Help desk
< November 29	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	Current help desk >

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.

November 30

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Inter-Tribal_Resource_Center

someone please look for this article and tell me what i should add or maybe help be write it! It is a for the Native American Center located at the University of California, San Diego. Thre are plenty of articles and resources out there about it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naskgetty (talk • contribs) 04:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Try adding some more information. Also, it needs some cleanup. I did some myself, but the article still needs s'more work before it's Wikipedia-quality. Also, in the future please sign your name (type four tildes (~'s) at the end of your post) when you write something in this Help desk. Thanks for the submission! Newyorkadam (talk) 08:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]

Thank you so much for helping me, please take a look at it now and tell me what you think of it. I may have placed it in the wrong area. I am just putting all the resources into the article and expanding on it.. Though slowly... Anyone want to help me expand on it? :)Naskgetty (talk) 09:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Yasuto Mushiake/sandbox

The name of the article I edited is "Self-complementary Antenna". If this title is not accepted,I would like to propose a new name "Constant-impedance Antenna". The new article can be edited easily by adding a few lines to the top of the old article.== Reply to your Articles for Creation Help Desk question on Self-complementary Antenna ==

Hello, WikiProject Articles for creation! I'm Yasuto Mushiake. I have replied to your question on the Articles for Creation Help Desk about Self-complementary Antenna.
You can read it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#(section).--Yasuto Mushiake (talk) 12:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC) --Yasuto Mushiake (talk) 06:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Adams Middle School (Edison, NJ)

Should I make any improvement to my article. RainWizard29422 (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joshua Greene (psychologist)

I submitted this article for review, and the editor asked for some changes. I have a few questions about the requests.

(a) The editor asks for "his two or three most important articles, with citation figures." Should I get the citation counts from, say, Google Scholar? And how do they get put into the article? As an example, for Steven_Pinker#Articles_and_essays, there are articles but no citation counts.

(b) The editor says "List all book reviews that have been in published sources -- a mention in someone else's thesis does not count." However, the thesis that I think the editor referred to was Greene's own thesis. I was pointing out that his book echoed his earlier thesis. I'm not sure if I should remove that sentence.

(c) The editor says, "Describe his work, don;t try to justify it." I can't identify specific sentences where this advice needs to be applied....

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian Tomasik (talk • contribs) 19:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I ended up making guesses about these and resubmitting. I moved the thesis, so (b) is no longer relevant. For (a), I listed the top 3 articles and citation count. For (c), I didn't do anything. I'll see what the next feedback is. Brian Tomasik (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Proposal of a new title.

== Reply to your Articles for Creation Help Desk question on Self-complementary antenna. ==

Hello, WikiProject Articles for creation! I'm Yasuto Mushiake. I have replied to your question on the Articles for Creation Help Desk about Self-complementary antenna..
You can read it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#new section.I propose a new title "Constant-impedance antenna. Old description can be changed easily by adding a few lines of explanation.--Yasuto Mushiake (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/List of Rhode Island International Horror Film Festival award winners

I've been having a problem with an AFC nomination I wrote back in August and it was suggested I ask on this page. To make a long story short, User:Hasteur has repeatedly declined the article. He has given sarcastic answers in the edit summary page (e.g. "An IP knows better than a Editor... NO") when I've asked how this fails guidelines at WP:AFC or WP:LIST. User:Crisco 1492 eventually brought the issue to ANI. I resubmitted the list in good faith a few weeks ago, after checking with Crisco, but Hasteur has simply replaced his original decline message apparently without even reading the article. I think at this point that I've done far more than what's required by the AFC submission form. Would it be possible to request a second opinion from another reviewer? 72.74.214.254 (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor should tell the truth and not attempt to whitewash the events in their favor. IP editor should wait their turn. There is no WP:DEADLINE. IP editor should know after having been reminded multiple times that they are not supposed to remove AFC declines as it as been explained to them multiple times now. IP editor should understand that the reason why we keep the previous declined AfC submission banners is to see what progress has been made on the article since the last time it was submitted and declined. Obviously we'd prefer it to not have to wait 4 weeks, but there are a lot of pending AfC submissions, so because your submission has been declined once, it could be that volunteers are not inclined to give your submission as much effort. I have restored the AfC process banner as per the generally accepted behavior in AfC (which you still refuse to accept) and because you've significantly objected to my reviewing the submission I've kept my hands off the re-review of the page. Your submission will (hopefully) be evaluated soon, untill then please don't petition for a line-jumping attempt, as you've done here. Hasteur (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hasteur, it's a simple request for a second opinion. Why must you get so defensive? The only reason I haven't approved the article is because last time you chose to make it a drama fest. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't wikipedia based on an assumption of good faith? The initial stones that the IP has thrown makes the "AGF is not a suicide pact" become active. The IP is in the same rangeblock, so having to explain the issue over and over burned the AGF. Hasteur (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this enquiry from the Reviewers Talk Page to the Helpdesk

Having looked at the list article I can't see any reason to decline it. The Award is evidently notable and it makes sense to create a sub article to list the winners. Maybe the sourcing and the wording of the lede paragraph could do with improvement, but there is no reason this couldn't be done in mainspace. Sionk (talk) 00:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strike that! I think I see where Hasteur was coming from, having re-read the decline message two or three times. The lists of winners are cited to the Film Festival website, with little evidence that the general announcement of the winners has been the subject of significant independent news coverage. Hasteur is asking for a justification of the creation of this sub-page. After all, Wikipedia isn't the place simply to replicate lists of information from an organisation's website. Very major awards get coverage of their awards ceremonies, while I'm not entirely convinced (by the evidence) that the International Horror Film Festival gets anywhere near the same attention. The problem was also discussed (tangentially) at the DYK nomination for the Rhode Island International Horror Film Festival where the same concerns were expressed. Do any newspapers or magazines cover the awards ceremony/awards list in depth?

On the general issue of the argument between IP 72 and Hasteur, I'd probably advise against the same editor declining the same article with the same bespoke reason on multiple occasions - it begins to look like things are being taken personally. Second opinions (and other means of explaining the problem) are always handy! Sionk (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect Hasteur declined the article because the lead wasn't long enough. If you've read the DYK discussion you'll see I was told by at least two editors that the article itself was "ok" as it was but suggested I add "one or two" secondary sources. I'd already added over 20 references when Hasteur rejected the article. There are currently 28 references listed in the article. Only 12 are from the official RIIHFF website. And to answer your specific question at least one reference, "Warwick native among winners in Flickers RI International Horror Film Festival" (Providence Journal), talks about the subject (i.e. winners ceremony) in depth.

There's plenty of film award articles that use primary sources to list winners. For example, List of Sundance Film Festival award winners uses the official website to source the winners. So do all of the Cannes Film Festival awards and I could list a dozen others. There's also plenty of featured lists (e.g. 2001 NFL Draft) that use primary sources. I'm still not sure what the issue is regarding this list but if it's such a big deal can't it just be merged into the main article? 72.74.214.254 (talk) 17:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With absolutely no respect (because you've explicitly demonstrated that you are not a newbie and have Assumed bad faith multiple times), You've now gotten a second editor who has agreed with my position. The DYK nomination has proceeded and was featured, so drop any sort of shield waving of "We need it for the DYK to succeed". Sundance and Cannes are significantly notable film festivals so it does make sense (see Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF for why that argument is a fallacy). How does this list of information qualify to be included in Wikipedia? Hasteur (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to Sionk, the article was declined only once. The IP address (and their white knight protectors) were more interested in hiding the previous decline message and trying to sneak it through as an original review rather than see that the page had been reviewed previously and had been declined for a specific purpose in a type of "If dad say's no, ask mom" type of forum shopping. For this reason, I keep the page on my watch list for when they try to deviously get a new review without all the facts being present. Hasteur (talk) 17:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 1

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Samaya Holding

Resolved

I had created a page for Samaya holding and it was not approved. Since I am new to wikipedia, I might have made a mistake but I don't know what exactly! Could anyone please guide me on this issue? I hope you understand that I am a wikipedia novice. Thanks in advance.Samayaholding (talk) 12:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, have you read the detailed advice in the pink box at top of your draft? Note also, phrases like The company's passion for work and enthusiasm drives it to achieve higher goals and greater success, both for Samaya itself and its clients. ... are blatantly advertising and positively not allowed. Lastly, you need to change your username, as usernames that define a group of people or are promotional in nature are not permitted, see Wikipedia:Username policy. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Helis22/sandbox

Hello Team

This is my first article, How do I change the name of my article or check there is no other submitted under the same name?

Helis22 (talk) 13:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)Heli22[reply]

You don't need to worry about that - it is an instruction for the reviewers. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Leicester Gay Liberation Front

Hi

I've clicked the submit button twice by mistake, is this a problem? Steveandgeoff (talk) 14:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC))[reply]

No, not really. The draft article only gets listed once, regardless of the number of review request templates. They'll both be cleared when the article is reviewed.

As for the article itself, it really will help progress it if you can give full details for the news sources - no-one should be expected to read an entire newspaper to find the alleged news article! Name of author, title of article and page number are really a minimum requirement if the source is pre-internet and offline. Sionk (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jordan Moon Adams

There are boxes within the article, where one line is in a box. How do I get rid of those, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jordan Moon Adams April LeFever 14:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)April LeFever — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugarmag418 (talk • contribs)

It looks like you've solved the problem! Indented lines are given an ugly blue box by the wiki markup. Sionk (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mohsin habib

Resolved

– Career choice made. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsin habib Mr. Mohsin habib is a young social personality in pakistan. He was born in Faisalabad on 31 july 1994.Mohsin got his early education from faisalabad. And he pass his Matric and Intermediate from faisalabad.Now He is a student.But he want to serve his life for humanity. Mohsin-gee (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:BBoniface/sandbox

Please advise how I should attach the copy of page 1 of my father's invention/patent 3,327,067 for the Cockpit Sound Recorder to the text I have submitted to Wikipedia. BBoniface (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)Doris Boniface (Edmund A. Boniface, Jr. daughter)[reply]

You don't attach a copy, you simply cite it. See Referencing for beginners for guidance. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/DUROMAC(M)_SDN_BHD

Unresolved

please help me to review my article and tell me how to improve my article in order to meet Wikipedia criteria

Thanks in advance--Clover1991 (talk) 02:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, we have listed our five major sources. We think that three are Notable, and two are Noteworthy, but would like an experienced AfC reviewer to make sure we know what we are doing. :-) See the comment-section of Clover's AfC submission. Thanks much. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 08:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Resolved

– Wishes expressed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why Wikipedia is sending me messages telling me to edit an article I know nothing about. It's rather silly and I wish they would stop it.

December 2

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

Please advise on what grounds did the submission got declined. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sameer2116 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons are given on the submission page itself; Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nutmeg (company). Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sonya Winner

If I log out of wikipedia how do i find this page that I have created again as its only a draft on Sonya Winner 82.69.16.184 (talk) 18:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could try adding the page's url to your browser's favourites. Rankersbo (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ASU's (Irish Volunteers)

For a number of years now I have been attempting to get a very simple article about the Irish Volunteers Active Service Units published on wiki. But there seems to be what I feel is a kind of anti-Irish bias by some editor(s) who keep insisting that the ASU's did not exist. I have provided more than ample evidence that they did but they keep changing the facts for what would appear to be political motives and often discuss the subject with derision bordering on contempt. I'm sure I am not the first person to raise this issue so I would just like to know how an issue like this is resolved? (( written by 71.224.36.50 but not signed by them or by sinebot... added sig in 2014 ))

As I understand it, there is an article on the Provisional IRA organisational unit called Active service unit, and you want to write about an organisation of the same name from the time of the war of independence? As I understand it, this is two editors with different understandings of the detail of the organisation of the IRA during the war of independence. At AfC we can't get involved with your disagreement, we can only pass or reject new articles. Rankersbo (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of articles that mention those phrases.[1] The main articles are Irish_Volunteers (note well the disambig at the top for non-WWI groups w/ similar names) and also Active service unit, and it would usually make sense to have a subsection in the ASU article about the specifically-Irish-Volunteers stuff, and similarly, a subsection of the Irish_Volunteers article about their use of ASU's. We have an article about tourism, and we have an article about Malaysia, and we also -- because it is a broad topic with a lot of sources specific to that topic -- have an article about tourism in Malaysia. Are there a lot of sources which are specifically about ASU's of the Irish Volunteers, which have significant in-depth independent coverage?

p.s. Rankersbo, this section seems helpful, in explaining the complexities in a nutshell.[2] See also the Template:IRAs for a chronological overview of which names where used in what time-periods. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

74.192.84.101, I think given the delicateness of the issues of your personal interests I understand your reluctance to sign up for a username, but it doesn't help resolve these matters if we are communicating with an IP address with no talk page. I think this is a dispute between people with an interest in a certain area of history, as to what is factual and what isn't, and as such isn't something we here at WP:AfC can get involved with.

One of your edits on this topic was reverted because it was "hideously written"- this was not a comment on the content of what you wrote, but the way it was written. I don't endorse the way this criticsim was expressed, I would have used a gentler, less bitey way of saying it. But your writing style was rambling and slightly conversational, to a point that it made the text difficult to follow for anyone not already an expert in that area of Irish history. Rankersbo (talk) 12:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

((

Post-archival update by 74... Rankersbo is confused about several things here. :-) First of all, Rankersbo is understandably confused about who they are talking to, because the helpdesk request was not signed, and SineBot apparently fell down on the job. The original helpdesk request was written by 71.224.36.50 which geolocates to somewhere different than my own IP.

Therefore, the rest of Rankersbo's conclusions are also incorrect: 71 is interested in Irish history, not me, 71 got insulted about their writing, not me, and 71 was involved with the dispute since 2007, not me. On the broader question of scope, I also take issue with the assertion that AfC "cannot" get involved with content-issues. Why call it a helpdesk, if we do not actually help people overcome WP:COI encumbrances, and tighten up the prose, and so on? This is not the criticism-desk, after all.

Finally, of course, if one is editing discretionary sanction articles about the IRA, and is "reluctant" to reveal anything about themselves, they will create some pseudonym-login which hides information, rather than editing from an IP address which does not. And of course, finally-finally, obviously anons *do* have talkpages, just as pseudonoms do.

Here is the person interested in the ASU, if anybody is arriving here from a search engine and wishes to help. User_talk:71.224.36.50. They have not edited since Rankersbo told them that AfC only passes and declines, but 71 shows back up every six or nine months, so prolly they will reappear during 2014 at some point. I have created some sections at Talk:active service unit that outline the suggestion 71 is making. I have also found an editor with interest in the region, that might be able to help 71 improve things. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 10:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

))

December 3

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Scott Wallace Johnston

Hi,

Just checking on a page that was submitted over a month ago. It's not up and not on any of the lists (pending review etc.) Can you please tell me what happened to it? Name of page is: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Scott Wallace Johnston

Thanks very much! Scott Wallace Johnston (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was declined on 26 November 2013, and has not been resubmitted since then. If you want to improve it further in order to deal with the issues listed at the top of the submission, you could then resubmit it by putting {{subst:submit}} at the top of the submission page. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Horizon Interactive Studios

Hello, I would like to ask why was my submission cancelled? thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hagar Sobhi (talk • contribs) 07:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can I check whether you've read the reason in the middle of the pink box on the article itself, and want clarification, or if you've just read the decline notice on your talk page? The article does not appear to have any reliable sources to support the company being notable, two sources are youtube clips, the other two appear to be blogs of which one is not about the company and only briefly mentions it. Rankersbo (talk) 08:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Centre_for_Sight

Unresolved

Hello!

The submission was recently declined with the following comments:

First submission: "This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia."

I added several industry references and reliable secondary sources try and highlight its notability.

Second submission: "Still uncomfortable with the level of PR/1st degree/"Celeberty Patients" that are being leveraged for claiming notability."

There is only one 'celebrity patient' mentioned on the page, and this patient (Katie Piper) is part of the reason Centre for Sight achieved notability. Beyond that, I'm struggling to convey the importance of this centre in pioneering stem-cell research and medical / surgical eye care.

They have been responsible for some of the most groundbreaking advances in eyecare technology in recent years. I'm really not sure why they do not warrant 'notable' status.

To quote Wikipedia, "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources."

Centre for Sight has been directly referenced by:

Sky News BBC News The Telegraph The Daily Mail

...as well as various well-recognised medical journals.

If you could please help to learn how to justify the Centre for Sight as notable, I would very much appreciate it.

Thank you for your time!

EDIT: 12/12/13 - Is no one able to offer any advice?! PaddyPassionDigital (talk) 09:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Footman James

Hi there,

A few weeks ago I submitted an article for review. At the top of the page it says 'draft article not submitted for review', but at the bottom it says 'review waiting'. Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Footman James

I would just like to clarify whether or not this article is in the que for review, as the page has two completely different answers!

Many thanks :)

HRJames (talk) 10:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is waiting to be reviewed. The contradictory messages are a bug, and can be ignored. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Raju Menon

We have included new content and relevant resources. Please verify the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morisonmenon (talk • contribs) 10:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article submission is currently waiting review. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi, isubmitted an article but it was declined. It was about Agile Working. can you tell me why and what i can do to improve it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngozi Fakeye (talk • contribs) 11:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the article submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Agile Working was declined for the reason given at the top of that submission page. Click on the link there for more information. Incidentally, the "Agile Working Benefits Wheel" would not be suitable as a source for a Wikipedia article. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kimberly-Clark Health Care

I submitted Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kimberly-Clark Health Care for review by mistake. The article was already created by me through my sandbox (as opposed to using the article wizard). Since the article now already exists, is there I way to retract my review submission for: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kimberly-Clark Health Care?

Himynameishunt (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Himynameishunt[reply]

Hi, I've declined it as already existing; problem solved. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Utah youth soccer association

I am trying to make a wikipedia page for Utah Youth Soccer Association. I have added quite a bit of of sources but it doesn't seem to be working to get utah youth soccer as a wikipedia webpage. Is there anything else I should be doing?

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Utah youth soccer association

Cbrownuysa (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC) Carly[reply]

Hi Carly, I can't see any sources? Have you tried reading Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joan Crawford Steel

I have a biography ( Philip S. Steel), I would like to submit. I received a rejection because I didn't include the biography. Before I go any further, these are my questions. How do I upload a submission which has text and pictures?.. My submission is in Wikipedia format similar to that I saw in other Wikipedia submissions on the internet.. My proposed submission is now in pdf and also in word perfect. Can I just copy the pdf or word perfect file and upload it? If this is possible, where and how do I upload it? Joan Crawford Steel (talk) 16:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No you cannot upload PDF or Word Perfect files to Wikipedia.

Whether the pictures can be used on Wikipedia, will depend on who owns the copyright to them, or their current copyright status. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 4

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tiger Star

hello there! I just created an article about a musical group based in Toronto. I have attached and linked it properly to the best of my knowledge. What are the next steps to ensure that the article is up and that I can keep editing it in the future? I am not familiar with this too well. thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prim2013 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your next step is to start looking for reliable independent sources of the sorts mentioned in Wikipedia:VRS. So for example, IMDB is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia articles; and providing bare links to YouTube videos of a musical group's performances does nothing to establish their notability by Wikipedia's standards. Neither does providing links to the website of their record company or other associated companies.

The sort of references you need to cite would be things like in depth articles about the musical group in established music magazines or in major newspapers; or on the websites of established music magazines.

Also, you shouldn't provide external links within the body of your article text. Instead, consider using in line citations to your sources. See Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for how to do this. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Steppes (band)

Comment: I don't think it fulfils notability guidelines. Needs extensive coverage in independent and reliable sources. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I see this now on the page, and I'm just wondering what's wrong with the sources I used? Melody Maker and Shindig seem like definite sources.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Bodley (talk • contribs) 04:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rework the discography to clearly show which releases are singles, EPs and full albums, and what label released them. Find references to support the coverage in Q Magazine and their deal with Voxx records, then we might have a pretty strong case the band meeting the music notability guidelines. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 23:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]