Help desk
< May 4	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 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.

May 5

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Opto Lighting Systems

Is there a way to get a new page out there once accepted.--Notsniwllewdrib (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Notsniwllewdrib. When a page is accepted, the reviewer will move it into article space. However, I'm afraid there is virtually no chance of this being accepted. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a business directory. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) provides guidance on the inclusion criteria for companies. If the only coverage of the business is what its website and that of its marketing partner say about it or its listing in business directories, then it will comprehensively fail the criteria. Voceditenore (talk) 07:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Voceditenore. I would like to know if their is a neutrality violation or a hint of advertisement in the statement "PhoenixMart is a partner" instead of actuality "OLS is a preferred vender"(I'm the Presidents son)--Notsniwllewdrib (talk) 04:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Supreme Knowledge Foundation Group of Institutions

To, Demiurge1000

Respected Sir, The article is declined on 4th May 2014, I will be very glad if you highlight/mention few sentences in the declined article so that I can find out my mistakes as I am a new editor to Wikipedia. I, therefore, feel that you will be kind enough to help me so that I can update the article "Supreme Knowledge Foundation Group of Institutions" as per Wikipedia content policy.

Thanking you, I remain, Yours faithfully, Amitava Halder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitava.halder2008 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 5 May 2014‎

Hello Amitava.halder2008. This whole draft is so blatantly promotional that it needs a complete rewrite. The fact that you cannot see this suggests that you are affiliated in some way with the institution, even if you hadn't said so above. It demonstrates why editing with a conflict of interest is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. If you do decide to re-write:

Do not use "we" and "our". You are writing an encyclopedia article in Wikipedia's voice, not an advertising brochure in the subject's voice.
Do not include "Mission" and "Vision" statements
Do not paste material from the official website of the institution. It is a copyright infringement. I have removed several chunks from your draft for that reason.
Do not use evaluative adjectives: "unique", "well-developed", "highly qualified & dedicated", "innovative", etc. etc.
Read Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines carefully and follow them scrupulously

Finally, your current draft does not have a single reference to a completely independent published source. Such sources are required. Read Wikipedia:Verifiability carefully—all of it. Unless your draft adheres to that, it will never be accepted.

Voceditenore (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Minnesota State Horticultural Society

Hello,

My article has twice been rejected because the reviewer says it is a blank submission, though in fact I have provided text. The reviewer mentions that I should make sure that any extra text above the entry is removed, as it may be causing it to hide and not be shown to the reviewer. I have done this, but it still is rejected. After I save the draft, I am directed to two subsequent pages; the first instructs you to not change anything--just save the entry, and the second requires a captcha to be completed, and both pages have text boxes. Am I supposed to be pasting my article submission into all three boxes, instead of just the original text box as I've done? ThanksMshs (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mshs. Sorry if the messages are a bit confusing. I've tried removing some leftover messages that are no longer relevant. I think the best thing to do now is start from the beginning:

At the top (towards the right), find the tabs labeled "Read", "Edit", and "View history".
Click "Edit".
A large text box should appear. Add your text into that box, below any existing text.
Save your changes by clicking the "Save page" button below the text box.
Make any additional changes by repeating the steps above.
After you have done all that, click "Resubmit" in one of the decline notices.
Follow the instructions by saving the page. This will submit your article for review.

Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 04:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who can help me adding a submission

Hello,

I tried in different styles to make an article about a new technical service called Trailermatics. This is a mix of trailer and telematics. So far, it did not pass Wikipedia, so who can help me to rewrite the text to get this unique brandname into Wikipedia?

Thanks

Abkuijerfrance (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Abkuijerfrance:

Not done We're not interested in getting "this unique brandname into Wikipedia." We're here to write an encyclopedia and you're evidently not. By the way, your entry has no claim to notability and no references, so there's no way it could be accepted. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft:Corynopuntia

You mention that the page Corynopuntia already exists. It actually doesn't exist. Presently it's a copy of the page Opuntia, or a link redirecting to that page.
Am I wrong? Seedlens (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Seedlens. Corynopuntia is simply a redirect to Opuntia, a genus in which Corynopuntia is sometimes included (according to the Opuntia article). The redirect was created in 2005 and has never had any actual content. There should be no problem in moving the page over the redirect, although it may require an admistrator. I've left a note on your draft to that effect for the eventual reviewer. If you haven't already done so, I suggest getting in touch with WikiProject Plants. The editors there may have some useful input for you and/or even be able to review and move the draft into article space. This isn't a subject area in which I have any experience, but it seems to be a well-written, well-referenced article on a suitable subject. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 13:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.Seedlens (talk) 00:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Red Roots

Do I need more sources?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicloversb17 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Musicloversb17: Yes, you do. You need reliable sources in order to prove notability. At this point, your subject doesn't appear to be notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]