Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:29, 24 August 2013

Main page

Talk page

Submissions
Category — List (sorting)

Showcase

Participants
Apply — By subject

Reviewing instructions

Help desk

Backlog
drives

Shortcuts

Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

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

Ask a new question
Please check back often for answers.

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

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

August 18

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lithgow power station

this morning I added a reference to my article on Lithgow power station. hopefully this will get the article accepted. I add the reference here again in more detail:- "Power stations of the New South Wales government railways" by Mark Fetscher ISBN 0-9750063-0-4 WHO Printing and Presentations Mayfield West NSW Regards,john stirlingStirlo55 (talk) 22:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have copyedited the draft, but I doubt a single source that apparently lists all railway power stations in NSW is sufficient to establish that this one is notable. Huon (talk) 23:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 19

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/RockeTalk

Hello, Can someone fix the formatting and let me know if I have missed out some part. I will be highly thankful for the help. Chatkara (talk) 07:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote an advertisment, not an encyclopedia article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I need to delete the submission of article entitled: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Atlas Centre at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory It is currently awaiting review. How do I go about this?

Ella Baskerville (talk) 08:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That draft was tagged for speedy deletion and has already been deleted. Huon (talk) 10:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eightysix (Andras Vleminckx)

Hello,

My article is still waiting for review, but the reviews before me actually climbed from 800 till 900. Did i do everything correct?

Thank you

Andras Andrasvleminckx (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andreasvleminckx Your submission was sent up only 3 days ago. According to Category:AfC pending submissions by age the currently oldest pending review is 13 days ago. Please wait patiently while others who have been waiting as long as (or potentially longer) than you have gotten their review. Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Perth Cricket Club

Done new article... Perth Cricket Club i am having difficulty in referencing the text with my sources

also i cant seem to add external links i want to show under External links; www.perthcricket.org

can you assist please

many thanks Perth CC (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did some restructuring of the references to make it easier to read and follow along with. Hasteur (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding some content sourced from newspaper and magazine articles would help confirm the notability of the subject. A club with a 150 year history should have quite a lot written about it over the years. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Private Shared Wireless Network

Hello, I am inquiring about the article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Private Shared Wireless Network 2 times in the past I submitted this article and was rejected. I have since followed the guidelines and amendments provided by the editors, and have submitted it twice over the past 2 weeks. Both times I haven't received any feedback. Whereas I received feedback within 2 days on my first two submissions, the past two have received nothing whatsoever. Could someone please help me and tell me if, and what, I am doing wrong?

Thanks,

KeepYourEyesOnTheRoad (talk) 13:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)KeepYourEyesOnTheRoad[reply]

Hello KeepYourEyesOnTheRoad. Your new version of this submission was not reviewed because you had not submitted it for review. You need to put {{subst:submit}} at the top in order to submit it for review. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Glossary of social media terms

Done I have been working on this article: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Glossary_of_social_media_terms

It has been rejected multiple times. About a month ago, I submitted it and was told it was rejected because it was too much like a dictionary entry. That is puzzling considering how many glossaries exist on Wikipedia. When I asked an editor for help, he claimed it had nothing to do with being too much like a dictionary entry and that the problem was my references. I added new references, and now once again it was rejected because it was too much like a dictionary entry. I'm struggling to figure out what has to be done to get this entry accepted. I'll be happy to make any necessary fixes, but it feels like the editors here are playing games.Jb1986 (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Jb1986[reply]

All you have is a directory of social media sites with a small blurb explaining what each is. We already have "groupings" of these in the form of categories (Category:Social networking websites). Your submission does not bring anything new to the table. In addition, all of your references are at the bottom of the page and don't back up specific assertions about the text. We prefer Inline citations as it makes it easier to understand the context of why a reference is being used. Hasteur (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Moksha_Yoga_Center

I would like feedback on this page. Thanks a lot. Ntomlin (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To get feedback you must submit it for review - please add "{{subst:submit}}" at the top of the page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review Article for - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Boxtree

Hello Sir/Madam,

I had recently submitted a creation page under the name of Boxtree. I received an update saying my creation was declined. i was not provided any reason for the article being declined. I would like to know as to why it was declined? Kindly advice as to how I can improve the article so that it can be approved for submission ?

Thanking you,

Yours truly, Ashwin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrhyno2003 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the submission being declined is listed at the top of the page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Boxtree. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Luke2711/sandbox

Done Hi,

I am struggling to correct an article to ensure it appears without criticism. The entry for Inspiration Trust is a very similar trust to the Ark Schools and E-ACT schools entry and yet our appears with criticism. I cannot see the difference and somebody please advice?

Thanks,

Luke — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke2711 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I moved your sandbox to the preferred location for AfC submissions based on the title of the piece. I discovered that an article by that name already exists, so I declined the submission on "Article exists" grounds. Please feel free to improve the live article Inspiration Trust. Hasteur (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 20

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Collaborative Evaluation

How an article created and accepted under a user name can be published under another user name to avoid conflict of interest? Connie Walker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conniewalkeregea (talk • contribs) 02:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misunderstanding the concept of "conflict of interest". If you have a COI in relation to the subject of an article it does not matter at all what username you use, the COI still exists.

The conflict of interest exists because of who you are and the fact that there is a relationship between yourself and the article subject (for example an article about your employer or about a book you wrote). Changing your username will not make the COI go away.

An article is never "published under a username" - only drafts may associated with a particular user. Once a draft has been move into mainspace it is no longer associated with your username (but the COI will still exist). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Công ty cổ phần Cơ điện tử ASO

1. Giới thiệu

Công ty cổ phần Cơ điện tử ASO hoạt động trong lĩnh vực cơ điện tử phục vụ quá trình tự động hóa xí nghiệp công nghiệp. Công ty đã đầu tư xây dựng cơ sở sản xuất và văn phòng làm việc trên diện tích 7000m2 Tại Tân Quang - TX Sông Công – Thái Nguyên.

Công ty có đội ngũ cán bộ kỹ thuật giàu kinh nghiệm, bao gồm các PGS, Tiến sỹ, Thạc sỹ, Kỹ sư thuộc các chuyên ngành Tự động hóa, Kỹ thuật điện tử, Điện tử viễn thông, Công nghệ thông tin và Cơ khí chế tạo máy. Công ty còn nhận được sự hợp tác của các nhà khoa học kỹ thuật đến từ Trường Đại học Kỹ thuật Công nghiệp - Đại học Thái Nguyên.

Với phương châm phát triển sản phẩm mang thương hiệu Việt đáp ứng nhu cầu ngày càng phát triển của sản xuất công nghiệp trong nước. Công ty đã nghiên cứu - thiết kế - chế tạo và chuyển giao công nghệ thành công nhiều sản phẩm tự động hoá như: Hệ thống điện phân dòng điện đến 30kA; Hệ thống kích thích cho động cơ và máy phát đồng bộ; Hệ thống điều tốc tuabin thuỷ điện; Hệ thống điều khiển lò hồ quang và đúc thép liên tục cho luyện thép; Hệ thống tuyển than; Hệ thống cân băng định lượng; Hệ thống lọc bụi tĩnh điện; Tủ tiết kiệm điện chiếu sáng đèn đường; Tủ nạp ắc quy tự động và cấp nguồn một chiều…. Các sản phẩm của công ty đã có mặt ở nhiều tỉnh thành trong cả nước và đang hướng đến xuất khẩu.

Tiêu chí hoạt động của Công ty là: “Chất lượng để tồn tại – Cải tiến để phát triển - ASO song hành cùng ISO”. 2. Địa chỉ trụ sở chính:

Địa chỉ: Km 15 – Quốc lộ 3 – Tân Quang – TX Sông Công – Tỉnh Thái Nguyên.

Vị trí: Cách trung tâm TP. Thái Nguyên 15km về phía Nam, cách sân bay quốc tế Nội Bài 40km về phía Bắc.

Điện thoại: 0280 3645669

Fax: 0280 3645667

Tài khoản: 102010000960654 tại Ngân hàng Công thương Lưu Xá - TP. Thái Nguyên

Mã số thuế: 4600799060 3. Các văn bản pháp lý:

Giấy phép đăng ký kinh doanh số: 4600799060 được cấp phép bởi Sở Kế hoạch Đầu tư tỉnh Thái Nguyên. 4. Các ngành kinh doanh:

Ngành nghề kinh doanh chính: Dịch vụ nghiên cứu, phát triển, ứng dụng khoa học kỹ thuật và công nghệ vào sản xuất; Tư vấn thiết kế và chuyển giao công nghệ trong lĩnh vực tự động hóa, cơ điện tử; Lắp đặt các hệ thống tự động hóa, hệ thống đo lường, hệ thống cung cấp phân phối điện đến 35kV và các hệ thống cơ khí tự động hóa. Kinh doanh các linh kiện điện tử, các loại máy móc, thiết bị trong lĩnh vực sản xuất công nghiệp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuananhk43 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, this is the English Wikipedia, we only accept articles in English.

The Vietnamese Wikipedia is at http://vn.wikipedia.org

Google translation to Vietnamese (if anyone can improve it or fix any errors please do so):

Tôi xin lỗi, đây là Wikipedia tiếng Anh, chúng tôi chỉ chấp nhận các bài viết bằng tiếng Anh.

Wikipedia tiếng Việt là http://vn.wikipedia.org

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Miranda

Hi, there is no page for david miranda, who is the partner or a prominent guardian jounralist - there is a big story breaking in the uk, he has been held at heathrow airport under terorism laws with relation to snowdowns leaks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missannafjmorris (talk • contribs) 11:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you CLICK HERE you can start writing the article. The first thing you need to do is gather some of the news stories you mentioned and use them as references for the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Might be considered WP:BLP1E? - David Biddulph (talk) 12:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would depend on future events and the content of the draft if/when it is created. Whether it goes to mainspace as a biography or as an article about the incident/case/whatever can be decided once such a draft exists. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I understand that this year the British Government will allow a Death Certificate,after the person has not been seen or contacted over the course of the past severn years. Patrick — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.120.248 (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Katz_comics

Done Dear Wikipedia, I am writing you regarding the following article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Katz_comics

This article is a translation of this one in French. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_%28bande_dessin%C3%A9e%29

How can I link it to its original French version?

My English is not the best, I hope to find some help soon and do a correct editing of the translation. Every help is welcome.

Best regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.175.184.1 (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour! Once the article publishes (not before), go to the "Languages" or in your/my case "Langues" button on the left margin of your screen, and you can open that to create links to any other language version of an article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Man Smart (Woman Smarter)

I am perplexed as to why my post Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Man Smart (Woman Smarter) has been rejected again.

My first paragraph has 6 links to other Wikipedia pages (as references).

Then I have 4 (true) references supporting the last 5 sentences.

My last rejection from K7L referred me to a basic Google search for other references. It mostly features videos of one performer who covered the song (the Grateful Dead), lyrics sites (with dubious copyrights), and on page 1 a site I already linked to.

I appreciate that help, but it seems to me that it misses the essential point of my post: that it's an old but well-known song, of questionable origins, that is now detailed in one spot.

I wonder if the problem is the Catlin reference (# 3). What I linked to is what's available online (an excerpt/abstract of an old newspaper article). That's all that's available online. I work at a university and was able to get a hard copy of the entire article through interlibrary loan. The information I stated in my proposed Wikipedia page is in both the hard copy of the article (which most users can't access easily) and the abstract (which user can access easily). So I don't see a problem with citing the abstract. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.250.40.89 (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other Wikipedia pages are of no use for proving notability. In fact, they are of no use as references at all! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also see GoogleBooks; I see there are a number of books of music history which discuss the song and its early recording, impact, etc. Note you can automatically turn a GoogleBooks URL into a Wikipedia footnote using http://reftag.appspot.com MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly. You should cite the hard copy and link to the abstract. Being difficult to access does not make a source unacceptable (though it may cause uncertainty in the minds of some reviewers), as per WP:SOURCEACCESS. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Links to other Wikipedia articles are not references. Citing the original news article is definitely better than citing an abstract of it. We don't care that the full article isn't online, if you could find a copy then someone else can too. You can link to the abstract as a "convenience link" but the actual cite should be the original paper. I don't know enough about the subject to evaluate the reliability of the three other websites you have cited - they could be good sources with professional editorial control or they could be mere fansites, but I can't tell. Perhaps a bit more digging in the library could deliver a book or mainstream magazine source? Academic libraries are "gold mines" of quality sources that IMHO are not used nearly enough in popular culture articles on WP. Hope this helps. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Thomas and Mary Poynton

Hello Why does it say "article not submitted for review" at the top of my submission every time I open it, even though I have followed the instructions and asked for it to be submitted? Is there something else I have to do to request submission that I haven't yet done? Thanks Beth Kubala — Preceding unsigned comment added by BethKub (talk • contribs) 22:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There were multiple redundant submission templates on the page - the one at the top was not "submitted" but the others were. I've cleaned it up so that there is only one template showing that it is correctly submitted. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

a c winkler

I do not understand where the submission fails. Can you help please?

Iain Maciver (imac44) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iain44 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our citation requirements for biographies of living people are particularly strict. For those it's not enough to simply add the references at the end of the page, but you'll have to add inline citations and Help:Footnotes to clarify which of the sources support which of the draft's statements. See Help:Referencing for beginners on how to easily create nicely-formatted footnotes. Also, IMDb and Goodreads are not considered reliable sources, while his own publisher would not be independent. The published reviews, however, especially the book published by University of West Indies Press, look like excellent sources, and I suspect you make rather too little use of that last one - surely it provides far more details on Winkler that we could use. Huon (talk) 06:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 21

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SalesBabu Business Solutions

why my article got rejected ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chhavipande1 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because it cites no independent, reliable sources and reads like an advertisement promoting the company's products, not like an encyclopedia article about the company. Huon (talk) 06:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Alienology

Hello,

I would like to ask you the reason of rejecting my article.

Thank you in adavance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.120.72 (talk) 10:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is given in the review template on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alienology with an aditional comment below it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tower Utility

How can I insert picture, logo etc to an article?

That depends on the picture and on the article. A logo is likely copyrighted by the company with all rights reserved. We can still use it under "Fair Use"; however, Wikipedia's non-free content criteria say such non-free images must be used only in articles; a draft is not enough. Thus you'll have to wait with uploading the image until the draft has been accepted. Then you can upload the logo to Wikipedia via the File Upload Wizard. Once it's uploaded, the picture tutorial explains how to add the image to the article.

If the image were released under a free license that allows everybody to re-use and modify the image for any purpose, including commercial purposes, you could instead upload it to the Wikimedia Commons via their Upload Wizard; Commons images can be used on Wikipedia in exactly the same way as images uploaded locally. Huon (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Global Apartheid

Done Hi, I am new to making contributions to Wikipaedia. I submitted an article a year ago Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Global Apartheid Unfortunately I did not get the prompt review from Stella and assumed it had been turned down, until I got a message from HasteurBot today: User_talk:Titus_Alexander#Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation.2FGlobal_Apartheid_concern I'm afraid I don't understand what I need to do to make the article acceptable. There are 21,508 for insert references in the Help section.

I have read Help:Introduction_to_referencing/2 and attempted to follow the instrustructions: I hope I've done the tright thing and would apprecriate feedback if not. Thank you Titus Alexander Titus Alexander (talk) 12:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hellow Titus Alexander. You've fixed the footnotes per my comments (you were quite close, just misunderstood how to place them), so all good there. The main thing right now is some sectioning, making it a little more layperson readable, and more tightly sticking to describing vice advocating the concept of Global Apartheid. I'm leaving you some notes at the top of your draft in a minute.MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Emco Wheaton

Hi I have copied the format of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basell_Polyolefins page so that my submission for Emco Wheaton is the same. Is this format acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emco Wheaton Margate (talk • contribs) 13:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not. Your submission provided no references to independent reliable sources at all! Click on the links in the rejection message on the page for more information.

You should also read WP:Conflict of interest. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stax

Done I just submitted an article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/User:Jks825/sandbox for review (it's a complete reworking of one that had been deleted for "notability," based on the comments I received during Deletion Review). I didn't see a place to put in the article title (Stax Inc.). I put it in the subject line after the standard "Request for Review" subject, but the heading on the article still says User:Jks825/sandbox. I didn't see any way of changing it. If there's something I need to do on my end to change it, please let me know. Thanks.Jks825 (talk) 14:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed for you, article now at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stax. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew, thanks for your help. Much appreciated. Jks825 (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kasasa

Hey all,

My most recent article submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kasasa was declined on the grounds of it reading more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia entry. Any suggestions on how to get the article up to snuff (what to cut, what to add) would be super appreciated.

Thanks,

GnordicTrak (talk) 18:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could try looking at some of the Good Articles listed under "Businesses and organizations" at Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society, to see the sort of standard you should be aiming for a financial business topic. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Margaret Ledward Laird

How do I check to see where my article submitted is in the review process? I attempted to submit it under one user name 1606eudorast, then lost my notes on my password; changed passwords and user names and resubmitted it under 1051westsouth. 1051westsouth (talk) 19:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 1051westsouth, the link you gave doesn't go anywhere, and your "My Changes" log doesn't show any edits on Wikipedia other than this one, nor at the username 1606eudorast either. Further, if you lost your password, can you use the Password Reset button to get a new one? That would probably be easier than creating a new username. In whatever case, I can't find your draft, so are you sure you've submitted it? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stax Inc.

At the top of my article for Creation (Stax Inc.), I got the following message:

This sandbox is in the Wikipedia talk namespace. Either move this page into your userspace, or remove the This sandbox is in the Wikipedia namespace. Either move this page into your userspace, or remove the {{User sandbox}} template. template.

I'm not clear what I'm supposed to do (this is my first time trying to create an article). Thanks. Jks825 (talk) 21:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed it - by removing the template. I also removed the Address list section because advertising is not allowed on Wikipedia. I'm not going to do a full review now because I'm off to bed. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the help, Roger.Jks825 (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 22

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Son Of Merlin

Hello, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Son Of Merlin

   I am working on the Son Of Merlin comic Wikipedia, but it was rejected.

I am not sure why it was rejected, and would love some information on how to publish this article, as it is a job requirement. Thank you so much for your time.

SamKellie17

08:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamKellie17 (talk • contribs)

Hello Sam. The reason for rejection is given in the pink/grey box at the top of the page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Son Of Merlin (Comics). Click on the links there for more information.

You may also wish to read WP:Conflict of interest. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

pls advise why my article was declined. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.97.253.61 (talk) 11:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give us a link to the article submission you're talking about? Thank you. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Desnos Toussaint Yed

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/1PixelSA

Hi,

I have been working on an article and am struggling to get sources that are verifiable online.

I have a PDF doc from the Registrar of Companies with all the info on it regarding the person's job title and directorship of the companies. Would this help or am I wasting my time with it? If I can send it somewhere for one of the mods to check, please let me know.

Thanks

Shane Exec Director 1Pixel 1PixelSA (talk) 12:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Establishing that a company is listed in a registry of companies does not make the company notable. See Wikipedia:ORG. Establishing that a person is a director of a company, as listed in a registry, does not make the person notable. See Wikipedia:Notability (people). You should also read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mobile Infirmary

Why was the Infirmary Health article not accepted? I have been working hard to take out an form of advertisement. Please help advise me on what exactly I need to do so that Infirmary Health can have a wikipedia page/article. Thank you!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachelhartley (talk • contribs) 13:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have no independent reliable sources listed at all? Please read Wikipedia:VRS and Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners.

Is any of the submission copied from another website? Please also read Wikipedia:COPYPASTE. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Premier Dead Sea Cosmetics

Hi there - I'm at a loss why the current article for submission is not accepted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Premier_Dead_Sea_Cosmetics

I believe it has a neutral and objective tone. If there is need for relevant sources can somebody please point out a specific section? Thank you in advance...

Yuvalya (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1990, a group of Russian researchers who studied the effects of space travel on astronauts. Part of their clinical research was to address the affects of sagging skin." --- what does this have to do with the topic?

"that contains the necessary active ingredients for stimulating and renewing the epidermal cells" --- which independent reliable source said so?

"leading" --- see WP:PEACOCK.

"rouge websites" --- are you sure that this means what you think it means?

I think you need more independent reliable sources as well. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "Boycott" section is not at all phrased neutrally, it very clearly favours one side of the argument over the other. Similarly "rogue websites" is an opinion favouring PDSC's view of a legal dispute rather than a neutral one. "The Marker" appears to be a reputable paper, so fine to cite, but Israeli-Companies.com is just a listing service so doesn't really "prove" anything. The BDS footnote is fine so long as you either describe the dispute in neutral terms, and do not provide a "rebuttal" on behalf of the company unless either a) such a rebuttal has been written by some neutral journalist/academic, or b) you explicitly state "But PDSC took issue with their BDS designation, stating that..." so it's clear that such is the opinion of the company rather than the editor of the article.

Aside from that, you have fluff like "received outstanding achievement awards in the cosmetic field in Europe" which tells us nothing. Which awards? Huge internationally-known ones, or just some "pay us $100 to enter and we'll give you an award" competitions? If it's not worth mentioning who gave the award, it's not worth mentioning the award. You also use other WP:Weasel words like "leading". In what sense? Highest sales? Assessed as top quality by the United Nations? Without specifics it's a word that does nothing but add puffery. The BDS and lawsuit controversies (which needs a citation) are vaguely interesting, and you have some very basic facts about the history of the company, but we really need to see some footnotes to wider coverage of the company and its significance, since all you have right now is one single Israeli news article that mentions the company, a biz listing, and the fact they're mentioned on a long BDS list. We need a significant body of coverage to prove WP:Notability. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also told you roughly the same on my talk page. You have made no changes to the article to reflect this though. That gives me the feeling that you prefer to just keep asking different people in the hopes you will eventually get a different answer. Do read what I wrote there again, as at this point I really have nothing to add. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jeff Rice

Hello, I made a draft for the creator of Kolchak: The Night Stalker. Then I clicked the link "Submit your draft when you are ready for it to be reviewed!" but that didn't remove the big "Article not currently submitted for review" box. It's like it's stuck? 62.147.24.193 (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's correctly submitted. A bot will soon(tm) come by and remove the grey box at the top, and replace it with the yellow box at the bottom. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Crunchfish

Dear editors, I wonder if I can get some pointers on what I could improve in this submission below. That would be very helpful.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Crunchfish

Are there any specific sentences that should be altered or specific words? I could also remove some sources if you tell me which ones.

Thankful for advice, this is my first wikipedia post and I tried hard to make it accepted from your criterias of neutrality and objectivity.

Yours Sincerely,

Robert Svensson

Helsingborg Sweden — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertsvenssonhbg (talk • contribs) 16:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no single specific sentence that could be changed to alleviate the problem, though a formulation like "completely dedicated to exploring touchless interaction" is literally incredible for a for-profit company - they're primarily dedicated to making money. The entire article is based on primary sources with no reliable independent source in sight, and it ceaselessly sings the praise of Crunchfish and its products without providing even basic information about the company. How many employees does it have, what are the revenues? Not even seed funding, the kind of information available for even the most irrelevant startups, is given. And while that's a comparatively minor issue, we don't use ™ on Wikipedia to denote trademarks. Huon (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kanary Diamonds

Hi,

I am having trouble getting this article approved. I have been working on it for over a month, it has been rejected a few times and I have edited and changed everything possible to go by Wikipedia's guidelines. I think it is perfect and there isn't more that can be done with it because all of the references were accepted and all the information is accurate. If someone could please help me figure out what else I can possibly do, that would be great. I need any help I can get.

Thank you.

Aelshi1 (talk) 19:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Submitted to mainspace. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 19:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Brian Essl

Whats your problem!? Why is none of this working!? Why can't I get any help or support! ? What's the joke here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldofWake (talk • contribs) 20:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to be rude; you'll get better answers if you don't come storming in yelling at people who are volunteers specifically here to help you.

In answer to your question, WorldofWake, did you read the notice in the pink box that explains exactly what the issue is? Please read that, but in brief you have not provided evidence that Essl meets the rules of Wikipedia:Notability (athletes). That means it is required that you provide footnotes to newspaper articles, etc that discuss Essl and his importance. Bluntly put, we need to see that some serious journalist has found Essl worth writing about, because if he isn't worth writing about, he isn't worth having an article about. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

poor service!

IF YOU WANT OR EXPECT PEOPLE TO USE YOUR SERVICE I SUGGEST YOU MAKE IT MORE USER FRIENDLY AND DO A FAR BETTER OF EXPLAINING HOW IT WORKS! BETWEEN ALL OF YOU "EDITORS" OUT THERE YOU'D THINK YOU COULD FIGURE OUT A BETTER SYSTEM! PROVIDE MORE PROMPTS OR SOMETHING! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldofWake (talk • contribs) 20:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "service". You aren't paying anyone here money, we have zero obligation to help you. The reviewers are here because we enjoy helping people get Wikipedia articles published. You received literally one notice saying "hey, your article isn't ready yet, here's what improvement it needs" and then you start posting abusive messages. How do you think that effects our enthusiasm to help you and give you advice? If you calm down, read the extremely clear notices we've given you about what to fix, then life will be a lot easier. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abusive messages? ? Wow! You need to get a thicker skin buddy! Geeze, so sensitive! Is there a big boy that can help me out? The thing is, NO ONE has told me EXACTLY what I need to do to fix it! And if you have, then please show me, very specifically, where! Or better yet, please resend the "extremely clear" information you claim you provided! The FACT is you haven't explained ANYTHING or we wouldn't be having this conversation!

Btw, I HAVE ZERO OBLIGATION TO YOU AS WELL! JUST AS YOUR READERS HAVE ZERO OBLIGATION TO USE YOUR SERVICE! AND YES! IT IS A SERVICE! MAYBE THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT YOU SHOULD realize!

Ok, what you need to do is add references to the draft to show that the person you wrote the draft about is notable. References should be reliable, independent of the article's subject, and cover the subject in detail. Take a look at WP:IRS for more help with finding good sources. Then, add the sources to the article. WP:REFBEGIN explains how to do that better than I could. Hope this helps. And please, stop shouting. Howicus (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Cooperation is key here. I hope you do not write complaints to companies like this. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 21:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References? We ARE the World of Wake. We sanction the professional athletes in the sport. We ARE the reference. How else are we supposed to submit information about the professional athletes in the sport?

Very soon perhaps there will be a new AfC submission Wikipedia As A Service (WaaS) which will describe how WaaS is a revolutionary new principle and the leading companies involved are.... (etc) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Is World of Wake a recognized governing body for your sport? I cannot find any mention of it, apart from phrases on various Facebook and YouTube pages, which are not considered reliable sources.

Also, your user page implies that your intent is to use Wikipedia as a means to raise the profile of your sport. That conflicts with the policy that Wikipedia is not for promotion or advertising. It is about topics that are notable to the world at large, as evidenced by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. To be blunt, you aren't the best judge of your own notability. If there is significant coverage from third-party sources, then there may be merit for an article. --Drm310 (talk) 01:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with improving articles about Wakeboarding and simliar articles, and is high suggested. About the person, I can't find any articles or any information about him. That's the biggest problem with the article being accepted or surviving for long in mainspace. LionMans Account (talk) 02:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I reported the user to UAA. Now blocked. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 19:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 23

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ Apple Users' Society of Melbourne

I have reorganised my article along the lines suggested by the reviewer on 20 August 2013. How do I now resubmit it?Gmdgmd (talk) 00:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Put {{subst:submit}} at the top. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Foley Belsaw

Foley Belsaw was the best-known and probably the largest US manufacturer of sharpening equipment for most of the 20th century. However, it has always been privately owned so there is no financial or production data available as with a publically owned company. As far as I can determine, it has never been involved in anything controversial that would make the news. Consequently, I can't find any articles on the internet that demonstrate the notability of Foley Belsaw. However, Foley was a household name in the 1940s through the 1970s, since they made kitchen wares and advertised their sharpening equipment in magazines like "Popular Science" and "Popular Mechanics."

I have no connection with Foley Belsaw and did not consult them for this article. I have a lot of their equipment and publish a blog on the same http://foleyfiler.blogspot.com/ All my equipment was purchased used, so I am not a customer, either.

Could my article please be reviewed by someone knowledgeable about tools and machinery, antiques, or business? Thank you.

Mark Stansbury Wvamark (talk) 02:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately someone knowledgeable about tools and machinery, antiques, or business won't be able to ignore Wikipedia's guidelines and policies on verifiability and reliable sources either. The current sources don't suffice to write an article. However, sources need not be available online; print sources are acceptable as well. Maybe there are textbooks on industrial design that discuss their kitchen wares? And I doubt any company could manage to be a household name for decades without receiving any news coverage at all. Huon (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SHARE

Hello,

My review is declined because it has no reliable source. However, the source I used is reliable. It is a publication in a highly accepted rheumatology journal. There is no better source than this one. I really don't understand it.

Victor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veaboom (talk • contribs) 09:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, maybe User:Libby norman put a bad declining reason. What we need though is maybe another reference to establish notability. I tried a Google search, but it's a mess - there are too many organisations known as SHARE. Could you please place some more references in (must be about the subject, not trivial mentions)? Cheers, Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 09:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as the reviewer I chose the WP:V decline reason because I didn't think one reference, however accepted within rheumatology circles, was enough to support a quite complex article. There was only one inline citation for the text, which is why I also chose verifiability. I agree with Insulam Simia that the article would benefit from at least one additional reference. You might also want to check that all statements within the text that might be challenged are supported by inline citations, also remembering to explain any acronyms or technical words that might baffle some readers. Adding appropriate Wikilinks (WP:LINK) might also assist with clarity. Hope that helps. Libby norman (talk) 10:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/C.B.S. Scientific Company, Inc.

[Draft removed.]

Jocelynscott (talk) 22:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the draft to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/C.B.S. Scientific Company, Inc., the preferred location for drafts awaiting review. However, I could not accept the draft because it didn't cite any reliable sources. Huon (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 24

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shinjin RC420TP

Thank you for re-reviewing for my update. I also wanted to thank to User:MatthewVanitas for a quick response out of thousand pages that has been submitted to be reviewed. I just wanted to point this out that I would like to use the link this page from Wikipedia's Daewoo Bus. However, the secondary source that I have added here is from another Korean web page that has been gleaned at the Korean version Wikipedia page which I also have linked here which has no external link source information. I have done to my best ability to translate the necessary information from Google Translation and Bing Translation from these Korean pages. My hope that I have seeded this page for future user who wish to expand necessary information and possible referenced another source that I may have overlooked. Rjluna2 (talk) 03:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is: Other insufficiently sourced articles exixt, but that's no reason to create more. Each submission must stand on its own merits, and the sources are insufficient to establish that this bus is notable enough for an article. Huon (talk) 04:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/93rd Infantry Brigade New York National Guard

I would like to add one image to this page, the unit crest of this unit, the 93rd Inf Bde, how's it done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.248.193 (talk) 04:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not totally clear on the legal angle: Is the 93rd technically a US Federal entity or a State entity? Overall, US Federal sources, including Department of Defense, have no copyright so can be uploaded directly to Commons.wikimedia.org by selecting the "Belongs to US Federal source" copyright justification. Then anyone can use it freely. If the 93rd is not a US Federal source, you can upload an image using the "Upload File" option in "Tools" in your left margin, but only after your draft has published. Just depends whether ownership of the copyright of the emblem rests with the State of New York, or wiht the US Federal government. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zaga Christ

Can we delete once more a page about a very famous king of Ethiopia, the first king of Africa who lived for a long time in exile in Europe, where he committed suicide,in France (1638), and so, just because I cannot manage to use templates for the citations ? The article appears like this in the "french wikipedia". Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4ethiopie (talk • contribs) 10:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the main thing would be to clean up the article and make it more encyclopedic. LionMans Account (talk) 11:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Post scriptum. Rather than deleting a page of such historical importance, the "french wikipedia" have published the article, asking only for its improvement. What is the importance of Zaga Christ, king of Ethiopia in the 17 th century ? Nothing else than the most important archival resources in the world about a king of Africa ! See the full page in french. The wiki team should rather offer help to someone who can't manage to use the templates for the citations. Thanks again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4ethiopie (talk • contribs) 10:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move at Sayd Abdulrahman Bafakhy Tangal Memorial Government College ‎

Done I would like to change the name of the article from Sayd Abdulrahman Bafakhy Tangal Memorial Government College to SARBTM Govt College. Please inform the procedure to do the same accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kovinmel (talk • contribs) 14:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page is actually for help with WP:Articles for creation drafts, but since you asked here: I suggest you make this proposal at Talk:Sayd Abdulrahman Bafakhy Tangal Memorial Government College and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities. If you find that people there agree, the article will be moved accordingly. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of WatchHub/WatchHub

Hi there

Our post was rejected on the grounds of reliable sources and notability. We made a mistake in the name of the primary source which is itself listed on wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITP_Publishing_Group (We called the independent source Promedia Ltd rather than ITP Promedia.) We hope this clarifies the source as credible.)

Many Thanks