Help desk
< June 28	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 30 >

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 29

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chartered Financial Consultant

Hi, I submitted an article, "Chartered Financial Consultant," on June 21 to be reviewed again. I'm not sure if I submitted it correctly. Is it in the queue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkreft (talk • contribs) 01:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has indeed been submitted for another review; it carries a "review waiting" message and is categorized among the Pending AfC submissions. There is a severe backlog; please be patient.

You might want to have another look at the draft's references. Several are either primary sources such as the website of the American College or not reliable - in particular, Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source. Huon (talk) 02:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jedn Dabalos

Jedn Dabalos a handsome little boy born in Philippines who likes to be a professional soccer player when he grows up. he is a player in a club called Army Victory FC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.209.108.6 (talk) 03:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Until he is a professional soccer player, he's probably not notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Huon (talk) 08:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

uses

list of various services we use use on a regular basis and their distinct characteristics — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.212.17.183 (talk) 09:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anna Green Winslow

I'm not sure if I have correctly sent a new article to be vetted for publication. I used some creation wizard, and I think it's submitted for review, but I am unsure. The URL is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Anna_Green_Winslow

Thanks! Miss Ivonne (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, was submitted on 24 June and it is listed at Articles for Creation. Expect to wait a couple more days before it is reviewed, there is currently quite a backlog which volunteers are working through. Sionk (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Baraon Raj

Hi , I have added the documents , pictures and other links to support this page.

i am waiting for approval or if there are more questions from the reviewer.

Shashirai (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)shashi rai[reply]

The draft is still very short on sources. Surely there are history textbooks covering Baraon Raj in greater detail than a half-sentence in a biographical sketch of its Raja? (As an aside, that reference should be directly to the Indian Biographical Dictionary, not to Wikisource, though we can link to that Wikisource page for the reader's convenience.) The other source does not mention Baraon Raj at all, makes no connection between the Lok Sabha member and the royal family, and seems like an attempt to mention someone who's irrelevant to the article's topic - see WP:COATRACK.

In particular, the estate's greatest extent and its founding are both unsourced. Both events don't give a date, which should be among the most relevant facts.

You can re-submit the draft for review by using the "click here" link provided in the last reviewer's decline message, but it's unlikely to be accepted unless you can show the estate has been covered to a significant extent in reliable sources. Huon (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Derbyshires

The company in question (Derbyshires), has been trading for over 125 years, but for some reason very little has been written about it, this is why I am creating this page. The problem is I am now being told that I don't have enough reliable sources to publish the page, but that is the reason why I am writing the page. Can you tell me what to do?

Mclacp (talk) 22:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That very little has been written about the store is exactly the wrong reason to create a Wikipedia article. Without enough coverage in secondary sources, the store does not meet our criteria for notability, either the general ones or the more specific ones for corporations, and we should not have an article on the topic. Much of the draft's current content is original research, which is not acceptable on Wikipedia since our content must be verifiable from reliable published sources. Unless more such sources can be found (newspaper articles, for example), we simply shouldn't have an article on this store. Huon (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Instant steve/sandbox

Hi I've just submitted my first "completed" wikipedia article for review - User:Instant steve/sandbox‎.

I also, unfortunately, earlier created a page in error with the same name (but with nothing on it) - User:Instant steve/Spacex Gallery, Exeter‎.

I can't see how/if I can delete the redundant page or otherwise overcome the problem - Can you please advise?

Thanks

Steve Instant steve (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{db-g7}} gives "This page may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a page where the author of the only substantial content has requested deletion in good faith, either explicitly or by blanking the page." That should make the page go away if you are the only editor. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a deletion template to the page, linking back to your deletion request here. It should be gone as soon as an admin takes a look. Huon (talk) 00:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also noted that the draft in your sandbox has rather few reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The trustees' report, Spacex' own website and the Spacex video clearly are not independent, the photographer profile doesn't even mention the gallery, and the remaining sources provide only trivial coverage. Without significant coverage in independent sources, the submission will probably be declined because it does not establish the gallery's notability. The trustees' report mentions coverage by the Guardian and the BBC - can we find that and use it as references? Huon (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]