July 1

• Aryal.mani (talk · contribs) ^(TB)

I am very new to wikipedia. I used to feel free to write in the blogs but I have faced difficulties to write here. I want to know the weak points of my article so please help me to sort out problems Aryal.mani (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Aryal.mani: The weak points of Draft:Urban hydrology (where the draft is now) are that it lacks references. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL will give you a start, but you need authoritative references for every fact you state or you run the risk of the article being termed Original Research. Even then you need to be careful to write in a neutral tine. Think "Dull but Worthy" and you are pretty close. And you must never draw your own conclusions, only report the conclusions of others. User:Timtrent/A good article may be of some use to you. Above all, do not rush. The better a draft is the fewer reviews it will need. We want you to get it right. It's very different from blogging. Fiddle Faddle 07:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{Lafc|username=RK Samarpan|ts=09:56:53, 1 July 2014|page=

Samarpan(author)

There is no reason to refuse the article. The author has written quite a few books which are all well documented. People want to know more about him, and his books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RK Samarpan (talk • contribs) 09:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@RK Samarpan: I see you are asking about Draft:Samarpan (author), and there was a need to decline it for you to do more work. For a living person we have a higher standard of referencing. Every fact you assert requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS. The reviewer was more concise in his comment, but it means the same thing. Your references are about th ebook, which is fine, but we need additional referencing for the other facts you assert in the draft. I think you may benefit from a mentor. Please check out WP:Mentoring to see if it will help you.

If people want to know more about the author then you need to write a fuller and better referenced article.

If you just want to go ahead, please edit the draft, and resubmit it when you are ready to. Read User:Timtrent/A good article for some guidance. Fiddle Faddle 10:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Brefin123 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Brefin123/Caroline Hurley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need help writing two pages. One for a company and one for the company's founder

Quintessentially Events is an international event management company based in London

Caroline Hurley is a British/American event planner and entrepreneur, founder of Quintessentially Events.

Can someone please write these up for me...I have been trying for days and I keep getting rejected, I could really do with some help, its really really important that I get these pages up as soon as possible :) thanks Brefin123 (talk) 10:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC) Brefin123 (talk) 10:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Brefin123: The thing is, it;s not important to get any page up as soon as possible unless one is being paid to do so or has a similar conflict of interest. One thing Wikipedia has is time. I suggest that you check out WP:Mentoring to gain expertise in what I hope is a hobby, not a career. User:Timtrent/A good article will help you.

We can give you advice here. The advice really never differs:

1. Seek out references. For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every fact you assert requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS. For a non living thing we really need the same, but the citation part is optional. Me? I make it mandatory for anything I write here.
2. Write your article based on the references, and only based on the references
3. Keep your tone neutral. If you think "Dull but worthy" you are pretty much there
4. Write only what an interested reader wishes to see, not what you would like them to read. Wikipedia is not a PR organ

You may see this in different words in different places on Wikipedia. When you translate it the answer always comes out the same. If you cannto find references, online, in print, or broadcast, then you may have to face the fact that the person or the entity is simply not notable in Wikipedia terms. But nothing is ever urgent for us, and you need it not to be for you, either. If this is a paid commission always use the WP:AFC route and always declare your interest. Fiddle Faddle 10:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Mwilkey (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Mwilkey/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Mwilkey (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Smart_Love_Preschool_and_Smart_Love_Family_Services on June 13 and have not yet received any response as to whether it was posted. It doesn't loook like it has been but there has been some edits. Can you tell me where it stands? Thanks Maureen

@Mwilkey: You never submitted Draft:Smart Love Preschool and Smart Love Family Services for review, hence it was never reviewed. I have since submitted it on your behalf. I will tell you from my examination that you seem to lack the necessary reliable sources for general notability. I would also be careful in defining Intrapsychic Humanism so that it's germane to the subject but also clear for general readership. You have only one good source, which is The Chicago Tribune. I would jettison the others and start over. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth mentioning that pre-schools, kindergartens and other educational establishments below secondary education level are not normally considered notable enough for Wikipedia. If the establishment can be shown to meet the WP:GNG then it may be accepted, but I doubt this will be possible in this case. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 18:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Mharrison98 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Martin Hill (camera collector) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My article was denied because of my sources, but I don't understand why. In Wikipedia: Notability it says that there is not a required number of sources, just multiple. I have two reliable sources (a news video/spot) and an article from a city newspaper, the Charlotte Observer. My other three resources were blogs or Kickstarters, which I understand aren't reliable now, but they did prove that there was a Kickstarter and that Leonard Maltin did support the Kickstarter. All of that was also stated in the Newspaper article.

Secondly, it was denied because there was too much information for "just" five sources. But most of the information was from the Charlotte Observer article, which was quite extensive. There is plenty of information in that article and the video to write the, frankly, relatively short article.

Martin Hill, while perhaps not the most publicized, is a notable figure. He is trying to preserve a very important part of Hollywood history.

Also, would finding auction records for the cameras help at all? Thanks! Mharrison98 (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mharrison98: First, let me emphasize that Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. While this might be important to you, it's not to us. Second, you can't use anything like auction records because they are primary sources, unpublished, and not necessarily reliable. Third, Wikipedia strives to have every article as accurate as possible and this is achieved by insisting that text remains tied to independent and reliable sources. When you have a lot more information than you have in-line citations for, especially about a living person, we have a problem. YouTube isn't a reliable source either, so you're left with one article from the Charlotte Observer. It would appear based on this post at UNC Charlotte and this other mention in the Charlotte Observer that Martin Hill is really only notable for one event and that is being the subject of a film for a college event. That doesn't pass muster. I hope that explanation makes sense to you. Wikipedia is a complicated place and articles written by newcomers typically don't fare well because of a steep learning curve and many prevalent misconceptions about how things are done here. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman: First of all, I appreciate you taking the time to explain things to me. I do have a few more questions though. Are youtube videos not reliable even if they're posted by a reputable news source? (Which, I grant you, Around Carolina does not appear to be. I thought it was part of the Time Warner Cable News, but it doesn't appear to be. I'm very sorry about that.) Secondly, the first article you linked to in the Charlotte Observer is not about Martin Hill. It's about a person called Michael Knox. Here is the article that talks about Martin Hill: "Charlotte Observer. Third, if I can find another source, aside from the Charlotte Observer article, and I directly cite the information from the article (with footnotes, which I now understand. I couldn't seem to get the reflist thing to work, but now I get it) could my article be accepted? Also, once that documentary comes out will that be a reputable source? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mharrison98 (talk • contribs)

@Mharrison98: Take a look at our notability criteria. I see nothing in there that Martin Hill would qualify with. In regards to the link I provided, open that article, use the old "ctrl+f", and type in "Martin Hill". You're welcome. You need to scrape up every passing mention you can find. Based on what I've read, I don't think the sources you'll be able to provide will ever make the subject appear notable. I think Martin Hill is practically a low-profile individual and should not be covered in an article. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Kristengray (talk · contribs) ^(TB)

Hi. I'm writing this page for my boss who is a multi-platinum selling music producer. It is very important that he has a wiki page for his career and he has so much work that is notable, credible, and popular that needs to be open information. I don't know why my page keeps getting declined but can someone help me determine why? Is it an issue with editing? Where do I start? Kristengray (talk) 18:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kristengray: First, you have a conflict of interest. Thank you for being open about this fact. Please remember while editing Wikipedia that your editing has to have a neutral point of view. This is not a public relations firm and we don't care if someone thinks they need to have a wiki page.

Because the subject is still alive, we require in-line citations so we can point to exactly which source supports each claim in the article. For example, your lede paragraph says: "Joseph is best known for his production on: “Man Down,” by Rihanna". Says who? What source makes this claim of notability? That sentence needs to have an in-line citation following it. Also, you have phrases like: "Joseph’s musical dexterity has enabled him to secure work with a variety of artists". Really? That sounds like puffery and if true it needs to have some serious sourcing.

The good news is that you have a couple independent, reliable sources at the bottom. You should be able to move them to the text in the article they support. Selling platinum albums is enough for notability but your sourcing must improve. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Biologymoon (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:T-Caillou Lions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need help putting together my submission. Can someone look at it and help me. Thanks Biologymoon (talk) 23:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Biologymoon: Your submission has no independent sources. You can't use any organization's website as reference for that organization, especially absent other sources. I recommend finding newspaper articles, magazine articles, and books that talk about this organization and writing based on the information in those sources. If you need help with editing, post to the reward board. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, it is about a local branch of a large organization.We do not usually consider such branches notable. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2

• Missionedit (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Andrew Brook (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I reviewed Draft:Andrew Brook and declined it for the sources not showing the subject to be notable. But I'm having second thoughts, and would like another opinion. Thanks! ~ Anastasia (talk) 00:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC) Anastasia (talk) 00:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Missionedit: The author contacts you on your talk page so now you have doubts? What criteria does the subject pass? WP:GNG? No. WP:PROF? No. The article asserts the subject is a Rhodes Scholar, but where's the sourcing? The Rhodes scholars list at Oxford says no. We can't develop notability based on the subject's own publications and I doubt there's much notability from those other articles. You were right to reject on notability. I also agree with your comment about layout. The text just looks painful. We need to bring back paid editing because at least those folks made pretty articles. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Josire12 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Josire12 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have been updating Teso College Aloet page but the comments on top of the page are still there when do they go away?

Any help that you can provide will be much appreciated.

Thanks John. Josire12 (talk) 04:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Josire12: This help desk is for drafts. You can ask your question at Wikipedia:Help desk or at the Teahouse. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Noirdeer (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • No draft specified!

Hello Wikipedians, These days I have been writing an article for pCloud - a cloud storage service, however, my article had been rejected for a second time and I really do not understand why. The first rejection was basked on problematic reference pages, and I understand this. However, I don't see an explanation about the second rejection, because the reference list was entirely changed and it does not contain any advertising websites or websites related to the service in any way. Please, advise. Best regards, Nelly Karaivanova Noirdeer (talk) 09:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Noirdeer: I see an explanation of the second rejection. Have you visited Draft:PCloud and looked at the comments nder the boxes that decline it? It is a concise explanation. If there are parts of it you would like help with please ask specific questions in this thread. Fiddle Faddle 10:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 93.45.178.185 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:InGiustizia La Parola al Popolo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How long will still take revision for my page having added references to my last draft?

Thanks!

93.45.178.185 (talk) 11:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews are at the discretion of the volunteer reviewers, who try to take the oldest first, and do not tend to review those where they have insufficient skill. The best answer I have is "as soon as we can". Fiddle Faddle 11:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this draft were to be reviewed in its current state, it would be quickly declined. I have had a look at the draft and at the web caches of the former Italian Wikipedia article of which the draft is a direct translation. The article was multiply-deleted on the Italian Wikipedia as an advertisement with no independent sources. In fact, it was deleted and re-created so many times that the title and its various permutations of capitalisation have been salted. See [1]. On June 17th, its creator, Utente:Amedeo Leone, was blocked for three months for disruption and block evasion using IPs. See [2]. The tone of this draft (like the Italian WP article) is promotional and written as an alternative web page for the publication rather than an encyclopedia article. There are no independent sources attesting to its notability. The Prismanews article appears to be press-release based and all the rest are self-published sources, sources directly connected to the publication, or sources which do not mention the subject at all. The publication's founder and editor Romolo Reboa has some notability because of his involvement in the "Laziogate" scandal—Francesco Storace was sentenced to a year and and a half in prison and Reboa was sentenced to one year, but the convictions were overturned in 2012. However, that does not make his publication notable. I can give you no further advice apart from re-reading the advice given to you many times at Discussioni utente:Amedeo Leone, Discussioni utente:109.114.110.70, and Discussioni utente:93.45.178.185. Please also read the advice in Italian at Wikipedia:Pagine promozionali o celebrative and in English at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Pinging Tim Trent. – Voceditenore (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Out of my scope, I fear. I do not read Italian. Fiddle Faddle 17:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Jds319 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Jds319 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've submitted an article for consideration "Parviz Kambin" twice. both times it has been rejected because the editor states that the references are verifiable. I am trying to correct this but so far have been unsuccessful. I do not understand what is missing from my references. This is the last communication I received from the editor.

Dear @Jds319, the references must be verifiable, see WP:VERIFY. For example, consider this reference from the AfC in-process: Savitz M.D., Martin (2005). The Practice of Minimally Invasive Spinal Technique (2005 ed.). AAMISS PRESS. p. 581. How could it be verified? --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ)(Support) 14:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC

Please help me to understand what is wrong with this submission. Jds319 (talk) 16:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at your article, Draft:Parviz Kambin, and leave what I hope you will view as useful comments on it. A reference is a reference is a reference. What us important is that it is independent of the person (a peer reviewed scientific paper can count because of the peer review, even if they are the author), is significant coverage and is in a WP:RS. It is ideal if one can also link to an online version, but it is not mandatory. Fiddle Faddle 17:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done PLease come back here for new questions. I am also happy to take questions on my own talk page about my specific comments if you find any of them difficult to implement or understand. Fiddle Faddle 17:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 3

• Khan.207 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)

Khan.207 (talk) 02:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC) I am trying to submit an article regarding Jawaid Akhtar Pasha, Urdu author. It was rejected due to lack of verifiable resources. I have hard copy documents that can verify all the information included in my article. However, this information is not available electronically, because it is in Urdu, is old or not many copies are available. How can I proceed so that the important work of a well known Urdu scholar can be included on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khan.207 (talk • contribs) [reply]

@Khan.207: As the reviewer noted on your draft, you lack any independent and reliable sources to establish notability. Further, some of the text has been copied from www.jawaidakhtarpasha.com/, which is not allowed. Wikipedia does not use self-published sources. Sources don't have to be online; You can cite newspapers, magazines, and books if you provide the title, author, name of the publication, date of publication, etc. Sources don't have to be in English either, although I personally refuse to accept articles if I can't read the source material. (I don't read Urdu.) Since this person is living, you'll have to use in-line citations. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Edwengineering (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User talk:Edwengineering (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I really don't understand this gibberish. Can anyone tell my why my wiki page was declined? Was it because of the external link? Edwengineering (talk) 06:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There will be an answer on the draft shortly. Fiddle Faddle 07:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done But your initial message did not endear you to me, and I nearly ignored you. This is not a business, this is run by volunteers. Try to be less confrontational when you ask for help. It gets you better help. Fiddle Faddle 07:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I did not mean any disrespect. It is just all these brackets are confusing and I did not know if my message was even going out. So we can't describe a business on Wikipedia?

A notable business, yes. An advert for it, no. Your own business is WP:COI, so not really, no. And not with that username, I fear. Fiddle Faddle 07:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• SongsforLulu (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Jörn Weisbrodt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Message for Timtrent, sorry if I'm not posting this in the right place.

Dear Tim,

Thank you for your prompt reply. I hope you get this message as I still haven't found a straightforward way of contacting you!! I don't want to state that Mr Weisbrodt is gay within the article. I find it inappropriate and unnecessary. I don't like to categorise people in this way and I felt uncomfortable about putting it in the Catebories box to be honest, although I can see this info might be interesting/helpful to some readers. I was wondering if you would accept putting the reference in the External Links section, they've done something similar in the Rufus Wainwright's Wiki entry with regard to some information that was not contained in the article itself. If this is not acceptable to you I'd rather remove the references to Mr Weisbrodt's sexuality from the Categories box.

Thank you and I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind Regards,

Lulu 09:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done Accepted. Now it must take its chance in the hurly burly that is WIkipedia. On to your next article! Fiddle Faddle 11:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can I have help with this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Richard_Pine Simon Baddeley (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sibadd: I have left a comment at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Richard Pine which I hope you will find of use. Fiddle Faddle 11:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Made for Movement (talk · contribs) ^(TB)

Made for Movement (talk) 11:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi need to know why my article was not approved. If there is any chances I can do to get it approved, I would like to know.

Have you visited User:Made for Movement/sandbox where the reviewer has left a succinct comment? You have also created Draft:Made for Movmement. Please work on only one of these.

If you need someone to expand on the rationale for not accepting the draft please come back here and ask in this thread, or enter into a conversation with the reviewer who declined the article. Their rationale seems sound to me. Fiddle Faddle 12:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved your most current version to Draft:Made for Movmement; please make all your edits there, don't create multiple copies. I have left clear comments at the top of the page. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I've redirected the third iteration of the draft to the same. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 22:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 103.247.50.163 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Bourneon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

pls tell me why my page is rejected ,,I need to how can I make those error correct to be accept on wiki as a page 103.247.50.163 (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Bourneon (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Bourneon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Pls give me guide line to make this article accepted .. Need some help Bourneon (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bourneon: Your submission has no independent and reliable sources. You only have links to that company's website, which is not allowed. Also, "Division" doesn't have any claim to organizational notability. Articles about businesses have to be neutral, about notable subjects, and well-sourced. You also cannot use Wikipedia to advertise. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 192.95.197.60 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

192.95.197.60 (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC) why did shhoop da whoop get deleateds[reply]

@192.95.197.60: Because it was nonsense. Please read WP:FIRST for help. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thefutonshop (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Thefutonshop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This submission appears to be taken from http://blog.thefutonshop.com/2011/09/history-of-futon-shop.html. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. We cannot accept copyrighted content taken from websites or printed sources. Note that copyright protection is granted to all works automatically, whether it is asserted or not. Unless stated otherwise, assume that most content on the internet is copyrighted and not suitable for publishing on Wikipedia. Copyrighted content can be cited as a reliable source if it meets Wikipedia's guidelines; however, your submission must be written in your own words, and in continuous prose.

We run http://blog.thefutonshop.com/2011/09/history-of-futon-shop.html. I wrote that so how is it copyright infringement? If you mean duplicate content than that is another issue.

How do I fix this problem? Can I use this text being that I wrote it? Or can I reference it in a more accurate way?

Do you need me to rewrite it all because of duplicate content?

Thefutonshop (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Thefutonshop: Please be aware that Wikipedia is not here to advertise for you. Your submission has to assert some notability and that can't be done by citing that company's own website. While I recommend you re-write that content in your own words, you could donate that text to Wikipedia which would eliminate the copyright issue. I'm not sure why this wasn't addressed before, but your username is in violation of our policy plus you obviously have a conflict of interest. Please read WP:FIRST and perhaps learn about editing Wikipedia before you continue. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Lauriemonk (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Lauriemonk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't understand why the article has not been accepted. I contacted help desk and they advised me of the changes I needed to make, which I did. Can you advise me what it is that is missing that will get this article accepted? Lauriemonk (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems notable through her association with Seven the Hardway. Needs copy editing for neutrality, but after three declines on notability grounds, I see no point in dragging this out any further. It's in the main space. You may continue to improve it there. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 06:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 4

• Victorychristiancenter2014! (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Victorychristiancenter2014! (talk) 00:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me with getting an article "Jimmie A. Ellis, III" accepted. The draft was declined on July 1, 2014. My instructions are to add citations to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject. I would like to use government and media citationS and recognitions. Of course there are hard copies of the documents but how do I cite them correctly for the article?

The hard copy sources must be published for them to be useable. See WP:INTREF for help on adding references. Also, I'm afraid your username violates our username policy, you should look at changing it, and you appear to have a conflict of interest where this draft is concerned, so please remember that Wikipedia operates under a principle of neutrality Bellerophon _{talk to me} 07:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 122.163.241.82 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:TTShop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

122.163.241.82 (talk) 10:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore, IP of indef spam-blocked user. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 13:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• DurhamLass62 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Hyperdrug (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

DurhamLass62 (talk) 13:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I am trying to create a page on our local newspaper the Teesdale mercury User:DurhamLass62/teesdale_Mercury which has been the local paper since the 19C. It is a proper newspaper, with an historical archive section, http://www.teesdalemercury.co.uk/ http://www.teesdalemercuryarchive.org.uk/tm-history My question is: Can I use these sources to write an article about itself? Sorry. Very confused. DurhamLass62 (talk) 13:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Yes, you can use those sources to support basic facts about the paper, but you will need to find reliable third party sources to demonstrate some dimension of notability for the paper. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 13:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 101.218.107.210 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Article of india (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

101.218.107.210 (talk) 14:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC) Article of india is the most precious detail for citizens of an indian. It is the very important that every one know about article of its country.[reply]

But you have achieved an empty submission. PLease add information and submit again. Fiddle Faddle 08:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this already exists at India, or if something has been lost in translation Constitution of India... Bellerophon _{talk to me} 08:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 5

• Arunima Dasgupta (talk · contribs) ^(TB)

Hello! My article was declined at Articles for Creation. I was wondering why my article has been declined. I would be glad if you could tell me my mistakes so that I can improve henceforth. Please help. Arunima Dasgupta (talk) 07:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined for failing to meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations; which is something of a misnomer, because the real problem is that the person you have chosen to try and write about just isn't important enough for Wikipedia. Sorry. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 08:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Jjhammett (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Anthony R. DePalma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I work at a university and 1 of the professors down the hall from me asked me to make a wikipage about him. I used all of the information her gave me and I cited his website and his contributions but other than the website and his own words there is nothing else to cite yet every time i resubmit i need more citations. Any suggestions?

Jjhammett (talk) 08:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Every time? I see only the one submission listed above. If you have created multiple copies under different titles, please consolidate them into one and blank the others. You can find any others by looking at the top of the screen and clicking "Contributions".

I have just declined the article, not yet for referencing. I find the prior review to be faulty, and the reviewer is aware that a number of recent reviews were imperfect. We are solving that problem, but there were many. I have declined it for the reasons I have given at the head which I hope are clear. I have not checked your referencing at this stage because I can;t quite determine which is referencing what. I will if you ask me to, once you have tidied the submission up a bit. Well, a lot.

Please may I advise you against a mutual wikipedia article circle. It can be tough when a well respected colleague asks you to create an article, and a refusal may be seen to be career limiting. So please do the best you can, something we will help you with by giving you the best reviewes we can (and we do, usually). But do not be tempted to repeat the prof's exercise in asking another to create an article on you.

WP:ACADEME is also of interest. Do read it. It shows you why Wikipedia is very different form Academe. Fiddle Faddle 09:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have now found Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anthony DePalma. Please choose one or the other to be the one that goes forwards. Merge the relevant information into the one you choose and then, please, empty the one you do NOT wish to proceed with of all content, to signify that it may be deleted. You are allowed to do this to article which you have created and are the sole editor of. Fiddle Faddle 09:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rowantree1850 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Rowantree1850 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am a new user and trying to include my first article which was declined, as the subject, a music hall comedian and actor called Harry Braham (1850-1923)was Not notable and I had not included enough references, I contacted the reviewer for help but have yet to receive a reply so I thought I would contact. The subject acted in numerous plays in the 19th and 20th centuries and appeared in 4 films one of which was Birth of A Nation. His career is verifiable through newspaper articles in the UK, USA, Australia, New Zealand and Jamaica, He performed by special request before the last King of Hawaii, and with Georgie Drew Barrymore and Agnes Booth - a well known actress and sister In law of John Wilkes Booth and toured with and was a friend of The Father of Vaudeville Tony Pastor. I am unsure how to proceed and exactly what references are required, his obituary was included in a number of papers such as New York Times and Variety which also detailed his career, his name is already included in a Wikipedia article on the play The Senator in which he played alongside William Henry Crane for 5 years I hope you can help--Rowantree1850 (talk) 09:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rowantree1850 (talk) 09:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obits are a great source of reference material, assuming they are published in WP:RS. Playbills, not so much, though they do confirm that he was in the cast list. Reviews of his performances are good. Newspaper articles in print or online are excellent. Reading WP:42 may help you a great deal, as will WP:REFB and WP:CITE. Fiddle Faddle 10:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Piwowath (talk · contribs) ^(TB)

I received this response when I first attempted to create this page. I don't know now to proceed.

Hello! Piwowath, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Roger (Dodger67)

Piwowath (talk) 15:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Piwowath: The message on your talk page doesn't explain why your draft was declined; we're working to correct that in the future. You have to go to the draft for the reason. In your case (just like everybody else's case) you don't have sufficient reliable and independent sources with which to make a claim of notability. If you could find discussion of this fire lookout tower in newspapers and published books, you could use those as sources. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 6

July 7

• Eliotevans (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ben Bradshaw (CEO) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi can I please have some feedback as to why my article was not accepted and outline how I can change it to be Wikipedia approved? I need to create an article for Wikipedia about a local business person of note for an assessment piece. I have invested a lot of time into this process and would like to see it complete ASAP but am still figuring this out. Thank you for your time. Eliotevans (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Eliotevans: It sounds like you're operating as a paid editor, which is problematic. Just to address the issues with the article, you'll note large text on the draft indicating Footnote codes go next to the fact they support, not just floating here at the bottom. You should adress that. Please see WP:CITE. Also, any sources like PRWire or PRWeb are just that, self-serving public relations puff pieces. You can't use those for sources, especially not when you need to establish notability. Try using this book to source that he holds a Guinness World Record as well as this article in the Brisbane Times. You want to maximize your journalistic, published sources. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 73.51.89.234 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)

I received a declined message, but there was no explanation. I would like to understand why the article was declined so I know where I can make the appropriate updates. Please let me know what additional information is needed for this article. 73.51.89.234 (talk) 01:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@73.51.89.234: The explanation is on the draft. Please read that. I'll summarize for you: you don't have any reliable sources with which to make a claim of notability. Try using this, this, this, this, this, this, and this. You want to find every news article and published book that talks about the group and use those sources to write the article. You can't just write stuff you think sounds good and provide links to random websites. The sources I provided should be sufficient for you. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That Guy Corp (talk · contribs) ^(TB)

Why was the Gunwolf page rejected? Was it a formatting issue? There are already references to this project on other Wiki pages in regards to the soundtrack but there is no main page that discusses the comic and soundtrack itself, which has been widely covered by mainstream press. That Guy Corp (talk) 04:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined because it had only one referenced source, but you have already understood that and responded to it, so why are you asking us about something you have already dealt with, or is there something else we can help you with? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Barmee (talk · contribs) ^(TB)

I'm not clear if I have now submitted my page for review or not. I know reviews will take time but can you tell me if it is now in the system please? Barmee (talk) 12:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely in, but it has errors. Do look at fixing those and adding more references while it awaits review. Fiddle Faddle 14:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rcicorp (talk · contribs) ^(TB)

I am not sure what else we can do to submit this, this is our second attempt. We have what I would think are very valid citations. Any direction or help would be great. Thanks! Rcicorp (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]