Help desk
< March 4	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 6 >

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.

March 5

Review of User:Tad unger/sandbox

Hello,

I created an article in my sandbox, then used the link to request creation. Some notes were then added, among which are these:

   Warning: This page should probably be located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/sandbox (move).
   Warning: A page with this title exists. Please make sure that this proposed article does not already exist or that it does not need to be moved to a different title.

First, where should I be requesting creation of my article? Second, I have searched many times for this topic and found none; which "title" already exists?

Thanks, --Tad unger (talk) 02:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The warnings are an artefact of the submission template; I fixed that issue by moving the draft to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ed Monk, the preferred location for drafts awaiting review (I chose that title because it's the title used by the Monk biography cited). Basically, the template is bad at guessing what articles should be named, guessed it should be named "Sandbox", and complained because we already have a "sandbox" article.

The draft is awaiting review; we're severely backlogged, so that may take a few weeks. In the meantime, you may want to have another look at the draft's references. I believe you cite but a single independent source on Monk, Oliver's book. A single source may be too little to establish his notability. Have you checked contemporary news sources for coverage of Monk? Huon (talk) 03:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Robert Owen Hutchins

Is it usual practice to ask specific people to contribute to a page? I'm sure Bruce and Cindy Maryanoff could add a lot to this page about their mentor 150.131.111.37 (talk) 05:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Wikipedia content should be based on reliable published sources that are independent of the subject, which precludes personal testimony. Furthermore, the Maryanoffs may have a conflict of interest when writing about their mentor, and our Bruce E. Maryanoff and Cynthia A. Maryanoff articles, apparently largely written by Bruce Maryanoff himself, show that they have some problems with maintaining a neutral point of view in such circumstances. Huon (talk) 06:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the vamps boyband

Pleeeeeeease make a wiki for the vamps boyband? (British) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.41.48.165 (talk) 12:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To request others to write an article, please use WP:Requested articles and its sub-pages, here Wikipedia:Requested articles/music/Performers, bands and songwriters#Va-Ve. Please add a reliable source, such as a link to a newspaper article about the band, to the request so we have something to base the article on. Huon (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

no reason for decline

I am trying to create a page for the Exposome, this is an emerging concept in biomedical science that aims to provide an environmental equivalent to the human genome. The US Government is getting ready to make grants in this area and the European Union made two award a few months ago. This really needs to get out there. The first version was declined for not being sufficiently encyclopedic. It was revised and hours ago it was declined, but not reason was given. Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Exposome

Gwmiller23 (talk) 12:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason given in the latest decline is: "This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner." Decline templates always contain a reason. Roger (talk) 13:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was the reason of the previous decline, the submission template was recently removed by a reviewer without any reason for decline (see: [9]), probably by mistake. The submission template is there once again. Nimuaq (talk) 13:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Ajaysrawat/sandbox

Caption1
Caption2[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

What exactly do you need help with? These references should be added to the draft, immediately after the statement they're supposed to support. See also Referencing for beginners. However, some of the links are broken, some of the sources don't mention Rawat at all, some are primary sources such as Rawat's own book, and none look like reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as news articles about him or peer-reviewed articles (written by others!) discussing his scholarly work. To be considered notable by Wikipedia's standards, Rawat must have been the subject of significant coverage in such reliable sources.

You may also want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest. Writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged because it's difficult to maintain a neutral point of view about oneself. Huon (talk) 16:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resubmitting

I am trying to resubmit my article with amendments - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Thebusinessdesk.com but can't get to the submit command - any help would be great - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snapester2012 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can always manually resubmit an article by adding {{subst:submit}} to the top of it. On a related note, the article as it stands reads far too much like an advertisement - it's not immediately obvious what the site actually is. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few questions about my draft - MWW

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MWW

Below are a couple of questions I need answered as it is my first time posting.

It's a little confusing on my draft page because at the top it says "Article not currently submitted for review. However, at the bottom of the page it says "Review waiting". So I don't know if it is waiting to be reviewed or not.
The warning at the bottom of the "Review waiting" box says "A page with this title exists", however, no article has that title that I could find. Do I need to have the name changed or is it fine?
On the draft page it says: "Template loop detected: Template:AFC submission". I went to that page but was still confused. What do I need to do to fix this "template loop"?

I submitted this article a week ago and am just curious as to what I can to do help make the review process go faster. Thanks!

ZackDouglas (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)ZackDouglas[reply]

Your submission is queued for review, but there is currently a substantial backlog, which means it may take longer than a week. Please be patient. In the meantime, you should look at the sources, as a lot of content cited to prnewswire.com and related sites. The problem with those sites is that they simply print press releases without any fact checking or attention to bias. Therefore, they can't generally be considered independent enough sources for an article to pass. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help regarding the page - Trashness

I have created the page expecting it would be publishes satisfactorily on Wikipedia. But it was speedily deleted. I had so much expectations from the launch of the page. Kindly, please help me how to restructure the page and make it live on Wikipedia. It would be really grateful if I can borrow some help from the experts and administrators to make the page trashness come alive. Hoping I will find speedy reply to my problem. Thanks a lot ! Regards, Aminuddinshroff (talk) 23:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see deleted content, so I cannot comment on the article's specific problems. That said, Wikipedia content should be based on what reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspapers or reputable computer or fashion magazines, say about the subject, and to be considered notable, the blog must have been the subject of significant coverage in such sources. That means the sources should not just mention the blog in passing, but it should be about the blog - multiple sources of at least a paragraph in length each. According to the speedy deletion rationale, the article didn't even give a reason why this isn't yet another run-of-the-mill blog. Please note that while giving such a reason might suffice to ward off speedy deletion, articles may be deleted through other processes - and if the article does not show evidence of notability as explained above, it will be deleted again. If you believe sufficient reliable sources exist to establish the blog's notability, you may want to use the Article Wizard to write a draft and have it reviewed by an experienced user instead of creating the article directly in the mainspace. If the draft is found lacking, it will not be speedily deleted; you will be able to further improve it. However, a quick Google News search did not provide any relevant results; the blog simply may not be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Huon (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind help but I forgot to mention the citation in the article. I have a reliable source which can help the article be published on Wikipedia. Here is the citation : http://www.soletopia.com/2012/10/faces-of-trashness-interviewing-amin-eftegarie-maarten-van-damme/ ! Please review that and get in touch with me asap ! Hoping you will help me with creating the article and getting it published over Wikipedia.

Regards, Aminuddinshroff (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't look like a reliable source to me; there's no indication of editorial oversight. It looks like a store's website with a blog attached, not like a reputable news source. Besides, it's an interview with the founders of trashness, and the founders aren't quite an independent source on their own blog. Even without those problems, as I said notability requires multiple sources. Huon (talk) 00:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]