Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2014 January 19

= January 19 =

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/National Coalition of Independent Scholars
The submission was denied apparently saying it wasn't notable enough; I'm wondering how, as there is both a link made to NCIS in the Independent Scholar page, and honestly, why wouldn't a national association for independent scholars be notable (especially by similarity to, say, Freelancers Union or other such organizations of independent workers).

If it's a technical issue regarding the writing of the article, I'd like to know what I can do.

Thanks.

KateriDax (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Notability for organisations is usually determined not by what they are, but by the coverage they recieve in independent, reliable sources. Linking to NCIS is OK for verification, but doesn't prove notability. Rankersbo (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Beta Phi Pi Fraternity Incorporated
I was referred here because my article got rejected for lack of notable references. My problem is the service organization I wrote about is fairly new and when they provide service to the community, they do it humbly. Therefor press coverage is usually never available to put them in the news paper or any other notable sources. How else can I have my article approved?

Richardalveranga (talk) 08:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello ! If the organisation doesn't have WP:Independent coverage, then we can't have an article on it. We can't just base an article on a person or group stating their own claims for significance. If nobody else is writing about BPPFI, then Wikipedia is not going to be the first to do so. Our basic guidelines require:

Articles require  in  that are  of the subject.


 * MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Spider Project (software)
Hello, I just saw, that an action "Cleaning Wikipedia:Articles for creation submission (AFCH beta)" has been taken on my article by Rankersbo. Question: can I continue to further improve the article or it is better to wait until my submission is accepted/declined? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ev2geny (talk • contribs) 09:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes you can continue to improve the article while it is waiting to be reviewed. Rankersbo (talk) 09:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Harry Anscombe
I've made corrections to the citations and headings but am worried it's not been submitted for review. Please could you check i'm in the queue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ha0250 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, no need to "check the queue": your article does not have a "waiting review" yellow template on it, without which it is not in queue. You must press the big green "Resubmit" button on the pink box. Note that the yellow boxes often get inserted at the end of the draft vice top (at first), so after hitting Resubmit and reloading the page, check the top and bottom of your page for a yellow box. The yellow overrides and other template, so as long as you have any yellow box at all, you're in queue. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Movable Ink
Hi, do you have a question about the articles for creation process? Rankersbo (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Patrick David Shaw
How to I have my submission reviewed and how long does it take? Jonathan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonspangler1888 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * There are currently over a thousand article submissions waiting for review. The process usually takes about 2-3 weeks. Please be patient. Your submission will be looked at soon. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Grace Mang
Your suggestion would be very useful regarding How to make this article the best possible contribution to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szezerac (talk • contribs) 18:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow! I'm impressed with the thoroughness of the article and its sources. There aren't many issues that are obvious to me. There are a few minor style issues, but those can be fixed easily. All in all, great work! Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Please cite using an inline citation the statement in the "Personal life" section. Information about a living person's personal life is almost always controversial, and per Wikipedia policy an inline citation is required. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I have ✅ the submission, and you can now find it at Grace Mang. There are a couple style issues. Punctuation should precede a citation, and try not to use external links in the body of the article. Thank you for your contributions! Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Review of Lucia Daniella Griggi
Just wondering why the submission of Lucia Daniella Griggi was rejected.

Also I want to double-check a permissions email for images to be used on "Wave Loch"

I want to be sure I did it right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebenm (talk • contribs) 23:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lucia Daniella Griggi was declined for the reasons given in the pink box at the top of that page. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)