Help desk
< May 16	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 18 >

Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

May 17

Hello, I am an employee at Chicago White Metal Casting Inc. and I tried to create a page for our business. We are an established metal casting company and this year marks our 75th anniversary. You can see our website here: www.cwmdiecast.com. All the information I put into this article is from company documents about the history of the company and we would really like to get a page up, especially since we're one of the most recognized metal casting compannies in existance with a rich history and great story.

Thanks,

Dan — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChiWhiteMetal (talk • contribs) 11:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. See comment on submission. Pol430 talk to me 22:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Personalized Audio Messaging

Hello I am looking to contribute to the Wikipedia community and am having difficulty identifying what I may have done incorrectly. The contribution I submitted was: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Personalized Audio Messaging and this appears to be declined for not adequately supporting through sources.

I have several sources cited throughout the entry as well as more general material at the end. What else should I have provided? Is it that I did not reference those sources properly? This is a rapidly emerging field and is becoming more and more mainstream. How do I revise my submission to match the Wikipedia requirements?

Wmiller9 (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)wmiller9Wmiller9 (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I left a comment at the submission page. Hopefully that will give you more of an idea of what your next steps should be. The key is really digging up the best possible sources you can, preferably, books, newspaper articles and journals. If the material cannot be adequately sourced it might be best to omit it entirely. France3470 (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Don Gutterideg: Poet

Hi!

I'm puzzled by the reviewer's comments. There already are footnotes in the article. Is it a question of them being improperly formatted?

Are the footnotes the only concern?

Thanks

Floorwik (talk) 13:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)floorwick[reply]

It looks to me like you have 'inline' citations, but not in the normal Wikipedia format. It may be a good idea to ask the reviewer on their Talk page what additional concerns they had. However, if it was me reviewing the article I would suggest that the the article needs at least one more news or book source, to establish the notability of Gutterideg. The article currently relies only on the Oxford Companion. Sionk (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Neoweb

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Neoweb My intial submission was rejected. I made corrections to the original article and wanted to explain why i think this entry meets the Golden Rule; however I did not see any place or way to enter my explanation (TALK?) to the reviewer who will eventually decide on my article's fate (after pressing SAVE and RESUBMIT) YSchary (talk) 14:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I get to the live help chat screen and after some check in, I am requested to enter my question, but cannot type or make any entry on the screen.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by YSchary (talk • contribs) 14:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted. Pol430 talk to me 22:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bruce Clark (Legal Scholar)

I wish to edit but at the bottom of the page the phrase appears bracketed in code "Please don't change anything and press save." What is the significance of this and can you estimate when I will be able to edit? Thank you.--Evarose3 (talk) 16:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The message is just to stop people accidentally deleting the submit for review box, not to prevent one from editing. Unfortunately because of how the system is, new tags appear at the bottom instead of at the top where they should be (which is rather confusing for all involved). There is a bot which is supposed to come along and format these tags but it often runs slower than one would like. I've manually reorganized so things should be clearer now. Hope that helps, France3470 (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does help a lot. And so promptly. Many thanks. Best,--Evarose3 (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/RF Binder

I recently submitted an article about a public relations agency in New York that was turned down because of notability. I disagree with the decision. This agency has offices across the country, has won numerous awards, and has many notable clients. While it is a subsidiary of a larger operation that already has a Wikipedia page (Ruder Finn), I truly believe the agency deserves its own page. What recommendations do you have for continuing to try to have this published? Thanks. Gjh1588 (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was declined on verifiability grounds. The sources you have provided are not reliable enough or numerous enough to verify the claims you have made about the company's notability, or establish its notability per the WP:GNG. Pol430 talk to me 22:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Yoga Swing

Good day, I am in the process of rewriting a submission due to lack of verifiable resources and the tone of the article. Please let me know if we´re headed in the right direction and what the article needs still? Thank you! Marchild (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Get rid of 'names and terms', 'styles' and 'set up and use' sections. Wikipedia is not a directory or how-to guide. Pol430 talk to me 22:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was modeling those sections after the example of the wiki page Hammock As i noticed those sections were kept in for that article. So technically they shouldn't be part of the hammock page either? I can get rid of them, just wondering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marchild (talk • contribs) 22:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MyMajors

Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/MyMajors Hello, my contribution Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/MyMajors was reviewed, but I had a few questions.

The reviewer stated "This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the general guideline on notability and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia."

I was hoping for more clarification on why my current resources were not notable or verifiable. I referenced the notable and verifiable pages, but do not understand why those references are not accepted. I have an external reference to a newspaper, national news media, state school district, award for the contribution topic, and 11 total resources to the topic. I need some help on what other types of articles or resources I should include or find, or if there was any other reason the article did not meet the criteria based on the reviewers decision.

Emiliocallie3 (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Emiliocallie3[reply]

It is a borderline decision in my view. The MSN article is very good, principly about MyMajors and its creator. The Kansas City article talks about MyMajors, though it isn't the principle subject. Because MyMajors seems to be a business as well as a web tool, Wikipedia editors will be 'twitchy' about accepting articles unless they are very convincingly sourced. Maybe one more news/magazine reference would tip the balance? Sionk (talk) 00:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]