Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:22, 22 December 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

December 15

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hell's Kitty

I submitted the article “Hell’s Kitty” in regards to a web-series I produce, but it got rejected because “references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability.” I put a lot of references in the article so I’m not sure what this means. Any input would help.

Thanks! Foxility Foxility (talk) 01:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:Notability and WP:Conflict of interest (you shouldn't be writing about a subject you're involved with). —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 03:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also read Wikipedia:Notability (web) as this is the Specific Notability guideline that will need to be satisfied. Hasteur (talk) 03:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ossian Lindholm

hi I am new to wikipedia I have submitted a entry about Ossian Lindholm How do I know if it has been accepted Has it been? if not why or when will it be?

thanks LaurenHefferon (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. When you went back and translated the submission you accidentally removed the previous decline banner. I restored it for you. Because you are here I got the impression that you want it to be reviewed. I have submitted the page on your behalf for review. At this time it does not appear to be ready for acceptance, but I will let others review it. Your submission will be reviewed in the order in which the request for review was recieved. You should be notified when your submission has been reviewed and if it is accepted or declined. Hasteur (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am still confused about what I need to do to my submission to improve its chance of being accepted. This is my first time using WIKI and it is a bit daunting..can someone give me an example of how to correct the problem…maybe by giving me an example of a similar bio LaurenHefferon (talk) 11:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few dozen Wikipedia Good Articles of journalists at Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society#Journalism and newspapers, and a few hundred Wikipedia Good Articles of "Actors, models, performers and celebrities" at Wikipedia:Good articles/Media and drama#Actors, models, performers and celebrities. Some of these might be suitable examples to see what a biography of a creative person should contain. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Moshe Bar Zvi

Just want to clarify that I cannot upload a photo until the article is accepted. This is my understanding from what all the references I have read so far.

LoveIsrael.com (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photographs which are explicitly WP:Public Domain, WP:Creative Commons, etc. can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons at any point in time. Photos which are submitted as WP:Fair use (such as low-res example photos of copyright movie posters, album covers, company logos, irreplaceable photos of the deceased, etc) can only be uploaded after an article exists.

If you own a photo of Zvi that you yourself took and are releasing under WP:Creative Commons, or where the copyright holder explicitly releases it under WP:Creative Commons via an WP:OTRS declaration, those can be uploaded to WP:Wikimedia Commons at any point. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MobiCore

Hi there,

I saw that the issue seems not notable, but I've read the guidelines and I don't see what's wrong. I added citations to interesting points and I think this subject is interesting enough for techies to read.

It's a new OS by one of the world's leading security expert corporations, which by the way I am not a member of. I'm not trying to help them out, I've simply done my own research which I'd like people to be able to read.

Regards Nimo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.4.95 (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 1 is a download page to technical spec sheets and is, in itself, unusable as a reference (though the spec sheets themselves could be cited). Reference 2 is just the code for the OS, and thus is the subject itself; we do not cite the subject itself as they frequently have an incentive to lie by omission. Reference 3 is a press release, and has the same issues as reference 2. Please read the linked page. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 16

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/EXIT (Art Magazine)

This question is in regard to the page containing my recent submission for review, Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/EXIT_(Art_Magazine)

At the top of the page is a box with the statement, "Draft article not currently submitted for review." However, at the bottom of the page is a box with the statement "Review waiting.

This may take over 3 weeks. The Articles for creation process is very highly backlogged. Please be patient. There are 1944 submissions waiting for review." Could you please tell me whether this submission is in line to be reviewed.

Thank you, George Petros GPetros1955 (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The yellow "Waiting" box takes precedence, it's just we have coding issues that unfortunately allow multiple contradictory boxes to appear. But if you have a Yellow, you are indeed submitted. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jon Younger

Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/Jon Younger Please help me understand how to best modify the second edited submission for the article. The first was rejected for lack of independent sources. The second submission included several independent sources but was rejected for CITEKILL. Can you please suggest a better format for the submission that will result in a better outcome?

Hudsonscg (talk) 02:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC) Hudsonscg[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ Elizabeth Vinelli

how can i submit my biography? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinellie (talk • contribs) 04:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You did correctly submit it, but you did not provide any outside sourcing showing that Vintelli is WP:Notable. We need not her own site, etc. but instead a significant body of media or academic coverage of her and her career.

Also, if this is a biography of yourself, I strongly suggest you read our guideline WP:Autobiography which explains why this is a very bad idea. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paul Lindholdt, PhD

Am I able to continue editing my article while I wait for the review? Since it could take three weeks, which I completely understand, I would like to use that time to make improvements.

Thanks!

Flossysummer (talk) 06:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 08:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shout Out UK

Hello,

I am currently still waiting for information on my Shout Out UK article. Someone reviewed it and yet it is still waiting for 'review'.

I was wondering if you could assist in letting me know what will happen next?

Best,

Helloskiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helloskiable (talk • contribs) 10:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "has been reviewed" message refers to a different process, and can be ignored. Your article submission is still waiting to be reviewed. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hitachi eBworx

Hello reviewers - I found this old submission about a Malaysian company. It was decline as an advertisement, but appears to have a number of good news reports, so I thought that I would just edit it for tone and resubmit. However, the only text I could find that was in any way promotional was the sentences about awards, and they are all cited. Can anyone suggest what should be changed? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Green Champion, Green Warrior

Hello help desk. I submitted two articles for review last week: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Green Champion and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Green Warrior and they were both rejected because they're neologisms. I have to disagree- both phrases are used within the "green" community, however I'd like for them to become more well-known and used more frequently. My idea was to use Wikipedia to help spread these terms and raise overall awareness about "green". I'm a passionate advocate of all things "green" and I'm disappointed and frustrated these terms can't get approved. They're not silly or offensive or frivolous. In fact, I think they're terms people need to get more familiar with. Heres why I submitted them- I'm currently out of work and I'm not having much success finding a "green" job so I thought I'd get creative. My idea was to send emails to prospective employers while using "Green Champion" to describe myself and by using "Green Warrior" to describe my long-term ambition and goals. Because the terms may not be familiar with the folks I'm contacting I wanted to create links for both terms to a Wikipedia page that describes them. I thought this was a great idea because I wouldn't have to lengthen my messages with their definitions. I also thought this would show my initiative and passion by creating these articles and set me apart. I am upset these terms are labeled neologisms. What's the downside for creating these pages? I even emailed the author of the book I referenced (Jason F. McLennan, The Philosophy Of Sustainable Design) just to make sure he was aware I wanted to create these articles and reference his book (In the articles I also wanted to link to his page) and to see if he had any objections or thoughts. He got back to me right away and gave me the go-ahead. Wouldn't a neologism not have published sources? Please reconsider accepting these terms. Let me know if you need any other info or if more sources or anything would help my cause. Again, I'm frustrated Wikipedia would reject such noble, thought-provoking articles. Thank you for your time. I'll be eagerly awaiting your response.

Eric0034 (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Eric Mount, CSBA Green Champion "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead[reply]

Wikipedia is not here for you to spread the word about anything. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy was short and to the point. I'll just reiterate, Wikipedia is deliberately designed as a tertiary reference. It is the goal of Wikipedia to document notable items covered by reliable sources, but it deliberately does not want to be in the business of promoting or spreading the word. If reliable sources spread the word, then we want to report on it, but we do not want to be part of the promotional effort.

While I agree Wikipedia should not be in the business of advocacy or promotion, my articles do neither. I AM the advocate, who merely wants to use an article to promote myself within the green community. The articles themselves are neutral and solely informative. I do not accept your decision. I would understand better if the articles were trying to sway folks or force an ideology on the reader. Quite frankly, maybe Wikipedia should make exceptions when it comes to such a serious global issue as global warming (without which the green industry wouldn't have such a large market share). What better cause to get behind than "green"? Whats stopping Wikipedia from becoming a green advocate? In all seriousness, don't be so rigid! The vision I get of some editors is of an old, grumpy fart with a power trip they didn't earn. Eric0034 (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Eric0034[reply]

And your response is still unacceptable. We're not here to promote anything - not you, not a neologism, not the green movement. It flies right in the face of the Wikimedia Foundation's neutrality policies, which are not negotiable and apply here (WP:Neutral point of view explains how it applies on this project). Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, not a propaganda platform or ad board. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Article Name Change

Resolved

Good day,

I am trying to figure out how to Change the article name, and am not seeing anything on the site. Can you please let me know the process in the changing the name? or guide me to the online instructions.

Thank you,

Randi Ward (Article creator - Crossbarinc) RWTanis (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you were trying to do. What you would have needed to do is to move the article to the correct name. I have resolved this for you, given it a disambiguation, and linked back from the disambiguation. Hasteur (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wisconsin Center for Film and Theater Research

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Wisconsin_Center_for_Film_and_Theater_Research

My article was just declined by Aggie80.

For the life of me I cannot find his comments explaining why. Where do I see "the comments left by the reviewer"?

Many thanks, Dan Bioscopic (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it appears that your article hasn't been reviewed, just moved to the prefered location for AfC submissions. It appears to be a bug and I will notify the developers. Hasteur (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Kenchf/Joseph Anton Hodel

Hi, I spent some time compiling the entry Joseph Anton Hodel, as complete as I could. However I am a new Wikipedia user and no doubt made some errors. I was surprised today to find that one of your administrators had deleted the page. (I had previously made a page with the wrong, misspelled title Josehp ... and requested deletion. I wonder if that is the problem?)

I have remade the entry in hope(!) but I would like to know why it isn't acceptable.

Regards

Ken Fackrell

Kenchf (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checking... Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Kenchf: According to the logs no page or edit you made using this account has ever been deleted (Well, now they have - please read on). Also, based on your contributions it would seem that you made a total of three pages for the same subject:

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jospeh Anton Hodel - The first page that has a typo.
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joseph Anton Hodel - A page you made on the 9th, and last edited on the 11th.
User:Kenchf/Joseph Anton Hodel - A page you made on the 16th.

To make things a tad simpler to track i've just histmerged these three pages into a single page that can now be found at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joseph Anton Hodel. Have a look at the page history of this page - every edit you ever made to any of these three pages can be found it the history. Using the history you can easily restore your preferred revision from any of the pages you created. (So if you preferred the second page over the remade page on the 16th, you can revert to that one). Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for that reply - and thanks for sorting out the posts. The odd thing is that clicking the Google link gets a page that says 01:47, 16 December 2013 Ronhjones (talk | contribs) deleted page Joseph Anton Hodel (R2: Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace) - and still does. Hence my confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenchf (talk • contribs)

That's because Google caches its search results. Wait a bit for their cache to clear. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Malcolm Bellairs

The page name for my submission should end up being "Mal Bellairs" rather than Malcolm Bellairs, just like Bill Clinton he is professionally known as Mal. So before the article is published the page name and url need to be changed. How do I do that?

KeithBellairs (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind

I found the move button and moved the article to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mal Bellairs. Hope I didn't break anything. KeithBellairs (talk) 22:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 17

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Research paper

Please suggest me the changes in article. I really don't know what are the errors in my article. If you can highlight those errors , It will be a great help for me. Here is the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eringallagherr/sandbox Thanks. Eringallagherr (talk)

Wikipedia is not a "how-to" guide. Keep the article's content descriptive the way an encyclopedia would be. Wise words on the review. Hasteur (talk) 15:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sunstar, Inc.

Greetings,

I created the following article, but it has been rejected because of lack of acceptable references. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Sunstar,_Inc.

I live in Japan and want to write about Sunstar, which I think is a very interesting company. However, there are not a lot of references in English. I am not sure why the references I gave were not acceptable, since they are accurate and authentic.

Thank you for your assistance.

Steve Beimel (talk) 12:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked the page and the feedback seemed very clear to me- did you read the feedback on the page itself or are you just responding to the alert on your talk page? There is no problem with the quality of either of your independent sources, the reviewer just commented that there were only two of them. The publication by sunstar is informative but of course doesn't count to the number of independent, reliable sources as it is not independent of the subject. Rankersbo (talk)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Udita Tyagi

could not locate the page Udita Tyagi, created by mngulati

Munishwar Gulati 18:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mngulati (talk • contribs)

No such page seems to have ever existed, at least not that I can see. Your contributions show no edits to any page by that name, and the page above has never been edited. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wesley Olin Connor

I tried to enter live chat and I wasn't able to type anything even though I could see the other person typing. I wanted to know when and if I can add photos to a submission. I uploaded a few and now I can't even find them to put them in the article I just submitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Margholl (talk • contribs) 19:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/OnePure

Sir/Ma'am,

Can i take my article back in case I don't want it to get reviewed?

Thanks, Laylamandi (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, by removing the submission template. If it's just because you want to continue working on it, you are actually allowed to continue editing the article even while it's awaiting review. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 22:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 18

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Life Architecture

I wanted to confirm that the newly edited post for Life Architecture has been submitted for review. Can you please verify?Bivkovic (talk) 07:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission has not been queued for review. It has, however, been declined multiple times and still does not cite any reliable sources. I have had a search for sources myself and cannot find any (most hits are for the "Woods of Ypres" song "Modern Life Architecture"), so I can't see it passing submission any time soon. I think at this stage you should find another article to edit, I'm afraid. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Folk2Folk

Hi,

Just wondering what the status is of the latest submission of the article 'Folk2Folk', submitted December 10?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.201.162 (talk) 12:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just checked and it wasn't submitted on the 10th December, it was edited but the editor removed the two decline templates which made it effectively invisible to the AfC project. I've replaced the templates so you can submit it again, although in the current state it has too much positive language. The tone of a wikipeida article needs to be much flatter and more matter of fact than this. Rankersbo (talk)

Thanks, will review now... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.201.162 (talk) 13:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My main issue was with the phrase "a new concept"- which while possibly true sounds a bit too promotional. The fact it's on the first line may colour a reviewers picture of the rest of the article. "How it works" doesn't seem to fit with an encyclopaedic article, but that may just be my opinion. Rankersbo (talk) 13:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/440th Civil Affairs Battalion (United States)

I received an email stating that my page may contain "Copy Righted" material for my page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/440th Civil Affairs Battalion (United States)

Could i please have the specifics so i can change them.

thank you

SFC Lechuga, Angel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuga25 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Usually the page (and/or sections thereof) would be flagged themselves, with a link to the source being copied from. I don't see that here. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Leavitt Bulldog

Hello to who wants to help in a positive way. For some time now I try to make a page about the Leavitt bulldog. But because our references is basically provided by webpages it is hard to deliver other sources.

But now for some moderators this is third party information .

But to me (yes newbie) this clearly shows I provide information to see that this exist. And isn’t any link in a references a third party link Also our dogs share the same history as the Old English Bulldog this is no secret but sins 2006 we went our way and now everyone can see we have other dogs but with an early same history as the OEB. Can some please help me with the right information so that our Leavitt bulldog can be accepted with his own page Please read my article and let me know how or what to change so my page can be approved Thank you very much in advance Gr Barry Schutte (freedombulls) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedombulls (talk • contribs) 20:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a copyright tag on the page. Please see WP:Copyrights. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sorry i forget that I chaned it thanks any more info would be welcome

gr --Freedombulls (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources are not the only problem. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, and so we don't want information only of interest to enthusiasts. You have too much detail in the article. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Traveling salesman humor

I just completed of article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Traveling salesman humor I'm unclear as to whether or not I needed to do something further to bring it to your attention for review. Ronald D. Solberg (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ronald D. Solberg, you submitted it correctly, I reviewed it, and I have declined it for the reasons listed in the pink box, and in my written comments below the pink box. Please carefully read the comments, and if you have a follow-up question please come post it here, and let us know what you'd like clarified. Thanks! MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 19

Review of Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Mel_Elias

Hello, I would appreciate some assistance and guidance. I have submitted an entry several times for someone (after making suggested revisions) and am still having it rejected due to a lack of notability. I have tried to demonstrate notability by including the following: - That the person is the CEO of the Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf, which is a big company (over 900 locations) and is very well known (and loved by me) in the US and Asia. [[1]] - included links to articles from publications (Forbes, Nations Restaurant News) - included awards and nominations, with supporting links - included bio information, with supporting stories in notable media - included achievements under his leadership at the company, with supporting links

I also removed other information and links that were not sufficient, based on past advice.

Wikipedia has multiple entries for people that are IMHO, far less notable (based on title, achievements, company affiliation, etc.)

I want to create other coffee industry profiles and content, but this has been discouraging and I'm ready to give up. Can anyone please provide me advice on how to better demonstrate notability, create an entry or deal with this process.

Thank you very much for your help! JeffAllenNYC (talk) 01:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC) Jeff A.[reply]

Rachael Robertson (writer)

Done There is already on wikipedia a different Rachael Robertson who has a very short wiki entry and has not been a public figure for over a decade. ^[1] Is there a way to change her entry to Rachael_Robertson_TV_Presenter and change the above entry to Rachael_Robertson?

Alternatively, calling this Rachael Robertson a writer is not helpful. This is only a small portion of her work. Most of her work is public speaking, and her reason for being in wikipedia stems from her time in Antarctica. Thank you Ric.lamont (talk) 01:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done: I've moved the earlier article, and made a WP:Disambiguation page Rachael Robertson that directs to both. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Coach Cain

Coach Cain was born Rasheen Jones on May 8, 1980 in Anchorage, Alaska. He was born into a military family and they moved to Atlanta, Georgia when he was a youngster. Due to family hardships, Corey Cain and his family have resided all over the Metro Atlanta area; he is known from the Eastside to the Westside of Atlanta. In 2005, he and a group of friends started an independent label called Y.P.N. Entertainment. In early 2008, Corey Cain and his younger brother were shot in an apparent home invasion and left for dead. Both he and his brother survived and he is currently attending rehab to regain his ability to walk. He has made tremendous progress and he feels that he was left here to add this experience to a long list of overcome obstacles. After his life altering experience Corey Cain felt the need for change in his personal and professional life. He started another record label, N.C.A.A. (Never Changing Always Adapting). It is his goal to jump start this label with his recently finished mix tape. Corey Cain has always had the ability to create pictures with words while adding his easy finesse to any track. He is the epitome and essence of a street lyricist, poet and entrepreneur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimberlyjones.kj (talk • contribs) 02:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. If you would like to start writing a new article, please use the Article wizard. If you have an idea for a new article, but would like to request that someone else write it, please see: Wikipedia:Requested articles. I hope this helps. Hasteur (talk) 13:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/FOTIT

I recently made a submission of my article and was rejected saying that it contain materials having copyright.Im sure it doesnot contain any materials with copyright . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fotit (talk • contribs) 04:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fotit. The text for that article was almost all copied from http://www.fotitfotos.blogspot.ca/ . Wikipedia editors must edit as individuals, and not as representatives of an organization or product. Any text which has been previously published or which was written for an organization or company can't be added to Wikipedia for copyright reasons. If you are the copyright holder, it is possible to donate the text (here's the process: Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials), but in this case it would be pointless, because it isn't written in the formal, neutral tone which Wikipedia requires. Also, Wikipedia would immediately license the text for anyone in the world to use, change, or sell. It would be quicker to just write a concise, factual article written especially for Wikipedia, including references to independent, reliable sources such as news reports, magazine articles, web site reviews, etc., to show that this topic has been written about extensively by journalists and other authors. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ice day

Hallo! Please can somebody look at the article. I believe the issues are fixed.--Gelli63 (talk) 08:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sean Gervasi

I recently made a submission of my article and was rejected without any explanation whatsoever. The biography of the person in question was put some effort into and it concerned a VERY prominent intellectual on the left. Is this the idea of right wing wikipedia "admins", to delete anything that concerns left wing history? I find it appalling how little intellectual capacity is available at wikipedia if this somehow is an example of the norm around here. This is not serious, it borders on complete dishonesty and complete disregard for academic honesty or any kind of honesty for that matter. Utterly disgusting behavior and it only adds to furthering the already large feeling in Europe that Wikipedia is and has become completely saturated with a uncritical and unthinking conservative bias so large that Wikipedia itself has been rendered completely useless when it comes to history and historical information as well as even the most _basic_ information on _anything_ of political nature. Heck, when you cant even get a _biography_ on a deceased left wing academic into wikipedia, the limit has been reached _and_ BREACHED. I think this will e my last attempt at contributing anything here and I dont think I will care whether or not you take heed or what your replies are. I hope this is down to just one person who took the initiative to delete the biography and the several hours of work put into investigating it, in order for other people to get information on this person who is quoted throughout and was even interviewed on one of the longest running intellectual TV shows in the US, as well as considered important enough to be invited to the UK by the BBC for _their_ expert panel on the Yugoslavian break up and conflict. I'm not sure what criteria you set for becoming an admin/someone who evaluates articles for creation projects, but, suffice to say, this is beyond asinine. The work of an incompetent nincompoop. And sure: "we can't have an article on George Orwell (fill in) because the guy who proposed it called me an incompetent nincompoop". There you go. Make further asses of yourselves and dump wikipedia credibility some more together with it. We give up on you. 46.15.91.237 (talk) 09:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 46.15.91.237: I'm sorry that you are upset, but I'm afraid that your indignation is unjustified. First of all, your article has not been deleted, and none of the work has been wasted. The reviewer did indeed leave an explanation, which was a request to cite specific reliable sources in the body of the article, next to the facts, which is Wikipedia's policy for all biographies. The more prominent the subject, the more important this is for the protection of the person in the biography. Remember, we don't know who you are, and you'd be surprised how often people try to add false or misleading information to Wikipedia. The specific citations (not just database search engine results or other vague references) allow editors to check up on the facts. As to your accusation that Wikipedia has a right-wing bias, this is totally untrue, and you should read the complaints from right-wing types saying the opposite! The criteria is only that the person have been written about in news reports, magazine articles, books, etc. In spite of your decision to give up on Wikipedia, it's likely that another interested editor, perhaps someone with more patience who doesn't resort to namecalling, will take the time to properly cite this article in the future, and your subject will end up in the encyclopedia. Or, you could just decide to get on with it yourself. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/That's Live

I am confused as to why "That's Live" was not accepted, as no reason was given. The CD album involved is referred to elsewhere on wikipedia, e.g. Eric_Burdon_discography#Live_albums and Access_All_Areas_(Eric_Burdon_&_Brian_Auger_Band_album). Pages exist for successive live albums by this major artist. Grimhype (talk) 13:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is given, very clearly, in the grey box at the top of your draft, and that feedback includes a number of useful links which you should read. You should also read WP:INHERITED. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Turtle Conservancy

Hi, I am working on this article to be published. I would love some of your feedbacks and etc Thank you for your time.

best

Guang

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Systems Made Simple

I am a new editor to Wikipedia. Can you help me understand why my submission has been declined multiple times now and what I need to do to gain approval?

Thank you

Ronal Beckslico (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, the article goes into far too much detail for a general encyclopedia. Second, you have zero usable sources that show the subject is notable (References 1 and 2 are the same content, and are a name drop; Reference 3 is a press release. We can't use any of them). —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nathan Ferguson

I really need my page looked at before December 24th because it is due in as a task in my project of The Minors of the Sporting World — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrazyScotsman2 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Teaching for Transfer

I'm not really sure why the article I created was rejected. There are two reasons given: 1) It is a neologism, and 2) There may be a conflict of interest.

For the first objection, it says that in order for a neologism to be permitted, it must be supported by "strong evidence in independent, reliable, published sources." In my article, I cited texts that include an encyclopedia published by a well respected press, articles from four different peer reviewed journals, and a book published by a reputable university press. I'm not exactly sure what about these sources make them not qualify as independent, reliable, or published.

For the second reason, I decided to create an article on Teaching for Transfer because it is a topic that I am interested in, and I was surprised to find that Wikipedia didn't already have an article on the topic. The only reason I can think why I might be considered to have a conflict of interest is because I know Kathleen Blake Yancey, one of the authors of the forthcoming book I listed in my references. It is through my knowledge of her that I was able to read a chapter from the book that is being published early next year. I can remove this reference if it seems like I am trying to promote her book. However, I hardly think that she needs any promotion from me - she is already a major figure in her field. I simply thought that anyone interested in the topic would like to know about some of the latest research coming out. I am new to this topic, so I created the article hoping that other people who are more knowledgeable about it would make contributions to build it into a better resource.

If I could have a little more information about exactly why my article was rejected and what I specifically could do to make it more appropriate for Wikipedia, I would appreciate it so much.

Smarshall86 (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)smarshall86[reply]

December 20

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ChannelAdvisor

Hi there, I thought I had submitted the article for review successfully, however it still says "Draft article not currently submitted for review." at the top of the page. Could you please confirm whether it has actually been submitted for review? Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Text100 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If a review pending template ({{subst:submit}})isn't already on the page, try bypassing your cache (shift+refresh). If one is, that box is the one reviewers look for, not the "not currently submitted" box. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Santsevi Paramhans

Dear Sirs/Madams, Today is the birthday of Maharshi Santsevi Paramhans. So it is my humble request to you to approve the page today - it would be my gift of love to him and millions of his faithful devotees. I honestly didn't know that the space has, of late, become so backlogged that about 2000 requests are already queued for clearance, otherwise i would have certainly undertaken this endeavour sufficiently earlier...i wanted actually to throw this as a surprise & pleasant gift today.

So, I request you that, if possible, the page be kindly allowed to come up today. There is nothing objectionable or controversial in this article. It is a purely spiritual article about a purely spiritual person. I, however, assure you that if anything objectionable is found by the editorial board or review committee, i would surely adhere to all the compliance suggested by the board without any objection - very very shortly i will also insert proper references. I very fervently hope that given the situation my prayer would be considered urgently and granted approval. Thanking you and with best regards! Faithfully yours, Pravesh K. Singh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Praveshksingh (talk • contribs) 08:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No third-party reliable sources, no article. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kevin Miller

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kevin Miller

I am asked to confirm that Kevin Miller does not already exist, How do I do this?

There are a number of Kevin Millers, but none are Kevin Miller the Opera Singer, how do I deal with that?

Kevin is mentioned in a number of other entries, how do I link them to this Article?

58.160.155.54 (talk) 09:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My Article

Hi

thanks for the information.

Can you please let me know which part of the information was copyrighted. I will make appropriate changes.

appreciate help on this.

Regards, Vidula — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeeWrites (talk • contribs) 10:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can't help you if we don't know the AfC submission's name. If it's already been deleted because of copyright, then an admin will have to answer this. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of DJKAM

Hi Can someone please help me to accomplish this article, so the note below will dissapear? ("This article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling. You can assist by editing it. (November 2013)")

Many thanks & Merry X-Mas P Pati Rojas (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Brothers international Food Corporation

The last time i tried this i was told the article was fine but just needed to change my username. So here I am with the same content, new username and still having problems. What is is this time?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhallett44 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you were more likely than not blocked for username, not for article content. The article has no sources that prove its notability. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jim Nyamu

Hundreds of people are waiting to add to this biography (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Jim_Nyamu). Thank you for any extra attention you can spare.

Kcroes (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Judith Cury

I submitted and article about the biography of Judith Cury a young entrepreneur who's pioneering woman's marketing in the Dominican Republic. I submitted her biographical information as well as press about Judith. The article was rejected, I wonder why and what can be done to fix it. Thanks so much in advance. Javier JavierJRDG (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your references are malformed. Please read Help:Referencing for beginners. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jim Nyamu

I've added a few secondary references, and continue to try and improve the bio. The cause of elephant protection and sanctuary is expanding every day, and Jim Nyamu is an integral figure. If there are any other improvements I should make, please specify. Many others are waiting to contribute to this listing. Thank you. Kcroes (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Jerusalem_(documentary film)

I have submitted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jerusalem_(documentary_film). It's about a new film, it's been written about by the Washington Post and other internationally known news outlets, it is narrated by Benedict Cumberbatch, its executive producer was Jake Eberts. Yet I am told it's not notable. Could someone please explain? Also, it was rejected partly on the grounds that references were clustered. How is this to be avoided when Wiki instructs that statements should be backed up by references? Toysolidier (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)Toysolidier[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/tribazik

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/tribazik

Hello I am trying to submit this page but can't really figure out why it's not being accepted, I have provided references and so on that I think are worthy. Could you please give some pointers?

Many thanks Kiza77 (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We do not accept discography sites as sources for the artist themselves, and the other sites you cite are tied to the subject. (Discographies don't discuss the artist, and sources tied to the subject have a strong incentive to lie, whether overtly or by omission.) You need to find third-party sources that discuss the subject and have no connection to it other than they decided to write about them of their own volition. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 21

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vivek Rathore

why my article is rejected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.14.208.115 (talk) 04:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have not shown that third parties with no connection to the subject have written about him in depth, and thus not satisfied our notability criteria. See also WP:Biographies of living persons, which requires us to have much more stringent sourcing on biographies of living people. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Adolf Fredrik's music school

Hi, I wish to make a reference to page 560 of this book but can't figure out how:

http://www.amazon.com/Music-Nordic-Countries-David-White/dp/1576470199

The templates I have found on Wikipedia use one author but not two editors ...

Andersneld (talk) 07:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/National Parks in Kenya

Help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.64.1.140 (talk) 11:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you need help with? (Apart from a sticky 'e' key on your keyboard). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am trying to submit and article - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Honor_Diaries Each time I submit, it seems to come up blank not saving the content!

Secondly- I have been told that one link is on a blacklist - how do I know which one that is?

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachael_Robertson

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachael_Robertson

[1]