Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2013 September 10

= 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)


 * 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)

Hi... I've been updating this article for months... so I'm looking for help, not trying to hand it off. -- Robert — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gliesian (talk • contribs) 01:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

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)


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

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)


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

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)


 * Add 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)

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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)

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


 * 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)