Help desk
< October 21	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 23 >

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.

October 22

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/BuyVia

Hi I am needing some help to understand how to enhance this article to meet Wikipedia standards. I believe my main problem is whether the information is verifiable online. I included a number of references.

Appreciate the help.

2601:9:5800:77:8124:A2D7:EC0F:BB57 (talk) 03:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You did provide a number of references, but only three of them are what I would consider reliable and independent. The TechCrunch source is the best source currently in the article, and that's nearly a year old. In fact all sources come from around the second week in November 2012. If the company is truly notable, I would expect more recent news articles in a similar vein to have appeared. Many, many startups are created every year, and sources such as TechCrunch pretty much report on all of them - but not everything turns into the next Amazon or eBay (which is of interest to Wikipedia), and most go out of business (which isn't). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article Rejected

Hello, this is the first article I have submitted and do not understand the reason for rejection and what I need to do so the article is accepted. The subject topic is rather unique in the education space and warrants inclusion but obviously I have missed some requirements. The response I got is - Submission declined on 9 October 2013 by Hasteur (talk). Lack of references, inline external links, and no references on 2nd section make this a no. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Australian Industry Trade College Thank you James (58.179.74.179 (talk) 04:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

The decline reason is incorrect. Your article did have references. More to the point, places of state run secondary education (broadly equivalent to a high school (US) or grammar school (UK)) are considered notable provided one source proves they exist. One of the problems your article has is the sources are the school's own website or newspaper articles that talk about technical and trade schools generally rather than this specific one. If you can provide an inline citation for this sentence : "AITC is a Queensland registered senior college which offers approved courses leading to the award of the Queensland Certificate of Education (QCE)" then your submission should probably pass. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The INtegral System for Diagnosis and Management of Female Pelvic Floor Dysfunction

Hi there,

I created this article a while ago and am trying to get it live. It is about my research on the Female Pelvic floor, Dysfunction and Management.

I am also trying to upload images to insert into it and failing on both counts.

Also I am not sure if I am confirmed as an author yet, even though it is only supposed to take 4 days. It has been about 6 weeks now.

I can preview the article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/The_INtegral_System_for_Diagnosis_and_Management_of_Female_Pelvic_Floor_Dysfunction

Can you please tell me: Is this article live yet? Looks like it is not, but I may be wrong.

Why can't I upload images to insert in it? When I put the link in for the article, the upload screen says that the article does not exist. Here is the link I am using.

wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/The_INtegral_System_for_Diagnosis_and_Management_of_Female_Pelvic_Floor_Dysfunction

and I am trying to upload the images here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard&?withJS=MediaWiki:FileUploadWizard.js

I am finding it very confusing to add an article to Wikipedia and add images to it and I would appreciate some help with this.

Thanks so much.

PEPPETROS (talk) 06:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not currently live. You need to have 10 edits and an account older than 4 days to upload images, so there should be no issue in uploading them, but you must follow the instructions and make sure they are your own work or arrange permission from the copyright holder. What you are probably doing is attempting to justify your image as fair-use, which requires an existing article that has already passed a review. Your article has not been submitted for review yet, which you can do by adding the text <code>{{subst:submit}}</code> to the top of the article. Finally, you must make sure that your references follow the guidelines for reliable sources in medicine - essentially the sources must be secondary in nature and summarize other research or collate an established conclusion from them. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PEPPETROS, unfortunately, I have had to blank this page. The original text can be seen in the history. This draft was a copy of "The Integral System" by Peter Petros published in the March 2011 issue of Central European Journal of Urology. According to the journal's website "Copyright in papers or other material submitted and qualified for publication becomes the sole property of the Polish Urological Association (PUA) Editorial Office and may not be published in whole or part in other journals or digital media without obtaining the prior written consent of PUA, which will not be unreasonably withheld." Until such permission has been received and documented at Wikipedia, this material may not appear anywhere on Wikipedia. Similarly, each individual image must also have its own documented permission for re-publishing on Wikipedia. For information on how to do this please see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. This is a fairly complicated procedure and note that even if permission is received and properly documented, this draft may not be suitable in its unedited form. I suggest that you seek advice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/IsraelPharm.com

Why was my article declined? I didn't get an email notification or anything! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.95.205.140 (talk) 06:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "Submission declined" box explains why your article was rejected. An automatic notification is sent to the talk page of the article's creator, but if you don't write articles logged in, and your IP address changes, you won't get them. Consider creating an account. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/IT Fashion

Hiiii there....

im new in writing page in wikipedia, my first page declined named "IT Fashion", can someone make it clear what should i fix on that.. thanks anyway.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.97.95.187 (talk) 11:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What in Anne Delong's reply do you not understand? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 118.97.95.187! Perhaps you didn't see my note at the top of the article, which you can see by clicking on the link in the title above. Two particular problems were (1) The lead paragraph is confusing and I couldn't figure out what IT Fashion was. It seems to say that IT Fashion is the belief that people should believe that IT Fashion is good. ??!? (2) You have to show that the term is in general use by people in that field, not just by one or two people. You said that the term was first used by Abhrahamson, and then you added to your reference list a book by this person that doesn't mention the words "IT Fashion". Please add more references to sources that use these particular words. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Thomas Olde Heuvelt

In regard to the message I just got from HasteurBot about Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Thomas_Olde_Heuvelt - I believe this can be deleted, as the main article has been created and I simply didn't know how to close out the article-for-creation. Thanks. VJDocherty (talk) 12:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged it as {{db-self}} which should get it deleted faster. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/epilgrim.com

I have wrote an article and after reviewing it I couldn't publish it ... where did I go wrong with that knowing that I have wrote the article from scratch I don't think there is any other place on the internet that has this article unless there is somehow someone out there linked to my brain with the exact same way of thinking.

what should I do, it's getting really frustrating — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdallah.dajani (talk • contribs) 12:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The submission was declined and a detailed reason given in the red box at the top of it - in this case because it did not cite any reliable sources that explained why the website was a suitable topic for Wikipedia. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Steve Mavin

i am struggling to write an article it all seems so hard. I have managed to put realiable sources in my Steve Mavin article & link them using the <ref></ref> but how do i put links to other Wikipedia pages when I use those topics of other pages that exist in my article so they appear blue in the finished article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Percthepunter (talk • contribs) 13:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Percthepunter. It was a little rough around the edges, but you did very well for a beginner! I've tidied it up and moved it into article space as it had sufficient references and clearly passed the notability criteria for sports people. You'll find it at Steve Mavin. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/JOptimizer

hello I would like to ask a thing. I wrote an article Oct. 9, 2013 (on Joptimizer) to be published on wiki. Currently my article is in Wikipedia talk: Articles for creation. There is a box over my article in which it is written that "Article not currently Submitted for review" and that "This is a draft Articles for creation submission. It is not currently pending review. There are no deadlines as long as you are Actively improving the submission. Drafts not being improved will be deleted as provided in the CSD G13 guideline. " I still have to wait? or did I do something wrong? thanks Cristiana Criconi (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Pol430 talk to me 18:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dr. Tony Raj

I am looking for information on why the article for Dr. Tony Raj has been rejected. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelamw83 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The submission was declined because the references were not presented in the form of inline citations, which is often held to be a requirement for articles about living people. See WP:INTREF for more info on referencing in general.
More importantly, it is not clear why Dr Raj is so important that he deserves an article in an encyclopaedia? Wikipedia is not a place to create 'profiles'.
The submission seems to have a commercial angle that seeks to promote Dr Raj and his work. Wikipedia seeks to be neutral and does not allow promotion in articles, in any form. Pol430 talk to me 18:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Marla Malcolm Beck

I submitted the article Marla Malcolm Beck for review on 31 May 2013 and it seems like it was never reviewed. Suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gremlin700 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now answered this further up the page. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Regulatory incubator

Hi everyone, the first submission was declined - the reason given: "submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability". Since then, I've updated the article with information on the regulatory body that had been set up to look after the activity of Regulatory Incubators, which I think is a proof that the subject is notable. I've then re-submitted the article again but would appreciate another pair of eyes to provide me me with a more constructive feedback. The references are also reliable. Please let me know. Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kt1502 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Barani Institute of Information Technology

I submitted my Article on 8 October, 2013, but have not recieved any notification about any review. Kindly help me in improving my article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikramafzal (talk • contribs) 15:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Pol430 talk to me 19:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/DialAFlight

Hi, I would like to query the decision to decline the submission for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/DialAFlight Firstly, the infobox says 'This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources.' I would beg to differ, the article quotes the Daily Telegraph (a newspaper with a large circulation in the UK). Also, Management Today, Travolution, and Travel Weekly which are all highly reputable trade magazines which produce print editions. The company also made it into both 'Profit Track 100' and 'Top Track 250' lists which appear in The Sunday Times (probably the UK's serious Sunday paper with the largest circulation), unfortunately the website for this newspaper is behind a firewall so I had to link to Fast Track, the company that organises these tables.

I would also say that there is little, if anything, in the way of advertising. The 'Parent company' section mentions the company's size and growth, but most company wikipedia pages do this, and they are not mentioned in a way that advertises the company's products. The one point that may be correct about is where it says the page should be under Lotus Group, I am not entirely familiar with the rules here. However, I do know that there are wikipedia pages for companies that are owned by parent companies eg Pokerstars that is owned by The Rational Group which also runs Zoom poker etc. Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evenmadderjon (talk • contribs) 15:37, 22 October 2013‎

I fully endorse the last reviewer's comments dated 22 October. The text of the submission offers little readability outside of detailing the good work and various accolades of the company in question. On the subject of notability, the references listed are either valueless or of dubious reliability, and the attempt to shoehorn some addition claim to notability by piggy-backing on the media attention surrounding the suicide of a 14 year old girl strikes me as desperate indeed. Regardless of the size or wealth of the parent company, the subject of the article is DialAFlight and it is their notability which is relevant. Notability cannot be inherited, nor is it cascading. Pol430 talk to me 16:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the article has good readability (in the sense of being easy to read). Yes, you are correct that it does mention the good work of the company, but so do most wikipedia pages about companies. The references are certainly not "valueless or of dubious reliability" - as I said above there is a national newspaper, and several highly reputable trade magazines (reputable in the UK at least). It is possible to see the mention of the withdrawal of advertising from Ask.fm as an indicator of the company's dedication to corporate responsibility rather than a desperate attempt to claim notability for the company. None the less, even if that particular point is taken down, the page would still have more than enough notability.

Regarding your final point, does this mean that the Lotus Group should have a page rather than DialaFlight? I wonder if you could point me in the direction of the right wikipedia guidelines to help me out here. Finally, after looking at other wikipedia page for companies in a similar line of business, they have far worse references - even going so far as to source the companies in question own websites. See these examples: Expedia (website), Cheapflights, Ebookers.com, Opodo, Lastminute.com and NetFlights. It is strange that these sites have a) large portions of text that are not referenced at all b) references that break wikipedia guidelines (quoting own site etc). Surely either the DialaFlight page should go up or these should come down? Thank you for your help. --Evenmadderjon (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Reach - Association for Children with Upper Limb Deficiency

Our article submission is constantly being rejected because it does not have sufficent references. Each time I have added more references but still it gets rejected.

Please can you advise how you get articles accepted on Wikipedia as it appears nearly impossible. I have seen articles similar to ours with fewer references that have clearly been acceoted.

Gary

— Preceding unsigned comment added by P457452 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Satjiv S. Chahil

Dear Help desk,

Please could you help. I have re-submitted this on Oct 7, after incorporating the suggestions kindly made by Mathew, the reviewer. I have requested him to let me know the next steps, but I never heard from him again. It has now been two weeks. Please could you review this, and publish it, or let me know what further changes are required. Pasting the link below, for your reference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Satjiv_S._Chahil

Many thanks!

Devashish Sarkar

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DevashishSarkar (talk • contribs) 17:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have done the right thing by resubmitting it. You now need to wait a few more days for a review. --Mdann52talk to me! 10:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]