Help desk
< August 18	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 20 >

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.

August 19

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/RockeTalk

Hello, Can someone fix the formatting and let me know if I have missed out some part. I will be highly thankful for the help. Chatkara (talk) 07:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote an advertisment, not an encyclopedia article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I need to delete the submission of article entitled: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Atlas Centre at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory It is currently awaiting review. How do I go about this?

Ella Baskerville (talk) 08:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That draft was tagged for speedy deletion and has already been deleted. Huon (talk) 10:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eightysix (Andras Vleminckx)

Hello,

My article is still waiting for review, but the reviews before me actually climbed from 800 till 900. Did i do everything correct?

Thank you

Andras Andrasvleminckx (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andreasvleminckx Your submission was sent up only 3 days ago. According to Category:AfC pending submissions by age the currently oldest pending review is 13 days ago. Please wait patiently while others who have been waiting as long as (or potentially longer) than you have gotten their review. Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Perth Cricket Club

Done new article... Perth Cricket Club i am having difficulty in referencing the text with my sources

also i cant seem to add external links i want to show under External links; www.perthcricket.org

can you assist please

many thanks Perth CC (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did some restructuring of the references to make it easier to read and follow along with. Hasteur (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding some content sourced from newspaper and magazine articles would help confirm the notability of the subject. A club with a 150 year history should have quite a lot written about it over the years. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Private Shared Wireless Network

Hello, I am inquiring about the article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Private Shared Wireless Network 2 times in the past I submitted this article and was rejected. I have since followed the guidelines and amendments provided by the editors, and have submitted it twice over the past 2 weeks. Both times I haven't received any feedback. Whereas I received feedback within 2 days on my first two submissions, the past two have received nothing whatsoever. Could someone please help me and tell me if, and what, I am doing wrong?

Thanks,

KeepYourEyesOnTheRoad (talk) 13:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)KeepYourEyesOnTheRoad[reply]

Hello KeepYourEyesOnTheRoad. Your new version of this submission was not reviewed because you had not submitted it for review. You need to put {{subst:submit}} at the top in order to submit it for review. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Glossary of social media terms

Done I have been working on this article: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Glossary_of_social_media_terms

It has been rejected multiple times. About a month ago, I submitted it and was told it was rejected because it was too much like a dictionary entry. That is puzzling considering how many glossaries exist on Wikipedia. When I asked an editor for help, he claimed it had nothing to do with being too much like a dictionary entry and that the problem was my references. I added new references, and now once again it was rejected because it was too much like a dictionary entry. I'm struggling to figure out what has to be done to get this entry accepted. I'll be happy to make any necessary fixes, but it feels like the editors here are playing games.Jb1986 (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Jb1986[reply]

All you have is a directory of social media sites with a small blurb explaining what each is. We already have "groupings" of these in the form of categories (Category:Social networking websites). Your submission does not bring anything new to the table. In addition, all of your references are at the bottom of the page and don't back up specific assertions about the text. We prefer Inline citations as it makes it easier to understand the context of why a reference is being used. Hasteur (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Moksha_Yoga_Center

I would like feedback on this page. Thanks a lot. Ntomlin (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To get feedback you must submit it for review - please add "{{subst:submit}}" at the top of the page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review Article for - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Boxtree

Hello Sir/Madam,

I had recently submitted a creation page under the name of Boxtree. I received an update saying my creation was declined. i was not provided any reason for the article being declined. I would like to know as to why it was declined? Kindly advice as to how I can improve the article so that it can be approved for submission ?

Thanking you,

Yours truly, Ashwin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrhyno2003 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the submission being declined is listed at the top of the page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Boxtree. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Luke2711/sandbox

Done Hi,

I am struggling to correct an article to ensure it appears without criticism. The entry for Inspiration Trust is a very similar trust to the Ark Schools and E-ACT schools entry and yet our appears with criticism. I cannot see the difference and somebody please advice?

Thanks,

Luke — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke2711 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I moved your sandbox to the preferred location for AfC submissions based on the title of the piece. I discovered that an article by that name already exists, so I declined the submission on "Article exists" grounds. Please feel free to improve the live article Inspiration Trust. Hasteur (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]