Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2012 May 29

Help desk
< May 28	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 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.

May 29

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Yoga Swing

Hi, I have gotten feedback from a couple reviewers and made changes. One suggessted to delete 'styles' 'set-up and use' and 'names and terms' sections although I was modeling those sections after the similar secions found on Hammock: keep those sections out or bring them back in? What other changes does this article need in order to be wiki-worthy? Thank You! Marchild (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It still needs much better references. For example, those in the "hype" section are not reliable sources (A Facebook page? Really?), and the entire section does not seem like encyclopedic content. If some reliable secondary source had commented on the hype, we could add some content based on that coverage, but repeating the hype itself will get the article declined because it reads like an advertisement. Most other sources are primary sources; the scientific article and the poster do not mention Yoga swings. Unless significant coverage in reliable secondary sources can be shown to exist, yoga swings appear non-notable, and Wikipedia should not have an article on them. Regarding the "styles" and "set-up and use" sections: Once again you would need secondary sources to base such sections on. If you can find them, go ahead and re-add the sections (except that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide and should not contain instructions on set-up; that's not what the hammock section on set-up contains, and that article also suffers from a lack of sources for those sections anyway - not an example to be emulated). Huon (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Street Children in Eastern Europe

Hi I wrote an article but I dont know if it has been approved. I can edit it and save changes. How do I resubmit for approval? Thanks Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Street Children in Eastern Europe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cc3269 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The draft has not been submitted for review because there is a curly bracket missing. But you have created an article in mainspace, Street children in eastern europe. (Both capitalizations seem wrong per the manual of style; the article should probably be moved to Street children in Eastern Europe.) Since there already exists a version of the article in mainspace, I don't think submitting the draft for review would serve any purpose. Huon (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Qfinance

Hi,

We have been back and forth for a few months now on this article draft which keeps getting turned down. We make some progress with an editor then it gets turned down by another.

We fixed referencing issues, but any time we put in notability references (awards, reviews etc) we get turned down as it reads like an advert. We take them out and we are told we need to include confirmation of its notability! This is the world's foremost financial encyclopedia written by 300 leading, international finanical experts. The current revision is clear and unbiased and includes 3 references confirming the notability of the publication. I just dont understand how a few minor local celebrities can get a wikipedia page but the leading international finance encyclopedia, published by an international publisher, cant be accepted.

Would appreciate some help with this. Thank you, Saarum (talk) 12:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The current revision's references are not reliable secondary sources by Wikipedia's standards: Two blogs and the Financial Times' announcement about its own upcoming conference. The first two are not reliable, the third is a primary source. Similarly, in the "advert" version of the draft, the link provided for the award was again to a primary source. The reviews seem indeed to be reliable secondary sources, but those sources are what the article should be based on; they should not just be shown to exist. For example, if an independent news piece reported on the award, that should be used as a reference for the award. Huon (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Koolagan

I dont understand why my submission for Koolagan was rejected?

bmono24 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmono24 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Your submission doesn't explain why the subject is notable. To establish notability, you would need to demonstrate that the website has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, which are not affiliated with the company or its owner. At the moment the article provides no references at all. For further information see the guidelines laid out at Wikipedia:Notability (web). All the best, France3470 (talk) 13:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

bmono24, there are a couple of issues with your article that you will need to address before your article can be published. First, as was stated in the review box, you have no sources for any of your information. Wikipedia is based upon reliable secondary sources to achieve neutral, fact-based articles written in encyclopedia style. With no sources, the information you have in your article is unverified and cannot be published. Second, your article reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia entry. This line in particular, "Koolagan was started with the intentions of having members discover new friends, date, social network and discover things through meeting new people", stands out to me as a promotional statement. Rather than focusing on the services of the company, which can be listed in generalities, focus on the history of the company and why it is notable enough to have its own article. Try reading through some other pages about companies to get a feel for what kind of information should be on Wikipedia. Finally, there is nothing listed in your article to denote why Koolagan is notable. What differentiates it from other dating or social discovery sites? What impact has it had on the industry? Things like these would be good to add in to show why Koolagan needs its own page.

In summary, here are some things that you should focus on:

• Reliable, secondary sources
• Neutral tone
• Notability of Koolagan

Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Anna Maria Busse Berger

Why is this article still marked as having "multiple issues"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophia432sophia234 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I made a few changes and removed the tags, they were from 2007 when the article was in a rather poor state. Looks like your additions have sorted it out. All the best, France3470 (talk) 13:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophia432sophia234 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nina G. Vaca

Recently my article for creation, Nina G. Vaca, was rejected for having a biased point of view. Upon rereading the article, I did notice some areas where that was the case and I went through to rewrite those sections with a neutral point of view. However, I wanted to get an outside point of view on where I might have missed some biased section. Having worked with this article for a while now, I'm so familiar with it that it is a bit harder to objectively pick out these sections and an outside view would be tremendously helpful. I don't want to contribute to the backlog for reviews before I'm sure that I've addressed the neutrality issue. If anybody could give my article a quick readthrough and point out anywhere I might have missed that would be amazing! Thanks very much! Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Some suggestions: Firstly, we should refer to an article's subject by surname, not by given name (there are some exceptions, such as artists who use their given name as stage name, but I don't think any apply to Vaca). Secondly, the article at times seems to veer off-topic: Why is Pinnacle's acquisition of Provade important enough to Vaca to be mentioned in the lead? Thirdly, the "Notable Achievements" section still seems rather laudatory to me. Could it be incorporated into the "Marriage, Family, and Career" section - possibly take the "Career" part and make it a section of its own? In particular, the Ernst & Young award only has a primary source, but is used to compare Vaca to various (more?) famous people. If no secondary source makes that comparison, neither should we. Also, the article seems to devote undue weight to Vaca's private life. Two and a half out of four sections deal with issues she's not really notable for. I would suggest subsuming the first section into the second and splitting off the "marriage and family" part into a (short) section of its own. As an aside, Wikipedia's section headings do not use title case; only proper nouns (and the very first letter) should be capitalized.

Thank you very much for your input! Those are some really good suggestions and I'll get right on them. Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 15:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Andy Biersack

Dear Wikipedia,

The entire day, I've been researching on a vocalist named Andrew Biersack. My goal was to make a Wikipedia article about this man. I've been reading everything regarding creating an article, and everything was fine. I had references and sources, everything is filled in right. However the system of Wikipedia wasn't content with my article because the sources weren't reliable. Vocalists of rock bands are never stated in some kind of official website, never. Still there are many musicians out there with Wikipedia articles, much less known than Andrew Biersack.

The sources I've implied give much the same and fresh, new information, which means the content of those sources is reliable. Since information about a Rock band Vocalist/Bassist/songwriter isn't to be found anywhere on newspapers' websites, magazines' websites, any website like those. All the information there is to get comes from fan sites. Plus, the blog implied is something that Andrew Biersack has written himself. I have to admit that I changed some critical words to be free from copyright.

My point is, if you want to make a Wikipedia article about someone like this man, you simply can't. Less known people have got an article, which are obviously full of "unreliable" sources as I've used myself. If someone would read the websites I've listed as sources, he/she could definately imply that the information is reliable, with some common sense of course.

Hopefully you could make some kind of exception because I think this article should excist. It makes perfect sense and I'm not validating any kind of law.

Yours sincerely,

DClover41

DClover41, I read through your article and the first thing I noticed was that it had quite a few formatting issues without headers and with repeats and things of that nature. Fixing that is a good first step because it makes the article much easier to understand and review. Also, your article reads more like a fan page than an encyclopedia entry. Details like his favorite color and his favorite band are unimportant. Fan pages are not reliable sources since they are, by nature, extremely biased. Try to find a bio or something written by an unbiased third party to base your information off of. If you can't find any sources like that, then chances are that Andy Biersack isn't notable enough to have his own page. Remember to focus on important and notable facts and not opinions. His personal story that he wrote isn't important. If there are any important facts contained within it, then those facts can be found in a reliable secondary source that does its own fact checking. Secondary sources are preferable for that reason - they check their facts and thus the facts are verified. Wikipedia can't go and check all the facts and so it uses pre-checked information. Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed many of the repetitions; there was a broken reference tag that caused problems. Other than that, I agree with Patrick Bradshaw that the article would need to show significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to establish that Biersack is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Many of the current sources are user-submitted content and not considered reliable (one even was blacklisted). Huon (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Quadrant (company)

How do you find and cite credible sources for an article like Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Quadrant (company) that doesn't have very many sources?

Drsteam (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Drsteam

Drsteam, most of your sources are directly from the company itself. Those sources are considered unreliable because the company is a very biased source for information about itself. Try to find articles about Quadrant written by journals or verifiable news networks because secondary sources do their own fact-checking and are thus more reliable. You can use search engines like google to find online articles or contact the company to see if they have a collection of outside articles that have featured them (make sure to check these for bias as well). Also, quite a bit of your article is written in such a way that it seems to advertise Quadrant. Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and thus can contain only facts, not opinions. The Positive Recognition section seems highly biased just from the title. If you want to include reactions to the company, you must include all reactions, positive and negative (all that exist/are prevalent with reliable sources). The Current Activities section may not be appropriate for an encyclopedia since it soon won't be current and does contain notable information. If there are any activities of the company that are particularly notable and have reliable sources (note how everything must come from a reliable source) then it may be a good idea to make a section for those activities and explain why they are notable. I hope this helps! Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kreemo

Hello! I received a message stating that an article I submitted for creation was rejected because it violated an internet article that came out in 2011. The article that it referenced is one that I have NEVER seen before. What should I do to get the process moving again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.50.104.81 (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The only thing you can really do is start over. Make sure to write everything in your own words and don't copy and paste directly from sites (even if you cite them). This may have been a coincidence and if so it was a freak event and probably won't happen again. If it wasn't, then now you know to watch out for copyright violations. Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 16:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I had a look at the supposed copyright violation, and I have no idea why it was considered one. However, there were other serious issues: You did not use inline citations or footnotes, making it very hard to verify which source supports which statement. Many of the references were not reliable sources (most blogs and YouTube videos are not considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards). Parts of the draft were written more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article. There might even be issues of notability: Unless there is significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, the topic is unsuitable for a Wikipedia article. Huon (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David L. Weisburd

Hi,

I'd like to dispute the rejection of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David L. Weisburd. The reviewer noted that this revision didn't adequately show Professor Weisburd's notability. My entry outlines his many contributions to the field of criminology, and they fact that he won the Stockholm Prize in Criminology (this is criminology's equivalent of the Nobel Prize in other fields) speaks clearly to that. As do his multiple referenced publications in top journals, and interviews linked to by top newspapers like the New York Times and the Jerusalem Post (which I added in this revision in response to the first reviewers comments).

Moreover, the decision on this page is inconsistent with the standards that were used to approve Wiki entries for other criminologists. For instance, the entry for Lawrence Sherman (one of Weisburd's contemporaries and co-authors on some works) is very similar in format, but has fewer references and none to newspapers or magazines. With academics there just isn't going to be a huge amount of media sources as they're mostly just publishing in peer reviewed journals and not getting a lot of mainstream recognition even when having a huge impact on their field. The fact that Weisburd has won the Stockholm Prize and been interviewed by major newspapers should be sufficient to show his notability for a Wikipedia entry given the prestige of the prize and how rarely criminologists are quoted in major national newspapers.

As such, I ask that the review decision be reconsidered given that Weisburd's notability is more clearly demonstrated and backed with sources in this entry than what is found in existing entries like Lawerence Sherman's.

Thanks for your consideration.

Joshhinkle (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Joshhinkle, while I don't have any authority over disputing the rejection of your article, I did read it over and noaticed a few things. First off was your references. You make a good point about academic journals being an important and valid source, and I believe that they can be when they are written by Dr. Weisburd's peers. However, publications written by Dr. Weisburd himself (which make up a good portion of your references) are not valid sources because of their inherent bias. Because of this, Wikipedia's policy states that the information is not verifiable and thus it is unclear whether Dr. Weisburd is notable. I want to echo Sarah here when she said that Dr. Weisburd is indeed notable and worthy of having his own page, it just needs reliable secondary sources. Also, there are several instances where your word choice seems a bit out of place for an encyclopedia. Words like "prestigious", "importance", "significant contributions", etc. denote a bias toward Dr. Weisburd which doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Also, the Awards and Honors section goes along with this bias, reading like an advertisement. Perhaps combine that section with the Research section to better show the link between his work and the resulting award. That would allow you to keep that information (which is indeed notable) but without singling it out so that it reads like an endorsement. All in all, you've got a very good start and there's just a few little things to fix. Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 18:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Sarah and Patrick are correct that there are problems with the article. But they are not reasons to reject the article at AfC. The newspaper sources clearly demonstrate that Weisburd is an important academic. He also holds a 'Distinguished Professor' post, so meets the notability requirements outlined in WP:PROF on at least two counts. The problem with finding better, secondary sources for some of the other information can be dealt with after the article has been created. Sionk (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Susan Smith (Athlete)

Draft article wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Susan Smith (Athlete)

I typed the following: Susan Smith (born 14 September 1971 in Waterford city, Ireland) is a retired Irish sportsperson. As a young athlete she competed for her local club St Paul's Athletic Club until she lost her juvenile eligibility at age eighteen. She then joined her local senior club Waterford Athletic Club for whom she competed until her retirement in 2000. She is considered by many to be Waterford's finest-ever female athlete.

The reviewer left the following comment about this submission: This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources.

I then went to Live Help Chat and was told that I needed to provide reliable sources to prove that she competed for St Paul's AC, Waterford AC and that she was considered to be Waterford's finest-ever female athlete. As an example I was told that Paris is the capital of France but that if I posted that statement then I would have to support it with a reliable source. Ok! If that's what it takes I shall do it but I can see that my wiki page will be full of references. Is there any way I can avoid this? Can you give me an example re PARIS above?

Thanks in anticipation

(Scotty1891 (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC))

Scotty1891, I'm not sure why you were given the example of Paris being the capital of France needing a reference because that just isn't true. You can look at the Paris, France page and see that it is not referenced. However, that is an odd case of hyperbole. What they mean is that you need to find reliable, secondary sources that talk about Smith's participation in St Paul's AC and Waterford AC. Currently you have no sources, and you need to reference your material to show that the information is factually valid and that Smith is notable enough to have secondary sources written about her. Also, you will need to find a couple reliable sources that talk about her being one of Waterford's finest-ever female atheletes because that lends itself very easily into being an opinion. Good luck! Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

(talk) 19:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC Gotcha! I'm still puzzled however because if you look at the two-sentence wiki article about Charlie Ware (see below) you will note that although e second sentence is referenced the reference does not confirm anything about the statements made. How did that article pass muster?

Charlie Ware (1900–1984) was an Irish sportsperson. He played hurling with his local club Erin's Own and was a member of the Waterford senior inter-county team from the 1920s until the 1940s.[1] References ^ "Waterford GAA profile". www.hoganstand.com. Retrieved 2010-04-09.

Thanks for your speedy reply. (Scotty1891 (talk) 20:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC))

Thank you for bringing the Charlie Ware article to our attention, I've marked it for notability issues and it will go further up the line for refinement or possible deletion if no notable sources can be found. For athletes, primary sources are good for establishing facts about their professional performance, but secondary sources are still needed to show the athlete's notability and impact on their sport or in the community. Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Great Canadian Dollar Store

I am having a hard time trying to figure out what to put in the article for creation to make it verifiable. We have had articles written about us in newspapers as well as a trade publication but I have gone on to their websites and cannot find them in their archives to be able to link them to Wikipedia. Is this the type of information that would be considered verifiable? Also, if I cannot find it in their archives and yet we have been written about and I have copies of it in our office, is there anything else we can do?

Giovanni50 (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Great Canadian Dollar Store

Giovanni50, the articles written in newspapers are good sources, just try to cite them as best as you can. Look for articles or other reliable secondary sources online because it is convenient for reviewers to be able to link and be sure of copyright issues, but there is a sort of honor code for wikipedia with written sources. Again, I encourage you to find online sources as well because they make fact-checking much easier and I can't guarantee that the article will pass review without any, but it depends on the reviewer. This site may help some: Wikipedia:Sources#Sources. Hope that helps! Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Real Life Super Villains

Moved from reviewer talk by Nathan2055 (talk · contribs)

Hi everyone!

I am trying to get a page on Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Real_Life_Super_Villains

I don't understand what I have to do to get in on the actual Internet (as of right now, we can't find anything when searching on wiki: "Real Life Super Villains".

Can someone please help me?

Thanks in advance, Nadia (Nikky1976) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikky1976 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

:Hi, this is a project administration talkpage, please ask for assistance with editing basics at the Wikipedia:Help desk. Pol430 talk to me 19:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Pol430 talk to me 21:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Nadia, to start a page for "Real Life Super Villains", simply search for "Real Life Super Villians" on the wikipedia page and then click the red link "Real Life Super Villians" right below your search. There should be a line that says You may create the page "Real Life Super Villians", but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered. After clicking that, you can begin to create your page. That's the normal process to creat a page, just replace "Real Life Super Villians" with whatever you would like to create a page for. In this case, you can click on the red link in this message and that will get you started creating your page. Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Probably not the best idea with regard to this particular submission. It needs a significant amount of ref-improve to establish notability. If it were created in the mainspace in its present form it would likely be swiftly nominated for deletion. Pol430 talk to me 21:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The draft is currently awaiting review; that will take some time because there's a mssive backlog. But as it stands right now, it needs more reliable secondary sources. All it has (except a single Metro article) is user-submitted content such as blogs or YouTube videos, none of which has the "reputation of fact-checking and accuracy" needed to count as a reliable source on Wikipedia. I don't think the one remaining article constitutes the "significant coverage" required for a topic to be considered notable by Wikipedia's standards. For comparison, the real-life superhero article shows coverage by the BBC, CNN, La Repubblica and The New York Times, among others. Huon (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I feel dumb! Thank you Huon for helping Nadia out; my internet must have glitched when I tried to open the article for creation and showed that it had not yet been created. I want to echo Huon with everything he said and point out that you use Wikipedia as a reference a couple of times which is a bit no-no. That is a case of circular reasoning because each page then supports the other, neither of which is verifiable. Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 21:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jeffrey Alfred Legum

I would like to get some advice as to what needs to be done to get the submission approved. It has been declined twice. Mr. Jeffrey A. Legum is a notable person and there are reliables sources and more than enough references. Please let me know what else can be done. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jalegum (talk • contribs) 21:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Sdmjohn (talk) 21:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Jalegum, I'm not sure why the sources are considered unreliable, but from my quick read-through, it seem like there is a lot of unnecessary information about Mr. Legum. Please limit the information that you put on the article to what is notable. It may be that the reviewer was thrown off by all of the excess material and failed to really get the core of your point. Also, from your name it appears that you may have a conflict of interest in writing this article. Please be conscious of Wikipedia's unbiased policy; all information in the article must be verifiable by unbiased secondary sources and there can be no lean toward a certain opinion of Mr. Legum. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and thus must stick to the facts. Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 21:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Some of the references (such as the letters from various notables) are primary sources. Besides, they don't say what they're cited for - while a letter from the Reagan administration may or may not indicate that Legum met Reagan, it's unlikely to state that Legum considers himself lucky to have met Reagan. Many other sources are old newspaper articles. In principle newspaper articles are reliable sources, but unfortunately it's hard to check what they actually say if they're too old to exist online. Some of the newer ones should exist online, such as the 2011 New York Times piece. Finding an online source will be of great use to our readers, most of whom will have trouble to find a print copy. Even worse, some entries are so vague that I wasn't even able to identify which nespaper I should look for: There's no shortage of The Suns to choose from, and the most notable is the UK version which is probably the wrong one (the correct one is probably The Sun (Lowell)). The Google News archive may help to find online sources, though the ones I could look at just used Legum as a spokesperson.

Furthermore the article's tone is rather unencyclopedic. It usually calls Legum by his given name instead of his surname; I mentioned the "considers himself lucky" example; "The result? They used it" (the Avis ad incident that refers to is also unreferenced, by the way). And the "Timeline" section, which seems a list of newspaper articles mentioning Legum, should be turned into running text. Right now some of the entries are not even whole sentences.

In summary, Legum probably is notable, and the newspaper articles may show his notability, but sources not available online, while theoretically acceptable, are problematic in practice. I'm aware this explanation isn't very helpful, and by the book the article probably should have been accepted (though it would need some major editing to bring it in line with Wikipedia's style guidelines and to fix the tone).

My immediate suggestions would be to try and find what online references you can, to make sure that the references to print editions of newspapers are good enough to allow readers to identify the newspaper and issue in question, and, most importantly, to make sure that the sources do support the statements they are cited for. Huon (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Changing Title

i noticed in "The Flanagain Hotel(Malone NY)" that i mispelled the title it should be "The Flanagan Hotel(Malone NY)" . How do i change it? or can you?

I have moved it to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Flanagan Hotel(Malone NY). If it gets accepted, it will probably change even more; there should be a space between "Hotel" and the parentheses, and a comma between "Malone" and "NY". Possibly we should spell out New York, too. All those changes can be made once the article is accepted, though. Huon (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mob Attraction Las Veas

How do I add an info box?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdmjohn (talk • contribs) 22:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

By adding code like {{infobox museum}} (or whatever infobox you want to add). See National Museum of American History for an example of that infobox in action; Help:Infobox provides more help on infoboxes. Huon (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/lynie joe bucayu

Lynie Joe Bucayu or what we know it as Lynie. Born in September27,1998 in Quezon,Cityher,her hometown was in Binan,laguna parents Milagros Bucayu and Godofredo Bucayu.She was the youngest among the three siblings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.82.178 (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The request is currently awaitng review; please be patient. But as it currently stands, it has no reliable sources at all, and judging by the content, the article's topic appears non-notable by Wikipedia's standards. Also have a look at out guideline on biographies of living persons. If the article's subject is yourself, you should also be careful not to disclose identifying personal information (Wikipedia also strongly discourages autobiographies). Huon (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)