper - the reviewer, it would seem, has no awareness of Australian media). It is my understanding that this should meet the notability requirements. Could someone please explain to me this apparent contradiction?

I am also disappointed that innovation and entrepreneurialism are not criteria valued by Wikipedia.

CascadeLily — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.25.191 (talk) 12:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its notability, plain and simple. You have a lot of sources but almost none of them are reliable and meet requirements. There are many that don't even make mention other then it is the publisher of their work and most are self-promotional. It just doesn't meet the simple requirements as noted by the other reviewer. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we are talking about Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/eMergent Publishing? Well, the key word in our policy here is "multiple". As Chris says, many (if not most) of your sources are either very promotional in nature or and primary (come from the company or an affiliate itself), and you also have many blogs (which aren't reliable). Yes, the Australian newspaper is good, but if that's all you got your submission isn't likely to be accepted. Hope this helped. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 16:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has the british government ever confirmed the events of 1943 when a group of German paratroopres landed in England to try and kidnap Winston churchill as portrayed in the book the eagle has landed?

Did this happen or is it mady up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.255.149 (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This help desk is for answering questions about the Articles for Creation process. Perhaps you can try the Reference Desk? Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 16:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have no idea, but our article on: The Eagle Has Landed would seem to indicate it was all made up. Pol430 talk to me 16:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Punjabi calender

give me the punjabi calender of 1967.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.177.166.180 (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a desk for helping AfC users. We don't have Punjabi calendars, although you can try the Reference Desk. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 17:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Ronayne

Hello,

I am frustrated that this article has once agin been declined, when all guidelines were followed in its creation. Jim Ronayne is a very notable sports person, this is supported by references and links provided in the article. His team mates, in particular those who played with him in the 1983 All-Ireland football final, all have a Wikipedia articles ! Here are links to some of these players articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Canavan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kieran_Duff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Mullins also please revert to Dubin GAA Honours wikipedia page for more information.

Thank you, Dublin1983 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dublin1983 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checking... I'm looking at why it was declined atm, please hold

- Happysailor ^(Talk) 17:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Dublin1983, this should have been accepted, easily. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 17:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Done agree. Sorry for the confusion this caused. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 17:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sorry Sailor...I didn't realize you were looking into this. Created though, and thanks for your work Dublin :) Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 17:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who accepts/declines articles?

Who accepts/declines articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TUMOdesign (talk • contribs) 20:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who are autoconfirmed who show an interest in reviewing articles accepts/declines an article.--Hallows AG (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi & Welcome, a couple of things. I've declined your submission at present because you have not provided any references in order to prove notability. All articles need to prove this, and the easiest way to see how is by reading WP:42. It also reads a little like an advert with sentences like Through our specialization we have experience of.... So it just needs some work. I've also left a note on your talk page regarding your username

- Happysailor ^(Talk) 20:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 4

Title of article not linking - only redirect

Jacaltek is spelled many ways, but the most accepted way is Jacaltek. When I try to link to the Wiki Jacaltek article it won't work - but it will work if I change the spelling to Jacaltec (which is mentioned as a redirect). Shouldn't a link to the title of the article work in addition to the redirect spelling?

I'm very new, so I have a LOT to learn! I hope I signed this the correct way.

Thanks! Wikipedia talk:Jacaltek/ ArtProf (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)ArtProf]][reply]

Jacaltek isn't an article or redirect, however Jacaltec is a redirect as you say. You can create a redirect at Jacaltek to point to the article, but should it point to Jakaltek language or Jakaltek people ? - Happysailor ^(Talk) 00:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect now created. A412 (Talk • C) 00:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should point to Jacaltek people.

Thanks! ArtProf (talk) 00:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)ArtProf[reply]

Wait a minute! It should be Jacaltek, not Jakaltek! Some people spell it that way, but the most accepted way is Jacaltek.

Thanks again!

ArtProf (talk) 00:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)Art Prof[reply]

Unfortunately, the article is currently located at Jakaltek language, so if you want to have it moved to Jacaltek language (which is currently a redirect, propose it at the talk page there. Remember to use a reliable source to show that it really is spelled that way. After a discussion there, see WP:MOVE. A412 (Talk • C) 02:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind - you're right - it should be Jakaltek! ArtProf (talk) 02:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)ArtProf[reply]

Weird thing in Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Monday Night Comeback

I just finished using Reflinks to work on my references, and for some reason, all my links and boles have a # sign for some reason. I need some help with this. 75.2.135.140 (talk) 05:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)Zappa[reply]

I'll see what I can do. --B music ian 05:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done I've re-run Reflinks again, so there shouldn't be any more hash signs. --B music ian 05:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Markus Andersson

I don'r know what more to add. He's spoken of in Swedish media. (And sometiomes in foregin media as well.) This is alreday proven with the help of several links, including independant third part's. The English spekaing public shold have a chance to get an idea who he is. Nnhl 11:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)nnhlNnhl 11:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Markus_Andersson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nnhl (talk • contribs) 11:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the article is a biography of a living person, everything must be well sourced. Thus, could you instead use in-line citations to show what supports what in the article? Otherwise it looks fine. A412 (Talk • C) 16:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ustad Badar uz Zaman

Look I wrote my first article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ustad Badar uz Zaman , and every reviewer asks to add or delete one thing or the other, I deleted one thing (awards) and the other reviewer asked to add, the second last reviewer commented that the article is almost ready just he guided some things, I did those and now a reviewer says that the article doesn't sufficiently explain the importance or significance of the subject, the reviewer is also i think a new one , who didnt i think read the article either, nor did he took the pain to write the declining of article on my talk page, i just opened the talk page and there was no addition, i thought the article is still to be reviewed, when i saw article it was declined, Disgusting. Now i am much discouraged writing a new article. The Biography is about a person who is Recipient of Pride of Performance(duely referred) . In our Country Pakistan it is an Award which is only given to Personalities who are fairly Notable Internationally, Please have a coordination amongst the reviewers so that they become on one tone, not that who so ever feels , rejects or accepts the article. Regards Umerali2204 (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if your experience has not been good. I notice that the new reviewer has been reminded to inform authors when their articles are declined. I can see why your article has been confusing for some reviewers - Badar uz Zaman is possibly notable for a whole number of reasons but none of them are proved convincingly (in my opinion). Unfortunately our 'decline' templates do not easily cover complex articles.

The main criteria subjects need to pass is WP:GNG, basically that the subject has received in-depth news coverage in multiple, reliable sources. Alternative criteria for 'notability' of Badar uz Zaman may be WP:MUSICBIO, or possibly WP:ACADEMIC. If I get a chance later today I'll have a closer look myself. Otherwise, maybe an experienced editor can offer a second opinion. Sionk (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gary Foote, Bassist and Music Producer

I was tld that this article was not accepted for the subject is not notable.

The fact that he is the bassist for blood Sweat and tears for twenty years, and is the Bassist for Smokey Robinson. Does this help in making Gary Foote noteworthy?

In addition the Gary Foote bio that is on Wikipedia now is a hybrid of two different people and that should be removed. It combines a Gary Foote in Weybridge England and Gary Foote that I am trying to write about.Ydanese (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot accept claims like this unless they are verified by reliable sources. Verifiability is one of the key pillars of Wikipedia. If Foote has been part of several notable bands, he may well meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Unfortunately we cannot simply take your word for it, we need to have proof.

As for the other Gary Foote, it is interesting what you say. I notice someone else pointed out the problem on the article's Talk page. A agree, it needs resolving somehow!! Sionk (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated the article about the other Gary Foote for deletion. Until a decision is made about it, your article will need to be called something different, like "Gary Foote (bassist)". Someone will probably sort that out when and if it is ready for moving to article space. Sionk (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MitOst

Dear Sirs!

My article (MitOst) is a translation of a german one from german wiki. What kind of sources should i add if there is no any in the german one. I' ve put some changes. is my article now again submitted for review one not?

Thank you in advance, Best regards, --Bisazza99 (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As it is an international not-for-profit organisation, you will either need references to show it meets the general notability criteria, or the alternative criteria for non-profit organisations. Sionk (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Grant Victor

Help Desk,

I am hopeful someone can give me some guidance on how to improve my submission for approval. Please provide me some objective feedback so that I can make necessary changes.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/Grant Victor

Thanks,

Friendlyvoice 19:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friendlyvoice (talk • contribs)

We need you to provide citations/references, firstly to show that the company has been reported in-depth in regional or national media, secondly so we can verify the information in your article is true. There is a link in the 'decline' message box to the detailed 'notability' criteria for companies. Sionk (talk) 23:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 5

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Osource India Pvt Ltd

I have given valid third party references, but my article is not being accepted. Bright.spark05 (talk) 07:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but the references simply are not up to scratch. You need to evidence that the company is notable. This is done not just by adding reliable sources, but by adding multiple sources that are reliable, independent of the subject and lend significant coverage of the subject. The references you have given are either not independent or only make brief mention of the company. Please see WP:VRS. Pol430 talk to me 19:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dan Roman - revision

Dear sirs,

I've followed your recommendations and remove the references you pointed out in page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Dan_Roman.

Also I've changed the placement of one reference in a place you marked as "[citation needed]". In that article it is clearly stated (in Romanian) Mr. Roman's role in Computer Aided Design/ Computer Graphics research within the research institute ITC.

I hope my revision will be in line with Wikipedia policy.

Many thanks for your help and understanding,

Best regards,

Bogdan.learschi (talk) 08:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)Bogdan Learschi[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/the Central Fund of Israel

Is there a way to change the name of the article once the drafting process has begun? I have looked at pages with similar topics and it seems to me that the "the" in the title is not required. Is there a way to remove it from the title before submitting the article for review? Also any comments on the article would be gratefully received. Many Thanks Dlv999 (talk) 14:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved your draft to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Central Fund of Israel, though I'll leave it up to others to look at it more thoroughly. For future reference: you can move a draft by mousing over the down arrow next to the search box and selecting 'Move' while viewing it. Hope that helps. wctaiwan (talk) 15:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, thanks for the help. I have submitted the article for review, so I'll just have to wait and see how it goes... Dlv999 (talk) 15:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dr. CM Prasad

It would be helpful if I can get some pointers on this article. Not sure how much of the problem is related to the references or the so called formal tone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Dr._CM_Prasad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yprasannas (talk • contribs) 17:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article was written with list of accomplishments and care was taken to not focus on the qualities of person.

Below was the reason to decline... This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms, that are designed to promote or show-off the subject.

Yprasannas (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there are a few issues with this submission. Firstly, the notability of subject is unclear. I see the he featured in India Post after he received an award but that, in its self, does not meet our thresholds for notability; it is not clear how notable the award is. With respect to the article tone, the numerous sections outlining his career should probably be condensed into one, with a simple heading like 'Career'. The section on his professional recognitions should probably be removed unless those achievements are independently notable. Finally, all of the text in the article must be supported by the sources listed. Hope that helps Pol430 talk to me 19:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Agata Tuszynska

I would like to know when will it become available? Biuroat (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you say available, do you mean live in the encyclopedia? If so, I'm afraid it is not likely at this time. I have re-added the template, as we need this to keep track of submissions. The main problem with the submission is the lack of sources that we require to establish notability and to ensure the content is verifiable. Please see WP:VRS and WP:REFB. Pol430 talk to me 19:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. But you gotta help me out here, please. As suggested, I have added references from webpages not related, meaning - not created - by the author, but by someone else, by one of the the publishing houses that prints her books in Poland. I have also mentioned international translations of the books and linked publishers. I've read the instruction and so on, but I am really lost as to what else I can include. Biuroat (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, sorry I missed the fact you had already added citations because the {{Reflist}} template was missing. I am working on a few more fixes as well Pol430 talk to me 19:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at the sources in some more detail, it would seem that they are not sufficient to establish the subjects notability as an author. The requirements for which can be found at WP:AUTHOR. This is because the sources are a mixture of self-published ones and ones that do not mention her by name (I assume some of them or just the main websites of her various publishers). What we require, is reliable sources that are independent and discuss her (or her work) in detail. Pol430 talk to me 20:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I have added several more. Interviews as well as scholary books where her work was discussed. I hope this will help this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biuroat (talk • contribs) 20:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick look and found some mainstream sources that should help with the notability issue:

New York Times book review The Guardian article on her book Profile France Culture Le Figaro Book review Book review in Newsweek Dlv999 (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Albert Nelson

In editing Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Albert Nelson

I have tried to insert the following reference,

http://www.fairhousingsummit.info/about-albert-t-nelson

I do not know how to insert the reference. I read the tutorial but I don't know how to write the references in. The information in the article is valid - i just don't know how to insert the references. I also willl want to re-submit my article. Davidmgillespie (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have inserted the references for you as basic citations, you can check the differences in the page history to see how I did it. Having looked over the submission, my primary concern is that the subject of the article is not notable enough for the article to be accepted. Please see WP:BIO and WP:VRS. Pol430 talk to me 20:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Josh Kelly

This Article is about Josh Kelly (Actor).

Hi, this page is for asking questions about articles for creation, not for submitting them for review. Did you have a question about Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Josh Kelly? Pol430 talk to me 20:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

I have been attempting to create an entry for my friend Dave Serella but my submissions keep getting turned down because of citations. I have listed all my references but I cannot seem to correctly link the text to the citations using footnotes. How do I cite the person himself? I have also now lost the image that was linked to the page. This is the page that I am trying to create

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

Grateful for any help as I am pulling my hair out now Kitbanting (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To use in-line citations, begin with a <ref> tag, then insert the citation, then a </ref> tag. At the end of the article, insert a {{reflist}} template. To cite the person himself, use {{cite web}} if it's published on the internet, {{cite book}} for a book, or see the rest of the . If it is not published, however, it cannot be used as a source due to verifiability and the policy against original research. A412 (Talk • C) 23:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 6

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fundación Hogar Nueva Granada

Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/Fundacion Hogar Nueva Granada I would like to work on this more tommorrow and quite for tonight- how can i just save as draft? Thank you --LilliK 02:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LilliKass (talk • contribs)

Done I have set it as a draft. To submit it again, delete that template, then add {{subst:submit}} to the article.A412 (Talk • C) 03:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eckstein, Karl again

Hi! I've added some new references and removed others (## 6-11). Hope they will meat the requirements and my article will be published at last)) Please, check it again if it's possible. Best regards))(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Eckstein,_Karl)Lerysik (talk) 12:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems to be 95% unsourced. Its one item of news coverage is an interview with Eckstein (as acting honorary consul), which means the information is coming from his mouth. To be eligible for a Wikipedia article, people normally need in-depth news coverage in multiple sources, to verify they are notable. If you can add additional news sources, before an editor reviews the draft article, you'll have a chance of success. Sionk (talk) 13:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've added some more sources. Please, check it again and let it be published at last. Thanks))Lerysik (talk) 13:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 127: / Line 127: @@
 :The article seems to be 95% unsourced. Its one item of news coverage is an interview with Eckstein (as acting honorary consul), which means the information is coming from his mouth. To be eligible for a Wikipedia article, people normally need in-depth news coverage in ''multiple'' sources, to verify they are [[WP:GNG|notable]]. If you can add additional news sources, before an editor reviews the draft article, you'll have a chance of success. [[User:Sionk|Sionk]] ([[User talk:Sionk|talk]]) 13:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
-::Well, I've added some more sources. Please, check it again and it be published at last. Thanks))[[User:Lerysik|Lerysik]] ([[User talk:Lerysik|talk]]) 13:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
+::Well, I've added some more sources. Please, check it again and let it be published at last. Thanks))[[User:Lerysik|Lerysik]] ([[User talk:Lerysik|talk]]) 13:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 == Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dan Roman ==