Main page

Talk page

Submissions
Category, List, Sorting, Feed

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

February 11

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Orrstudios

i'm getting conflicting information from the "my contributions" page. Has the Eric Orr article been submitted for review or not?

Best, E — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orrstudios (talk • contribs) 01:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Orrstudios and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eric Orr have been submitted for review. The "not currently submitted" message is a technical artefact that will soon be removed by a bot. As long as there's a yellow "review waiting" message, the draft is awaiting review.

However, both pages contain multiple copies of your draft each; you should remove the redundant copies to avoid confusion. In fact, the entire draft at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Orrstudios seems a redundant duplicateof the other; I'll nominate it for speedy deletion because we certainly don't need two separate draft pages on the same person, and this one has the wrong page title anyway. Huon (talk) 01:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Abhimanyu Ghosh

Hi...my contribution has been declined recently due to additional references required. However, I have carefully followed all guidelines and mentioned several different reliable external sources, like those in similar articles.

Please advise - there are genuine external references utilized at all places that can be verified independently. ThanksJason Ocean (talk) 07:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Abhimanyu Ghosh[reply]

To be considered notable, Ghosh must have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of him. All but one of the sources mention him only in passing, along the lines of "... Abhimanyu Ghosh, in his official capacity of X, said." The remaining source, Best Media Info, strikes me as not independent; they openly ask for contributions by their subjects: "Write to us at [mail address] if you are the shining star, and we shall spread the word far, quite far…" - so we have to assume that "rising star" Ghosh wrote that article himself. In summary, this isn't the significant coverage needed to establish Ghosh's notability, and many of the sources don't even confirm what they're cited for. For example, the first, sixth and seventh sources are all copies of the same news agency report, and they don't call Ghosh a "pioneer", and all the draft says about Asia's Most Promising Brands and Leaders is in fact based on a quote by Ghosh himself, not on an independent report. Huon (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page approval taking too long

I had submitted my article on February 1, 2013 with the Links, how long is it going to take for the approval. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktbt10 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It normally takes between one and three weeks for an article submission to be reviewed. However, in its current state, your article submission is almost certain to be declined. Read WP:42 for details as to what is required in terms of sources. Sources like "itzmyylife youtube page" do not meet those requirements.

Also, if you are going to write things like "She has been an essential part of the television industry for two decades now", then you need to cite a reliable independent source that says so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Floyd: Live at Pompeii

I went to the Wiki Pink Floyd site in regard to watching earlier this morning "Live At Pompeii" and was surprised to find no mention at all in the bio of this most excellant work! I had remembered it for many many years since watching it at the local downtown cinema! I feel it is well worth inclusion and proper mention! Can you look into it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.43.252 (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article has existed at Pink Floyd: Live at Pompeii and Pink Floyd at Pompeii for about the past nine years, and is also linked from most of the major Pink Floyd articles. Not only does it exist on Wikipedia, it is also a good article, which I did the majority of improvements towards. If you simply mean that it isn't linked from Pink Floyd itself, that's because consensus during its featured article review decided a direct link in the article wasn't appropriate. Instead, it's mentioned in footnote 23 at the bottom. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/L.A. Jay

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/L.A._Jay&action=edit

How can I prove that the sources for my submission are reliable?? It's all true! And I have links to official record label websites, discogs and wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlicePS (talk • contribs) 18:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"It's all true" is not an acceptable excuse for Wikipedia, as your version of "true" may be different to mine. How do you know the article's subject didn't lie to you, for example? Most of your sources are unacceptable - other Wikipedia articles can never be used as a source (although the sources cited from those articles can potentially be), the discogs source only shows that a record exists, not that it's notable, and the other sources don't appear to be about the subject. Sorry. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 12

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sir Menelik

I want my article to be reviewed. I click "Save Page" and it goes back to the "This article is not pending a review" page. I don't understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordondrt (talk • contribs) 08:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it for you. You did not close your references. You had two <ref> but no </ref>. — Wylie pedia 08:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Brian Timoney

hello,

This is the first article i've contributed to wikipedia. The article is about a particular person (brian timoney - the Uks foremost method acting coach - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Brian_Timoney). the article has been rejected twice due to lack of citation. I'm not sure which facts need verifying. Also, all information cam from brian himself, not external sources. perhaps you could let me know how to best go about backing up these facts.

many thanks,

TomP123 (talk) 08:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've inadvertently answered your own question I'm afraid. Everything in an article must be verifiable, usually to a reliable source. Information coming from the article's subject is only acceptable up to a point, as we have strong policies of biographies of living people, and an article will never pass unless it is supported by reliable sources such as newspapers or television coverage. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pile On

Surely everyone knows what a pile on is? A bit of fun too? I won't be resubmitting, there is nothing further to add for now - I will leave it to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.111.208.94 (talk)

The article was declined by Snowysusan (talk · contribs) who claims to have attended the University of Calgary in Canada. Therefore, it's unlikely she would have heard about this British English slang term which I personally am familiar with. Neverthless, your article will not be accepted without citing any reliable sources that demonstrates its usage. You'd probably be better off adding the definition in Wiktionary instead. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Francena H. Arnold

I am unsure whether my article has actually been submitted. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Francena H. Arnold

At the bottom of the page is this message: "Review waiting. "This submission is waiting to be reviewed. This may take up to a week. The Articles for creation process is highly backlogged. Please be patient."

That seems to indicate that the page has submitted. It has been more than a week (we’re on Day 9), which may be because of the backlog. But I also wonder if a message at the top is preventing its review. At the top of the page, a box says: "Article not currently submitted for review. "This is a draft Articles for creation submission. It is not currently pending review. There is no deadline, you can take your time writing this draft."

Can you tell me whether my article will be reviewed as it should, or can I do something to remove that confusing message?

Steve Buttry (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Steve Buttry[reply]

You article is in the queue of those to be reviewed. There is a substantial backlog of over 1,000 articles to review, and a week is only a cursory estimate - articles that have a substantial amount of references may take longer to check. However, having had a look at the article, I would say it is unlikely to pass in its current state, as most of the references are email transcripts (which are generally not verifiable), or articles by Arnold. What we need, though, is articles about Arnold. One also has to ask, if Not My Will really is a "classic" as described, why don't we have an article for it? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/VSI GROUP

Hi, i've updated my article some days ago but i don't think it's being reviewed again. Maybe i did something wrong. I would like to know whether it is acceptable now and if not, what should be added / adjusted. Thank you in advance. Kind regards, Frank van Emmerik — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankvanemmerik (talk • contribs) 15:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your article was in the submission queue, but had a few reference tags that were not correctly formatted, that prevented the submission box from appearing. I've fixed these. I've unfortunately had to decline the submission, as a number of references were actually to other Wikipedia articles, which just leaves the three remaining ones. Of those, the best reference in The Guardian doesn't actually mention VSI. The claim to have received an Emmy Award would be a good reason to pass the article, but it's not cited to a source as present. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Abhay Jodhpurkar

When the article will be reviewed and posted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbhemalatha (talk • contribs) 15:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a significant backlog of over 1,000 articles to review. Please be patient. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 13

Quick check on approval submission

Hi, just a check to see if my recently submitted page is in the queue for submission. There's no hurry, I just want to make sure that I actually submitted it OK.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anthony Riches

Thanks, Tony.

AnthonyRiches (talk) 09:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your article was not submitted in the queue. I have now done this. As stated, there is currently a severe backlog and it may take well over a week, possibly even two, for the article to be reviewed. In the meantime, I would focus on finding better sources, as your own interviews published on blogs will not be considered an independent source, which we require articles to be based from. You should also read our policy on autobiographies, as it is strongly discouraged. You won't be blocked for writing an autobiography, but you might find yourself being criticised by other Wikipedians as it's pretty much impossible to write about yourself in a neutral point of view. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this. I have removed the blog interviews and added a couple of references to my appearances at literary festivals. I'm hopeful of being passed at review since I have exactly the same amount of evidence of notability as my colleague Ben Kane who has an approved page. I'm comfortable about the potential for criticism for autobioging as I've made no claims as to the excellence of my work, simply that it exists and has been moderately successful. Again, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthonyRiches (talk • contribs) 10:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you've fallen into a common trap there. The essay Other stuff exists will go into more detail, but in short, you should be wary of using any other article on Wikipedia as a yardstick of quality. Perhaps a featured article, particularly one that's recently been on the front page, might be acceptable, but in the case of Ben Kane, his article is tagged as being badly sourced, I've just had to remove a whole chunk of it as being unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and it's only the fact he's been on the Sunday Times bestseller's list that has probably stopped it from being nominated for deletion - indeed, I notice an earlier revision without that claim was, in fact proposed to be deleted.

Regarding autobiographies and conflict of interest, even though you are confident you can avoid conflict of interest, other editors won't believe you, as years of experience from other autobiographies has taught them otherwise. They may scrutinise your sources incredibly carefully, remove portions your work on the grounds of being poorly sourced, and nominate your articles for deletion. It's worth considering - if you truly are notable, why has nobody else written an article about you already? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean (having looked at Ben's page)! I guess I view all this with a degree of bemused understanding. On the one hand, the last thing I want to do is give the impression of bigging myself up - and there's really nothing in my article that tells anything other than the unvarnished truth - and on the other I can see how wikipedia is open to such abuse. In truth I'd be happy with an entry the size Ben's is now, just so that anyone who wants to know what I do can see it. I've had four top ten novels, so while I wouldn't call myself a superstar I am "notable" to the people who buy my books. And why has no-one else written an article about me? In truth, who's that bothered about a medium ranking author to write their wiki page? I could name half a dozen of my colleagues who wrote their own pages. Anyway, I'm happy to cut the article down to the bones if that's what you recommend (in fact I'll do it anyway), or I guess you'll just delete it if that's what works for you. I'm happy enough with the success I've achieved not to be overly troubled, since I never expected to get this far in any case. Have a nice life... AnthonyRiches (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policies can be pretty confusing at first, and I feel it's only lenghty experience with editing that makes them become clear. If you've appeared on the Sunday Times bestseller's list, you probably are notable enough for an article. I wouldn't worry about trimming the article down - we have a pretty strict policy that biographies of living people have to be well sourced and as accurate as possible, so other editors will see to that. If your books have had reviews in major national newspapers, they would be excellent sources to use. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Salesgossip

Hi, I recently submitted an article about an organisation and provided all independant and reliable references. I was wondering what makes the article to get declined.

I really appreciate if someone can let me know, how to make it more neutral.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darapureddi (talk • contribs) 11:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/jurisprudence by Ashaba-Ahebwa Mark

hullo i intended to post the article as it is for academic purposes to students offering law in east africa please guide me on how it should appear i will follow up and edit it otherwise i am optimistic that students would require such work its so simplified for there understanding... thanks Ashaba-ahebwa .mark (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fundamental problem is that your article doesn't appear at first glance to be something that belongs in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia articles should be written for everybody and accessible to the layman reader without pandering to them. I've got a worrying feeling that you've simply copy / pasted text out of the book sources, which would be considered a copyright violation if so. You might have more success using a version of Wikipedia in a different language - Click here to see some others. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nanne

Who is Nanne Nyander (A) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.83.23 (talk) 12:52, 13 February 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rich Quick

Lmrcollins74 (talk) 14:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you need help with? Your draft does not use inline citations or footnotes and seems very sparsely sourced; all Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as news coverage or reviews in reputable music magazines. YouTube videos are usually not considered reliable sources. Huon (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/United Country Real Estate

I'm confused as to the current status of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/United Country Real Estate. I think I resubmitted it the other day, but the Wikipedia layout has left me confused. Is it current under review or current declined? Thanks!

UCRealEstatePR (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your article has been queued for submission. I have cleared up some of the duplicate text for you. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of other issues you should address. First of all, your user name is in violation of Wikipedia's username policy because it would be considered promotional; it might also imply shared use, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. You may want to change it. Secondly, you may want to read our guideline on conflicts of interest; Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not free ad space. The draft's wording currently shows your bias. (That's why it was declined on February 11, and you haven't addressed that issue; thus it will be declined again for the same reason.) Thirdly, press releases are not independent sources and should not be the sole basis of major amounts of content. Huon (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UCRealEstatePR has already been blocked for a username violation - so I didn't mention it in my reply. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/UbD Case Studies

Not understanding why the article is not posting. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KarynFarrell (talk • contribs) 17:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to post classroom case studies. I think you're in the wrong place. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is currently not submitted for review; to submit it, please follow the instructions in the "not currently submitted" message box: "If this submission is ready to be reviewed, click here and press Save page". However, I agree with Demiurge1000 that this draft seems unlikely to ever become an acceptable encyclopedia article. Huon (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research

I submitted "michael Smith Foundation for Health Research" on February 2. I know you are backlogged, but I'm wondering when I might expect the article to be approved and to appear in Wikipedia? Do you review articles in the order in which they are submitted?

Writerred (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is, as you say, a substantial backlog. Articles are reviewed as and when people have time to look at them, rather than any particular order. I don't think I would pass your article at the moment, as the references don't seem to be specific enough - we need actual news pieces about the foundation, discussing it in depth. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Article for Submission: L.A. Jay

Thankyou Ritchie333. I have edited my references so that they are more reliable and hopefully prove the notability of the records and artists. Please let me know if this is better?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/L.A._Jay

Thank you for your time! Best, Alice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlicePS (talk • contribs) 23:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not all that impressed by the draft's references. I haven't checked them all, but most of those I looked at mentioned LA Jay only in passing, or not at all. YouTube is usually not considered reliable because the videos are user-submitted content. The only source that provided some details on Jay was this one which looked like a blog to me, with no indication of editorial oversight and thus of dubious reliability. Besides, a single source that does more than mention LA Jay's name is probably not enough to establish his notability anyway.

On an entirely unrelated note, you should probably use footnotes to clarify which source supports which of the draft's claims - it's not that helpful to give a dozen sources and let the reader search search them all for a confirmation that LA Jay co-produced The Hypnotic, for example. See also Referencing for beginners for more referencing help. Huon (talk) 01:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 14

Lack of references lead to copyright infringement??

Hello, The problem with what I wrote (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/O'Reilly House Museum) was the fact that it contained copyrighted information.

Is the problem because I neglected to provide proper references for the information that I used? I did draw the information from various sources and although I provided some references, were they insufficient?

Therefore, if I reference it -- more fully than I have -- will it no longer be regarded as a copyright infringement?

Thank you, Malitza (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Giving the source is not sufficient to resolve a copyright infringement. Rather, you should summarize what the source says in your own words. See also WP:COPYVIO for details on what constitutes a copyright infringement. Huon (talk) 01:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing - Article for Creation L.A. Jay

Thank you Huon for your time. So if I footnote my references that will help right?

Also - the reference you mention is to the official website of the record label Delicious Vinyl - does that not count as reliable?

Best, Alice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.186.8.108 (talk) 05:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While turning the references into footnotes will help, I don't think the current sources suffice, no matter how well we present them. The record label's website, for example, is not an independent source. To be considered notable, the LA Jay must have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject - not just passing mentions, not websites that have a financial interest in LA Jay's success, not YouTube or blogs. We're after news coverage or articles in reputable music magazines - sources with a reputation of fact-checking and accuracy, subject to editorial oversight. Huon (talk) 06:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Master Dhananjay ( child artiste in malayalam movies)

Dear at Wikipedia,

I had submitted an article in the name of Master Dhananjay. he is a child artist in malayalam film industry. he has acted in over 20 films including many block busters. He is well known but his article is not yet published in Wiki. It is been over 5 months now since it was published. Can you answer the reason, or any thing more to be done??

Regards, Premjith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Premjithb (talk • contribs) 10:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your article was stored as a sandbox, but was not submitted for review until this morning, so nobody will have known it needed reviewing. I have declined the article as it has no sources, which are essential for any article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Article submissions must have independent reliable sources - see WP:42. Compare with the references section for another child actor (artist), Asa Butterfield#References. Format your references in the same way to those, but only include references that are both independent and reliable. Good luck! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright infringement -- what are the reasons?

Hello, I've been trying to provide an entry for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/O'Reilly House Museum and it's been rejected thus far because of copyright problems.

I confess it is written entirely in my own words. But just in case I was accidentally copying the sentences of others (one never knows), I double-checked and it really seems to be fine. Checking simply involved placing each sentence in an internet search and of course, the only that emerged was my own entry on the wikipedia site.

If the copyright infringement is due to the need for more references, I can easily do that.

However, I just wanted to make sure there is no other reason why it may be rejected due to copyright problems (before I propose it again but with more references)??

Just asking for a bit of help as I'm not really sure beyond the need for an enhanced reference section what would make it not a copyright infraction??

Thanks so much for your help ...! Malitza (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that just copying your own words from your own website isn't sufficient for Wikipedia's use. The content must also be licenced by our CC-BY-SA 3.0 license, which means other people can take the text, create derivative works from it, and, provided you're attributed correctly, sell it. Unless we get explicit permission (via OTRS) that your website is licensed in this way, we have to remove the text as it doesn't fit our terms. In any case, you still need to make sure that there is coverage in reliable sources, such as newspapers or magazines, that prove the museum is notable enough to have an article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot look at the deleted draft and thus cannot tell what copyright it was supposed to infringe upon. We do not delete text as a copyright infringement just because it is unsourced; in those cases we'd usually assume the author wrote it for Wikipedia, which would automatically mean that it's licensed under a free license. Deletion as a copyright violation requires a source whose copyright the text infringes upon. If the draft was the same as your sandbox, then my quick search for such a source failed. I have thus asked the admin who deleted the draft, RHaworth, to take another look and to explain which copyright the draft violated.

I also think Ritchie333 may be mistaken; if you had previously published the text on your own website (which I understand you didn't actually do) and owned the copyright , then by re-publishing it on Wikipedia you would release it under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license and not infringe on your own copyright - but firstly, we might need evidence that you, User:Malitza, were indeed the copyright holder, and secondly, I'm no expert on copyright law and might be wrong. Huon (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huon is right, I misread "my own entry on the wikipedia site" as "my own website". Sorry about that. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, neither version was a copyvio from here. I have restored the AfC submission under current state of User:Malitza/sandbox. It may not have been a copyvio but it certainly well deserved deletion for spammy tone. Malitza, kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks your museum is notable and writes about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RHaworth, please comment on the content, not the contributors and remember this is a help desk for new editors - if COI was innately understood by the vast majority of people, we wouldn't see violations of it so often. Chill out. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/2026 FIFA World Cup

I'm trying to start the page for the 2026 FIFA world cup. The page was deleted some years back, but now that there are actual announcements and official resources for this event, it should definitely have a page up. (By comparison, the 2026 olympics have a page already.) I put the page up at "WP:AFC 2026 FIFA World Cup" first, but the prompt recommended I transfer to "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/2026 FIFA World Cup". I tried, and it said the page already existed. I looked it up, and it was just a farce and the editors had already declined its induction. So, I put in my article in its place. Is there some way I can get that page re-reviewed with new content in it? Not sure how these things work. Leoberacai (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to add {{subst:submit}} to the article somewhere. I've done this for you. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian leader article

Dear Madam/Sir:

I have a general question. I have not been able to find an answer to it. Someone wants to write a brief story about what he did as a leader in the old Iran. He has asked me to help him determine how he can go about this. His question is: For the initial inclusion of the article in Wikipedia, how extensive should the summary be?

Wikipedia used to be so simple to use. That was one of the greatest features of this great medium. It is now very hard to find instructions about many things.

I would be greatly appreciative if someone would help me to get an answer for this man. I wish you all the best.

Very truly yours, Laleh Mohajer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmohajer (talk • contribs) 17:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the former leader should have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest - writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged because it's hard to maintain a neutral point of view about oneself. Secondly, Wikipedia content should be based not on personal recollections but on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as news coverage or maybe history textbooks. To be considered notable, a person must have been the subject of significant coverage in such sources. Thus, the draft should be as extensive as the sources allow it to be. There are no set requirements on article length; if it establishes the subject's notability, it's not too short and can be expanded later. Huon (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/A Kind Voice

I need help trying to cite an interview with a source in Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/A Kind Voice. I tried using the "named references" tool in the Article Wizard, but it wouldn't load after several minutes. Is there a template I can use? The source is David Levins, founder of A Kind Voice. He was interviewed on Feb. 6, 2013.

Pamelaehamilton (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have multiple citation templates, for example {{cite web}} or possibly {{cite news}}. The templates' documentation pages explain how to use them. When you look at your draft's code you'll find that your current references already use {{cite web}}.

Speaking of your references, I don't think they currently suffice to establish A Kind Voice's notability. One is a dictionary definition of "alchemy" that has nothing to say about A Kind Voice, another is the organization's own website, and the third is a directory of warmlines which does mention A Kind Voice, but whose entry on that non-profit seems to have been written by A Kind Voice itself - it says "please call us at ...". To be considered notable an organization must have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as news reports. The interview with the founder might be better (depending on who interviewed him), but the founder isn't really an independent source of information either. Huon (talk) 04:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Walton (barque)

Hello, This is my first attempt at writing a Wikipedia article. It is for a school project in a class on the history of shipbuilding in Nova Scotia, Canada. I don't know how to further edit my draft. I would also like to know how to insert a box with various information about my ship (Walton) such as 'owner', 'port of registry', 'tonnage', etc. Thank you very much. I'm just learning :)

BigHarbour (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC) Big Harbour[reply]

The box is called an "infobox"; those for ships are a little more complicated than usual. You can find information on how to use them (including code examples) at Template:Infobox ship begin. Some details on the ship's career would be nice: Who owned it, what cargo did it usually carry, did it have some common routes? Furthermore, the sources are currently insufficient. The one footnote does not confirm what it's cited for; it does not even mention the painting. The other two sources contradict each other: One says the Walton was registered at Windsor, Nova Scotia, the other, at Liverpool, Merseyside, England - which is correct? Some more extensive sources would probably be necessary to establish that the ship is notable by Wikipedia's standards in the first place - maybe it's mentioned in textbooks on 19th century sailing ships, or in books on local history? Where did all the details you currently give come from? Huon (talk) 04:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 15

Thanks for your response ...

Hi, When I wrote [Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/O'Reily House Museum], I was simply trying to make a contribution to Wikipedia. Like many, I use Wikipedia and so I hoped to add useful content.

As I mentioned, everything that I wrote was in my own words. Indeed, I do write a lot about the Placentia area. But the context will vary and hence, the words will weave together in a different manner.

While my tone was in no way "spammy," I quite understand if our institution is too insignificant to warrant mention in Wikipedia.

Again, thank you for your response ... all the best from Newfoundland and Labrador. Malitza (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes, your tone was spammy. For example, "the house itself emerges from a fascinating past" - that's pure opinion and does not convey any information whatsoever. Or "the long-awaited O’Reilly House Museum" - long-awaited by whom? The entire draft is chock-full of self-aggrandizing adjectives and adverbs such as "ideal" or "regally". This is hardly the dry tone we'd expect from an encyclopedia. But that might be resolved through editing - much worse was that the content, for all I can tell, was not based on reliable, independent sources such as news reports or maybe historical journals. A topic must have received significant coverage in such sources to be considered notable. Huon (talk) 04:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added more references to my contribution but can't seem to figure out how to resubmit

Hello,

I submitted this contribution in January 21st Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Glogau_Photoaging_Classification

And it was rejected because it needed more references. I added more on February 1st and have tried to resubmit by walking through the steps provided but can't seem to actually submit it. Really appreciate any advice you can share on this!

Thank you,

Kristan (DrGlgoauComm (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I have submitted the draft for you; you can submit it manually by adding {{subst:submit}} to the very top. The page also had two versions of your draft; I've removed one of them. However, Glogau wrinkle scale currently redirects to wrinkle; it might be more helpful to improve that article. In particular I'm very skeptical about the draft's mention of specific suggested medicines and/or make-up for treatment - not even the source mentions those, and they make the draft look like an advertisement for anti-aging medication. Huon (talk) 04:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Dreamcave/sandbox

Dear Help

I have created an article in my user Sandbox and have posted it for approval. I realise that the name is still User/DreamCave/Sandbox (or something - can't check without leaving this window!) I want to call it Maggie Diaz. By the way, this is a living person, but I have followed all rules and they are aware that I am contributing article.

How do I rename the page?

Dreamcave (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the draft to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Maggie Diaz, the preferred location for drafts awaiting review. However, the draft's sources seem awfully insufficient - much of the content doesn't cite any sources whatsoever, several of the given sources don't even mention Diaz, and others are bare catalogue entries. Wikipedia content should be based on reliable, independent sources such as news reports or art magazines, and a topic must have received significant coverage in such sources to be considered notable. Huon (talk) 04:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for moving this Huon. I will look again at how I have presented this subject and references. All the text and information is from major media here in Australia and the sources include our Parliament, major art institutions, commentators etc. so it is just my lack of skill as a writer/editor and not the lack of worth of the subject! thanks again for the early alert! Dreamcave (talk) 05:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article for Creation : LA JAY

Hey,

Thank you again for your feedback and time. I have footnoted my LA Jay entry, and added in references to the music sites and newspapers LA Record, LA Weekly, Wax Poetics and NPR - are those publications well-respected enough to deem his music noteworthy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/L.A._Jay

Thanks, Alice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlicePS (talk • contribs) 15:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of problems with these references. First of all, you list them in the references section, but for all I can tell, the draft's text is not actually based on these sources - all footnotes point to much less reliable "sources" including various other Wikipedia articles - and Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source. Secondly, it would be pretty hard to base the draft's content on those sources because most of them don't cover LA Jay in any appreciable detail - NPR, for example, only mentions him in passing in a single sentence. Thirdly, those sources aren't true news reports, but rather blogs hosted by news organizations, the modern equivalent of editorials. While such news blogs rank above entirely self-published blogs in terms of reliability, they should still be considered opinion pieces, and we might have to attribute any claims about LA Jay to the opinion pieces' authors. Regarding LA Jay's notability., I don't think those sources provide the significant coverage we need to establish that - we might just mention him as co-producer of The Pharcyde's first album instead of giving him a badly-sourced article of his own. Huon (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/America Unearthed

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/America Unearthed

How do you get your page published? I have been waiting a couple weeks since I created the page...

(71.195.22.181 (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]

You had re-submitted the draft on February 5, and drafts are sorted chronologically by the latest submission (though they're not necessarily reviewed in a strict chronological order). Anyway, there's currently a massive backlog of almost 1,400 submissions awaiting review. I have had a look at the draft and had to decline it because the sources did not suffice to establish the show's notability: The first two didn't mention the show, the third was a press release (not an independent source), and the last four were all blog posts by the same blogger, self-published sources that were not subject to editorial oversight and thus are not reliable by Wikipedia's standards. Wikipedia requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, such as news reports or maybe reviews in reputable TV magazines. Huon (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:JoanWT/sandbox

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Constance Wagner JoanWT (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Constance Wagner

Yesterday (2/14/13) I was starting a draft of an article using the Wizard. A few hours later I could no longer find my draft. I've been looking for it for quite a while now with no luck. I hope I won't have to re-do it. Would you please let me know how to find it if there's a way? I did press "Save." JoanWT (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The place to look for your draft would be your contributions, but your draft is not among them. It might have been deleted, but firstly you would have received a note about the deletion on your talk page, and secondly, deletion would have left an entry in the page's deletion log, and I found no such entry for either User:JoanWT/sandbox or Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Constance Wagner. Thus you probably did not save the draft in the first place, and unfortunately there's nothing Wikipedia can do about that. If you're lucky you might be able to recover it from your browser's cache. Huon (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 16

Accepted Articles

I am reviewing manually, and a couple days ago, accpeted Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ian Ker. It's still filed under pending review, but is also a page in the Article namespace. What should I do with the afc version now that it's on the actual Wikipedia? LM103 (talk) 00:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should have moved the page instead of copying and pasting the contents into a new page. For example, that would have credited the original author with page creation instead of you. I've tagged the article for speedy deletion and will properly move the draft once the article is out of the way. Huon (talk) 00:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Ooten

Austin ooten is not on youtube. Austin is also not on google images. I can't find him on the internet!!!!! Will someone answer?!?! I CANNOT FIND HIM ON THE INTERNET!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.100.84.238 (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite shocking, but I'm not sure what you expect Wikipedia to do about Ooten's virtual absence. If he's not notable, he should not have a Wikipedia article either. Huon (talk) 02:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Stphughes/Town Diary

Hello Wikipedia Editors,

How do I attach the graphic/picture "Town Diary Movie Poster" i have uploaded to the "Commons" area to the submitted narrative? When I go to connect and attach a picture to the narrative, the reply tells me that Wikipedia cannot find a document/page known as "Town Diary" or "stphughes/Town Diary"

Please advise.

Thanks,

Stephen Hughes/Jack Kenny — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stphughes (talk • contribs) 18:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The image you uploaded is File:Town Diary Movie Poster.jpg; the picture tutorial explains how to add an image to the draft. However, there are a couple of issues. First of all, if you are Jack Kenny, as your signature suggests, you may own the copyright to the DVD cover; however, it might be a good idea to send an email confirming that you are indeed the copyright owner and are willing to release the image of the DVD cover under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License - an example release form is here, and it should be sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Secondly, if you are Jack Kenny, you may want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest - writing about a topic you're closely associated with, such as your own film, is discouraged because it's difficult to maintain a neutral point of view. For example, the claim that the movie "touches on the deepest emotions a man has" sounds rather promotional to me. Thirdly, the draft currently does not cite any reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as news coverage or reviews in reputable movie magazines. To be considered notable, the film must have received significant coverage in such sources (and IMDb, for example, is not considered significant). For this last reason I have declined the submission. Huon (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Karungu1/sandbox

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The U.S. Naval Radio Station Tarlac

This is my first article submission. Does the "bot" or a human operator insert the title line using the "H1" heading. It wasn't clear if I was supposed to do that?

Thanks, Morris (Karungu1) Karungu1 (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, neither. When the submission is accepted, it will be moved to a new location in the main articlespace and the headline that currently reads "User:Karungu1/sandbox" will automatically become the new page title. There's no need to manually add a "H1" heading. The accepting reviewer will take care of all that.

Currently the draft's content is not sufficiently supported by reliable sources, though. It does have some footnotes, but they all deal with Camp O'Donnell, not with the later Naval Radio Station. All Wikipedia content must be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as news coverage or maybe history textbooks. To be considered notable, a topic must have received significant coverage in such sources. Huon (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ok, understand, but then can you tell me if the article is likely to be accepted or rejected? Actually, I would be happy, for the time being, if it could be placed on Wikipedia as a stub. I wrote the article in response to a reference made to this u.s. naval installation, on the stub article U.S. Naval Communication Station Philippines. The reference made therein was almost blank, and I wanted to fill it in. The only way that documentation for the article can be made, other than for Camp O'Donnell, is via official U.S. Navy records. My plan is to solicit those documents, but it will probably take quite awhile, as the Navy is famous for responding very slowly, if at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karungu1 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I almost declined the submission the last time but then thought that sources might be found. If no independent (ie non-Navy) sources exist, I'll decline it right away. Huon (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

L.A. Jay Article - References

Hi Huon,

Thank you again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/L.A._Jay&action=submit

I have switched out the references to wikipedia with discogs, last fm, and all music references. Would it be better to reference the actual records themselves though? My aim with the wikipedia article is to piece together the various pieces of information out there about the producer L.A. Jay (the records he produced and their significance). Can his work not be appreciated as notable due to the chart success and affiliation with Motown Records of the early music (Good Girls and MC Trouble), and the status of the Pharcyde work? The sources referencing Bizarre Ride II The Pharcyde are to back up the notability of that album.

Is the article at least improved by taking out the wikipedia references?

Thanks again for your time.

Best, Alice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlicePS (talk • contribs) 22:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned before, we're looking for independent, reliable sources, and we must show that LA Jay has received significant coverage in such sources. The various Discogs, Last FM and Allmusic discographies do not constitute significant coverage; they mention Jay in passing or not at all. For example, the source for the statement that he "Produced/Co-Produced the entire album, including the hit debut single "Your Sweetness (Is My Weakness)” which peaked at #6 on Billboard's Hot R&B/Hip Hop Songs charts" doesn'd actually say he produced that single. The Roy Ayers Project is among the few sources that actually discuss LA Jay's work in any detail (ie they devote a sentence to him and don't just mention his name in passing), but they're eager to point out that LA Jay is a supporter of the Project - that's not quite an independent source, and I don't think it's a news organization or subject to editorial oversight, so it probably isn't reliable either. If a reputable music magazine had written an article on Jay, discussing the significance of his work, that would be a good source. But I don't think we have anything even remotely of that quality. Notability is not inherited, and having worked with notable musicians does not automatically make LA Jay notable. The chart success might help - if we had a source actually attributing that success to LA Jay's efforts. Right now I don't think he's notable enough for an article of his own. Huon (talk) 01:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 17

Robert Bell Hamilton - Estimated wait time?

Hi there,

I just wanted to check the estimated wait time on a new article we have submitted for review - on the architect Robert Bell Hamilton.

Regards,

James — Preceding unsigned comment added by James.harding (talk • contribs) 01:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have a massive backlog of more than 1,400 unreviewed submissions; the oldest are about three weeks old. But submissions are not necessarily reviewed in chronological order. Huon (talk) 02:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Atilla Iskifoglu

Hi there, I wonder how long is rewieving will take, its already being a long time. Can you please let me know?

Many Thanks

Deborah