Help desk
< June 19	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 21 >

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.

June 20

Sughra Rababi

How do I add images to the article page 'Sughra Rababi' I have created and also change its appearance. Thanks, Zeba Vanek — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeba Vanek (talk • contribs) 02:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Technically this help desk is only for questions about the article creation process; once your article has been vreated, you should ask the general help desk instead. Some help on images is available at Help:Images, but since the article is rather short, I don't think it needs more than the one image it currently has. As an aside, you should use inline citations and footnotes so our readers can easily verify which reference supports which of the article's statements. Huon (talk) 08:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carla Olson

huh? what couldn't be confirmed? you have got to be kidding... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.220.120 (talk) 06:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources provided are not reliable. "Personal knowledge", for example, cannot be the basis of Wikipedia content; we require published sources independent of the subject, sources known for fact-checking and accuracy. If no such sources can be found, Olson probably is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Huon (talk) 08:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

help me

i cant publish the article that i want to publish. i have given many reference.. but it is not publish . can any one help me. what should i do. i cant figure out the problem... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmi.bd (talk • contribs) 07:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied in detail at Talk:National Institute of Traumatology and Orthopedic Rehabilitation. Huon (talk) 08:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

pls help

The article National Institute of Traumatology & Orthopedic Rehabilitation has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

   no evidence of notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —

Your submission at Articles for creation ==

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/National Institute of Traumatology & Orthopedic Rehabilitation (NITOR).
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the reviewer's talk page

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Nouniquenames (talk) 18:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

plz help how can i make my article succeed.... its about a hospital of bangladesh

See Talk:National Institute of Traumatology and Orthopedic Rehabilitation. Huon (talk) 08:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Acharya vikas kaushik ji/Acharya VIKAS KAUSHIK JI

Dear Helper,hope u will like my new article.

<ACHARYA> 20:23, 19 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+160)‎ . . User:Acharya vikas kaushik ji/Acharya VIKAS KAUSHIK JI ‎ (→‎Request review at WP:AFC: new section) I wish to know the status rgdg publication of my article in wikipedia pl peruse my article. thx (Acharya vikas kaushik ji (talk) 09:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]

There are some serious issues with your draft. The references provided are primary sources, but Wikipedia content should be based on reliable secondary sources, sources independent of the article's subject and known for fact-checking and accuracy. Such secondary sources are necessary to establish Vikas Kaushik Ji's notability. Furthermore, you should use inline citations and footnotes so our readers can easily verify which reference supports which part of the article. Also, the article currently reads like a hagiography; sentences such as "Little did the family know that, one day, Vikas Kaushikwould join the awesome ranks of men of letters and men of parts,and create history that one could write about." are hardly appropriate in tone.

You might also want ot read our guideline on conflicts of interst. Writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged. Huon (talk) 09:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of JaneMacC

It says at the top of my article that it has not been submitted for review - but it says at the bottom that it has.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Yogandha (practice)

I don't mind waiting - just want to be sure that I have managed to submit it - how can I tell?

Best wishes Sinead JaneMacC (talk) 12:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jane, do you mind providing an updated link to your page? The link that you provided leads to a page that is not yet created or in the works even, and I searched for your page without the (practice) following it and could not find that either. I would love to help if I could find your page, and I remember from creating my own page that it does appear odd at first with both tags on your page but the cleanup bot will remove the tag marking your page as unsubmitted after a while.

As a side note, I apologize to Acharya vikas kaushik ji for the notifications you may receive that do not regard your question. In the future, Jane, please submit your questions as your own thread on this page and not as a part of another user's thread. I have given this its own title and hopefully that should solve this issue

Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Acharya vikas kaushik ji/Acharya VIKAS KAUSHIK JI

Dear Helper, thanks a lot for your feedback.

i have adhered to your request for secondary reference checks and submitted 5 case studies and couple of references which will facilitate in authenticating Acharyajis noteworthy status.

I would be very grateful to you if the same is gladly accepted by you for WIKIPEDIA at the earliest. Kindly acknowledge.

warm regards,

(Acharya vikas kaushik ji (talk) 13:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I'm sorry, but those case studies are not reliable sources. The individuals writing them are not recognized experts on astrology or health remedies. The case studies have apparently been written by invitation, which would in my opinion make them primary sources, not secondary sources. They have not been published with a reputable publisher, making them either self-published or original research, and neither is acceptable on Wikipedia (there are some exceptions for self-published sources if the author is a recognized expert on the subject and has previously had other texts published with a reputable publisher, but those do not apply here). We cannot expect our readers to verify our articles' contents by mailing random people for confirmation, our readers cannot confirm to whom the given gmail addresses belong anyway, and the case studies do not support the draft's content in the first place.

My suggestion would be to look for newspaper articles on Kaushik. Huon (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Helper / Huon : Hi ! Thanks for your feedback, which I appreciate. Yes, your contention, that, the case studies and the sources etc., mentioned do not appear to be authentic apparently, but it is, in reality, just otherwise. The case studies and sources are all authentic, and open to scrutiny and investigation of any sort and at any-point-in-time by any agency anywhere, whatsoever. All of us, globally, have cellphones and individual email accounts, and these are vital for connectivity. The sources, who have been cited and quoted, have given their respective experiential accounts and their insights with assertion. You will be, glad to know, in all certainty, that, immensely reputed media channels including some of the top newspapers and television channels in India have made significant and positive mention, categorically, about Acharya Vikas Kaushik and of his profile , personality, and contributions in the realm of Astrology, Vaastu, Wellness, Yoga, and Astro-Health-Remedies, and all this has been done pursuant to their own inquests.

There is explicit and substantial mention of such media coverage in Acharya Vikas Kaushik’s website : www.astroacharya.com , and you may kindly have a look at it too. You will appreciate that, the weblinks of such coverage have a limited shelf life, but the scanned versions are easily available and accessible on the aforesaid website, and so are the video-Galleries. He has also travelled overseas to the Middle East and Mauritus. Acharya Vikas Kaushik is an exemplary protagonist of the schools-of-thought which are described in the article for publication in Wikipedia. In any dispassionate reckoning, his coverage in a reputed and a non-pareil powerhouse like Wikipedia is warranted, as it will invariably benefit enormous people in more ways than one. He is a precursor of a movement which he represents and which is diametrically different and opposed to occult, with which it may have been confused. May I earnestly request you to reconsider and to do the needful to have him suitably covered in Wikipedia, and, of course, only after having done the assessment and any verification by visiting his aforesaid website and perusing the authoritative media coverage or contacting the recepients of his gracious services which have brought an absolute transformation . I am also including the cell numbers of some references with whom you would like to checkout . Will fervidly look forward to your kind and positive response asap, please .

MR NEERAJ JAIN +91 9871706399 jainastrovaastu@gmail.com

MR ASHISH SRIVASTAVA +91 9971071104 forashishsrivastava@gmail.com

(Acharya vikas kaushik ji (talk) 06:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]

As I explained above in some detail, it does not matter for Wikipedia whether the "case studies" are real or fake. Wikipedia requires its sources to be published by reputable publishers, and if they are not, verifiying that they are indeed real places an undue burden on our readers (and if only a thousand readers per day were to mail those case studies' authors for confirmation, it would place an undue burden on them, too). The media coverage mentioned on Kaushik's website may serve as reliable secondary sources, but then we should use those media reports directly, with enough bibliographical information such as the newspaper, the publication date and, if possible, the author. Since those sources are non-English, per WP:NOENG we'd have to provide an English translation of the relevant parts. And most importantly, the Wikipedia article should be based on such news coverage; it's not enough to point out that it exists. For each possibly contentious statement of the article (such as the claim that Kaushik "is a much-sought-after astro and spritual guide to innumerable people both, in India and overseas" - as an aside, I doubt the people are truly innumerable), we should provide a footnote with a reliable secondary source explicitly confirming that statement. Huon (talk) 08:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Steve Schlanger

Changes have been made to this submission but every time I hit "Save", it immediately takes me back to the original page that says the submission was declined. What should I do?

Also, everything includes references that mention Schlanger and supports the claims that he has done or is doing the things that are listed in the article. Don't know what additional info would add more credibility since these are factual accounts. He has or is on several national T.V. networks and will be featured prominently on NBC at the London Olympics.

Please advise.

SessoccerSessoccer (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "decline" message is still the old one; consider it a historical record: When the draft is re-submitted, the next reviewer will see what problems the last one found, and can check if those issues were addressed.

The references are a mixed bag. Several are to Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors, and that would be circular referencing; Wikipedia does not accept itself as a reliable source. The Google Docs were unaccessible to me. Still others were primary sources such as the Ski Channel announcing its new program with Schlanger. The very first one, "St. Louis A.I.R. Awards 1998 Best Sportscaster" does not provide a source at all, and even if there was a source for that award, it's supposed to support the claim that Schlanger won multiple awards. Most of the rest only provide trivial coverage. The only source that does more than mention Schlanger in a single sentence is the CSTV moderated chat, and since CSTV is Schlanger's employer, that's a primary source again. What we need are reliable secondary sources which provide significant coverage of Schlanger. Huon (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Clone A Willy

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Clone A Willy

Hello! I am wondering if you can help me with this wiki contribution. It keeps getting rejected, but I have included more inline references, external and internal, than many other pages I see. Also I had the pictures I used approved by the manufacturer of this product. The feedback I've received is just the standard vague 'you need more references' or 'you need more reliable sources.' Could you help me by suggesting some specific things that might help? All of the sources I've linked to are reliable; is there a certain genre that my page is missing?

Thanks, Tabitha (Offthetwig (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Unfortunately quite a few of the sources you linked to are not reliable: User-submitted content, blogs and personal websites usually do not come with any editorial oversight or the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy we require. Other sources, while reliable, do not support the statement they were cited for: The article says Clone A Willy "received acclaim from sexologists, erotica aficionados including the notorious Storm Large [...]" - and the reference only says Storm Large once worked for the company. That's not "acclaim". Many of the reviews point to the Clone A Willy website instead of the original publication, and that website does not provide sufficient information to identify the original issues of the publications that featured the reviews. If those reviews could be sourced to the original publication, they might indeed be reliable sources - but the article's content would have to be based on such sources, too, and they shouldn't just be added as an afterthought.

As an aside, you should use footnotes for your inline citations. That allows you to add bibliographical information, such as the authors and dates, to the sources without cluttering the article text. Huon (talk) 07:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Adam Carmer

Hello, I'm new a this, but I submitted this article a little over a week ago, and I was kind of hoping I could get an idea from someone about how long the process takes as to whether it is approved or not. I appreciate any help. Thanks!Gary.mexico (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The oldest drafts currently awaiting review date from June 9. There is a severe backlog; please be patient.

As an aside, your draft currently does not use real footnotes. By enclosing the footnote text in <ref></ref> tags, putting it directly after the text to be supported by that footnote, and adding a {{reflist}} template in a separate "References" section at the very end of the article, you can create footnotes in Wikipedia's standard format. Huon (talk) 07:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joe Harris

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joe Harris

Hi there - it seems someone has created an article at roughly the same time along very similar lines - on that basis this can be deleted or merged

BenWalden (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since your draft has several sources the live article lacks, I'd suggest you add them to the article before we delete the draft. You can nominate the draft for speedy deletion by adding {{db-user}} to the very top. Huon (talk) 07:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]