Main page

Talk page

Submissions
Category — List

Showcase

Assessment

Participants
Talk

Reviewing instructions
Helper script

Help desk

Backlog drives

Shortcuts

Welcome to the Wikipedia Articles for Creation help desk

This page is only for questions about article submissions to Wikipedia. Are you in the right place?
- For questions on how to use or edit Wikipedia, use the Wikipedia help desk.
- For factual and other kinds of questions, use the search box or the reference desk.
- You may create an article at the Article wizard or request an article at requested articles.
For your own security, please do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page; we are unable to provide answers via email.
Please keep in mind that we are all volunteers, and sometimes a reply may take a little time. Your patience is appreciated.

Click here to ask a new question.

A reviewer should soon answer your question on this page. Please check back often.

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

September 4

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Estakhr Constant (Physics)

article is based on reliable, published source. To cite this abstract, use the following reference: http://meetings.aps.org/link/BAPS.2013.APR.K2.3

You should add that to the draft, not to this page, but firstly I don't think the inventor's own paper would be considered an independent source, and secondly I'm not at all sure poster sessions are subject to peer review. Huon (talk) 04:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even other websites have used this reference link too, for example:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013APS..APR.K2003E — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.127.230.42 (talk) 05:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What goes on in other websites is irrelevant to what happens at Wikipedia - most other websites are not encyclopedias. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The American Physical Society is the world's second largest organization of physicists, . The Society publishes more than a dozen scientific journals, including the prestigious Physical Review and Physical Review Letters, and organizes more than 20 science meetings each year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.114.214.38 (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, citing multiple, independent, reliable sources that substantiate the article's notability should be simple and quick. If this definition is as important as you claim, why has nobody added it to Wikipedia in the last 12 years? The Avogadro constant article was first created in October 2001. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've found that the folks at WP:WikiProject Physics are quite willing to help new editors and articles. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bob Slayer

I was looking for an article on Bob Slayer It seems that he has been deleted in the past for being not notable - it seems that was some years ago - maybe that was when he was a band manager - he is now an award winning comedian (Malcolm Hardee Award) nominations http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-14631265 wins http://www.chortle.co.uk/news/2011/08/27/13873/brandreths_son_most_likely_to_make_a_million He is a trail blazing promoter at the Edinburgh Fringe - The venue he promoted this year became the smallest venue to ever win one of the Edinburgh Comedy Awards (previously the perrier) News here - https://www.google.co.uk/search?num=50&rlz=1C1LENN_enGB499GB499&biw=1366&bih=677&tbm=nws&q=%22bob+slayer%22&oq=%22bob+slayer%22&gs_l=serp.3...12512.14039.0.14306.2.2.0.0.0.0.45.85.2.2.0....0...1c.1.26.serp..2.0.0.IOGpNu_T33A “Bob Slayer, an eccentric promoter battling to find a new financial model that works for acts.” The Scotsman “You have to admire the endeavours of mavericks like Bob Slayer for living proof that fringe spirit is not yet gone for good…” Huffingdon Post (Late Night Gimp Fight David Moon) "Bob Slayer has created a whole new form of late night show at Bob’s Bookshop by not simply thinking outside the comedy box, but throwing it away. He has grown into a lovely comic and, in his own show, a really great raconteur..." Copstick, The Scotsman “Anti-establishment booze hound Bob Slayer has two shows to perform and a system to smash” London is Funny “Fringe veteran Bob Slayer, the absurdist storytelling performer, promoter and spirit of the fringe…” The Guardian “a force of creative brilliance in the world of comedy” The Comedy Scoop Broken Noeck at Download Festival http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2159165/Now-thats-rubbish-stand-act-Comedian-breaks-neck-trying-crowd-surf-WHEELIE-BIN.html 86.146.239.25 (talk) 03:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should write a draft via the Article Wizard. Huon (talk) 04:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Scott Morrow Adventure trilogy

Hi,

I am creating a new article and have put in a series of links to various references but there is no showing of the links in the 'References' section on saving the page.

Are the references locked until the page is cleared for publication? Christopher 06:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7Lawrence (talk • contribs)

You have added your references as external links. To appear as references, you need to use the <ref> template. See Referencing for beginners for more information. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)You haven't got any correctly formatted references, it looks like you have formatted them as inline external links instead. I have fixed the references and wikilinks in the lead section for you. (BTW the lead doesn't get a section heading.) Another issue is that you have simply listed various reviews with external links. However the "core" of articles about books should actually be built on reviews so please expand the "mentions" into substantial discussion of the reviews. The Author infobox des not belong in this article. There is already an article about Christopher J. Holcroft - it has a number of maintenance tags that you might be able to resolve. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pips Taylor

This keeps getting rejected. Please can someone tell me why with detailed feedback? (80.194.200.114 (talk) 09:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

As was stated in the latest rejection, your sources do not have any significant coverage of the subject. For instance, the first BBC link here just says "Presenter - Pips Taylor". That's not enough to convey notability - we need articles that are specifically about her, ideally covering several paragraphs. Some of your other references are merely front pages of websites, which are almost never acceptable as a specific reference about a person. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it best to take out all these references completely and just have plain text? There hasn't been much written about Pips Taylor in external sources, yet she is a credible TV presenter and I was using those references as proof of her work. If you look at the websites they do list her as presenter so will validate the claims in the wikipedia article. Please advise on what is best to do to get this page created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somethin' Else Talent (talk • contribs) 14:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before we get to that, I did a quick search for "Pips Taylor" to suggest some suitable sources. The first thing I found was this link from "Somethin' Else Talent". Please do not use Wikipedia for advertising your clients, as you have a strong conflict of interest and may well be blocked from editing. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been biased at all in the submission of this. Pips Taylor is a client of Somethin' Else Talent but we are not using her wikipedia listing as anything other than an encyclopedia entry, like everything else on the site. There is nothing on the article to suggest any kind of bias or any mention of our affiliation with her (Somethin' Else Talent (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Your user name and the article's history show a direct correlation between the agency and the article's subject. A conflict of interest can cause embarrassment to editors, as you have now discovered. You will need to follow the guide to appealing blocks. It's true that the article is reasonably well presented, but fundamentally I don't think Taylor is quite notable enough for a Wikipedia article, particularly if she needs to pay someone to promote herself. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shahidha Bari

Hello.

I have been asked to add some more biographical info and a link to her latest book. THis has now been done and the changes saved. How do I resubmit?

Regards,

JoeGoud77Joegould77 (talk) 09:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Your article is now in the queue for submission. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Telangana Words

Hello Team,

My submission 'Telangana words' has declined .

Now , i changed the content and i would like to edit my article name . Could you please assist in editing the name ?

Thanks in advance . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shirish Bathini (talk • contribs) 12:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should have started a new submission for a new topic. I have moved your submission to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Donkeshwer. Villages are normally passed as inherently notable (it appears on Google Maps and is real), but I would strongly recommend looking for a news source to describe the 1975 flood. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dewain Whitmore, Jr.

Hello, my question is for an article I submitted for 2x Grammy Award Winner Dewain Whitmore, Jr.. The article name is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dewain Whitmore, Jr. I submitted this article about 9 months ago. I also updated/edited the article last week. Can someone please help me in getting this article created? Not sure, why I am having trouble doing so. Thank you in advance. Mikeivy (talk) 13:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Mikeivy (talk) 13:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have never submitted your article for review. I can do this now, but it is likely to be rejected because it does not cite any sources. Have a look at Citing sources and Referencing for beginners for more information. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pips Taylor

I'm trying to create a page for Pips Taylor and it keeps getting rejected. Please can you provide detailed reasons why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somethin' Else Talent (talk • contribs) 13:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A question on this submission has already been answered further up the page. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carestream_Dental

Good morning! I have created an article for Carestream Dental several times, omitting any biased information and adding a number of credible third-party sources, but am having no luck getting it accepted. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you Dentstaff (talk) 14:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Dentstaff[reply]

Hello Dentstaff. The last time that you submitted your article, only one of the references mentioned the company "Carestream Dental". This is fine if they support other facts in the article. However, you must be sure that there are several that have extensive information about your main topic. You have added more since, and this is good. One of the new ones, from DentalTown, is an exact copy of another from "HygieneTown"; you should include just one of these, probably the DentalTown one since it's the original. About interviews: be aware that reviewers only look at what the journalist has said when determining notability; remarks by company representatives are not considered independent. So now you have two sources, the Applied Radiology and the Dental Town one, which talk about this company. This is better than one, but please look for more. How about this one? I don't know who these doctors are, but if they are not company representatives, then this is a good source. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anne, thank you so much for taking the time to respond to my post. I added a few more references and deleted the duplicate copy - hopefully this will help. Dentstaff (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)Dentstaff[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/C. Stephen Foster

Please help me. I noted the original rejection. I read suggestions. I revised the submission with material written about me by others. I added evidenced of publication of over 700 publications in peer reviewed medical literature, verifiable through pubmed.org. I have read the materials on criteria for notability. Can you please review the submission now and tell me if it is now acceptable and if not, what are the features which make it unacceptable?

Thank you.

Charles Stephen FosterCharlesstephenfoster (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it is strongly suggested that you do not create an autobiography on Wikipedia, see WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. If you are indeed notable, someone will write an article about you eventually. Second, your draft is nothing more than a c.v. masquerading as an article - that is promotion and is not permitted, see WP:PROMOTION. Sorry to be harsh, but it is completely inappropriate as it stands.--ukexpat (talk) 19:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Right at Home

Curious to why our Wikipedia article creation was turned down please? What other content could I add for the creation of the article?

Thanks.Bpappasrah (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It needs independent, third party sources and it is too promotional in tone. Please see WP:RS.--ukexpat (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Reach - Association for Children with Upper Limb Deficiency

Please can you explain why validation of the charity through official government sources is not sufficent to get published. A similar charity has an entry on Wikipedia and has less references than Reach. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbless_Association — Preceding unsigned comment added by P457452 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for raising these issues with the existing article Limbless Association. I have added two templates to the article to indicate these problems. The article may be deleted if independent reliable sources cannot be found.

When comparing with other articles, it is best to use Good or Featured articles as examples. You can find a number of Good Articles about charitable and non-profit organisations at Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 5

Rejected articles

i would like to know why my article was rejected please and its Euphoric Heritage Records Shanghsu (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shanghsu! You can see the reasons for rejection at the top of the page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Euphoric Heritage Records, in the pink box. You can read further details about how to fix these problems by clicking the links provided in that box. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Allen F. Brewer Jr.

Is there anyone that can input the info for me that knows how to do wikipedia for I am not a computer savvy person.

Thank you

Sean Brewer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Modelago (talk • contribs) 03:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can try asking at Wikipedia:Requested articles. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Access Control Technology Ltd.

Hi,

I'm just inquiring about the progress of the page I tried to add last week on Access Control Technology?

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Access Control Technology Ltd

Thanks,

Mgavenda Mgavenda (talk) 11:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The submission is actually at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Access Control Technology Ltd. The name can be cleaned up as and when it passes. As it currently stands, I have had to decline the submission because it cites no reliable, independent sources and have given further information there. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi Mgavenda. ~~Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Access Control Technology Ltd. is currently waiting to be reviewed. This may take several weeks because the Articles for Creation process is highly backlogged.~~

~~In the meantime, it is worth improving the submission, because~~ in its current state it is unlikely to be accepted. Article submissions need references showing significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources; you can read more about that at WP:VRS. At present your submission only has one independent source (the Enterprise Ireland link), and that source does not have significant coverage of the company. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Narejo

(text of article deleted here) Hello! There is no need to copy the whole article onto the help page. We can see it where it is. You have resubmitted the article, but you have not made any improvements to it since it was declined last time. Please find sources not connected with Narejo, such as news reports, reviews, magazine articles, etc., to confirm the information in this article and to show that Narejo has been written about in the media. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Dr Trevor Trueman and his work with Oromo Support Group

Hi, I just wanted to know if my redirect has been created or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oromtiti (talk • contribs) 18:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't. We create redirects only to existing Wikipedia articles; they're our equivalent of the "see [other name]" entries in paper encyclopedias. Your suggested target was not a Wikipedia article. Huon (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 6

Howling Wolf Productions page

Hello,

The page I made for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Howling Wolf Productions was not accepted. What steps should I take in order to ensure acceptance in the future? 108.201.158.188 (talk) 00:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read our policy on verifiability and on what constitutes reliable sources. You also need to establish that this organization/company is notable per Wikipedia's standards. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 00:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

In the 237 years of the united states how many total days / years has it been at war? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.131.167 (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer just about any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 00:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Car-buggy crashes

I am a former Amish guy, and my father, brother, and I all have been in car-buggy crashes. My brother died in such an accident in 83, and my father paralyzed when I was a teen back in 97. I want to create a page about car-buggy crashes. I asked on here for help Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vehicle-Buggy collisions, but, as you can see, there are some people that call them self editors, but that dont like to help.

Here is an article that recently was posted on Former Amish News - amish-buggy-accident-on-u-s-42-turns-fatal

So can someone help me with this one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrdeleted (talk • contribs) 04:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only one editor declined your submission here, and they were correct in informing you that you were in the wrong place. Try listing it in Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Transport instead. I recall Bill Bryson wrote something on the subject many years ago while travelling through Pennsylvania, possibly The Lost Continent: Travels in Small-Town America, but I can't remember offhand. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has purposely been made to be confusing, no wonder no one wants to help with it. And the page you linked to is a lot more confusing then even this page. [[1]] is a generic page about horse and buggies, but it has no information about this problem, other then a breif reference to the Amish and Anibabtists. (Yes my family is Amish).

Btw I got a notice that someone deleted my talk page? Weird. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrdeleted (talk • contribs) 06:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hilan Castle

I am baffled as to how you received a BLANK submission?! I spent hours on that! How do I find it again to see if I messed it up and can fix it? Solsticelight (talk) 06:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid all you submitted was a blank article - the source for it is here. Did you press "Show preview" instead of "Save page" and assume your changes are saved? If you're making large changes, I recommend copy and pasting the text into Notepad and working on it there, saving it locally. Do you mean the building pictured? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Single Hub and Access point for Paediatric Rheumatology in Europe

Dear Sir, Madame,

My article has been rejected several times now. The fist times it was due to a lack of reference. I resolved that problem. Now it has been rejected because it looks to much like an advertisement. I would like to comment on that. SHARE is a very extensive and important project financed by the European Union. As an outsider, I was asked to write an article on this project and update it as regulary as possible once more progress has been made. It is important for people to know about the SHARE project because its impact on current practice of this diseases will be enormous. In addition, many experts in the field will hear about SHARE on congresses. For example, the share consontium will be present on the PRES congres this month in Slovenia. In short, SHARE is a abbreviation that will be used a lot in this field, and I think it is important for interested people to be able to find information on this project and follow the progress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veaboom (talk • contribs) 10:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can wait until the impact has been enourmous. Right now this looks like yet another EU project with claims of grandeur. Also, I don't think your current sources are good enough to establish that it's a notable project. Quite a few don't even mention it, and many of the others don't look independent to me. Huon (talk) 22:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Periodontal Prosthesis

Just wanted to check on the status of the review of Periodontal Prosthesis article. Mvilardi (talk) 12:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)mvilardi[reply]

As was stated on your submission, there is a backlog, and submissions can take up to three weeks. In your case, because you have specified offline sources, we would really need somebody with experience in dentistry to know whether the sources are suitable are not. However, Periodontal Prosthesis already exists as an article, and redirects to Prosthodontics, so you should simply improve the article there. You might find more success asking in Wikipedia:WikiProject Dentistry or consult the advice at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) to integrate your work into the existing article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kenneth F. Goldstein

Hi,

I'm trying to get some specific feedback on which words, phrases or facts in the article have gotten it marked as being overly promotional, so I can successfully revise it next time.

Also, with regards to notability, I am a little confused--the initial feedback from reviewers "APerson" and "Arthur goes shopping" seemed to acknowledge that the subject met notability requirements, but the most recent feedback from "Hasteur" as well as feedback in a live chat from "Nutmore" called into question whether the subject was notable.

Finally, I am curious as to why other users keep re-formatting my text into one solid block when I intend it to be broken into 3-4 more readable paragraphs. Is there a Wikipedia convention I'm unaware of?

Thanks, Jh122 (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the article reads as if the fact that various publications covered him were the most important facts readers need to know about him. While we need significant coverage in reliable sources to establish that Goldstein is notable enough for an article, we should cite them for what they have to say about Goldstein, not merely for the fact that they exist. And the draft seems to be somewhat lacking in the "facts about Goldstein" department. When was he born? Where was he educated? What did he do before becoming VP at Broderbund? Apparently nobody bothered to cover that in any detail. Also, linking to his publisher's page on his upcoming book is not a good idea.

Regarding the paragraphs, that looks like a script error to me. I'll notify those editors who maintain the script in question. Huon (talk) 22:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 7

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kelvin Coe (mayor)

Hi,

I am a little bit confused - I have submitted the article about Mayor Kelvin Coe for review. On the top of the page it says that the article is not submitted. At the bottom it says that it is pending review. Which one is it?

Thanks,

Magnus Grinneback — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grinneback (talk • contribs) 00:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The one at the bottom is correct. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/List of ghost towns in South Dakota

This article is important to both WikiProject South Dakota and WikiProject Ghost towns. I created it due to the South Dakota section of this page becoming too large to remain on the page with the addition of even more ghost towns; this is standard in WikiProject Ghost Towns. I intended to add my article directly to Wikipedia, but I didn't realize that the "submit" button on the drafting page would instead place it under AfC rather than submit it directly to Wikipedia. I would like to now create the article directly under its name. How do I delete my request? Thank you in advance! TCMemoire (talk) 03:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can the move function to move the article into mainspace (which is preferred over copy/pasting the article over). The option should be under the upside down triangle next to the search box. LionMans Account (talk) 04:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My Article

This is my Test Article...

09:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC) Pkumar302 (talk) 09:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jainism and Hinduism

I kind of disagree with the last given reason for decline of this submission. It says that "the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia", however, I cannot find the article Hinduism to even remotely discuss the subject of this article. The article discusses the relations between Jainism and Hinduism. This is on the same lines the articles such as Buddhism and Hinduism, Buddhism and Eastern religions, Christianity and Islam, Hinduism and Sikhism, Islamic–Jewish relations and the like exists. I request more help in this regard. Thanks, Rahul Jain (talk) 13:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There probably is merit in having an article on this topic, and the article certainly has potential given the sources. I'd prefer for somebody who has an expertise in this topic to comment though, and the best thing you can probably do is look on the Hinduism-related topics noticeboard and see if anyone there can help. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The billion $ culb

Hello thanks for review mine page. Why was it reject? Mine info came form http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films. If you are wondering. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was rejected firstly because the article List of highest-grossing films already exists - multiple articles about a single subject are never allowed.

Secondly your draft is, to be frank, a very badly misformatted mess and the information is presented without any context or explanation of significance.

The existing article is well formatted and includes extensive discussion of the context of the information. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 8

Review of American Lake Veterans Golf Course.

Stephanie Snowden (talk) 12:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)== Review of User:Stephanie Snowden/sandbox American Lake Veterans Golf Course page ==[reply]

This is my first attempt at writing a Wikipedia page. I have listed my sources for which I have permission to use but I keep getting an error message about listing my resources. I am not very familiar with HTML coding and need some help. But the help page isn't really very clear on how to fix the error. My suggestion would be to include a step by step example of how to list your references correctly.

Please review my submission and provide some feedback so I can fix the problem.

Thank you, Stephanie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie Snowden (talk • contribs) 12:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at WP:REFB ? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of your talk page is an invitation to visit the Teahouse. There, you'll find a group of editors who can answer new user questions quickly and effectively. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Hay

Hi,

I created this article recently and need to change the name from Donald Hay to Donny Hay. Could someone please help.

Thanks, Gomach (talk) 13:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done The page "Donald Hay" has been moved to "Donny Hay". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 9

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Appcelerator

The draft article I've been piecing together about the tech company Appcelerator has just been declined for the second time. Unfortunately, the reason—notability—doesn't make any sense to me, since I've cited 56 sources, the majority of which have significant coverage of the company and come from well-regarded independent publications like Ars Technica, The Next Web, TechCrunch, and ReadWrite. Any thoughts? —N at Appcelerator (my conflict of interest) 05:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your most recent rejection was done by a drive-by reviewer who had no experience. I have undone his review and put a warning on his talk page. Your article is now awaiting review again. My gut feeling is that DGG has made good points, but they don't specifically prevent the article from passing. I would need to check the references carefully to confirm there is significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources before making a decision one way or the other. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, DDG made some valid points, so I made some changes to try to address them. Hopefully a better reviewer will be able to evaluate that. —N at Appcelerator (my conflict of interest) 21:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Blake Northcott

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Truthsneekerz#Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation.2FBlake_Northcott_concern

Hi, I listed the authors work as a source in this article. If I can contact her, would that be considered a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthsneekerz (talk • contribs) 12:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, a reliable source is a source that is widely acknowledged as having a good editorial control and taking good care in what it publishes without bowing to pressure of any one individual. Newspapers, magazines and books (by which I mean books about her, not written by her) are generally (but not always) good examples of sources. Basically, Northcott could claim she's unquestionably notable as she's the greatest author of fiction since William Shakespeare, but without a reliable source to back that up, it can't go in. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have her published work as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthsneekerz (talk • contribs) 12:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then that's something written by her, not something written about her by a neutral and reliable third party, so the answer is - no, in this context, that is not a reliable source. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I added an interview with her as a source. Also, the original reviewers page says: This account is a suspected sock puppet of KnowIG and has been blocked indefinitely. Please refer to editing habits, contributions or the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer for evidence. This policy subsection may also be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthsneekerz (talk • contribs) 12:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that happens from time to time; being a sockpuppet means that the person was using more than one account name secretly; it doesn't necessarily mean that the review was bad, but it makes it difficult to contact the person. In case of doubt you can submit your article for a fresh review, and I see that you have done so. About the interview: If the reviewer is a professional journalist, then his or her remarks will be taken as reliable, but what the author says about herself or her own work is not "independent". Book reviews would be better if you can find them. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Furneaux Cemetery -- Posting Declined

I am working on the Historical Preservation Advisory Commission with the City of Carrollton. I am an appointed Commissioner by the City Council. We are trying to post our Historical Site Narratives and the first has been declined.

User:HPACCarrollton/Furneaux cemetery

I'd like to get some feedback on why this was declined.

Regards,

HPACCarrollton (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like your article was deleted due to a copyright violation of this page. Put simply, you can't just copy and paste another site directly into Wikipedia. The simplest way to overcome this is to simply rewrite the article again in your own words. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Contact Gallery, Norwich, 1986-1999

Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/Contact Gallery, Norwich, 1986-1999 Hello, My submissions for this article have been declined on three tries this year. After the submission in June I received some helpful advise from Huon about referencing ,although my computer would not allow me to use the instruction video in Referencing for Beginners so I have read what I could and thought that I had understood. I did some further research because I felt that I needed better sources and discovered the wonderful Norfolk Records Office. I cited this source in my last submission because virtually all the facts from this submission can be verified from there. The historic facts can be read from their website and the other details, for example, the exhibitions quoted can be verified by visiting the Records Office in Norwich and manually searching the archive, some 14 boxes.

My question is then is this source acceptable? If it is then do I have to lump together all of the paragraphs and put the citation at the end? If it is not acceptable then I will have to severely reduce the content and signpost the reader to the Norfolk Records Office's website where they can read their historical account of the gallery, if indeed this is acceptable.

I really do want to have this article accepted and not to be declined a fourth time to frustrate again the assessor with my ineptitude to get this right. Your advice will be very welcome. (Woodbutts (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I've had a look at the article. You are using {{cite journal}} and {{cite book}} correctly - the article is properly sourced, and there is absolutely no requirement that references must appear on the end of a Google search and anyone who tells you otherwise is just wrong. So I think in terms of formatting and templates, you don't have an issue there.

The problem with your references at the moment, is that they're not necessarily independent of the gallery. For instance, this book you have referenced is a book by Norwich 20 Group. Unfortunately, it's also published by the group, which means it's a self-published source. The trouble with self-published sources are that there's no guarantee that any editorial control or restraint has been exercised over it - the book could claim that Norwich 20 Group is the most valuable organisation in the history of modern art, and nobody would be able to stop them. For that reason, self-published sources are largely not acceptable. You'll have the same problem with the various artist blogs that mention the gallery - they're all self-published and not independent, unfortunately.

As for Norfolk Records Office, well it depends on exactly what information is held in the archives. The best sources you could expect to find there are old newspaper clippings (if my experience of searching files in The National Archives is anything to go by). Your cited file, SO 230 however, contains direct correspondance between the gallery and Norwich City Council. The problem you've got here is, while the information is reliable (we tend to assume city councils publish things in a responsible manner), it's not independent coverage. Norwich City Council has to have records of every charity or non-profit organisation that they deal with. Therefore, the file here is not actually anything special or out of the ordinary.

Now, that's the bad news. The good news, though, is that it appears there are some genuinely independent and reliable sources that talk about the gallery. If you follow this search link, you'll see a number of books and journals that talk specifically about the gallery. I think the problem you're going to have here is gathering up enough coverage to ensure that the gallery is genuinely notable - and it's just difficult when each source devotes only a few paragraphs. This source seems to be the best one, but unfortunately it looks to be a self-published source again! However, I can quickly see that many independent books and journals such as The Artist, Ceramic Review and Who's Who in Art do cover it.

At the end of the day, this is a really frustrating case. If you piece together all of the offline sources that cover the gallery, you might well have enough for the submission to pass, but it's hard to tell, and without doing a lot of research, it's hard to guarantee you'll be successful at the end. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References window

I am trying to put in references to the following article but I can't get the window with references fields to open after I have selected a citation source. This is the article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Russell_Frederick_Bretherton&action=edit JamesRussellBretherton (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JamesRussellBretherton. I presume that you have selected the citation template you want to use from the list that appears on the left side of the screen after you click on "Cite". I tried it from my computer and it works fine. Most of these gadgets use Javascript, so if you have it disabled for some reason this could be causing the problem. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, James. I find that adding the references using the "Cite" button can be very fiddly, doesn't work one everyone's computer/browser, and is not helpful for complex references. I do it my hand. I've fixed all the references for you now in the sense that they now appear as proper footnotes, although some could be improved with more detailed bibliographic information. I've also made some of them more complete. My view is that this should be moved to article space now. The subject is clearly notable, supported by the entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, an entire chapter devoted to him in another book (for which I have provided full bibliographic information), and the two journal articles. Voceditenore (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zonal Ne.P.H.R.O. score

I want to change my title to Zonal Ne.Ph.R.O. score (just change the capitalization and punctuation). How do I do this?

[Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zonal Ne.P.H.R.O. score]]

Baumgartenadam (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the draft, but unless there are third-party papers that discuss this score I expect it's still too new for an encyclopedia article. See WP:N for the notability guideline. Huon (talk) 03:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Merryl Ruth Goldberg

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Merryl Ruth Goldberg

I'm in the sandbox and I'm saving periodically as I edit my article. Is it going to be reevaluated each time I hit Save? Applebeam (talk) 22:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Only the newest version is (or here, was) reviewed. When you have addressed the reviewer's concerns you will have to re-submit the draft; the "submission declined" message box has instructions on how to do so. Huon (talk) 03:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 10

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Angelo Perrella

Hi, I've submitted twice and was rejected several times for Angelo Perrella, the Italian Desperado:

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

Please help in maturing this article for acceptance.

Gliesian (talk) 02:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Gliesian: If you want improved, it's best to do it yourself. As everyone on Wikipedia is a volunteer, you shouldn't expect that people will randomly just help you with your article. If you have any specific questions, I'd be glad to help you answer them. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 17:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isabel Newstead

Hi,

I created this article in the advanced section seven weeks ago and I am still waiting for the article to be reviewed. Could someone please help.

Many thanks, Gomach (talk) 11:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks OK to me, so I have removed the "unreviewed" template. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/OnBrand24 - Outsourced Call Center Services

Why was the OnBrand24 article rejected?

Thanks

Doug Black

Dblack14 (talk) 16:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Dblack14: As the decline message says, you have no reliable sources to establish notability for the company. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 16:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anu Malhotra

Hi, i was editing this page a long time back, then left it in the middle for quite some time, it was scanned for duplicate content once, but i removed it and placed new text, and did a lot of more editing.

As i clicked on save page, i did not get any option to submit for review, is it already under review, or however please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hansbellani (talk • contribs) 19:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Add {{subst:Submit}} to the top of the draft and it will be submitted to the queue for review. You should probably also take a look at WP:Referencing for beginners. I also left a question on your user page about the copyright status of the image.--ukexpat (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

What do you guys want to qualify this page? we have AVN funny or die .com the company page huffington post...

what do you want to get this listed?

Jtpduffe (talk) 20:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are only two independant refernces cited in the current draft. Both are to relativly brief mentions of the board game, without any "extensive" or "in depth" coverage, and with only a mention of the company (as opposed to the baord game published by the company). This would be at best dubious for establishing the notability of the board game, and does nothing to establish the notability of the company. You would need to find multiple published reliable sources that are independant of the company (not the company itself, nor employees, spokespeople, afiliates, or press releases, or anything of that sort) and that discuss the company in some depth, or fulfill one of th4e other qualifications in our guideline on notability of corporations. Many newer or smaller companies cannot fulfill any of these, and so should not have articles. The Huffington Post I would consider a reliable source, but one short paragraph in a buying guide is not close to enough. DES ^(talk) 20:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Wolf page submission.

Hello, My page for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aaron Wolf was not accepted. What can I do to better my chances of success?108.201.158.188 (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly the article reads like a resume or a CV, always a bad sign. There is no discussion of Wolf's style, his impact on the field, or his critical reception.

More importantly, there are not enough high-quality citations to establish Wolf's notability. This is vital. Normally this means multiple citations of published reliable sources that are independant of the subject (not by the subject nor affiliated in any way) that significantly discuss the subject, or at least one that extensivly discusses the sunject. The IMDB is mostly not considred a reliable source, and in any case appearence on credit lists is not significant discussion. Variety is generally a reliable source, but the mention you cite is only half a sentance and says only that Wolf is co-producing a particular project. The Student Filmmakers piece seems to be basically a press release from Howling Wolf, and so is not independant.

If possible, you need to find one or more serious critics or analysts or similar knowledgable independant sources who comment fairly extensivly on Wolf, helping to show that he himself (not just his work) has come to wide public notice.

I did not do the review on your submisison, but I would have rejected it for these reasons. DES ^(talk) 21:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kofi Tutu Ministries

Why did you decline my page Matthew? What is your religion? And just so you know, the page is ACTUALLY important, unlike some of the pages you have here on Wikipedia. What bad does ONE more GOOD page do?

Anonymous4978 (talk) 21:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)Anonymous4978[reply]

@Anonymous4978: First, please avoid commenting personally on other editors, such as you did in your question. Secondly, your page reads like a advertisement, which is strictly prohibited on Wikipedia. You also show no evidence of notability. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 21:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]