Help desk
< March 23	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 25 >

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.

March 24[edit]

Review of User:Mustafay007/Mustafa YAVUZ[edit]

How can I add a subject Mustafa YAVUZ at the wiki species page? There I can see lichenologists but can not add anyone else. I tried to create this page first :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustafay007 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mustafay007. Are you trying to create an article here on Wikipedia or at Wikispecies? Wikispecies is an entirely different project. If you wish to create an article there, you need to go to their help page. Voceditenore (talk) 07:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/giikers[edit]

Hi Team,

Hope you are doing good.

I really appreciate wikipedian's contribution. This time, I have a question and definitely need your help. Actually, I have created an article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/giikers. So I don't know the why it is rejected by wikipedia so please let me know the exact reason and please help or guide me to publish this article on wikipedia.

Thanks, Muktesh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muktesh.kmr (talk • contribs) 04:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The exact reason is given in the grey box on the decline notice on the top of your draft:

"This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies."

I strongly suggest you click on the blue links in the decline reason and read our policies and guidelines. Voceditenore (talk) 07:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/de Lorgeril Michel[edit]

Hi

I have made a mistake by leaving my IP address while editing a page (with another name) : is it possible to erase the IP adress or the old page (empty now) with this bad history (still in the Namespace Articles for creation) ?

Thank you for your answer.

Morenglish (talk) 05:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Morenglish. Yes, it is possible. Wikipedia:Requests for oversight, explains how to request removal of that information. Voceditenore (talk) 06:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick answer, and nice that it possible ! Morenglish (talk) 06:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re User:Bonniefarber/sandbox[edit]

Hi-

My article was rejected. I included only secondary sources, and followed the notability guidelines. This is the second time it has been rejected. Can anyone help me figure out what needs to be changed?

Thanks,

Bonnie Farber username: Bonniefarber (Bonniefarber (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

I don't think it's likely to meet our notability standard. First of all, the references are essentially press releases, which we do not consider reliable, even if a trade paper or local business paper reprints them. (Bloomberg is just a listing, good enough to establish the basic facts about the company, but not notability) Second, I'm not sure I'd expect better references, because I see only relatively minor awards. A bronze award in one of many categories art a trade show ins not significant importance, and neither are "best workplace" awards. The possible significant awards are only the best of show gold, and I do not see references to them. I say only possible, because we'd need to have some evidence that this is the major national show of recognized importance. DGG ( talk ) 01:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joker's Closet[edit]

Hello I'm not sure the status of this page. It shows it's still in review but someone just commented on it within the past 15 hours. Not sure what the new comments are.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.118.26.99 (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it looks like the most recent edit to that submission was housekeeping only and can be ignored; it is still awaiting review. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Calgary Rowing Club[edit]

Hello,

Curious as to why my submission was declined and how I can make it better?

Thank you! 108.181.247.199 (talk) 14:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the submission was declined for the reasons given in the pink box at the top of the submission page. Click on the links in the decline reason for more information. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider this kind of reply very helpful after someone has come here. or to an individual talk page. If they haven't read or understood it, they need some specific assistance. the purpose of this page is to give personal assistance; we're people. We're people, not bots, and shouldn't act like ones, or make them come back once again. (I'm not intending to blame Arthur in particular, for I've seen it all too often from many people. )

So, to follow my own advice: There is no reason to think a city amateur rowing club notable, unless it can be shown by references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not press release. The references here are from the club's own site, or are routine notices elsewhere. The normal reason to expect the necessary coverage is if the club or its members have won notable prizes at a national level. The article says some of the members have, so list them, along with references. Even so, the necessary coverage must be about the club itself not just the specific individuals. If you can find the materials, you can probably write a satisfactory article. To do so, include only material that will be of interest to the general public The material here in what you did write is the sort of detail that belongs on the club's own website--it's really addressed only to prospective members in the area. When you've rewritten this accordingly, then resubmit it. DGG ( talk ) 22:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not correct. In cases where an editor has not read the decline reason, it is entirely helpful and constructive to tell them where to find it. A very large proportion of AfC article submitters who ask questions here about a declined submission have not read the decline reason. This is mostly because of the unfortunate arrangement that the decline message the editor sees tells them that their submission has been declined, but does not include the decline reason. A prompt reply to such queries is important to make the submitter aware that more information is available to them. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article submission help[edit]

Hello, my article "Sean Rush" has been rejected and I'd like to know how I can fix it. It says it had copyrighted information but I cited everything. Also, can you have direct quotes in an article if they are cited?

SeanRushAtelier (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Sean[reply]

SeanRushAtelier, please do not paste drafts here. I have removed it, not only because it is inappropriate to paste drafts here, but because it is copied virtually verbatim from http://www.seanrush.com/#!about/c786. Your first draft was not rejected. It was deleted outright as a copyright infringement. If you try to recreate it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sean Rush (artist) with the same text you pasted here, it will once again be speedily deleted. Even if it were not a copyright infringement, it was so hopelessly and blatantly promotional, that it would probably be speedily deleted on those grounds alone. Your user name suggests that you are closely associated with the subject. Please read WP:Autobiography and WP:Conflict of interest before going any further with this attempt at creating an article. Then read Wikipedia:Notability (people) and WP:Reliable sources. – Voceditenore (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article rejection[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Adam_Bartley the above referenced article has been rejected again, and I don't understand why. There are plenty of independent references, the actor is real, appearing in a recurring role on the networks highest rated drama. What am I doing wrong? I have already altered based on the first rejection's recommendations. Not sure what I can do to fix it. I would really appreciate yoyr help. 50.188.152.12 (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed some incorrect code for the references. Note that they should look like <ref>...</ref> (pay attention to the punctuation).

I only see two reliable sources in the artice: Pioneer Press (twincities.com) and Dallas Morning News (dallasnews.com). Much of the article is still supported by references to IMDb, which, as the comments on the draft explain, is not considered reliable. All information should be verifiable, especially when it is about a living person. I suggest getting rid of the IMDb references (the external links are okay, though) and finding other sources to support the rest of the information. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 19:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk: Articles for creation/Alfonso_Dávila_Ortiz[edit]

I care about the quality of Wikipedia articles and very much appreciate the time that reviewers put into this valuable common resource. But I would nonetheless like to contest rejection of my entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shaypar/Alfonso_Dávila_Ortiz Wikipedia talk: Articles for creation/Alfonso_Dávila_Ortiz

This entry is backed up with no less than 12 references and numerous links to websites in the text. Out of the 12 references, 9 are published books with ISBN numbers or chapters by respected publishers. Yes, most of them are in Spanish because Colombia's language is Spanish, but this does not make them any less worthy than those published in English. I have seen plenty of entries about US or British politicians or business people with far fewer references, and many make do with just a few references to websites. This fuels a sneaking suspicion that there is a very strong Anglo-Saxon bias in the English version of Wikipedia which this rejection does little to assuage. And please do not take this as a emotional blackmail of the PC kind. It is a genuine belief that there is an unhealthy Anglo-Saxon-centric view of the world which, in the long run, is detrimental to what ought to be a genuinely valuable common resource.

Shaypar (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed it earlier. As I said then, it does show notability. I consider the review of 24 March erroneous, because it did not take into account the rules for WP:POLITICIAN. But there are three remaining problems: first, the specific key facts of the career need references. It should for example be easy to find references for the ambassadorships. Second, the article was written in a rather promotional style, with adjectives of praise. and redundant wordy expressions. I did a preliminary run through to give you an example of what I mean, and removed many of them from the first two sections. Now check for the others. Check also for claims of political importance, because these are only usable if you have a reliable third party source. Third, and least important,there were some significant style errors: you linked to the web pages of universities and other organizations, where you needed to link to our articles on them--I changed a few as an example. , but you need to check for others and see if there are other possible links. You also needed to do section headings properly--I fixed that.

I took the liberty of resubmitting it. Although it's borderline acceptable now, please clean up the rest quickly before it gets reviewed. DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Victor Salvi[edit]

Hi,

My article was rejected, and it is very important that I find a way to remedy whatever was problematic in order to resubmit and hopefully be accepted.

I am not sure what the problems were as every single source was properly cited and I every single source is real and linked if it is online.

Please advise.

With thanks, Caroline — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarolineRothstein (talk • contribs) 19:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already accepted at Victor Salvi. Your sources are very well-cited.

Thank you for your contributions! Anon126 (talk - contribs) 19:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/No Oil Producing and Exporting Act of 2007 (NOPEC)[edit]

Hi WikiProject New Articles for creation Help,

As advised, I have now extensively edited and added a number of additional references, in an effort to comply with the suggested criticism and prior to my anticipated future resubmission for Wikipedia New Section reconsideration.

Please see link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/No_Oil_Producing_and_Exporting_Act_of_2007_%28NOPEC%29

Please also see, in the "History," a correction of my original submission heading/title, where the missing word "Cartels" that had been inadvertently omitted in the original, has now been properly added.

Please also see that while my complete and most-current edit IS very accurately reflected in the current "Edit" window, that is Not the case in the actual, most-current "Read" view. I have clicked on the "Show preview" and subsequently, the "Save Page," also. However, neither effort has updated the current "Read" view to accurately reflect my latest modifications, as they are properly displayed in the current "Edit" view.

Please advise me as to how I can proceed to correct this issue. I would also greatly appreciate any additional suggestion that could be beneficial in gaining acceptance, prior to my New Section resubmission.

Thank you for your kind assistance.

Sincerely,

Robert (Prevenient)

Hi Robert. That page is not currently submitted for review. If you would like to submit it for another review, add {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bob Davis (businessman)[edit]

If an article for creation has been denied several times and then a serious overhaul makes it ready for re-submission, will the past rejections reflect badly on it? Should it be submitted as a new and separate article?Alihoward (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've successfully established the notability. But what would help before we accept it is to add a paragraph of basic biography in the text: birthplace and date, education, early career if any before Lycos. The names of the colleges are in the infobox, but we need dates also. then add section headings for the phases of his career. DGG ( talk ) 21:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Sherry rajkumar/sandbox[edit]

This is not the place for article content. You can add this information to your draft.

Shehryar Samad's Biography.

Shehryar Samad is a fashion model in USA. He is hailing to pakistan. He was born in 17-Nov-1995. His father name is Abdul Samad. Shehryar Samad complete his education from university known as NCA. He is smart and a nice person too. We can't find about his love life but we here some romours that he have a girlfriend.

Body Mesurements: Height: 174 cm Biceps: 14" Waist: 32"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherry rajkumar (talk • contribs) 20:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Jjbzaibeijing[edit]

I have finished a page for submission, {[Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/User:Jjbzaibeijing]}, want to walk it through the process of getting published on Wikipedia, and am unsure of the next step. Thank you for your help, Jjbzaibeijing (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can add the code {{subst:submit}} to the top to submit it for review. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 00:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]