Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2013 November 16

= November 16 =

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Your submission name here
I need support regarding a deletion of Kernow Positive Support article. Please see my comments on my talk page Davidtardis (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC) I look forward to your comments and assistance at your earliest to help restablishment of our important information and article.

Review of User:Houston T Watts/sandbox
Who will be doing the verification? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Houston T Watts (talk • contribs) 00:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * No verification is required, as that page is not currently submitted for review. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Review of User:Davidtardis/Article for creation
Please note I am rather confused, having taken over a year to get this article approved it was unceremoniously deleted around October 2013 stating we were not a national charity and therefore not notable. I have tried to work out how this article and/ or it's original can be reestablished on Wikipedia. As it was available for several months etc. please refer to my talk pages and messages I have left. I have therefore recreated the article with some minor changes as I firmly believe this article is a important information resource. Regarding advertising and promotion, after the eventual acceptance by Wikipedia I was assured that the article eventually conformed to the policies and rules after long discussions with a variety of editors etc. please help regarding the reestablishment of this article. Davidtardis (talk) 02:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I've replied on Davidtardis' talk page, and suggested to the most recent deleting admin to take this article to a deletion review. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   10:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dareysteel
i notice that someone has recently decline the article ... Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dareysteel without droping a comment, please can anyone please take a good look to this article and see what is not relieble source, i feel to my understanding that wikipedia is a free and open source, not vandalism. please verify that very article and see why the source are not independent or relieble source, secondly i will be glad if you assist in developing the article, so the article can be more better.... thanks Akochanwata (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alan M. Meckler
what is wrong w my submission of bio for alan Meckler? I saw the comments about "context" but not sure what this means? is there a way for other editors to improve the content? this person surely deserves inclusion. also, I am confused about communication in wiki? when you respond, whoever you are, you will write on my talkpage? why cant you just write to me at my email address (which you say I am not allowed to give?) and/or give me a phone number to call. the whole experience has been frustrating and I would think that you would want to encourage people such as myself to make contributions?? Mikesiris (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)thanks, mike s

Review of Articles for creation/Juuso Walden
Please check why article on "Juuso Walden" is repeatedly rejected citing lack of references which is counter factual. The article is referenced from history studies, thesis work and sources listed in the reference list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spespatriae (talk • contribs) 23:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The article lacks footnotes. Refer to this page for step-by-step instructions on how to add footnotes to your article. --Huang (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have accepted this article. The sources were highly reliable and independent, simply not placed as inline citations. There is no requirement for inline citations to accept an article, especially when the person is no longer living. Doesn't anyone here read the reviewing instructions?
 * Avoid the following errors:
 * Avoid declining an article because it correctly uses general references to support some or all of the material. The content and sourcing policies require inline citations for only four specific types of material, most commonly: direct quotations and contentious material (whether negative, positive, or neutral) about living persons.
 * Voceditenore (talk) 11:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)