Help desk
< October 20	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 22 >

Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

October 21[edit]

TEST 1[edit]

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras sit amet nisl odio. Fusce id felis volutpat, sagittis mauris eu, bibendum orci. Aenean commodo venenatis mi sit amet convallis. Nam consequat turpis quis posuere blandit. Pellentesque facilisis fringilla risus ut iaculis. Nullam sollicitudin eleifend justo quis sagittis. Nam adipiscing velit consectetur euismod facilisis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 28jun9 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your test edit worked. Please use the Sandbox for test edits in future. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/WeWi Telecommunications, Inc.[edit]

Dear Help Desk,

I've received a notification of rejection in regards to the following submission: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/WeWi Telecommunications, Inc.

URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/WeWi_Telecommunications,_Inc.

I've tried contacting the reviewer to get a better understanding and there was no response. I've contacted the live help and two members have said that they don't know why it was rejected based on notability:

I've made sure to include reliable resources, including several national newspapers, magazines, a government release/statement about the company and its activities and products etc.

Could you please kindly help me to figure this out?

Thank you for your help in advance!

Best.

DSNR (talk) 08:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now accepted this submission.

You may like to try adding the company's logo (if it has one) to the article; some information about this is at Wikipedia:Logos. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi. It looks like another editor passed your article, and it is now in mainspace at WeWi. The concept of a solar laptop is notable, and this specific company appears to have got a small amount of press coverage due to a major launch of its laptop in Ghana, so it looks like it passes the general notability guidelines for an article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ratan Jalan[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ratan Jalan

I request help in submission of the article. I have edited it two to three times based on the suggestions provided, and I got comment after the second submissions stating that the sourcing and referencing is good. In spite of doing all this things and getting positive comments, I do not know why my article is being rejected for the same mistake which has been rectified and for which the reviewer has given positive remarks. How to believe which is good remark and which is bad remark. Kindly help me out with this submission.I have also now made the correction after the third review based on the comments provided and have resubmitted.

Srinath.Venkat (talk) 08:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The rejection of the submission in its current state seems appropriate to me.

Your submission currently lists eight sources. Three of the eight (currently numbers 4, 5 and 6) are material written by Jalan, not material written about him, and thus are not useful in proving notability. One (currently number 7) is a Wordpress blog and thus of dubious reliability. One (currently number 8) is a link to the website of Jalan's own organisation, thus not independent. And one (currently number 1) is a very short piece that does not provide significant coverage of Jalan and may well be based mostly on a press release.

Your submission would also benefit from the use of wikilinks - see Wikipedia:WIKILINK - so that the reader can easily discern the nature of the concepts and organisations mentioned in the article. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Derek 'DJA' Allen[edit]

Hello Teahouse,

I've been working on this article for some time to get it up to Wikipedia's standards and I'm getting a bit frustrated. It has been declined twice: I agree that the first rejection was merited - essentially I was trying to the get the nice visual editor that I used to start making the article, instead of dealing with the standard wiki editor.

I went back and filled the article with as many secondary "reliable sources" I could find about DJA and even managed to convince a Flickr user to change the licensing on a photo so I could add it to the commons. I felt that I had done enough work to get at least provisional stub status on the article as more editors could help flesh it out. After waiting for a month for a second review I got rejected a second time.

I think the key issue as laid out by the reveiwer is this:

Indented line

Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.

I thought that all my work up until this point did that already.

This is my first major contribution to Wikipedia and its making me a little crazy that it's so hard to make an article for a person who actually, exists, and can be verified by what I consider reasonable standards.

Thank you for letting me rant a bit, and I look forward to working with all of you and becoming a better Wikipedia contributor. Esietukeme (talk) 13:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's guideline for notability of people in the music profession is at Wikipedia:MUSIC. He doesn't seem to meet the criteria there, so you need to make it clear in the article that he has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

It is rather difficult for a reviewer to establish whether you have done so or not. You have 32 references at present. Of these, nine are to Discogs, so presumably only verify the track listings for his works (and thus are not significant coverage). Another six are to HYPETRAK, which seems to give only very short snippets of commentary (a paragraph or two) and thus are not significant coverage.

It may be beneficial to concentrate on quality, rather than quantity, of references. Some reviewers might not have the patience to click through each of thirty-two references looking to see which if any of them contain significant coverage. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eddie Martin (Blues Musician)[edit]

Hello I am working on the article below for submission to wiki on a musician. I want to add photographs and put biographical detals in a box as is usual for musicians. Can I now do this by uploading images. Also is there a tutorial on adding boxes and photos? Can I submit the article prior to adding these at a later date? thanks Nicky Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eddie Martin (Blues Musician) ‎ (current)

Nicky Knowles (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of a tutorial on adding infoboxes and photos.

You can add an infobox either now, or after submitting the article. You would probably use Template:Infobox musical artist.

If you have a freely licensed image, you can add it either now or after submitting the article. Where does the image come from? Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials might be useful. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Your submission name here[edit]

Hi Help Page People,

   Though I've taken a shot at editing this story on and off for about 3-4 years, still consider

myself "a newbie" and when my editing gets rejected, it's not a surprise.

     However I am interested in getting Rick London's article completed; and (given several learning

disorders that I have (not Rick), it is difficult for me to absorb, recognize the Wiki style of editing, writing, etc.

      I believe the first appropriate question is "Why was it rejected?"

      Then, do you think it is better to go to the live chat? or tutorials?  Or both?

      Any help, advice would be appreciated.  I've been Rick's syndication manager for almost a decade.

      Sincerely,

      Mark  (LTcartoons) 206.255.76.97 (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mark! Your submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rick London was rejected for the reasons explained at the top of it. You may need to click the links provided there to read more.

I would recommend trying both the live chat and the tutorials. Perhaps read the tutorials first. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Filip Kovacevic[edit]

Is this article being reviewed? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcontevero (talk • contribs) 17:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not currently submitted for review. You need to click the blue "Resubmit" button in the pink review box at the top of the page, then it will be submitted. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Marine Live-Ice Automobile Expedition[edit]

Elaguin (talk) 19:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

What is your question? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Marla Malcolm Beck[edit]

I have submitted the article Wikipedia talk: Articles for creation/Marla Malcolm Beck several times for review. Once back on May 31. But I keep seeing a message asking me to submit it...Wondering what the problem is? Gremlin700 (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That page is correctly submitted and is awaiting review. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 19:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question on what you feel is "notability".[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Margaret Ledward Laird

This article was denied for two reasons. 1) Insufficient references indicating notability, and 2) notability. I have followed the guidelines on notability and wonder what I need to see that I'm missing. I have eliminated the questionable references indicated and left the clearly verifiable ones. I have edited the article down. One of my guidelines (self-selected) were Wikipedia articles on Joel S. Goldsmith, and Nona Brooks, two of Mrs. Laird's contemporaries in the field of metaphysical healing. Any help is appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1051westsouth (talk • contribs) 20:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]