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

March 26

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Prophetess Tasha Slaughter ministries

HELLO IM WANTING TO CREATE A PAGE FOR PROPHETESS TASHA SLAUGHTER MINISTRIES AND IT DENIED IT. PLEASE HELP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.69.202 (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

That draft doesn't cite any reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles. Without such sources we cannot accept the draft. Huon (talk) 00:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Tanya Suzette Pettway

[Draft removed] TeePett1 (talk) 02:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Please don't paste your draft to the help desk; edit Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tanya Suzette Pettway instead. The draft did not show Pettway has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. We need such sources, both to establish Pettway's notability and to allow our readers to verify the content. If, as your username suggests, you are Tanya Pettway, you may also want to read our guideline on conflicts of interest - writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged. Huon (talk) 02:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

article review IIT tanzania

I have submitted article and got reply that it was not accepted , but i dont find reviewer comment , why this was not accepted, if i need to edit what part is needed to edited , — Preceding unsigned comment added by IIT Tanzania (talk • contribs) 10:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The reviewer's comment is at the top of the draft. In short, the draft cites no reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and it's written in a non-neutral, unduly promotional tone. The entire draft would have to be rewritten from scratch, based on what reliable sources such as newspapers say about IIT. Huon (talk) 11:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Two pages that were the same

Dear editors: I found two pages that had the same content. An older one Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Media for Equity has been declined three times. The messages in the declinations make it clear that the reviewers thought that "Media for Equity" was the name of a company, when in fact it is an investment strategy used by many companies. Obviously the article was not clearly written. Then I found that another user had submitted to the Afc the exact same text under another name, with a note added that this topic is in the German Wikipedia, so I moved the new one to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Media for Equity (2). It looked like neither of the two originators (if they are really two) had any intention of improving the article, so I decided to rewrite it and add more references. Now that I'm done, though, I realize that I shouldn't review it myself. I am concerned that the edit history of this text is spread over two different users and pages, and when it comes up for review, the reviewer should know about the previous declination notices on the older article. How is a situation like this usually handled? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

That's somewhat messy. For licensing reasons we need the first draft's edit history. The best way forward would be to summon an admin and have him merge page histories. I'll try to find one via IRC; that's probably faster than WP:AN/I. Huon (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Done by Shirik. Huon (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again. One more article off the Afc list. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

My article for creation: LOT-EK

Hi all,

I'm trying to have my article approved Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/LOT-EK. I've made changes on March 12 to have it read more objectively. I saved after it was edited, and I want to confirm if there is another step I need to take to have the article reviewed and approved. Thank you!

Oliverbailey31 (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The page is correctly submitted for review, but you have two versions of the draft on the page and should remove the old one to prevent confusion. I'd also say the sources could use more work - some paragraphs have almost excessively many sources, others none at all. Huon (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks -- will take a look and re-submit. Oliverbailey31 (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Two pages that should be merged

Dear editors: This user Euh1er has made a page User:Euh1er/sandbox on March 5 and submitted it for review. Then on March 8 the information on this page was copied rather than moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/IUPAC Subcommittee on Structure and Properties of Commercial Polymers. I guess these two pages need to be merged. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The first page you mention was edited only by User:Euh1er, and the second page you mention was created by the same user. So why the need to merge the edit histories?

I see someone has marked the second-mentioned page for speedy deletion anyway. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/IUPAC Subcommittee on Structure and Properties of Commercial Polymers doesn't have any relevant edits, I've tagged it for speedy deletion so we can move User:Euh1er/sandbox properly. Huon (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Great. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of User:KFlatten/sandbox

Until my article is reviewed and accepted I can not insert images into the article. That is my understanding. I have tried to upload photos and get hung up on the name of the Wikipedia article. Don't reviewers need to see the photos in their review? KFlatten (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)Kay FlattenKFlatten (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC) Wikipediatalk:Articles for creation/KFlatten/sandbox

No, images do not affect the review decision. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Whether images can be added to a draft depends on the images' copyright status. If they are freely licensed so that anybody can re-use them for any purpose, they can be added to drafts as well. If they're non-free content, they can be used in articles only, not in drafts.

Anyway, reviewers won't need to see the images; reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles, are much more important. Major parts of the draft don't cite any sources at all, and several sources seem to originate with Happehatchee Center itself - clearly not independent. WGCU doesn't even write a single sentence about the Center, and the Florida statutes should be considered primary sources. I don't think the current sources suffice to establish Happehatchee Center's notability. Huon (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Declining a sandbox

Dear editors: Yesterday I was reviewing this page: User:Jalpahsoni/sandbox. It was probably submitted by mistake, since it's a conversation. There wasn't any title so I tagged it manually as not suitable for Wikipedia. It displays the tag, but it's still on the Afc list. Did I miss a step? —Anne Delong (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Apparently that sandbox had two submission templates; you declined one, but the other remained and kept the page submitted for review. I've removed it. Huon (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

On second thought, you added the second template yourself - you should have added the "d" and "not" parameters as the first two parameters to the existing submission template. Huon (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'll keep that it mind.—Anne Delong (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Hi,

It has been months that I have been working on a page Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Aradhna_Krishna, and I have answered to all the reviewers' comments. My last efforts were appreciated and it seemed that the page was going to be accepted with minor reviews. I have done the minor reviews 3 weeks ago and I am just wondering how long could it take to have an answer. Thank you very much for your awesome work!!!

Alfa privativo Alfa privativo (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

It could take several weeks longer for the submission to be reviewed again. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Another merge

Here are two more pages that seem to be continuations of each other:

First, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Keaton Henson

Then: User:Violetcries/Keaton Henson

—Anne Delong (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

..and the same user has at least two other pages duplicated the same way. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, what a mess. However, since both versions are by the same author, we're still crediting the correct user if we simply ignore the versions in userspace or decline them as duplicates. Thus I'd say no merge action needs to be taken. I'm not an expert on the correct attribution of Wikipedia content, though. Huon (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eleanor Spiess-Ferris

Please let me know the status of my article "Eleanor Spiess-Ferris"Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eleanor Spiess-Ferris I submitted it for review on February 15. My Wikipedia Talk page, however, has a notice that the article is NOT submitted for review. I submitted it again, and the article was rejected because the same one Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eleanor Spiess-Ferris was already in review. Still, however, my talk pages says the article isn't in review. Also, another Wiki notice informs that there is a big backlog of articles for review at this time, and to expect delay. I'm okay with that, but I'm not sure if the article (Eleanor Spiess-Ferris) is actually in the review queque .. Please inform. Umberto TosiUmberto3000 (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

That looks like a mistake on the reviewer's part. The original draft was never submitted for review; I have now submitted it (thus we can ignore the duplicate draft). At a glance, many of the sources seem problematic. For example, Spiess-Ferris' official website is a primary source, as are the websites of her husband or of galleries which have exhibited her work. While such sources might be acceptable for uncontroversial facts such as her birthday, they should not serve as the sole basis for large amounts of content; Wikipedia content should be based on reliable, independent sources such as newspaper articles or articles in reputable art magazines. Huon (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

March 27

Atlwc would like article created to now be approved and submitted please help.

I created an article for submission last August entitled Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Atlanta Woman's Club an article on GFWC Atlanta Woman's Club. I had some reviews and critiques of which I have now fixed by rewriting per the request to write a more neutral article. I think it's done now and would for it to be reviewed and submitted if at all possible.Thank you, atlwcAtlwc (talk) 01:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I have submitted the draft for review on your behalf, but there are still quite a few issues. First of all, if you're associated with the club, you may want to read our guideline on conflicts of interest. Writing about topics you're closely associated with is discouraged.

Secondly, adding inline citations and footnotes would help to clarify which part of the draft is based on which source. Also, what I assume is the main source, A Light on Peachtree: A History of the Atlanta Woman's Club, was written by a club member, not quite the independent source we're looking for.

Thirdly, the tone still isn't all that neutral. For example, "The City of Atlanta and State of Georgia would have faced a very different history had it not been for the progressive philanthropic and humanitarian projects undertaken by the Atlanta Woman's Club"? The club significantly influenced the history of the entire state? Says who? At times the draft even still speaks of the club as "we".

We're severely backlogged at the moment, so it may take several weeks for a reviewer to look at your draft. I'd use that time to address some of those issues. Huon (talk) 02:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Huon,I can obtain more footnotes from the Atlanta History Center and GFWC library. The Book was indeed written by an author who visited the club many times for research purposes, she has written other biographies on the Atlanta Braves as well as mystery fiction novels. She enjoyed the club and the members that she is a member now. Thirdly, the quote or beginning sentence that I open was a paraphrase or rework of an original quote stated by Former President Jimmy Carter and his wife Roselyn. Both he and his wife wrote the foreward to the Atlanta History Book as he was familiar with the Atlanta Woman's Club's efforts. President Carter's original quote is as follows:“Many in Atlanta may not realize that our city and the state of Georgia could have faced a very different history had it not been for the successful advocacy and funding of several important projects undertaken by the Atlanta Woman’s Club, most notably with the inception and development of the Atlanta airport… ”. His foreward is 2 pages. I will, continue to work on the draft, and would appreciate review for submission. I personally feel this Club is worthy of an article. There are monuments and placards in Georgia thanking AWC for its contribution to the city, although still, no one in the 21st century really knows what they have done,its purpose and mission unless they see the marker. For many years, the women believed in quiet pride, they don't sell anything but merely give, a woman's nonprofit giving back to its community for over 100 years quietly. They did impact Georgia history and their legacy should be shared, which is why they had the book written and why I wrote this article. I would appreciate the review and possible submission. atlwc thanks you Atlwc (talk) 01:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)atlwc

I don't think Jimmy Carter is a reliable source on history. My suggestion would be to quote Carter as part of a "public reception" section or something like that, and to attribute the quotation to Carter.

The draft is submitted for review, but as I said we're severely backlogged, and it may take a few weeks until a reviewer takes a look. Please be patient and use the time to fix the issues I pointed out above - the more you improve the draft now, the greater the chances that it will be accepted. Huon (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hambodia

I declined this article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hambodia as a joke, but should it be deleted as well? —Anne Delong (talk) 02:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

It might arguably be covered by CSD criterion G3: Blatant hoaxes, but I don't think tagging it for speedy deletion is worth the effort. I believe we usually only kill off copyright violations, attack pages, or the most blatant advertisements. Huon (talk) 02:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

reviewing a user page

Dear editors: I was reviewing a page which Phaedra22 had created on his or her own user page and submitted for review. I moved the page to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/European Parliament Simulation but I may not have done this properly. Should I have moved the talk page with it (I did)? Or should I have handled this differently? —Anne Delong (talk) 04:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• In this case, you shouldn't move the talk page, as that belongs to the user and is essential to be able to communicate with them. Drafts don't generally have associated talk pages until they get accepted and moved into the main article space, so people can discuss further changes to them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, it seems as though either someone has fixed it, or the software was smart enough not to do it, because the talk page seems to be okay. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe you cannot move the talk page along if you move the page itself into a Talk namespace - where would the talk page go? Wikipedia talk talk? Huon (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ed Monk

My submission (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ed Monk) was declined for lack of reliable sources. I require more specific feedback. Which sources are not reliable? Or, are they reliable but not enough of them? Please look at William Garden and Leslie Geary. It seems to me, after reading about sources, that the Ed Monk article is cited better than those. Thanks,Tad unger (talk) 14:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the Classic Yacht Association's website is a reliable source. It seems self-published and not subject to editorial oversight. Besides, it cites two references of its own which you both cite directly, so it's rather redundant. Monk's own books are primary sources; for all I can tell you don't cite them for their content, but merely for their own existence. The account in Knee-Deep in Shavings sounds like anecdotes by a personal acquaintance and should probably also be considered a primary source. Thus the draft's content is based on a single secondary source, Oliver's biography of Monk. For all I can tell that's a good source, but a single secondary source is not enough to establish Monk's notability.

The other articles you pointed to have similar problems, but while other problematic articles exist, that's no reason to create more. Each submission must stand on its own merits.

On an unrelated note, it would help if you could add page numbers to the Oliver references. It's a 160-page book, and all I can tell right now is that it serves as the basis for the entire article, which isn't all that helpful if I want to verify a specific statement. Huon (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/George Alexander Baird - Mr Abington

Hello

Just trying to clarify the editing required on the article George Alexander Baird - Mr Abington in order to get it reconsidered. There appears to be pruning required - no problem, but I do not want to throw baby out with the bath water. I have written to the reviewer asking for guidance (OrenBochman) and looked at his/her articles to see what she/he expects but I am still a bit unsure. Any suggestions and will this have to go to the bottom of the pile again if I do resubmit?

Sidpickle (talk) 14:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd say it's not so much a matter of content as of tone and style. The draft begins with Baird's death - the lead section should summarize the content of the article, and I'd expect the first sentence to read something like this:

George Alexander Baird (30 September 1861 – 18 March 1893) was a British race horse owner and gentleman jockey under the assumed name of Mr. Abington.

That's a much better introduction to the subject than his death of a fever, which of course should still be mentioned in the article proper. Most of the draft except the lead sounds rather good to me; maybe OrenBochman will elaborate.

Unfortunately a resubmitted draft will again be at the bottom of the pile; the pile is simply sorted chronologically. But submissions aren't necessarily reviewed in chronological order. Huon (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

OK I'll wait for OrenBochman to get back because if I do not meet his standards I will be waiting for months to get reviews considered/reconsidered with the current backlog.

Many thanks

Sidpickle (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sidpickle!

I'm glad you have asked how to improve the article.

Having plenty of references is a good thing and not the issue.

It seems like you have done lots of work already by it requires more work. The only encouragement I have is that based on the current status, once you bring it up to speed it should be a C or even B class historical Bio. What you need to do now is mostly self editing.

You have chosen a rather odd subject for your article - besides being rich did he have any notable accomplishments in his short life? The answer to this should be clear from the lead paragraph of the article which is absent - instead you begin with a wonderfully dramatic teaser which leaves the reader guessing. This is one example of the stylistic issues your article is facing!

The article does is not written in the more formal style of an encyclopedia article. I am not a professional copy editor like some the members of the guild of copy editors. But it is plain even to me that the article needs more work to clean it up and to better comply with Manual of style.

To start with Consider using simpler sentences which are easier to understand. Remove unnecessary information. It looks like you could tell "George Alexander Baird's" life in far less words without leaving out any detail. Also there are some other issues - but it is still early to go into details:

• "(probably equivalent to three hundred million pounds in today’s money)"
  • probably indicates some kind of guess or speculation - which is not encyclopedic writing but your or someone else opinion. If it is an estimation say that it is.
  • This second issue is your guesstimate of the current value of his estate but your source is from 1930s. By failing to clarify this you committed a faux pas we call Stnthesis which falls foul of the broader policy called No Original Research. So stick to the sources!
  • The third problem is that you need to word such sentences so they do not become incorrect next week. Something like "As of 1934 his estate was valued at ... pounds ^[1] which in 2013 would have been valued as ... pounds^[2]"
• "By all accounts" ... is superfluous and indicates a missing inline citation
• According to the Manual of style titles need to be in sentence case.

• The titles you have chosen also leave much to be desired - look at similar bios and try to emulate their format and style!

If you need more pointers about writing or style I can provide them.

Also be advised that I know many languages by am a master of none and I consider my English is rather disgraceful at times. I try to learn from some of my hero on Wikipedia, so please don't try to copy my poor writing. I recommend you look at the pages of User:Tony1 or at any of the many Featured articles for examples of fine writing!

Finally do not worry about being at the bottom of the pile think about writing the best articles that you can and soon you will not need to use AFC at all. -- BO | Talk 22:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I have taken out the early section that included all the areas of concern.

Sidpickle (talk) 07:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Myles L. Berman

[Draft removed] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlberman (talk • contribs) 16:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

That was a short version of the draft on Berman. How may we be of assistance? If, as your username suggests, you are Berman, you may want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest. Writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged. Furthermore, Wikipedia content should be based on reliable, independent sources such as newspapers. The draft's sources all seem either to originate with Berman himself, or they're mere directory entries. Huon (talk) 16:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Night Biters

Submission declined on 24 March 2013 by DGG (talk). DGG stated “Self-published book. Not in worldcat. Cannot possibly be suitable for an encyclopedia article” DGG is in error my book is in worldcat http://www.worldcat.org/title/night-biters-a-tale-of-urban-horror/oclc/70961973/editions?editionsView=true&referer=br

1. Night biters : a tale of urban horror by Adrian Harper Book: Fiction English 2008

	[United States] : 

My work is suitable for an encyclopedia article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harperworx (talk • contribs) 19:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Adrian, did you have a question about the Articles for Creation process? Have you read WP:42 ? Goodreads and Youtube are not reliable sources. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

While DGG may have been mistaken regarding WorldCat, the basic problem is that Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles or reviews in reputable literary magazines. None of your draft's sources satisfy this standard. Furthermore, if, as your username suggests, you are the book's author, you may want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest. Writing articles about your own work is discouraged because it's difficult to maintain a neutral point of view. Huon (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dan Bigley

Hey, my article got declined because I dont have enough citations, but what if this came from the author themselves as original content? They literally sent every word in the article to me, what can I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashikitty (talk • contribs) 23:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires reliable published sources that are independent of the subject. Original content from the article's subject is not an acceptable source, and I don't see that Bigley is notable enough for an article by Wikipedia's standards. You may also want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest. Huon (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sylvester Z. Poli

My article draft has been refused, and I would like to re-submit. I am confused by the reason, lack of reliable sources. If you google or bing the subject, there are many articles available to support the history and success of the individual biography. Should I include all of these outside links in the reference section? I must also mention that although I am the great-granddaughter of the article's subject, I have done my best to remain as objective and to the point as possible. Any help or instruction will be greatly appreciated. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sylvester_Z._Poli

Gramps101 (talk) 23:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

You should cite the sources in the article; our readers shouldn't have to google the subject to find the sources. Among the sources you currently cite, ConnecticutHistory is that organization's homepage which doesn't mention Poli at all; the Time piece is rather trivial coverage that doesn't even devote a single sentence to Poli, and most others are images without enough context to clearly identify the source - one seems a copy of an announcement written by Poli himself, which clearly is not the kind of independent source we're looking for. For example, how can I verify that Poli was "Born in the village of Piano di Coreglia"? No source is given for that claim. Huon (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

March 28

Please check this

Dear editors: I am new at reviewing, and I would appreciate it if someone would check my work on this submission: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Taxonomy for Psychological Interventions Thanks, I just want to make sure that I did it correctly. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks excellent to me. The comment is a nice addition to the appropriate canned response. Huon (talk) 13:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Husnain Afzal Khan

Ridzine (talk) 06:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Rida Nadeem

How may we help you? I had to decline your draft because it was largely unsupported by reliable sources. To be considered notable, Khan must have been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources such as newspapers or reputable film magazines. Ridzine might be a reliable source, but on its own it's not enough. Huon (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

text copied from another Wikipedia article

While reviewing this article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Family of Secrets I came to realize that it is very similar to a section of this article: Russ Baker and that an editor who had worked extensively on the Baker article (although not the originator) had created the Family of Secrets article. I was going to tag it as duplicate, but perhaps this is the editor's way of suggesting a split of the Baker article. What should be done here? —Anne Delong (talk) 11:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is a proposal to split the Russ Baker article. I'd say we should review it on the merits; if the book is independently notable, it should indeed receive an article of its own. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2013 March 17#Review of User:Bn/sandbox for the author's comments on the duplication. Huon (talk) 13:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'll leave this one. I guess one of the problems of Afc is no talk page, but I suppose a comment at the top of the page would make the intentions clear. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Strange redirect

Dear editors: I was reviewing a page User:Articles for creation/W. Drake McFeely (2nd copy), which can't be moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/W. Drake McFeely (2nd copy) because that title is already taken up by a redirect back to the first article. Is there such an editor as User:Articles for creation? I am confused. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no User:Articles for creation; the draft's author, Brooklynbooklit, had moved the page. I've moved it back (we can move articles over redirects if the target has a trivial edit history) and will leave a note at the author's talk page. Huon (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again! —Anne Delong (talk) 13:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

two connected submissions

Dear editors: Could someone with more experience sort out this pair of submissions: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hookson and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hookson (company)? It seems that one user started an article about the company, and another user has taken over its developement on a separate page, creating partial duplication. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

And a similar thing has happened with Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Perfect City and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Perfect City (musical), which have been edited by several people, unless it's the same person without logging in from several computers. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I've declined Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hookson (company) as an advertisement and left a comment about the other copy of that draft and the licensing issue. I've also declined Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Perfect City (musical) as a duplicate since Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Perfect City is currently submitted for review. I haven't checked that last one. Huon (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pauline Rowson

Hi,

Thank you for your reply to my question below and have put my responses below:

I am querying why the reference sources quoted and the article for submission keeps getting declined when these are valid external sources and when other authors who have fewer cited sources and fewer books published by reputable and international publishing houses are accepted. This is a genuine attempt to create an information source for users. Pauline Rowson is also listed as a notable alumni on an existing Wikipedia page.

In answer to the points you raise in order:

The references

Her biography at lovereading.co.uk

Answer: it is a site that recommends books to book lovers.

Her biography at FantasticFiction.co.uk, which does not show any evidence of editorial oversight either. It might be a reliable source; I'm not entirely sure - but much of that biography seems to be cropped from other reviews or articles, and it would be much better to cite the original sources.

Answer: It is a well used bibliography website and they take the author bios from the author websites

Her own publisher, clearly not an independent source.

Answer: Surely an international Publisher is a reliable source. Perhaps I have put this information in the wrong place?

Besides these problems, the sources don't actually support all the draft's content - for example, none of the sources (not even the Wikipedia article) mention Rowson obtained a Diploma in Marketing or that her books were translated into Indonesian.

Answer: OK fine understand what you mean here.

You do have some sources that are truly reliable and independent, such as the Portsmouth News, and that might be turned into references, but currenty they're just mentioned as external links.

Answer: I will look at this and move them to the Reference section

Furthermore, it would be a great help to both the reviewers and to the readers if you could use inline citations and footnotes to clarify which reference supports which of the draft's statements.

Answer: Is there a relevant section you can refer me to on how to do this.

Local news sources - wasn't really sure if they were sufficient to pass the article, being all restricted to Portsmouth and a few other places, rather than nationwide coverage. If you've got anything like a book review in The Telegraph or The Guardian, that would be an excellent source to use.

Answer: There are two book reviews from one of the major publications in America 'Publishers Weekly' which is surely notable and as worthy on the same level as the UK's Guardian and Telegraph. I have put them on External Links so will move them to References and hope that helps.

Thank you.

Arogerspr (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires reliable, published sources that are independent of the subject, sources that are subject to editorial oversight and have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, sources like newspapers or reputable literary magazines. Books published by an international publisher might be reliable sources, but the publisher's sales blurbs are not independent sources on the authors because the publisher is likely to be biased in the authors' favor - it has a financial interest in promoting them and their works, and the publisher's website isn't subject to the same kind of editorial oversight as the published books. Similarly, if FantasticFiction.co.uk takes the biographies from the authors, it cannot be considered an independent source - basically, the subject has written her own biography. Publishers Weekly is indeed a good source, but you shouldn't just move the links but summarize what the reviews say about Rowson - that they call her seventh book "slow-moving" but laud the eighth for "convincing characters and a coherent plot", for example.

Regarding footnotes: See Help:Footnotes and WP:Referencing for beginners. Huon (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eleanor Spiess-Ferris

@ :Huon|talk]]) Hello, Huon: Thank you for your response to my query about the article I submitted for review (Eleanor Spiess-Ferris). I appreciate your clarifying the status the the article as currently still under review. Please also let me address one possible objection you mentioned, that being your comment about the official Website of the artist being cited, and also that of her son. Neither of those are "primary sources" for other than elementary data. As you may have noted, I have a dozen+ other citations, all from reliable newspapers, established art magazines, books and other independent media sources, all of the kind you suggested. Perhaps the confustion stems from my mistake: I should have not added the official Websites to the citations list, but only included them in my "other sources" listings. Thank you again. Kindest regards, Umberto3000 Umberto3000 (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd call the claim that "She has received numerous major art awards and citations" anything but elementary data - citing Spiess-Ferris for that claim seems rather self-serving. If those are indeed major art awards, surely they were covered by third-party sources? Furthermore, the current sources don't actually support all the elementary data they're cited for - neither her own website nor her son's mention her husband's name or the fact that she lived in Albuquerque before returning to Chicago.

Also, according to Google Books, Spiess-Ferris is the co-author (or even the sole author) of "Eleanor Spiess-Ferris: An Artist's Journey". The only sources for her job at Evanston Art Center are herself and her employer - no secondary source for that. The only sources for her poetry are herself and her publisher - no secondary source. Wikipedia content should be based on reliable, independent sources. Major parts of this draft are based (if you can call it that) on herself and organizations she's affiliated with.

As an unrelated aside, if you cite 260-page books, page numbers are helpful. As another unrelated aside, I'm not quite sure how one can misread "Wayne" as "Esynr", but it's interesting that both you and Eleanor Spiess-Ferris herself managed to do so. Huon (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

March 29

where is marva whitney's photo locate at 2013 grammy award show?

where is marva whitney photo memoriam gallary located at the 2013 grammy awards show?

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) 00:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Clan Buchanan Heraldry

I have just had an article rejected by Dodger67 but I don't understand the problem. How do I fix what I don't understand? Scabd buchanan (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the draft doesn't summarize what experts have published about Clan Buchanan heraldry in reliable sources such as peer-reviewed academic journals, but instead is largely original research, partly based on someone's personal website (not a reliable source), with the more reliable sources cited only for general background information that's rather off-topic for an article on Clan Buchanan heraldry. To point out just one obvious example: An encyclopedia article should not be a how-to guide to obtaining arms, nor should it express an opinion of its own whether obtaining a coat of arms is desirable. Huon (talk) 02:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, you can start the clean-up by deleting the "Background" and "Obtaining a Scottish coat of arms" sections. They are completely irrelevant, stick to the specific topic only - a history and description of Buchanan heraldry. Other articles already cover heraldry in general and Scottish heraldry. You might be able to get more expert help from the folks at WT:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology who have specific knowledge and experience of writing Wikipedia articles about heraldry. Roger (talk) 11:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Mark Joseph "MJ" Besmonte

[Draft removed.] Markjoseph17 (talk) 05:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process, not for drafts. You should write the draft either in your sandbox or at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mark Joseph "MJ" Besmonte, the preferred location for drafts awaiting review. But unless you can show that Besmonte has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources such as newspapers or reputable music magazines, we cannot the draft; see also WP:MUSIC for the relevant notability guideline. You may also want to read our guideline on conflicts of interest; writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged. Huon (talk) 06:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sport

[Draft removed.]

The main problem with your draft is that we already have an article on sport and don't need another. Besides, it doesn't cite any sources. Huon (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Help - how to resubmit my article

Hi, I'm struggling to find how I can resubmit my article. I have made some amendments as requested. Grateful if you could please point me in the right direction. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ahmed_Hossain Many thanks Tarique21 (talk) 11:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Your draft was accepted back on March 3 and is now a live article at Ahmed Hossain. There's no need to re-submit it. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia! Huon (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Article about edit war

Dear editors: I came across this page: User:Jjdee/sandbox which is a page about edit warring. There's a page already about this under Wikipedia:Edit warring that pertains specifically about Wikipedia, but no page about the concept in general. I'm not sure if this is a serious page or whether the author is trying to draw attention to a specific edit war. Should Wikipedia have a page on this subject? —Anne Delong (talk) 11:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

It looks like a good faith attempt to write a guideline about edit warring, but we already have such a page at WP:EDITWAR so it should be declined and deleted. Roger (talk) 12:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

If I decline this article, should I make a redirect from Edit war to Wikipedia:Edit warring? It seems to me that that article is specifically about Wikipedia, and isn't intended to be a general article for the encyclopedia. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Probably not. Kilopi (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Calling All Dawns

Dear editors:

Is this page Talk:Calling All Dawns in the wrong place? Google is picking it up.

—Anne Delong (talk) 11:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a problem, it's the Talk page of the article Calling All Dawns. Roger (talk) 12:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Google does sometimes index pages it shouldn't. I believe that's a known problem (though I'm too lazy to dig up the bug report) we can do little about. Huon (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christian Seidel

Hello, after previous conversation I made some changes to the draft Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christian Seidel. Here is the last correspondence:

...Thank you again. I added the footnotes and references and hope the article fits the conditions for release. Please let me know if there is still something missing.CTC2 (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC) Is there anything else that I have to do so that the article can be submitted? I see it is still waiting for submission... Please let me know. Thanks!CTC2 (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

To be honest, the draft's references are something of a mess. A press release is not a reliable source. I'd expect at least some of the sources should be available online, but you have provided no links, making verification unnecessarily difficult. I believe you translated some articles' titles from German into English, which makes identification vastly more difficult and thus isn't helpful - I couldn't find any trace of the dpa reports about Seidel, and I'd expect the 2011 one to still be available via Google News. Then there's the list of references that aren't footnotes - are those actually used? What for? Or are they just a "further reading" list? Both the reviewer and later the readers will appreciate it if you make finding the sources a little easier. Furthermore, I doubt all those sources are really all that relevant to Seidel. For example, you cite a half-dozen sources on the Diana biography that predate the Seidel-produced TV movie. They probably won't provide any relevant information on Seidel. That said, you should submit the draft for review; the old "submission declined" message box has instructions for re-submission. Despite all those problems, Seidel appears to satisfy the notability criteria, and while I wouldn't be comfortable accepting a draft whose sources I mostly couldn't even find, once that's fixed, the draft should be up for a review. Since we're rather backlogged at the moment, my suggestion would be to first submit it and then clean up the references - it will probably take a week or two until a reviewer takes a look. Huon (talk) 03:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I cleaned all the foreign footnotes, but the problem really is that the article is mainly based on these resources. How does Wikipedia deal with the use of foreign resources? Should I mention them? Are the resources given now enough? Can I resubmit the the draft anyway? CTC2 (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

This seems to have gotten worse. Before, it had references that I couldn't find. Now it doesn't have those references at all. Firstly, foreign-language sources are acceptable; see WP:NONENG for details. Secondly, if the sources really aren't available online, offline sources are also acceptable - however, as I said I would expect 2011 dpa reports to be available online somewhere. You can resubmit the draft, but right now there are too few sources left to establish Seidel's notability. Neither of the remaining sources covers Seidel in any appreciable detail, and they don't serve to verify much of the draft's content. Huon (talk) 00:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Afc submission template

Dear Editors: Here are two articles Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/International Institute of Forecasters and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/International Institute of Forecasters (2) by the same user. The first has only one edit and has no data not in the other one. I tried to decline the first one as a duplicate, but I received the following message: Unable to locate AFC submission template, aborting... —Anne Delong (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The first one isn't submitted for review, so there's nothing to decline. I'll speedy it as uncontroversial housekeeping. Huon (talk) 23:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again. I'll know what it means next time I see that message.

George Young (surgeon) - how to disambiguate?

Hi

I've submitted an article called Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/George Young I have the message that there are other articles with this title and would like to change the title to 'George Young (surgeon)'. How can I do this? Papamac (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

When or if the article is accepted, the review will (or should) move it to a suitable name. Your suggested one seems best. So, you don't need to do anything more in that regard. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

March 30

Three similar submissions

Dear editors: Here are three similar articles:

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Paper Kites was declined and then substantially improved and not submitted again
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Paper Kites (2) is an improved copy of the above which is in the queue.
• The Paper Kites is a brand new article, copied from the above by the same user. I know that the edit history of these three pages should be combined, but I don't know how that's done. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

According to how I interpret the page histories, the author wrote a very short draft at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Paper Kites, wrote a better draft in his sandbox, submitted the sandbox and copied the content to the AfC page without submitting that one as well, and finally copied the content into the mainspace. They should have submitted the AfC draft instead of the sandbox. Since all drafts and the mainspace article were written by the same editor, there shouldn't be any licensing issues if we simply decline the ex-sandbox draft without bothering with page histories. I have done so. Huon (talk) 14:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

draft declined

My draft for submission was declined because of the lack of "reliable sources." Can you take a look and tell me what's missing? There are a number of sources cited.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Caroline Ramersdorfer.

Jkeren7 (talk) 12:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually the sources as such look ok, but if those sources are available online please add links to the references. A bigger problem is the massive number of external links embedded in the text. Please remove them all and trim the list of links in the actual External links section down to only those that are directly about Ramersdorfer. Many of the entities you have linked externally actually have articles on Wikipedia so you should rather link to them. Roger (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem

Dear editors: I was reviewing this page: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Locating the Ancient History of Santal Parganas and I declined it as an essay.

However, it contains copied material from the author's own work at this web site: http://www.readbag.com/anusandhanika-in-social-sciences-vol-ix-no-i

It is not an exact duplicate of the essay, and I am having trouble finding out how much of it is the same. Duplication detector bugged out because the document was too long, but it did find some phrases the same at this URL http://amarpankajjha.blogspot.ca/

If someone has more experience or available tools, please check this and find out if only some sections should be deleted as copyright violations, or if the whole thing should go. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Given that the draft has numbered references that do not correspond to the numbered references in the pages you found, I strongly suspect the draft is copied from some source we cannot find via Google. Anyway, since there was no clean version to which we could revert, I've tagged the entire essay for speedy deletion. Huon (talk) 14:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/South African Legion of Military Veterans

Hi, I have been trying to put up my article on the South African Legion of Military Veterans for months now, only to be told it isn't "notable" enough, but similar articles on the Royal Canadian Legion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Canadian_Legion and on the Returned and Services League of Australia or New Zealand are featured. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Returned_and_Services_League_of_Australia I have added a number of secondary references. I will add a list of former National Presidents (some very notable) as well as Patrons -- like Nelson Mandela -- (not enough?) but will also add the current one, who represents Africa on the World Veterans Federation Do please tell me, will this be enough. If so, I will submit in a few hours! vitéz 13:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cavszabo (talk • contribs)

Those other articles are both tagged for problematic and insufficient references, hardly shining examples of what a Wikipedia article should be. I'm not all that impressed by the secondary references. I haven't checked them all, but those I looked at mentioned the Legion only in passing without providing any significant coverage. We'd need multiple articles with at least a paragraph each about the Legion. Since notability is not inherited, a list of notable National Presidents or Patrons on its own will not help. Huon (talk) 15:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

NOW you tell me... Okay, back to the slog. Sheesh, writing a doctorate is a piece of cake you guys! vitéz 18:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cavszabo (talk • contribs)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joji Iida

Although this AfC was never submitted, the article Jōji Iida has already been created. The AfC should be deleted. Michitaro (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I've declined the AfC draft because it already exists in the mainspace, but there's no need to delete it. Huon (talk) 15:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/South African Legion of Military Veterans

Sorry, won't be submitting tonight, but hopefully, tomorrow! vitéz 18:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cavszabo (talk • contribs)

Internet of Things Virtual Networks

Dear editors: Sorry to be a pest; I really am reviewing some submissions on my own! Several people wrote an article together called Internet of Things Virtual Networks and presented it as a paper an an IEEE (prestigious organization) conference. An article has been submitted, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/IoT-VN, not about the paper presentation, but about the term "Internet of Things Virtual Networks". I check the internet, and the only references I found were to the paper itself. I wasn't able to find anyone else using the term. Is the fact that the term was used at a prestigious conference enough to make it an acceptable topic, or must it be in general use? —Anne Delong (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd say a single source is not enough to satisfy the general notability guideline - I've declined it for that reason. There are also COI concerns; the paper was co-authored by Isam Ishaq, and the draft is by User:Isamishaq. That alone would not be a valid decline reason, but it certainly doesn't help. Huon (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Echo Orbin

[Draft removed.]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Echoorbin123 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Your draft didn't cite any reliable sources such as newspapers or reputable music magazines. Huon (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Singing Street

I have just discovered an anomaly. An article I did some time ago, entitled "The Singing Street" seems also to exist as an Article for creation. I don't know how this came about, but I obviously botched the page's move in some way. In fact, I'm not sure if I'm looking at the same article in duplicate or two separate pages. The ideal would be to delete the Article for Creation page without affecting the live page - only I don't know how to achieve that. Kim Traynor | Talk 22:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

You can nominate the draft at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Singing Street for speedy deletion by adding {{db-author}} to the very top of that page. That won't affect the live article. Huon (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

March 31

Review of User:Karenp213/Frantisek Reichental (aka Frank Reichenthal) Painter, Fine Artist (1895-1971)

How do we use a picture in an article if we own the copyright to it?Karenp213 (talk) 02:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

If you own the copyright and are willing to release the photo under a free license that allows everybody to reuse it for any purpose, you can upload it to the Wikimedia Commons via their Upload Wizard. Of course you'll have to provide appropriate licensing information, and it may be a good idea to send a confirming email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. See WP:Donating copyrighted materials for details and WP:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for an example release form. Huon (talk) 02:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paul Jackson

I am trying to create a page for an established writer/producer in Television and Film. It was denied by a reviewer on the grounds that there was no reliable information source. In fact, the established source I provided is IMDB, which is used industry-wide as THE source of information. I'm not sure what else could be used to verify if IMDB isn't.

The IMDB link is here:

However, other links to verify the credibility of this person can be found here:

And, finally, a google search using Paul's name with his writing partner, Tony Blake.

I don't know if it helps, but I have personally worked with and Paul Jackson on several projects.

If there is something that is missing, please advise (and please excuse any formatting errors I might have made here). Thank you.

Steven L. SearsFSUWriter (talk) 08:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Steven. I'm afraid neither IMDB nor Wikia are considered reliable sources for Wikipedia, as either of them can be changed by anyone. An incomplete list of sources considered generally reliable for topics related to movies can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources. It would be better to incorporate sources into your article draft, rather than listing them here. Remember that, in order to prove that someone is notable by Wikipedia's standards, each source needs to discuss or describe the person or their activities in detail, not just mention them in passing or confirm that they are credited as a writer or producer for a particular work. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Martha Blackman

How can I submit Martha's photo? Also, the article I submitted was derived from a German wikipedia article dated back to mid 2000, and was wiped out by someone in de.wikipedia.org who claimed "lack of reference". But all musicians of Martha's era did not have "reference". Every single of one them, Noah Greenberg, Bernard Krainis, August Wenzinger, Josef Ulsamer. Martha has more reference than many others. I find it strange. I could not contact the person who wiped that article out and asked for the reason. The explaination is "discorgraphy", but then if you do a search at amazon.com or cduniverse now, you can easily find CDs or recordings of her.

I have lots of her personal papers, so I can testify that whoever wrote the original German article got the facts right. In fact, it was a little bit of a simplified version; such as instead of locating her Fulbright studies at Hochschule für Musik Freiburg, it only listed as "in Freiburg".

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alcatrazhack (talk • contribs) 08:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC) 

I was unable to establish what your question was about your articles for creation draft. WP:42 will tell you what is required for an articles for creation draft to be accepted.

In that case the article is fully qualified. I am trying to figure out how to submit the article. It is very confusing. Draft is complete.

Regarding a photo of Martha Blackman, if you own the copyright to one (for example, you photographed her using your own camera), and wish to freely license it, you could upload it at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Will insert after article is accepted.

Is it possible to have the article accepted first, then I polish it? I am very confused as to the submit process. The submit part of the article seemed to be unable to change to the draft version, which is the version I want to submit.

You currently have three copies of your draft on the same page; you should remove the outdated ones to avoid confusion (use the "edit" tab at the top of the page to edit all of it at once and remove the redundant parts). Furthermore, your draft is very short on reliable sources, and even worse, its content is partly contradicted by the source; other parts are simply not mentioned in the source. All Wikipedia content must be backed up by reliable sources. If no such sources exist, Blackman may not be notable enough for an article. In its current state we cannot accept the submission. Of course accepted articles can still be improved further. Huon (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I think I have finished the basic so far. I have quite a bit of "reference" as sources and clean them up, so the contradiction is now gone. SHe was extremely active in 1954-56 so she appeared in multiple shows and involved in multiple groups/symphonies. Anyway, the references, mostly from Newspapers, some from Universities Student bulletin, some from University brochure, are all there, including her bio. They are starting to become redundant. I found old newspaper archive mentioning her show from San Francisco to Princeton, so there is no point of listing them all.

If you look at her colleague, Bernard_Krainis, you will find he has virtually no references compare with her. Samething applies to most of her 1950s colleagues. Russell Oberlin is not a whole lot better. I have more than one photo of her. Is this enough?Alcatrazhack (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm rather skeptical of many of the sources. The discography and the article written by Blackman are not independent, and the various bulletins and the lone newspaper article look like routine events coverage to me, something that, per WP:N, explicitly does not bestow notability. I don't think 71 boxes stored in New York count as a published source, and even if they did, we should be a little more specific. I have doubts about the independence of that source, too. That leaves us with Gollin's book, indeed a reliable, independent source that covers Blackman in quite some detail - but not in as much detail as would be necessary to support all the draft's content, and as I said above, it even contradicts parts of the draft. On its own this lone good source is not enough to establish Blackman's notability. Regarding the other articles you point to: Other problematic articles exist, but that's no reason to create more. Each submission must stand on its own merits. Huon (talk) 01:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Then how come Kraiinis pass the test? What is the difference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alcatrazhack (talk • contribs) 03:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Maybe Kraiinis shouldn't have an article either. He does have some New York Times coverage, though. Huon (talk) 03:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Krainis is the first major recorder player in the US. The problem of all of these personnel is that they are now almost 50 and 60 years away from their most important pioneer work. There was no biography and study on them. A lot of stories came from students of the students of the student, usually at least 3 generations. I happen to have Martha's paperwork. This is a major reason why I want to enter her in an entry, because once her entry is shown, it will start to link up her generation, which is three generations before the current establish teacher/performance generations. Another example of Russell Oberlin. Hert influence is felt by the current professors emerita, with Alex Silbiger free admit to me about his admiration of her when he was still a younger student in Columbia university. Finally if Krainis has NY Times covergae, how9 come the Oakland Tribune coverage for Martha is not enough?

As for the contradiction, can you point it out for me? Maybe I can straighten it out, or get rid of the facts. There is problems about the Gollin's book too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alcatrazhack (talk • contribs) 03:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/48 Cameras

hello _ i'm a member of the collective and i own the copyrights of the text. is there problem? thanks _ jean 91.180.247.238 (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

If you are the copyright owner and you wish to freely license the text, you would need to do so by filling out and sending in the form at WP:CONSENT.

However, even if that were done, the article draft stands no chance of being accepted in its current form, as it does not meet the requirements in WP:42. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Francois Houssemayne Du Boulay

I am not sure how much more one needs to do in terms of reffs?

(Hugenothistory (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC))

It would be a great help if you could use inline citations for your sources to clarify which source supports which of the draft's statements. See WP:Referencing for beginners for the technical details. Furthermore, James T Houssemayne Du Boulay seems to be a close relative and would have to be considered a primary source, not the kind of independent sources we're looking for. The Bank of England Archives also are a primary source. Huon (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

April 1

Article submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Access Regional

I have been working on a new submission for a company, page located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Access Regional . I saw that the first draft was rejected as it needed more references, which I have now done and saved. How do I now resubmit this so that it can be rechecked and hopefully be put online?

Turenne (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)Turenne

You can submit your draft for another review by adding {{subst:submit}} to the very top. However, most of your sources are primary sources such as the company's own website, and the lone independent source doesn't mention the company. Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspapers or reputable trade magazines. Without such sources we cannot accept the submission. Huon (talk) 22:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Marc Thorpe

Could someone please help me understand why my article is declined. I feel as if I'm following the rules.

This is a comment listed on my decline notice.

Comment: please remove citation to wikipedia articles or replace with internal links e.g. Maryland BO | Talk 17:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Please let me know what I need to do? What is Maryland

Thank you Claire — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClairePijoulat (talk • contribs) 22:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Many of your "references" are links to other Wikipedia articles; for example, the very first footnote is a link to our Maryland article. Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source; using it as a reference is thus inappropriate. Instead, you should turn the word "Maryland" in the article text itself into a link so that readers who want to know more about that topic can follow the link. See also Help:Link for technical help on using links, and see WP:RS for our guideline on what is and what isn't a reliable source that may be used as a reference. Huon (talk) 22:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of User:Laurie urane/sandbox

I also can get photo of statue — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurie urane (talk • contribs) 23:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Your draft does not cite any reliable sources such as newspaper articles or published third-party biographies about Franklin. Those would be much more important than a photo of the statue - in fact, we cannot accept the draft without such sources. Furthermore, its tone is anything but encyclopedic, and it's devoid of information on what Franklin did or why he should be honoured with a statue. In fact, it's so devoid of context that I first assumed it talked about the Commonwealth of Kentucky. You seem more interested in writing about the statue you applied for than about Franklin. Huon (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vets4Pets Ltd

Hi,

Can someone help me please? I would like to know what I need to do to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vets4Pets Limitedto get it accepted. This is my second submission of the article and although I believe it to be better than the first, I know it still needs work. If someone could point me in the right direction it would be much appreciated.

Many thanks MJK1987 (talk) 12:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)MJK1987MJK1987 (talk) 12:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, you have created and submitted two separate drafts Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vets4Pets Ltd and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vets4Pets Limited - you need to decide which one you are going to work on and have the other one deleted as soon as possible - put {{db user}} at the top of the one that must be deleted. Roger (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, that's the first part taken care of, thank you! Is there any other bits you can could give a bit of guidance on? It would be greatly appreciated.

MJK1987 (talk) 16:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The AIDS Support Organization (TASO)

I have been trying to submit this for approval before publishing, however, my first attempt sent a blank document. My second attempt keeps telling me to submit but I get no response. What might I be doing wrong?

Sylvia

Sylvia Matovu (talk) 12:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gandhi Nagar(South) Colony, Vanasthalipuram

Hello can someone please give suggestions on how to improve this Article and move into Wikipedia website — Preceding unsigned comment added by Electronicsatish (talk • contribs) 12:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Deleted submission - copyright violation - further information

Dear all, I created a page for the Natural Resource Charter in which I referenced all information. It was deleted due to containing copyright information. I was not told by the reviewer which information was copyrighted. I copied and referenced information (Precepts 1-12) from a website ( http://naturalresourcecharter.org/precepts ) - I can only think of this as being the problem. Can someone tell me whether this would constitute copyright infringement? Thank you for your help.

Max MGW NRC (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cedexis

Hi - I'm a newbie on Wikipedia. My first attempt at writing an article is the one referenced above for Cedexis.

Background - an agency specializing in Wikipedia said that for $#### they would get a posting done on Wikipedia for Cedexis. I said I'd give it a try.

I posted the article on March 12. I understand that it can take weeks, but I'd like to be able to tell Cedexis something more than "it takes weeks." Especially if after those weeks go by the post gets rejected.

I'm losing sleep over this.  Thanks so much for your help.

Frances Mann-Craik — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manncraik (talk • contribs) 14:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)