Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2014 June 17

= June 17 =

01:09:34, 17 June 2014 review of submission by Joffanaut
Joffanaut (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC) Just requesting some assistance. WE created a card game we'd like to publish on Wikipedia. Is there anyway we can get a source for the accuracy of this type of article when the authors are the actual source?
 * Wikipedia is not a place to publish your ideas. You cannot use self-published sources so your submission cannot be on Wikipedia. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 06:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

01:14:32, 17 June 2014 review of submission by Badnet123
My submissions has been rejected twice and I simply do not understand! I provided a number of objective references and still... Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Badnet123 (talk) 01:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We can separate your sources and the content they support into three groups. First, you have sources like AllMusic, EBay, YouTube, and the like that aren't reliable. All of the information supported by those links should be removed. Second, you have links like Pandora, mpressrecords, and the like that are selling music in some way; they're not critical sources for notability. The information they support can stay but they don't make the subject notable. The link to ASCAP doesn't mention the subject so it can't be used for notability purposes. either. Finally you have TV.com and Billboard. I don't think those two get the subject past our notability criteria for musicians.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 06:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * To clarify what Chris is talking about here, Billboard is probably the best source you have. It's got a track record of printing content with a good editorial reputation, and can be trusted to give a reasonably neutral and unbiased opinion on things. Unfortunately, it's only got a short amount of column space devoted to the subject. Still, it's a reliable source and should remain. AllMusic can be used as a reliable source, particularly with regards to reviews, as they can only be written by professional authors such as Ritchie Unterberger, and even discographies can sometimes be acceptable, though they should be used with more care. To sum up, if you can find more magazine or news sources like the Billboard one from a Google Books search, you should use those in the article, as it will become more obvious that we are dealing with a notable subject. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   14:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

02:31:01, 17 June 2014 review of submission by Seattle2311
Seattle2311 (talk) 02:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I submitted two creations on June 13 and 14th. One titles Richard (Dick) Welsh and the other National Association of Reversionary property Owners. I submitted both and both came back with critiques which I tried to address and then resubmitted. But I have not heard back on either one. I am afraid that I am not up to speed on Wiki nuances. Can you tell me when my submissions are now and some critiques I need to address?Seattle2311 (talk) 02:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)?
 * I've invited you to try the Wikipedia Adventure as you need to learn the actual coding in Wikipedia. Each of your submissions lack reliable sources. Using your own EarthLink website doesn't cut it. Neither Dick Welsh nor NARPO is notable as there's no evidence that they have general notability or biographic/organizational notability, respectively. Neither submission is currently submitted for review so you can get those issues fixed before trying again. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 03:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

12:20:14, 17 June 2014 review of submission by Thejaswinij
Thejaswinij (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * That submission was declined on 16th June for the reasons given at the top of the draft page itself. Were there some parts of the reasons for the submission being declined that are unclear? If so, please let us know which parts are a problem so that we can try to assist you further. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

14:35:56, 17 June 2014 review of submission by 1.175.216.77
1.175.216.77 (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * That submission was declined on 16th June for the reasons given at the top of the draft page itself. Were there some parts of the reasons for the submission being declined that are unclear? If so, please let us know which parts are a problem so that we can try to assist you further. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

17:37:22, 17 June 2014 review of draft by Cnorthin
Thanks! I am in the process of creating a page. I have laid out the full article; my only trouble is with the sidebar template. I have found the page that explains how to format the headers, but this page does not explain how I can split the information into columns (e.g., "Founded" in bold, and "2004" unbolded, on the same line, separated by a uniform amount of space.

In my sidebar, for example, I want to have the following fields:

Founded      2004, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Key People   Eugenie Birch

Hopefully this makes sense to you. I was having a hard time finding a page to explain how to do this. Thank you!

Cnorthin (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Cnorthin. Infoboxes are a little more primitive than you might be hoping!


 * It works like this:
 * Choose an infobox (e.g. Infobox company, Infobox person, Infobox musician). Use that template
 * You then (mostly) have to use the fields already defined in that infobox, e.g. at Template:Infobox company you can use key_people   = as it says on that page.
 * You don't get to define your own labels and data (mostly)


 * Perhaps take a look at the infobox templates on a few existing companies to see how it works? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

20:27:41, 17 June 2014 review of submission by Nicole Cuillierrier
Hi there, this was an article on Wikipedia before and I have resubmitted as it was deleted some time ago. I am wondering what the article is missing to be published on Wikipedia. I would like to make the necessary changes and resubmit if possible. Please advise!

Nicole Cuillierrier (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)Nicole Cuillierrier Nicole Cuillierrier (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I assume you are the social media strategist I've read about. I also assume then that you're familiar with the BBS concept of "Lurk moar." Your submission doesn't have sources that are both reliable and independent. Because of that, it does not appear the subject has either organizational or general notability. And if you are who I believe you to be, you have an apparent conflict of interest. All of the linked guidance is available for anyone to read.  Had you consulted that guidance before submitting a draft you could have saved everyone some time.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 16:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

21:02:47, 17 June 2014 review of submission by MarkMillerITPro

 * Review of Draft:4INFO

Hi .:Hi .:Hi   or any other editor. I'm *confused* I had 250 references when ®amos said, "Although I commend the editor for the plethora of verifiable references" & he did imo an awesome job of wikifying the article for me. Then @Timtrent said the references were pr, & I went thru & got rid of the one I found that was I think prwire, Then @dgg pointed out possible notability on the basis of market share, and to my surprise I found references from Nielsen on basis of market share for multiple years, in several arenas. Now JordanKyser22 declined the article saying there's a lack of notability & references.

MarkMillerITPro (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)