Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

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

Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

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

Ask a new question Please check back often for answers.

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

May 29

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Yoga Swing

Hi, I have gotten feedback from a couple reviewers and made changes. One suggessted to delete 'styles' 'set-up and use' and 'names and terms' sections although I was modeling those sections after the similar secions found on Hammock: keep those sections out or bring them back in? What other changes does this article need in order to be wiki-worthy? Thank You! Marchild (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It still needs much better references. For example, those in the "hype" section are not reliable sources (A Facebook page? Really?), and the entire section does not seem like encyclopedic content. If some reliable secondary source had commented on the hype, we could add some content based on that coverage, but repeating the hype itself will get the article declined because it reads like an advertisement. Most other sources are primary sources; the scientific article and the poster do not mention Yoga swings. Unless significant coverage in reliable secondary sources can be shown to exist, yoga swings appear non-notable, and Wikipedia should not have an article on them. Regarding the "styles" and "set-up and use" sections: Once again you would need secondary sources to base such sections on. If you can find them, go ahead and re-add the sections (except that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide and should not contain instructions on set-up; that's not what the hammock section on set-up contains, and that article also suffers from a lack of sources for those sections anyway - not an example to be emulated). Huon (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Street Children in Eastern Europe

Hi I wrote an article but I dont know if it has been approved. I can edit it and save changes. How do I resubmit for approval? Thanks Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Street Children in Eastern Europe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cc3269 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The draft has not been submitted for review because there is a curly bracket missing. But you have created an article in mainspace, Street children in eastern europe. (Both capitalizations seem wrong per the manual of style; the article should probably be moved to Street children in Eastern Europe.) Since there already exists a version of the article in mainspace, I don't think submitting the draft for review would serve any purpose. Huon (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Qfinance

Hi,

We have been back and forth for a few months now on this article draft which keeps getting turned down. We make some progress with an editor then it gets turned down by another.

We fixed referencing issues, but any time we put in notability references (awards, reviews etc) we get turned down as it reads like an advert. We take them out and we are told we need to include confirmation of its notability! This is the world's foremost financial encyclopedia written by 300 leading, international finanical experts. The current revision is clear and unbiased and includes 3 references confirming the notability of the publication. I just dont understand how a few minor local celebrities can get a wikipedia page but the leading international finance encyclopedia, published by an international publisher, cant be accepted.

Would appreciate some help with this. Thank you, Saarum (talk) 12:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The current revision's references are not reliable secondary sources by Wikipedia's standards: Two blogs and the Financial Times' announcement about its own upcoming conference. The first two are not reliable, the third is a primary source. Similarly, in the "advert" version of the draft, the link provided for the award was again to a primary source. The reviews seem indeed to be reliable secondary sources, but those sources are what the article should be based on; they should not just be shown to exist. For example, if an independent news piece reported on the award, that should be used as a reference for the award. Huon (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Koolagan

I dont understand why my submission for Koolagan was rejected?

bmono24 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmono24 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Your submission doesn't explain why the subject is notable. To establish notability, you would need to demonstrate that the website has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, which are not affiliated with the company or its owner. At the moment the article provides no references at all. For further information see the guidelines laid out at Wikipedia:Notability (web). All the best, France3470 (talk) 13:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

bmono24, there are a couple of issues with your article that you will need to address before your article can be published. First, as was stated in the review box, you have no sources for any of your information. Wikipedia is based upon reliable secondary sources to achieve neutral, fact-based articles written in encyclopedia style. With no sources, the information you have in your article is unverified and cannot be published. Second, your article reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia entry. This line in particular, "Koolagan was started with the intentions of having members discover new friends, date, social network and discover things through meeting new people", stands out to me as a promotional statement. Rather than focusing on the services of the company, which can be listed in generalities, focus on the history of the company and why it is notable enough to have its own article. Try reading through some other pages about companies to get a feel for what kind of information should be on Wikipedia. Finally, there is nothing listed in your article to denote why Koolagan is notable. What differentiates it from other dating or social discovery sites? What impact has it had on the industry? Things like these would be good to add in to show why Koolagan needs its own page.

In summary, here are some things that you should focus on:

• Reliable, secondary sources
• Neutral tone
• Notability of Koolagan

Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Anna Maria Busse Berger

Why is this article still marked as having "multiple issues"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophia432sophia234 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I made a few changes and removed the tags, they were from 2007 when the article was in a rather poor state. Looks like your additions have sorted it out. All the best, France3470 (talk) 13:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophia432sophia234 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nina G. Vaca

Recently my article for creation, Nina G. Vaca, was rejected for having a biased point of view. Upon rereading the article, I did notice some areas where that was the case and I went through to rewrite those sections with a neutral point of view. However, I wanted to get an outside point of view on where I might have missed some biased section. Having worked with this article for a while now, I'm so familiar with it that it is a bit harder to objectively pick out these sections and an outside view would be tremendously helpful. I don't want to contribute to the backlog for reviews before I'm sure that I've addressed the neutrality issue. If anybody could give my article a quick readthrough and point out anywhere I might have missed that would be amazing! Thanks very much! Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Some suggestions: Firstly, we should refer to an article's subject by surname, not by given name (there are some exceptions, such as artists who use their given name as stage name, but I don't think any apply to Vaca). Secondly, the article at times seems to veer off-topic: Why is Pinnacle's acquisition of Provade important enough to Vaca to be mentioned in the lead? Thirdly, the "Notable Achievements" section still seems rather laudatory to me. Could it be incorporated into the "Marriage, Family, and Career" section - possibly take the "Career" part and make it a section of its own? In particular, the Ernst & Young award only has a primary source, but is used to compare Vaca to various (more?) famous people. If no secondary source makes that comparison, neither should we. Also, the article seems to devote undue weight to Vaca's private life. Two and a half out of four sections deal with issues she's not really notable for. I would suggest subsuming the first section into the second and splitting off the "marriage and family" part into a (short) section of its own. As an aside, Wikipedia's section headings do not use title case; only proper nouns (and the very first letter) should be capitalized.

Thank you very much for your input! Those are some really good suggestions and I'll get right on them. Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 15:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Andy Biersack

Dear Wikipedia,

The entire day, I've been researching on a vocalist named Andrew Biersack. My goal was to make a Wikipedia article about this man. I've been reading everything regarding creating an article, and everything was fine. I had references and sources, everything is filled in right. However the system of Wikipedia wasn't content with my article because the sources weren't reliable. Vocalists of rock bands are never stated in some kind of official website, never. Still there are many musicians out there with Wikipedia articles, much less known than Andrew Biersack.

The sources I've implied give much the same and fresh, new information, which means the content of those sources is reliable. Since information about a Rock band Vocalist/Bassist/songwriter isn't to be found anywhere on newspapers' websites, magazines' websites, any website like those. All the information there is to get comes from fan sites. Plus, the blog implied is something that Andrew Biersack has written himself. I have to admit that I changed some critical words to be free from copyright.

My point is, if you want to make a Wikipedia article about someone like this man, you simply can't. Less known people have got an article, which are obviously full of "unreliable" sources as I've used myself. If someone would read the websites I've listed as sources, he/she could definately imply that the information is reliable, with some common sense of course.

Hopefully you could make some kind of exception because I think this article should excist. It makes perfect sense and I'm not validating any kind of law.

Yours sincerely,

DClover41

DClover41, I read through your article and the first thing I noticed was that it had quite a few formatting issues without headers and with repeats and things of that nature. Fixing that is a good first step because it makes the article much easier to understand and review. Also, your article reads more like a fan page than an encyclopedia entry. Details like his favorite color and his favorite band are unimportant. Fan pages are not reliable sources since they are, by nature, extremely biased. Try to find a bio or something written by an unbiased third party to base your information off of. If you can't find any sources like that, then chances are that Andy Biersack isn't notable enough to have his own page. Remember to focus on important and notable facts and not opinions. His personal story that he wrote isn't important. If there are any important facts contained within it, then those facts can be found in a reliable secondary source that does its own fact checking. Secondary sources are preferable for that reason - they check their facts and thus the facts are verified. Wikipedia can't go and check all the facts and so it uses pre-checked information. Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed many of the repetitions; there was a broken reference tag that caused problems. Other than that, I agree with Patrick Bradshaw that the article would need to show significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to establish that Biersack is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Many of the current sources are user-submitted content and not considered reliable (one even was blacklisted). Huon (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Quadrant (company)

How do you find and cite credible sources for an article like Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Quadrant (company) that doesn't have very many sources?

Drsteam (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Drsteam

Drsteam, most of your sources are directly from the company itself. Those sources are considered unreliable because the company is a very biased source for information about itself. Try to find articles about Quadrant written by journals or verifiable news networks because secondary sources do their own fact-checking and are thus more reliable. You can use search engines like google to find online articles or contact the company to see if they have a collection of outside articles that have featured them (make sure to check these for bias as well). Also, quite a bit of your article is written in such a way that it seems to advertise Quadrant. Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and thus can contain only facts, not opinions. The Positive Recognition section seems highly biased just from the title. If you want to include reactions to the company, you must include all reactions, positive and negative (all that exist/are prevalent with reliable sources). The Current Activities section may not be appropriate for an encyclopedia since it soon won't be current and does contain notable information. If there are any activities of the company that are particularly notable and have reliable sources (note how everything must come from a reliable source) then it may be a good idea to make a section for those activities and explain why they are notable. I hope this helps! Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kreemo

Hello! I received a message stating that an article I submitted for creation was rejected because it violated an internet article that came out in 2011. The article that it referenced is one that I have NEVER seen before. What should I do to get the process moving again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.50.104.81 (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The only thing you can really do is start over. Make sure to write everything in your own words and don't copy and paste directly from sites (even if you cite them). This may have been a coincidence and if so it was a freak event and probably won't happen again. If it wasn't, then now you know to watch out for copyright violations. Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 16:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I had a look at the supposed copyright violation, and I have no idea why it was considered one. However, there were other serious issues: You did not use inline citations or footnotes, making it very hard to verify which source supports which statement. Many of the references were not reliable sources (most blogs and YouTube videos are not considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards). Parts of the draft were written more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article. There might even be issues of notability: Unless there is significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, the topic is unsuitable for a Wikipedia article. Huon (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David L. Weisburd

Hi,

I'd like to dispute the rejection of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David L. Weisburd. The reviewer noted that this revision didn't adequately show Professor Weisburd's notability. My entry outlines his many contributions to the field of criminology, and they fact that he won the Stockholm Prize in Criminology (this is criminology's equivalent of the Nobel Prize in other fields) speaks clearly to that. As do his multiple referenced publications in top journals, and interviews linked to by top newspapers like the New York Times and the Jerusalem Post (which I added in this revision in response to the first reviewers comments).

Moreover, the decision on this page is inconsistent with the standards that were used to approve Wiki entries for other criminologists. For instance, the entry for Lawrence Sherman (one of Weisburd's contemporaries and co-authors on some works) is very similar in format, but has fewer references and none to newspapers or magazines. With academics there just isn't going to be a huge amount of media sources as they're mostly just publishing in peer reviewed journals and not getting a lot of mainstream recognition even when having a huge impact on their field. The fact that Weisburd has won the Stockholm Prize and been interviewed by major newspapers should be sufficient to show his notability for a Wikipedia entry given the prestige of the prize and how rarely criminologists are quoted in major national newspapers.

As such, I ask that the review decision be reconsidered given that Weisburd's notability is more clearly demonstrated and backed with sources in this entry than what is found in existing entries like Lawerence Sherman's.

Thanks for your consideration.

Joshhinkle (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Joshhinkle, while I don't have any authority over disputing the rejection of your article, I did read it over and noaticed a few things. First off was your references. You make a good point about academic journals being an important and valid source, and I believe that they can be when they are written by Dr. Weisburd's peers. However, publications written by Dr. Weisburd himself (which make up a good portion of your references) are not valid sources because of their inherent bias. Because of this, Wikipedia's policy states that the information is not verifiable and thus it is unclear whether Dr. Weisburd is notable. I want to echo Sarah here when she said that Dr. Weisburd is indeed notable and worthy of having his own page, it just needs reliable secondary sources. Also, there are several instances where your word choice seems a bit out of place for an encyclopedia. Words like "prestigious", "importance", "significant contributions", etc. denote a bias toward Dr. Weisburd which doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Also, the Awards and Honors section goes along with this bias, reading like an advertisement. Perhaps combine that section with the Research section to better show the link between his work and the resulting award. That would allow you to keep that information (which is indeed notable) but without singling it out so that it reads like an endorsement. All in all, you've got a very good start and there's just a few little things to fix. Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 18:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Sarah and Patrick are correct that there are problems with the article. But they are not reasons to reject the article at AfC. The newspaper sources clearly demonstrate that Weisburd is an important academic. He also holds a 'Distinguished Professor' post, so meets the notability requirements outlined in WP:PROF on at least two counts. The problem with finding better, secondary sources for some of the other information can be dealt with after the article has been created. Sionk (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Susan Smith (Athlete)

Draft article wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Susan Smith (Athlete)

I typed the following: Susan Smith (born 14 September 1971 in Waterford city, Ireland) is a retired Irish sportsperson. As a young athlete she competed for her local club St Paul's Athletic Club until she lost her juvenile eligibility at age eighteen. She then joined her local senior club Waterford Athletic Club for whom she competed until her retirement in 2000. She is considered by many to be Waterford's finest-ever female athlete.

The reviewer left the following comment about this submission: This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources.

I then went to Live Help Chat and was told that I needed to provide reliable sources to prove that she competed for St Paul's AC, Waterford AC and that she was considered to be Waterford's finest-ever female athlete. As an example I was told that Paris is the capital of France but that if I posted that statement then I would have to support it with a reliable source. Ok! If that's what it takes I shall do it but I can see that my wiki page will be full of references. Is there any way I can avoid this? Can you give me an example re PARIS above?

Thanks in anticipation

(Scotty1891 (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC))

Scotty1891, I'm not sure why you were given the example of Paris being the capital of France needing a reference because that just isn't true. You can look at the Paris, France page and see that it is not referenced. However, that is an odd case of hyperbole. What they mean is that you need to find reliable, secondary sources that talk about Smith's participation in St Paul's AC and Waterford AC. Currently you have no sources, and you need to reference your material to show that the information is factually valid and that Smith is notable enough to have secondary sources written about her. Also, you will need to find a couple reliable sources that talk about her being one of Waterford's finest-ever female atheletes because that lends itself very easily into being an opinion. Good luck! Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

(talk) 19:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC Gotcha! I'm still puzzled however because if you look at the two-sentence wiki article about Charlie Ware (see below) you will note that although e second sentence is referenced the reference does not confirm anything about the statements made. How did that article pass muster?

Charlie Ware (1900–1984) was an Irish sportsperson. He played hurling with his local club Erin's Own and was a member of the Waterford senior inter-county team from the 1920s until the 1940s.[1] References ^ "Waterford GAA profile". www.hoganstand.com. Retrieved 2010-04-09.

Thanks for your speedy reply. (Scotty1891 (talk) 20:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC))

Thank you for bringing the Charlie Ware article to our attention, I've marked it for notability issues and it will go further up the line for refinement or possible deletion if no notable sources can be found. For athletes, primary sources are good for establishing facts about their professional performance, but secondary sources are still needed to show the athlete's notability and impact on their sport or in the community. Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Great Canadian Dollar Store

I am having a hard time trying to figure out what to put in the article for creation to make it verifiable. We have had articles written about us in newspapers as well as a trade publication but I have gone on to their websites and cannot find them in their archives to be able to link them to Wikipedia. Is this the type of information that would be considered verifiable? Also, if I cannot find it in their archives and yet we have been written about and I have copies of it in our office, is there anything else we can do?

Giovanni50 (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Great Canadian Dollar Store

Giovanni50, the articles written in newspapers are good sources, just try to cite them as best as you can. Look for articles or other reliable secondary sources online because it is convenient for reviewers to be able to link and be sure of copyright issues, but there is a sort of honor code for wikipedia with written sources. Again, I encourage you to find online sources as well because they make fact-checking much easier and I can't guarantee that the article will pass review without any, but it depends on the reviewer. This site may help some: Wikipedia:Sources#Sources. Hope that helps! Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Real Life Super Villains

Moved from reviewer talk by Nathan2055 (talk · contribs)

Hi everyone!

I am trying to get a page on Wiki:

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

I don't understand what I have to do to get in on the actual Internet (as of right now, we can't find anything when searching on wiki: "Real Life Super Villains".

Can someone please help me?

Thanks in advance, Nadia (Nikky1976) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikky1976 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

:Hi, this is a project administration talkpage, please ask for assistance with editing basics at the Wikipedia:Help desk. Pol430 talk to me 19:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Pol430 talk to me 21:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Nadia, to start a page for "Real Life Super Villains", simply search for "Real Life Super Villians" on the wikipedia page and then click the red link "Real Life Super Villians" right below your search. There should be a line that says You may create the page "Real Life Super Villians", but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered. After clicking that, you can begin to create your page. That's the normal process to creat a page, just replace "Real Life Super Villians" with whatever you would like to create a page for. In this case, you can click on the red link in this message and that will get you started creating your page. Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Probably not the best idea with regard to this particular submission. It needs a significant amount of ref-improve to establish notability. If it were created in the mainspace in its present form it would likely be swiftly nominated for deletion. Pol430 talk to me 21:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The draft is currently awaiting review; that will take some time because there's a mssive backlog. But as it stands right now, it needs more reliable secondary sources. All it has (except a single Metro article) is user-submitted content such as blogs or YouTube videos, none of which has the "reputation of fact-checking and accuracy" needed to count as a reliable source on Wikipedia. I don't think the one remaining article constitutes the "significant coverage" required for a topic to be considered notable by Wikipedia's standards. For comparison, the real-life superhero article shows coverage by the BBC, CNN, La Repubblica and The New York Times, among others. Huon (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I feel dumb! Thank you Huon for helping Nadia out; my internet must have glitched when I tried to open the article for creation and showed that it had not yet been created. I want to echo Huon with everything he said and point out that you use Wikipedia as a reference a couple of times which is a bit no-no. That is a case of circular reasoning because each page then supports the other, neither of which is verifiable. Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 21:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jeffrey Alfred Legum

I would like to get some advice as to what needs to be done to get the submission approved. It has been declined twice. Mr. Jeffrey A. Legum is a notable person and there are reliables sources and more than enough references. Please let me know what else can be done. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jalegum (talk • contribs) 21:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Sdmjohn (talk) 21:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Jalegum, I'm not sure why the sources are considered unreliable, but from my quick read-through, it seem like there is a lot of unnecessary information about Mr. Legum. Please limit the information that you put on the article to what is notable. It may be that the reviewer was thrown off by all of the excess material and failed to really get the core of your point. Also, from your name it appears that you may have a conflict of interest in writing this article. Please be conscious of Wikipedia's unbiased policy; all information in the article must be verifiable by unbiased secondary sources and there can be no lean toward a certain opinion of Mr. Legum. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and thus must stick to the facts. Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 21:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Some of the references (such as the letters from various notables) are primary sources. Besides, they don't say what they're cited for - while a letter from the Reagan administration may or may not indicate that Legum met Reagan, it's unlikely to state that Legum considers himself lucky to have met Reagan. Many other sources are old newspaper articles. In principle newspaper articles are reliable sources, but unfortunately it's hard to check what they actually say if they're too old to exist online. Some of the newer ones should exist online, such as the 2011 New York Times piece. Finding an online source will be of great use to our readers, most of whom will have trouble to find a print copy. Even worse, some entries are so vague that I wasn't even able to identify which nespaper I should look for: There's no shortage of The Suns to choose from, and the most notable is the UK version which is probably the wrong one (the correct one is probably The Sun (Lowell)). The Google News archive may help to find online sources, though the ones I could look at just used Legum as a spokesperson.

Furthermore the article's tone is rather unencyclopedic. It usually calls Legum by his given name instead of his surname; I mentioned the "considers himself lucky" example; "The result? They used it" (the Avis ad incident that refers to is also unreferenced, by the way). And the "Timeline" section, which seems a list of newspaper articles mentioning Legum, should be turned into running text. Right now some of the entries are not even whole sentences.

In summary, Legum probably is notable, and the newspaper articles may show his notability, but sources not available online, while theoretically acceptable, are problematic in practice. I'm aware this explanation isn't very helpful, and by the book the article probably should have been accepted (though it would need some major editing to bring it in line with Wikipedia's style guidelines and to fix the tone).

My immediate suggestions would be to try and find what online references you can, to make sure that the references to print editions of newspapers are good enough to allow readers to identify the newspaper and issue in question, and, most importantly, to make sure that the sources do support the statements they are cited for. Huon (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Changing Title

i noticed in "The Flanagain Hotel(Malone NY)" that i mispelled the title it should be "The Flanagan Hotel(Malone NY)" . How do i change it? or can you?

I have moved it to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Flanagan Hotel(Malone NY). If it gets accepted, it will probably change even more; there should be a space between "Hotel" and the parentheses, and a comma between "Malone" and "NY". Possibly we should spell out New York, too. All those changes can be made once the article is accepted, though. Huon (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mob Attraction Las Veas

How do I add an info box?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdmjohn (talk • contribs) 22:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

By adding code like {{infobox museum}} (or whatever infobox you want to add). See National Museum of American History for an example of that infobox in action; Help:Infobox provides more help on infoboxes. Huon (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/lynie joe bucayu

Lynie Joe Bucayu or what we know it as Lynie. Born in September27,1998 in Quezon,Cityher,her hometown was in Binan,laguna parents Milagros Bucayu and Godofredo Bucayu.She was the youngest among the three siblings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.82.178 (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The request is currently awaitng review; please be patient. But as it currently stands, it has no reliable sources at all, and judging by the content, the article's topic appears non-notable by Wikipedia's standards. Also have a look at out guideline on biographies of living persons. If the article's subject is yourself, you should also be careful not to disclose identifying personal information (Wikipedia also strongly discourages autobiographies). Huon (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

May 30

Child competitions?

hi do you have children competition?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.121.31.95 (talk) 00:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean, but I doubt Wikipedia has it. Maybe we have an article on the topic. Huon (talk) 00:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Advancement of Civil War Weapons

I have been informed via the live help chat (by Sp33dyphil, if you need to know) that my article submission needs work- while I understand his point (I do understand) I am not sure which steps to take to finish the product. Would really appreciate any help available. Xavotron (talk) 05:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Xavotron, you have a very good start for your article; well done! There are a few comments I can make that might help with the review process. First, there is already an article on Wikipedia called List of weapons in the American Civil War that may be better suited for the information in your article. I don't mean to demean your article, since it does contain a lot of information that is not in the current article, but you may be able to contribute the information in your article to the List and add sections into the types of weapons for Change or Advancement in the weaponry. This will help to keep Wikipedia more organized, and you could then turn your Advancement of Civil War Weapons page into a redirect for your section(s) in the List of weapons in the American Civil War page. Another thing I noticed was that your page title mentions the Civil War, but not which one. It is commonly assumed in America that the Civil War is the American Civil War, but there are many others and it could be confusing to a searcher. Also, you make a reference to your own article in the header to explain what the article is about and you don't need to do that. I'm going to modify the line to be a bit more encyclopedia style while still keeping that the article pertains only to the American Civil War. Finally, you placed your sources in the External links section and they would be better suited for the References section to show that your information came from those sources. In conjunction with this, it would be helpful to readers and reviewers to add inline citations into your article, particularly with obscure or little-known information so that it can easily be validified. I know I wrote a lot here but you've got a really good start as it is right now and depending on whether the reviewer sees the similarity between your article and the list article as close enough to combine the two, you have a very good chance of passing review as is. Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 13:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

This draft should be moved to WT:Articles for creation/Advancement of American Civil War Weapons or WT:Articles for creation/Weapons development during the American Civil War (IMHO this is a much better title). Roger (talk) 14:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Philippine Society for Cosmetic Surgery

Dear Sir,

I submitted an article about Philippine Society for Cosmetic Surgery. The article was declined because of sources I placed which was the website of the society and the website of the Philippine Medical Association, a government website. I would like to ask for some info in regard to references so I can re submit it for review. The article is not for any means advertisement but for information about the Philippine Society for Cosmetic Surgery and its history.

Thank you

Raynald Torres, MD Pscs.1972 (talk) 13:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Torres, thank you for your submission to Wikipedia:Articles for creation! The reason your sources were considered unreliable is because they were not secondary sources. When writing an article about the Philippine Society for Cosmetic Surgery, you should try to stay away from the society's own published material because the society has a given conflict of interest and will have a bias toward itself. Instead, use secondary sources like news articles or third-party, trusted reviews to show the notability and validity of your information. Also, you said that your article is not an advertisement and while that may be your intention, it still reads like an advertisement. Lines like "the Philippine Society for cosmetic surgery has continued to uphold its vision to safeguard the public with trained and competent cosmetic surgeons. It is the pioneer of cosmetic surgery in the Philippines" have no place in an encyclopedia because of their tone. Saying that it safeguards the public, has trained and competent surgeons, and is a pioneer are all opinions and have a severe bias toward the society. Please just stick to the facts and only say the reason you believe these things without stating your opinions. For example, you could talk about the requirements that the surgeons must meet to join the society and any major developments of the society (described in a factual tone), which would show only the facts behind the pioneer and competent surgeon view without giving a bias toward the society. Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 13:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Patrick,

Thanks for the info and the tips. I'll do the editing of the contents to sound more objective which I did not see when I was editing. I got confused on what secondary sources are but I now got what you are saying. We had published articles before in newspapers and I'll put them as secondary sources and resubmit the article for review again. Thanks for the help.

Dr Torres — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pscs.1972 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Principiis Obsta

I am confused about the submission process and how one is notified whether it is accepted/rejected/modifications requested? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephhenryvogel (talk • contribs) 13:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Joseph, you should receive an email notifying you when you article is accepted or rejected; if major modifications are requested, then the article will be rejected and the thing that the reviewer wants modified will be cited as the reason for rejection. If only minor modifications are needed, then the reviewer will modify the article him/herself and then accept it. I took a brief look at your page and noticed that the citations were formatted without hyperlinks, so I went ahead and put them in the traditional Wikipedia style. Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 14:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/H. J. High Construction

I first wrote my article in early May. A reviewer rejected it because it was considered to be too promotional in language, and there were problems with the way I submitted my references. I went back, revised the article and reference formatting, resubmitted the article on May 25 ... and received a second rejection notice. I went back to revise the article again, expecting to see my most recent version on the page—but instead, I found the ORIGINAL version of my article, and not the revised version I submitted on May 25. How did this happen? How can I find the most recent version of my article, so I can continue with my revisions?

Thank you,

Dan McD D102653A (talk) 14:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Dan, I looked at the revision history of your article and it appears that the only modifications you made on May 25 were formatting issues (references, headings, bullets, etc.) and then you added one award/honor. If you made a revision after that minor one, then perhaps you forgot to save or Wikipedia encountered an error while saving. Unfortunately, I do not believe that there is a way to revert to the revisions that didn't save because they are not online. You will most likely have to make the revisions again. If anybody else more versed in Wikipedia reads this and knows of some other solution, please post it here! However, I don't believe that there's anything we can do. Sorry! Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Patrick, for your response and explanation. I'm pretty sure I clicked the "Save Page" button to save my entire revision—the revised article, everything— but ... maybe I didn't. Anyway, I will revise the article again.

Dan McD — Preceding unsigned comment added by D102653A (talk • contribs) 16:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I've double checked, the edit Dan made on the 25th May was this one to resubmit the submission for review. Not sure what happened but it would appear you never saved your work. Pol430 talk to me 22:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/George Cheyne Shattuck

The first review incorrectly stated that this person has an article on Wikipedia.

PLEASE NOTE THE SPECIFIC BIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM THE EXISTING WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE THAT IS ABOUT A DIFFERENT PERSON — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.14.181.237 (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

That seems correct, but unfortunately your draft has another problem: You have not shown that there is significant coverage of Shattuck in reliable secondary sources. One source doesn't even mention Shattuck, the school website about its own history is a primary source, blogs are not reliable, and the various genealogy websites do not provide significant coverage. Without such coverage, Shattuck is presumed not to be notable enough for an article. As a dean of Harvard Medical School Shattuck should be notable, but we still need the coverage to prove it. Huon (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Project Monitor

Latest update / review : I'm sorry, this comment is the same as the first one... "reads like an advertisement"... Content is similar to existing articles on comparable software solutions, for example : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sciforma_PSNext

I'm not sure what to do now. Thank you for any comments and help.

Tony Bocock

Tbocock (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to find more reliable secondary sources discussing the company (such as newspaper articles or independet reviews of their products published by someone with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy) and to make the article reflect what the secondary sources say. Phrases such as "The solution offers collaborative functionalities [...]" sound like marketingspeak and should be reworded in a more neutral tone. Furthermore, currently the main body of text is not supported by references; improving that would be a side benefit. Huon (talk) 19:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Rejection of article 'Thick Disc'

Hi, my article was declined a few days ago. I changed it with the help from another editor and re-submitted it and told the editor who rejected it if he could stop by but he hasn't had the time. If someone could stop by to see if it's now suitable for its inclusion in WP, that'd be great. Here is the article: Thick disk Cheers. Gaba p (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a severe backlog; please be patient. The article will soon be reviewed again. To me it looks good, though. Huon (talk) 20:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources?

My article-for-submission was rejected due to "lack of reliable sources". I don't understand - many of the 15 sources I cited are independant company websites of music publishers, record labels, music review journals. The article draft in question is

The link to the page is:

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

Can someone please give me specific examples of why these are not reliable sources? I don't know how they could be more reliable.

Thank you!68.194.247.229 (talk) 19:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The article was rejected because of the way we determine whether or not a subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The General Notability Guidlines require "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" in order to establish sufficient notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. Looking at the sources in your article, tthey appear to be either Youtube videos (which are not considered reliable) and sites selling Matthew's products (which are not considered independent. More specific information about reliable sources is available here. Millermk90 (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cenikor Foundation

I have added a history section to the article I am writing and half of it is missing. When I go in to edit it is there but when I view it it seems to only pick up half of the info. Can someone help me out with this?. Also would like to see if I have more sources and the article is neutral enough to get approved? I'd like to try to get this reviewed and posted soon. Egoins48 (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Egoins48. Unfortunately I don't have time right now to help you with your sourcing (I didn't get a chance to check what the sources were), but I fixed your references and added a reference section to your article. The second half of your references were closed with a ref/ tag instead of a /ref tag and you had no reflist or References section. Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Patrick thank you for fixing my sourcing and the references section. I appreciate the help. I probably would have never caught the ref/ tag. Egoins48 (talk) 03:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Phyllis Zagano

Can you help me get back to the refToolbar--I inserted things incorrectly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmyles (talk • contribs) 20:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm no expert on the RefToolbar, but I doubt you can use it to modify citations once they have been added. You can edit the article manually, though, and fix whatever went wrong. In particular, your citations seem to be missing titles; you can add those by changing "{{cite web|url=..." into "{{cite web|title=Website title|url=..." (substituting "Website title" by the website's title, of course). For a full list of the citation template's parameters and their use, see Template:Cite web. Huon (talk) 20:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Where can I find instructions on adding photos to my article?98.226.30.173 (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

So far nobody ast Wiki has been able to pinpoint what is objectionable for the latest page that had been rewritten again.

Can someone plese point out exactly what is so offensive or unusable to me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.134.104.188 (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You can upload an image via Special:Upload; more detailed help is available at WP:Uploading images. Please note that in order to upload images you must be logged in, and the account must be four days old with at least ten edits. Wikipedia's policy on non-free content requires that non-free images be used in at least one article (and drafts do not count); if the image is not free, uploading should wait until the article has been accepted. Otherwise the image will likely be deleted on copyright grounds. If the photo is one you took yourself and you are willing to release it under a free license, of if it is otherwise free content, you may instead upload it to the Wikimedia Commons via their Upload Wizard.

Once you have uploaded an image, you can add it to the article by using code like this:

[[File:Example.jpg|thumb|left|Image description]]

That will produce a thumbnail on the left of the text.

Regarding your article: Most of the sources are primary sources: The websites of institution Zagano is affiliated with, or her own publications. To establish notability we need significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, sources independent of the subject. Huon (talk) 22:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

May 31

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sekushi boutique

Hi I really need Sekushi Boutique to be on Wikipedia. I will otherwise lose my job — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amyyyyyyaneee (talk • contribs) 05:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Your submission will be reviewed according to Wikipedia's standards, and either accepted or declined on its merits alone.

This is a troubling comment; is your job at the company you're writing about? Because our conflict of interest policy strongly discourages writing about an organisation you are connected with. joe•roe^t•c 07:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nikhil Sen

I have submitted this article on "Nikhil Sen" but it didn't meet the criteria for publication. There is no conventional publications which can be quoted as a reference, so I have used my personal interviews with him and a publication of the College (Senior School) that he has help establish and is involved in. Apparently this doesn't satisfy Wikipedia standards for publications. Please advise how I can overcome this difficulty.

--Sayeed1962 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayeed1962 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

If there are no published sources about a topic, then it can't be included in Wikipedia, because the content of the article can't be verified. Personal interviews, if not published, can't be verified by other editors, so aren't an acceptable source. There's no way around it – some topics just aren't suitable for inclusion. joe•roe^t•c 07:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Antiserum (Musician)

I am unclear as to what isn't verifiable info in my submission — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veronicarukkuz (talk • contribs) 07:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Your draft's sources are not reliable by Wikipedia's standards. The record label and the Facebook page are primary sources. None of them have the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" we require. Without significant coverage in reliable sources - such as news pieces - Antiserum appears to be non-notable. I don't see him satisfying the music-specific notability criteria of WP:MUSIC, either. Huon (talk) 11:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Susan Smith (Athlete)

Article draft in question: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Susan Smith (Athlete)

My wiki bio page for the above person has been rejected by your reviewers on three occasions. As a last resort I would now request someone at the help desk to help me start a page? I can provide for you the minimum information required and supported by sources such as

1) The sports governing body, the Internationl Amateur Athletic Federation (iaaf.org) - see Susan's IAAF biography at http://www.iaaf.org/athletes/biographies/country=irl/athcode=130179/index.html

2) The Irish governing body, Athletics Ireland - see list of National records at http://www.athleticsireland.ie/content/?page_id=105

3) The Irish Times (Ireland's newspaper of record) - for examples see

Thanking you in anticipation

(Scotty1891 (talk) 10:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC))

I'm not sure what the problem is here. Smith clearly meets Wikipedia's notability requirements for sportspeople, because she has clearly participated at the Olympics. I'll move your article to mainspace. Obviously, if there is anything of interest in the Irish Times articles about her, it will help readers if you add it to the article. Sionk (talk) 11:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Problem with reliable sources

Hi, I am struggling to put this article online:

[Collateral Management Conference]

It is about the conference organized by Fleming Europe. I added here link from the medias that wrote about this conference but it still seems not enough. At least securitieslengdingtimes.com looks as quiet reliable source to me. I really don't know what to do now. And do I understand it correctly, that the topic and the text of the article is ok and the problem is only with reliable sources?

Thank you, Peter Peterkortvel (talk) 11:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Without significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, the topic is considered non-notable and unsuitable for a Wikipedia article. Of the sources you currently have, two are primary sources. I have doubts about FinRoad - there is no indication of editorial oversight, and I don't think it has the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy we require of reliable sources. And the Securities Lending Times discusses the conference's conclusions, but not the conference itself. I did a quick Google News search and came up with no hits regarding the conference. That does not look promising. Huon (talk) 11:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gletcher

What exactly are you looking for reference-wise? How many references do you need? From whom would be suitable references, manufacturers, customers, stores, media? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinulya123 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources are sources which are independent of the subject and which have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Manufacturers obviously are not independent of their product, and stores would have an obvious conflict of interest when reporting about a product they try to sell. The media are probably a much better source; maybe some gun magazine has reviewed the weapons? As an aside, the references should back up what the article actually says. The NRA website, for example, does not even mention Gletcher and thus is useless as a reference. Furthermore, to make the task of verifying the article's content easier, you should tell the reader which of your references supports which statement by using footnotes. Huon (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Status of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/TexasNAP

I can't tell if this page has been submitted for review or not, and if not, how do I submit it? Thanks! Corinna128 (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)Corinna128

It has not been submitted; you can do so by adding

{{Afc submission}}

to the top. But your draft currently has a single reference which does not even mention the article's topic. That's obviously not enough to establish the topic's notability or even to verify its existence. Establishing notability requires significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Submitting the draft without such coverage will just see it declined. Huon (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Marcus Kretzer

I have some problems with my tables. I would like to make them look like the german version

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Kretzer

For some reason it does not work. Could you help me? Thanks very much, best regards -- Druhlbachmuwimünchen (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

To me they look just like the German tables. But there is another severe problem: Many sections of the article are completely unreferenced, and the references we have seem to link to images and documents on Kretzer's personal website - those are very likely to be copyright violations. Even worse, although Granma has an archive reaching back to at least May 2003, I cannot find the June 2003 article of which a copy is supposed to be depicted as reference 4. That's a little troubling. Huon (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. Strange, that the tables look to you properly. To me they are quite different, esp. the gallery, which is located on the left side instead on the right, although I used the code class="float-right".

The "copyright violation" should not be a problem at all: there won't be a folder named "Wikipedia" on http://www.marcus-kretzer.com if he would disagree to the use of its content. Logical? Besides, I got the permission by Marcus Kretzer to use these links to this special folder. How can I prove this? Is there a form for such cases? Sorry for asking, but I am new in this business and, worse, from Germany :-))

The June 18 2003 article of Granma is a screenshot, taken in 2003. No idea, why especially this article now cannot be found anymore in Granma's archive. The only articles I could find are http://www.google.com/search?q=site:www.granma.cu+Marcus%20Kretzer At least they show that Kretzer was there and did what he did. Is that a sufficiant reference? Best regards -- Druhlbachmuwimünchen (talk) 07:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/REBTECH

http://en.wikipedia.g-webs.com/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/REBTECH

I saw this on the Internet and want it removed. How?

How do I avoid other articles from being exposed on the Internet before they are approved? Jhowardco (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Jhowardco, where did you find a link to that site? I am unfamiliar with g-webs but I believe that the link you posted is some sort of proxy. Wikipedia can't remove and entire proxy as it is just another route of accessing the normal wikipedia page. All wikipedia pages, created or uncreated, are on the internet and can be accessed by going via articles for creation. My best suggestion is, if it's your article, ignore the link for now and finish revising your article so that it can go live. When it goes live, the link you posted won't work because the article will be moved from articles for creation to the mainspace. If this is not your article and your main worry is that you don't want the article to pass review then there is nothing you can really do for that. If a subject is notable and follows Wikipedia's guidelines, it will pass review and be made a live page. Trying to attack that process with malicious edits will only get you banned and the edits can be reversed. (I do NOT mean to insinuate that you intend to attack the article if your desire is that the article never goes live; I don't want to attack your character! I'm just stating the facts about that process if you didn't know.) Best of luck with your article/issue! And if anyone else knows more about g-webs, please post to help out! Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

To me that looks not like a proxy but a bizarre kind of mirror. Since all of Wikipedia's content (with the exception of some images, but that's not relevant here), including article drafts, is published under a free licence (Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0, to be exact), there's nothing Wikipedia can do to have the draft deleted. I'd suggest one of two ways: Either contact that site's operators, or, probably easier, try to get the draft submitted and hope that the mirror will reflect that. If it is indeed a proxy, getting the Wikipedia draft accepted would probably also take care of the g-webs version. (G-webs.com seems a Polish newspaper, but I don't read Polish, so no guarantees, and I have no idea why they'd host a Wikipedia mirror.) Huon (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Help regarding review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nina G. Vaca

Hello, So I submitted my article, Nina G. Vaca, a couple times previously and it was rejected for very legitimate reasons of notability and reading like an advertisement. Since then, I have revised it to fix these issues (or at least attempt to!) and I submitted it for review a couple of days ago. The other two times I submitted it, it was reviewed within a day or two, and I'm starting to get worried that it may have gotten lost this time on the review page and accidentally skipped over. I know that the reviewers have lots of work to do and do everything voluntarilly and I praise them for their work; I just wanted to see if there was anything I could do to make sure my article didnt get lost. Should I submit my article again or just be patient? I'm still learning the processes on Wikipedia and I'm helping out where I can; I'd really appreciate some help or reassurance on this one! (tag removed)

Edit - Apparently I wasn't logged in, so my tag was incorrect. Whoops! Here's the right one! Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Since an article that hasn't yet been reviewed won't get removed from the category of articles to be reviewed, it cannot accidentally get lost - please just be a little more patient. Huon (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Huon! Sorry if I sounded impatient; I didn't mean it that way! I just wanted to make sure I wasn't dropping the ball somewhere! Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Accepted Pol430 talk to me 22:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Josh Linkner

Hi there I am having trouble getting this article accepted. I am not sure what else needs to be cited or if its my resources that are not being accepted. please help, thanks!Cszydlowski (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the draft shows significant coverage of Linkner in reliable secondary sources. With the exception of the New York Times bestseller list, all sources are by organizations Linkner is affiliated with (ie primary sources), and the bestseller list is hardly significant coverage. What we need are people independent of Linkner writing about him. Maybe therre's some news coverage of his bestselling book or an independent review? The section on his career currently isn't supported by references at all. Huon (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/List of NYU Graduate Acting Program Alumni

Okay, I'm confused. This article has been rejected three times for not having adequate citations. The first time I used imdb links, but these are not allowed. Now I have links to the Graduate Acting Program alumni web site, ibdb, Tony, Emmy, and Academy Award sites, and several others.

A brief perusal of several other similar pages, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_York_University_alumni, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Harvard_Law_School_alumni, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Oberlin_College_alumni shows that most of the individuals listed on these pages have no citations at all, merely links to their profiles in Wikipedia. What do I need to do to have this article accepted?

Thanks,

216.165.95.72 (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)James

This list is simply not required. Those individuals who are notable alumni can simply be listed (if they are not already) at List of New York University alumni against the relevant school. To create what is effectively a sub-list delves into the realms indiscriminate information. Which forms part of WP:NOT. Pol430 talk to me 21:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

June 1

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stefan Obermaier

HI, I just created an artist article about an austrian musician (-Stefan Obermaier -he has already a gold award, 2 albums released at a major label (universal) a 3rd album coming out this month, an own room at the famous sound and music museum in Vienna next to the great composers like Mozart, Beethoven, etc.) but I didn't "meet wiki's criteria"... -? the german article is already approved. I didn't use a lot of "references" for that from online sources, because in my opinion they are not actual (and mostly what I could find were playlists). I am sure in the next month there will come out new and actual articles about the artist -because of his new release. But in the moment I am wondering why that is not enough. -I searched also for other musician's articles (especially from Germany and Austria in the English Wiki), -for comparing and now I am wondering, because a lot of them have many "recourses" in the articles, but even more have no one, or just one... -how can that be? -Why they are matching the criteria and me not? Thanks! Kirschblume (talk) 08:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Obermaier may well be notable, but the draft does not show it. To establish notability by Wikipedia's standards, we need significant coverage in reliable secondary sources such as newspaper articles. The Haus der Musik website is a primary source, and the discogs search results hardly have the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" we require of reliable sources. Furthermore, much of the article, especially all the content about Obermaier's early life and education, is not supported by references at all. I expect such sources exist, but the article should be based on them, and currently it's not. As an aside, there may be other bad articles, but that's no reason to create one more. We probably haven't conme around to improving or deleting those other articles, but that doesn't mean they are to be emulated. Huon (talk) 11:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

thanks! ok, I understand, then I will create the article about him for sure after the professional communication work about the artist around the upcoming release will have done its work (what was obviously not the case in the past) and when there can be found more significant articles online. But what would you suggest me to do for now? That he has released the stuff is fact -but as you said- primary that can be found now just on primary sources (just as the universal music homepage, vienna scientists homepage, the mueseum site, etc.) Do you have any ideas for me? Thanks, all the best! Kirschblume (talk) 11:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I would expect a Viennese newspaper to have reported on Obermaier's Haus der Musik installation. If such an article could be found (not necessarily online, though that would of course be preferable) it would make a fine source, but unfortunately Google News came up empty. If no secondary sources can be found, then despite appearances Obermaier is not yet notable, and my suggestion would be to wait until secondary sources about him have been written. Huon (talk) 12:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/H. J. High Construction

I have a question about the rejection of my most recent article submission. First though, I see that some of my references did not appear in this submission. I followed the Wiki referencing format, so I'm not sure why they didn't appear ... but I will re-enter them when I resubmit my article.

Before I do this however, here's my question:

My article was rejected because: This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.

Checking the notability and verifiability guidelines, I don't understand why my article was rejected. My article featured references from: • 4 references to construction industry websites; these articles were written by independent journalists • 6 references to magazines, including both general business magazines and construction industry magazines. Again, these articles were written by independent journalists.

My references then are • Third-party • Verifiable (I included both web links and publication names and dates of articles—is this not sufficient verifiability?) • Significant (each article contains a minimum one-paragraph write up on my subject

Please explain to me how my references failed to meet your criteria for notability.

Thank you,

Dan McD — Preceding unsigned comment added by D102653A (talk • contribs) 13:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Accepted I have tidied up the references, fixing a broken link and the like. While some of the draft's references seem surprisingly laudatory ("H. j. High Construction: A company you can trust"?), they indeed are reliable secondary sources. Whether the coverage is significant is a little more debatable - the Masterson article doesn't really tell us much about H. J. High, but several others have the company as their primary topic. Some problems remain, but they can be fixed by editing. Huon (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Does the "Accepted" check mean that my article has been ... accepted? If not, please tell me what problems remain and how I can fix them. I will be glad to make the fixes if I can.

Thanks very much for your response and help.

Dan McD — Preceding unsigned comment added by D102653A (talk • contribs) 18:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/J.M. Benjamin

I'm not sure if I did J.M. Benjamin correctly can you please help me with it. StaceyMcNeill (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

What kind of help do you require? The draft is not currently submitted for review, but I would suggest some major changes before submitting it. For example, you should cite your references by using footnotes. Furthermore, quite a few of those references are primary sources, websites of organizations Benjamin is affiliated with. Those cannot establish notability. The single secondary source is the article from the local part of The New York Times, and the draft does not really use the information contained in that reference. Expanding the draft based on that reference might be worthwhile, but further secondary sources would also be very useful. Huon (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bajatell - biography

Pierre – My journey as “Bajatell” – A story in itself…

www.bajatell.ca — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malebeau (talk • contribs) 17:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I have moved the content to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bajatell - biography, but the text does not show the subject's notability and had no reliable sources whatsoever. It would also have to be rewritten in its entirety because of its unencyclopedic tone (we don't write articles as a first-person narrative), and WP:Autobiography also applies. In summary, I don't expect this to be a valid topic for an article, and it would take significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to prove me wrong. Huon (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/YPA Streetball

I have put all the sources. I cited them in reference already. Why do I keep getting denied? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreshCaesar (talk • contribs) 18:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Because you do not use inline citations and footnotes. To help our readers verify your draft's content, each statement should be directly attributed to the relevant reference. Otherwise one would have to look up all references in order to find the one which supports the statement one wants to check.

Also, many of your references are not reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia articles, for example, are not considered reliable. The supposed interview with YPA CEO Court Smith is not an interview, and I don't think Streetballin.net has the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy we require of a reliable source. Huon (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Author not found

You are missing a great mystery writer as Joel Goldman who is listed in many other places. He is a great crime writer with the Lou Mason & Jack Davis series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.144.149 (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You can request new articles at WP:Requested articles. This page is for help with article submissions. Huon (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shrooms

Hi guys, I am preparing a draft of the article to submit for review. Could you please advice on how can I rename the page to disambiguate it?

Finally I would like to have the page accessible on the web via the url below: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrooms_(game)

U35tpus (talk) 21:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Regards, Oleg

I have moved the draft to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shrooms (game); when the submission is accepted it will be moved to your proposed title. But I had to note that the draft does not show significant coverage of the game in reliable secondary sources; if no such coverage can be found, the game will be considered non-notable by Wikipedia's standards, and therefore not an appropriate topic for an article. Huon (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Please note that I have also nominated the now-empty page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shrooms for speedy deletion. That's not your draft, that's just a relic of the page move which we do not need. Huon (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

June 2

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vamvakou, Laconia, Greece

Question 1: I would like to know if there is a "template" ready for me to use and write an article about a town/village in Greece.

Question 2: Can I use another article already published as a template? Nickkaramouzos (talk) 10:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)NickKaramouzos

You would probably get good advice at WT:WikiProject Greece. Some country Wikiprojects have developed a standard format (template) for articles about towns and other places. Roger (talk) 10:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Konrad Kwiet

Just saw that there was an article on Konrad Kwiet on the German Wikipedia site. It is not accessible on the English site, does this count as 'existing article on this subject'? Kwiet lives and works in Australia, so an English entry may be justified. Thanks Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Konrad Kwiet Konstanzeorzippi (talk) 11:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Articles on the German Wikipedia don't count as "existing" on the English Wikipedia. The draft could do with some additional sources, though; with the exception of the ABC article those are all primary sources. Huon (talk) 13:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Searching Wikipedia

Hi,

Do you know why I cannot see my article (Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Funds) when I search wikipedia? I think I submitted it correctly, but am having trouble determining if I've done the correct steps to submitting. Can you verify that my article Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Funds has been submitted?

Thanks,

Denisereiter (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Your draft is at User:Denisereiter/sandbox; it has not been submitted to Articles for creation for review. Wikipedia's search box by default only searches articles, not drafts - neither userspace drafts nor those at AfC. Huon (talk) 13:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Grimm (season 1)

i typed in grimm season 1 after you denied my article. although the name exists, it took me to the list of episodes section instead. is there a way to fix the problem? S_hannon434 (S_hannon434) 4:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The page Grimm (season 1) is a redirect to the list of episodes. I don't think this is a problem that needs to be fixed; there isn't much to be said about season 1 that could not find a place in either the list of episodes or the main article on the series. Huon (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see the comments on your article page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Grimm (season 1)  :- ) Don 00:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

June 3

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Variable Neighborhood Search

Hello

please can you explain me how would I post my article after unsuccessfully review? I changed text and cut some parts in it, but when I click the wizard and pass all steps, every time I get message immediately, that the article did not pass the review.

I am waiting for your answer

Best

Stefanakvark (talk) 11:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The article has been re-submitted for review (I'm no expert on the Article Wizard, but as long as the article has a submission template saying "Review waiting", it is listed among the articles to be reviewed). But the draft is currently highly redundant; I count five copies of the article text, probably with minor changes between them. I would strongly suggest removing the outdated copies; otherwise the reviewer may accidentally review the wrong version. I also don't think the concerns of the last reviewer have been addressed sufficiently: Those copies I checked all still read more like essays or research papers, not like an encyclopedia article. Huon (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I have moved the submission template to the top of your article.  There are six copies.  With 19 sections, 20 sections, 20 sections, 19 sections, 9 sections, and 9 sections.  Perhaps you have been editing in your sandbox and moving it to AfC Talk space each time.  You can do this, but you must delete the existing copy in Talk Space each time you move it.  It is best to edit your article where is is locate in AfC talk space >Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Variable Neighborhood Search< and not in your sandbox once it is submitted to AfC.   :- ) Don 19:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Springfield Model 1861

What is a Springfield Model 1861 worth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.175.93.118 (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Please consider asking this question at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what the Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. Huon (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

June 4

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chicago White Metal Casting Inc

OTRS received permission related to Chicago White Metal Casting Inc. I was informed that the page was: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chicago White Metal Casting Inc, but I don't see any such page. Does anyone remember working on this? If it was deleted for copyright reasons, it can be restored, and I'll add the permission.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It's probably Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chicago White Metal Casting Inc., which was declined for reasons unrelated to copyright. Huon (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Matthew 25: Ministries

Hello,

I am creating a page for my organization and was told by you that I need further citations within the document. I am not sure exactly where I would need these as I have cited most of the document. Is there any way you could review the page and let me know where I should add some of these? Thank you for your time. The URL is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Matthew_25:_Ministries#References

Joodia

Joodia (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)