Help desk
< December 25	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 27 >

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.

December 26

Review of User:Panji.mukadis/SOHO Global Health

Dear Helpdesk,

I need my article about a wellknown pharmaceutical company established since 1946 to be published in wikipedia. Yet my submission has been rejected recently. Could you give a hand to help me?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.152.27.3 (talk) 01:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have no third-party sources with no connection to the company, and thus have not shown notability. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 05:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mike Scala

Hi, I'm trying to set up a page for Mike Scala (singer-songwriter), but it continues to say that the submission is declined because the sources are not independent/reliable. How many sources do I need, and how do I know which ones are or are not independent/reliable? Let me know, thanks. Cheers, Giselle 204.195.159.91 (talk) 02:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An WP:Independent source simply means one that has no connection to Mr Scala or anyone directly connected to him. If Scala, his manager, promoters, band members, mother, brother, fan club secretary, or any other person who has any kind of interest in seeing Scala or his work mentioned or promoted, had anything to do with the writing, production or publication of the source, then it is not independent. If a reputable music magazine or newspaper's entertainment section editor instructed a journalist to interview Scala and then published the article, it is an independent source - because it makes no difference to the editor or journalist how many albums or concert tickets Scala sells. A WP:Reliable source is one that has an established reputation for accuracy and neutrality - newspapers pay sub-editors to check the facts, bloggers don't. If a magazine publishes nonsense articles they go out of business, fan-created websites don't. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks - and how many sources should there be, for the article to be accepted?

Quality of sources trumps how many sources there are. The better the sources' quality, the less are needed, but even for the highest-quality sources we need three at a minimum to establish notability. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 22:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, thank you. Ok so I'm trying to change the list of references but once I click "save page as," the reference list brings up older websites that I already deleted while I was editing it. These are the ones I'd like to keep. Let me know if there's something else I need to click/edit. Thanks. http://berkleetoday.epubxp.com/i/84388/52 http://www.bmi.com/news/entry/indie_spotlight_mike_scala http://www.hotpress.com/news/Mike-Scala--and-his-band-return-for-Irish-tour/9074884.html http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/2598580/Glacier-gig-ices-up-world-tour-for-muso http://tvnz.co.nz/content/2850647/425828/article.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.195.159.91 (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've tried editing my references to the point of only using news websites (and an online university magazine source). But each time I try to "save page as" and see if it'll get accepted with the new changes, it brings up older ones I've deleted. Is there a way to fix that? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.195.159.91 (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the question. I see that some new links have been added to the references section since the submission was declined. If you feel these address the notability concerns, you can resubmit using the Resubmit button. ~KvnG 18:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to resubmit, but again, the older websites that I don't want to use anymore come up. The 5 websites that I'd like to use are above....I tried to resubmit and save page as with only these, but it continues to bring up older sites; maybe that's preventing the article's submission. Let me know what you think, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.195.159.91 (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it looks like the article I submitted is waiting for review which is great. Under "references," however, the 5 websites that I'd like to be used are underneath a list of 8 websites that I have deleted....so why is it still showing up after I "save page as?" Also - how do I edit the "contents" part, so that it shows "Early Life" and then "Music Career"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.195.159.91 (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Miguel_Hurtado

Hello.

I send an article for it creation few weeks ago (the article was for the Spanish Astronomer Miguel Hurtado http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Miguel_Hurtado). The title of the Article was "Miguel Hurtado" which does not exist, all the information was extract from the personal webpage of the Astronomer, the Minor Planet Center, and other official sources.

The creation of this article was declined, and I am not sure why. If you can give me more information about why you decline the creation of this article I will be very grateful.

Thank you.

178.156.122.144 (talk) 12:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed and accepted. Please continue improving the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/GamerFitnation

Resolved

Hi! I submitted this page about 38 days ago for review and have been updating it a couple times since. I am really anxious to see it go up and I am curious about how much longer I should expect this review process to take? I really appreciate all the work you guys have to do to review them but I really want to see my article go up or reviewed so I can at least work on any problems sooner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smackeben (talk • contribs) 16:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, unfortunately we have a very large backlog right now and we're trying to get it back into a managable state. The articles are reviewed based on the order in which they were submissted, so your submission will recieve attention in the near future. Hasteur (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Smackben as you may have discovered, your article actually fell right into my SME (Subject Mater Expertise), and I went ahead and accepted the article. It was on the "Very Old" list so it wasn't out of my way. Take a look at the page and you'll see a few things that need to be resolved (no inbound links from other articles, Needing some categories, needs an infobox) but other than that you're good to go. One thing, it might be a good idea to get an explicit licence on the logo instead of the finnessed one from the copyright terms.Hasteur (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lazy Dog Adventures

hi there,

just wondering how i find out if/when my article submission is accepted & posted?

thank you.

CricketDesmarais (talk) 18:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, unfortunately we have a very large backlog right now and we're trying to get it back into a managable state. Because your page was submitted today, it may have to wait a while for review, as there are some submissions that have been waiting over 4 weeks. Hasteur (talk) 21:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Skitaca

I am writing a new article "Skitaca". When I press "show preview" button to see mistakes nothing shows. How can I preview my work if I can not see it as an article. To edit it better it would help me to see it as an article instead as a edit page.Jvdobrich (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that you either have a blacklisted link in there, or you ran up against a bug. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nigel Randell Evans

The above article was rejected on 29 November with the following note: "This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability". The article appears to meet the 'Golden Rule' criteria and contains 35 references. I am wondering whether the reason for rejection was because of the quality of these references (which would surprise me), or the way they have been referenced on Wikipedia. Could anyone offer me some assistance?

Jamesd.evans (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't using inline citations or {{reflist}}. See WP:Referencing for beginners. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 22:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]