Help desk
< July 10	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 12 >

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.

July 11[edit]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Wolters[edit]

Resolved

ok, I have now had the comment: Would it be possible to clean up the references a little bit? APerson (talk!) What does that mean? In what way do they need cleaning up? As you can see there is a good list of reliable sources. Please tell me what to do next.... HillaryHillaryspringfield (talk) 07:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC) nw— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hillaryspringfield (talk • contribs) 00:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note, article appears to be published: Michael Wolters. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Penguin General Cemetery[edit]

Hello I think, or at least I tried, to post this same query to the person who feedback to me overnight, but not sure if it uploaded - I'm a virgin to Wikipedia & my ignorance of using the website horrendous. Having said that, my little article has been rejected twice. First for incorrect referencing (rightly so I add) second for verification problems with said references. This bit I do not understand, & yes, I have waded through Wiki's instructions. In fact thus far I have spent 10hrs trying to get things right. All my cited references are in the State Library of Tasmania, some archival from the late 1800s & early 1900s. Others were locally produced booklets by the history group here (like a list of all burial records). The remaining are research by me published in international genealogy magazines, then complied into a compendium, also at the library. So I am wondering what else I can do in this regard. Is the article unpublishable as a consequence? On a separate matter, will it be easy for me to upload a picture I took of the cemetery to the draft. And finally, when I open my article on your site & hit the edit button, the editing function opens but does not allow me to use the templates (I found reentering the references easier than trying to edit them, which I still have not mastered). So my 10 hrs has largely gone into trying to edit the references. HELP please. Thanks. Baruinga (oops. I did not do the tilde bit when I tried posting to the last reviewer, so probably didn't get my query.) Baruinga (talk) 04:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it to another to cover WP:Sourcing, but I fixed your WP:Sectioning for you to make it easier to read. And also you need to work on WP:Tone. Encyclopedic writing is very dry and factual, so lines like The little circular memorial garden, with its bench seat, commemorates the cemetery's tens of unnamed babies.Every person leaves footprints, their stories to be found and voiced. Honouring their lives ensures the survival of the community’s heritage... don't really fit in. Peachy-keen and okay for a magazine, newspaper column, etc. but that sort of editorialising or "stylish flair" gets in the way of the basic facts of an encyclopedia. While you're waiting on review, try to go through it with a keen eye to make sure you have a "Just the facts, ma'am" approach to everything. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also note, there are some useful news articles that discuss the cemetery and its historical designation. These could help round out your sourcing by adding footnotable facts:

MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bossalinis & Fooliyones[edit]

I have submitted Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bossalinis & Fooliyones. It was accepted and moved to the main article space here yesterday. However, another user, Techatology (talk · contribs), added {{Refimprove}} and moved the article to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Bossalinis & Fooliyones, saying "insufficient references (track listing)" here a few hours later. I think {{Discogs master}} at the "External links" section is sufficient. Additionally, you can find track listing here at BBC, for example. Either way, I doubt whether it is valid to move the article back to AfC just because of "insufficient references (track listing)". It clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. Won't you please take a second look? 114.164.60.86 (talk) 04:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and have moved the article back into the mainspace. I've left a message at Techatology's talk page. Huon (talk) 02:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Huon. 114.164.237.175 (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ERKALE[edit]

Hi, I'm a bit baffled here. My article was rejected, but if you have a look at ANY article at List of quantum chemistry and solid-state physics software, you'll see that every one of them is as short as this one. Which makes sense, because there's no sense in typing out the same text three dozen times over for people who are not knowledgeable within the subject. That's why cross-links exist. Susilehtola (talk) 06:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this decline reason wasn't really helpful or appropriate. There is another worse problem: All the draft's sources are authored by the same research group, which includes the prorammer. Those arguably are not third-party sources and don't really help establish the program's notability. For that we'd need sources from outside the programmer's own research group. Huon (talk) 02:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Wolters[edit]

Hi, you said:

Submission declined on 11 July 2013 by Bonkers The Clown (talk). This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms, that are designed to promote or show-off the subject.

Can you please point out exactly where you think that this is the case? Do you think it would be better to take the "Reactions" section out and attach the notable references to the correspondent works in the work list? Please advise.

HillaryHillaryspringfield (talk) 09:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea why that decline reason was used, but the article doesn't look too far off passing, as it contains references to Wolters in The Telegraph and The Guardian which talk directly about him, devoting at least several paragraphs to do so. The comments that have been left mentioning problems with unreliable sources and neutrality, particularly from Arthur goes shopping (talk · contribs), are fair comments that are worth listening to, but fundamentallty Wolters appears to meet the general notability guidelines. I will pass the article now. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for passing it, Ritchie333. I'm relieved that you see it that way. One more thing...regarding neutrality: if this is referring to the section "Reactions", do you think it's better to remove the whole section? I'm presenting positive and negative points there and the overall point I'm trying to make, maybe not too successfully, is that his work divides the critics and I was trying to use the quotes in order to show that, not just to big him up. But obviously, that's not very clear. I'm grateful for suggestions from all you wikipedia people. HillaryHillaryspringfield (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I passed the article because it contained the minimum standards necessary to have one - that certainly doesn't mean the article doesn't need further improvement. I would start by toning down some of the language, or at least attributing it to a source. For example, the sentence "Michael Wolters has maintained an outsider position in the world of contemporary music with works which deconstruct and question the traditional concert situation or which are designed for performance outside the concert hall." - this doesn't really mean anything much other than personal opinion - one man's "outsider position" is another man's "no hoper". However, the quotation "The music produced occasional striking moments, but not nearly enough to justify the resources needed for what, by definition, had to be a one-off performance.", being directly attributable to this Guardian source can go in, and the fact it's a negative review helps balance out the neutrality of the article, that should focus on the positive and the negative of the subject. By the way, tags are generally suggestions - if you think the issues addressed by the tags are resolved, just remove them. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anthony Curtis[edit]

Hi there

I'm trying to create an article on a living artist, called "Anthony Ewart Curtis RWA Visual Artist" I have uploaded several images of his work and these have IMMEDIATELY been jumped on with a big fat "NO!!" from the various people who take it upon themselves to patrol Wikipedia. No help, no advice....just, "NO!!" But, to be fair, a couple of well-meaning individuals have tried to add advice but it is all couched in Wikipedant terms which mean absolutely nothing to me. I have written the article and submitted it and IMMEDIATELY got... Yes, you've guessed, a big fat, "NO!!", no advice, no help. The article is in my "Sandbox" - it seems fine to me, nothing contentious, nothing awakward, nothing infringing copyright, nothing plagiarised. What I am struggling with here is that I keep getting the impression that I am hamstrung by the fact that this 85-year old man, who has worked very hard to avoid the commercial limelight whilst working at the cutting-edge of Experimental Art has nothing written about him, there are no sources to quote (plagiarise). I am getting a strong message that Wikipedia is merely a hashing together of other stuff that already exists, that there is nothing new at all anywhere in Wikipedia. So - here's the challenge to anyone who "works" for Wikipedia.............. How do I get an article successfully submitted that is essentially THE FIRST groundbreaking information about a person who, mark my words, will be considered amongst some of the very best Creative Artists working in Britain during the 20th & 21st centuries. Or will I just get the big fat, "NO!!" from another Wikipedant?

It seems a shame to me that genuine creativity is not recognised yet the likes of Kerry Katona (who?), Russell Brand and Graham Norton are lauded all over the Internet Shop.................

PLEASE, I would appreciate some help here, this is a serious project on which I have embarked

Steve Butcher

SJ Butcher (talk) 09:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct; if this is the first publication of ground-breaking material, then it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Some alternative outlets are listed at WP:OUTLETDIR, or you could submit your work to a publication in the relevant field or pay to publish it yourself.

If the artist wishes to license some of his work, or low-resolution versions of some of his work, under the terms described at WP:CONSENT, then you or he could upload them to Wikimedia Commons here. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Birchmeadow Playing Fields[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Birchmeadow Playing Fields

What is a independant reference?? What do I need to do to get this published??

Pippa.lewis Pippa.lewis (talk) 11:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, we need to be able to prove that someone with a track record for fact checking and accuracy recognises the fields with the name you've given. We tend to go easy on places, and assume that if it's on a map, it's okay to go in. However, I've just checked contemporary Ordnance Survey coverage of the Telford area, and I can't obviously see anything called "Birchmeadow Playing Fields" near the Broseley area on 1:50,000 Landranger coverage (which is my de facto source for places in the UK). You'll need to find a map source like this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Independent sources -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines for geographic regions, areas, and places may be useful reading too. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ariel Soffer[edit]

I submited an article on ARiel Soffer and I need help editing the ad, please review — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.162.86.65 (talk) 15:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "editing the ad"; Wikipedia is not the place for advertisement. I've done some copyediting, but you need better sources, and you should take a look at WP:Referencing for beginners on how to easily create nicely formatted footnotes to clarify which source supports which of the article's claims. Of your current sources, the Yahoo News link is broken and the source seems to be a copy of this press release, not a reliable source. The ABC Local website and one of the Life Extension Magazine articles are primary sources written by Soffer himself. The remaining source doesn't really say all that much about Soffer and largely quotes him instead of reporting on him. Quite a few facts given in the draft are unverifiable; for example I don't think any of the sources mentions poker. I don't think the current sources suffice to establish that Soffer is notable enough for an encyclopedia article in the first part. For that we'd need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

I have also added a draft message box to the article that has instructions on how to submit the draft for a review, but if the issues with the sources are not resolved the draft will not be accepted. Huon (talk) 02:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Greenhouse Product News[edit]

I have been bouncing around Wikipedia for the last few days and I'm currently working on the above-mentioned article. Sadly, I have been rejected for the fifth time based on reference problems (my heart is bleeding, and it's terribly dramatic). I referenced two books that, all in all, seem to be very reliable sources and are entirely independent of the publication that the article is about.

I got this response on my current rejection--[brackets are me talking]: "And please cite your sources using footnotes, [this was pretty obviously already done for two of the sources; I have edited the others so it is no longer an issue] instead of putting them seperately [separately]. The content in the sources must correspond to something in the article [they do; they note some of the publications' content and that it is notable enough/provides novel and accurate enough information to be referenced by scientific textbooks] ."

Help me out, Wikipedia editors. Help yourselves out; you will be forced to deal with my apparent ineptitude until I can understand your standards. Gulpingguppy (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When we say "The content in the sources must correspond to something in the article" the best way to do it is:

Roses are red and violets are blue.<ref>A. Gardener, ''The big flower book'' Green Publications, 2012. p.27</ref>

The reference goes immediately after the text it supports. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Vineyard Hotel[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Vineyard Hotel Hi All

Can an experienced editor look at The Vineyard Hotel and identify the actual reasons it has failed in the initial submission? I've referred to mostly external sources for as much of the information as possible. Notability should be OK, due to the history of the building and winning a number of national awards. Similar pages for hotels include The_Lanesborough, Courthouse_Hotel, Goring_Hotel and Hempel_Hotel

Note two possible pages as spinoff - Sir Peter Michael - one of the founders of Classic FM, director of Cray computers, etc is the owner. Daniel Galmiche - michelin starred chef/tv personality is current chef. JonathanElder (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many of that your third-party sources are problematic in one way or another. The first one is misrepresented (you claim Grace died in 1748 when the source says she married in 1774) and doesn't mention the house anyway. The second is a personal website without any indication of editorial oversight (making it unreliable), and it doesn't say what you cite it for (no mention of flats). The third also has reliability issues and is a bare-bones list entry; it also doesn't say what you cite it for . The fourth is not a third-party source at all. The fifth doesn't mention the hotel at all. The seventh is a press release, not a reliable source. Nos. 8, 9, and 10 mention the hotel only in passing or not at all, none of them writes so much as a single sentence. The twelfth suffers the same problem. For all I can tell you misrepresent the 13th; the Vineyard was nominated for best customer service but didn't win. That leaves us with the AA review and two organizations reporting on awards they themselves bestowed. That's not quite the significant coverage in reliable third-party sources we need, and the content that currently is based on those sources is negligible. My suggestion would be to look for news coverage (surely the opening of a luxury hotel made the news? Or the ten-year anniversary might have been an opportunity for a profile?) and travel magazines or guides, and to rewrite the content based on what the sources actually say. Right now the draft is missing what I'd consider basic facts for a hotel, such as the number of rooms. We could cite the AA for the extent of the wine cellar. Decanter.com discusses not just its quality but also the architecture. Notability shouldn't be a hurdle, but the quality of the sources, the lack of content, and the content's disjointness from what the sources say are problems. Huon (talk) 02:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Muhlenberg Greene Architects[edit]

My submission for the company Muhlenberg Greene Architects, a 93 year old architecture firm, with significant influence to the fabric of Reading, Pennsylvania, has been denied again. I have revised the previous submissions, according to comments, but the most recent denial has me stumped. "This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability." The firm is obviously influential and notable, and I have thoroughly referenced citations, using no less than 39 news articles alone, and removing references to the company's personal website, besides two blog posts. Could someone point me to specific problems with my article? Thank you! LvanS (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the problem with notability is due to the fact that few of your third-party sources actually discuss the company (as opposed to Frederick A. Muhlenberg or specific design projects) in any detail. So much of the firm's "influence and notability" seems to be bound to the person of Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg that it is likely more appropriate to improve the article on the man than to write a new one on his company. Huon (talk) 02:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sepia (Restaurant) Article Help[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sepia (Restaurant)

Hello,

I am trying to write a short article for a Michelin Star restaurant, Sepia. I understand that much of the language is flowery and I am addressing that problem right now. However, one of the other comments I received was that I am not allowed to give hours of operation. However, I have been using another Michelin star restaurant's, Schwa, Wiki page as my template and they do have hours listed. The page also strikes as a very narrative tone. Is that appropriate to use? We are not looking to advertise the restaurant, we really just want it to be in the quick, easily accessible information that Wiki is known for. Please advise.

Thank you for your help.

Wagstaff

WagstaffWorldwide (talk) 15:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the danger of just picking a random article about a similar subject as an example to model your article on - the example article may have serious problems and by following its example you end up introducing similar problems to the new article. When searching for examples to follow look for articles with at least an "A" class rating - you'll find it on the "Discussion" tab of the article in the "WikiProject" box. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My submission on Cuzie was rejected[edit]

Hi. My name is Dave McDonald and I just published an article on Cuzie.com that was rejected. You cited that it looked like an advertisement. The thing is, I don't work for Cuzie in any way. I just found the site through my friend and quickly received a job offer after using the site. I was extremely happy with this and thought that I should create a page dedicated to the site because I feel it is an important one. I am a very recent Wikipedia account holder (I basically made my account to publish that Cuzie article), and maybe I did some things wrong. I thought I was writing about it in a neutral way. Could you help me? Thank you, Arctic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveMcDonald (talk • contribs) 16:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Arthur Wellesley and I think your article submission is written like an advertisement (for example "innovative and revolutionary"), misleading (you're seriously telling us that no other jobs website in existence allows the uploading of photos and video clips?), and also completely lacks independent sources.

You can read more about what sort of sources are required at WP:VRS. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carlos Damas (2)[edit]

Resolved

Hello, i'm trying to improve the folowing page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Carlos_Damas_(2) This is about the best violin player ever born in Portugal, unfortunately almost all the sources are in Portuguese language. How to do!!! Thank's in advance!!! Caroline Adartists (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources are in Portuguese, não tem nehuma problema. Just cite your Portuguese news article or book exactly as you would any English source (you can use the "Cite" button at the top of your editing window). Sources are not required to be in the same language as the Wiki they're used on, though that would be helpful if possible. Oxala que esa ajude a você. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, also note you cannot cite Wiki articles on Wiki, that is circular reasoning. So you need to remove any footnotes to articles on English or any other language Wiki. After the article publishes, we can link the different language versions together, but you cannot cite Wikipedia to itself. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Matthew Vanitas, I made some changes, let's see if the article will be accepted. Caroline Adartists —Preceding undated comment added 23:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stephen Felton[edit]

Hi I am not sure why my submission was declined. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stephen Felton I am trying to post about new artist in the New York Art World. This would help to increase their web visibility. This was my first one Thanks Artnews2013 (talk) 18:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the top of the submission for an explanation of why it was declined. It states:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms, that are designed to promote or show-off the subject.

Do also note that Wikipedia is not the place to make entities more notable/visible. Thanks! Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs) 19:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Homologous behaviors[edit]

Resolved

In his review (rejection) of my Article-for-creations (which has been given the name 'Homologous behaviors' although I intended it to be given the name 'Homology (psychology)'), Roger (Dodger67) wrote that my submission "provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter." However, the currently published (and analogous) page entitled "Homology (anthropology)" has the following as its entire content:

In anthropology and archaeology, homology is a type of analogy whereby two human beliefs, practices or artifacts are separated by time but share similarities due to genetic or historical connections. Specifically in anthropology, a homology is a structure that is shared through descent from a common ancestor. The concept was explored by the American archaeologist William Duncan Strong in his direct historical approach to archaeological theory. See also[edit]

Homology (biology)

My submission is much more comprehensive than this one; can you tell me why mine was rejected when this one was not? The major context for my new page will be provided by the page "Homology (biology)", which will link to my new page, and it seems redundant to include the information on that page on my new page as 'context' when that information is already present on the 'biology' page. Please advise.

Also, can you give me some insight as to how to change my top heading (title) to "Homology (psychology)" from "Homologous behaviors," which was assigned to it?

Thanks!

Dsmoore4 (talk) 20:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Homology (anthropology) was created in 2004. The Articles for Creation process did not exist at the time, therefore there would have been no way of rejecting it other than to delete it.

Your article submission has now been accepted, and I have also moved it to your preferred title. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Harry Willson[edit]

Resolved

Hello, my article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Harry_Willson) has been submitted twice, and the first time it was declined because it did not adequately evidence the person's notability. I tried to fix that, and the second time I submitted the article, it was declined because it did not have reliable sources. I had nine different sources, many of which were news articles, but I don't know why those sources are not considered reliable. Please let me know what I can do to improve this article! Smtran (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A search on Google for "Harry Willson Amador" turns up a few news articles you haven't yet cited, but generally speaking I believe this article meets our standards, so I have approved it. Note: under WP:Fair use since Willson is deceased you can add one photo of him to the article despite copyright. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Catherine Norton Sinclair [edit]

I would like to improve upon my work on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Catherine Norton Sinclair by adding some photos and a bio summary table on the right. Can you give me some tips about knowing if the photos I've located are okay to use: http://digitallibrary.hsp.org/index.php/Detail/Object/Show/object_id/5846, http://www.picturehistory.com/product/id/15397. Also, how do I insert them?

Mark KeltyMarkkelty (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think by "bio summary table" you mean an infobox. Please take a look at Template:Infobox person to see how to add this.

I can't access one of the photo URLs you give, and am uncertain on the other one, so I will leave others to comment on that. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first image has a link to purchase the image, so I doubt it's copyright free. The original photo may be, but what you see there is a newer photograph taken of the older photograph in a frame. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ted Sellers[edit]

Ted sellers is an African American internet entrepreneur who is best known as the founder of Business Marketing Power a top search engine optimization firm specializing in online marketing for startups. Ted Sellers has a true passion to lead, inspire and motivate. Ted Sellers founded Business Marketing Power in 2008. Ted sellers has worked at many start-ups, he continues to be part of many journey of online startups to develop the best web platforms. Some of his ventures include the following platforms; wordpress development, PHP, HTML5, Javascript, Java, XML, Adobe, CSS, MYSQL Smarty TPL, Website Accessibility & many more. Ted Sellers was born in 1983 in Baxley Georgia a city in Appling County, the second of three children. He attended Appling County High School in Baxley, Georgia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedsellers2002 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the problem with your article is your only reference is "http://businessdirectory". As you can imagine a business directory is not a compelling example of serious coverage of Sellers' career. Please read the policy WP:Notability: for an article we require multiple, independent, reputable published works that cover the subject. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Medio[edit]

Hello I put an article up named Medio Wikipedia:Articles for creation/User:Winvite/sandbox and asked for it to be reviewed so I could improve it before submitting. After I put the tag for review up it was immediately declined by Techatology. I asked for further information and he could not have been more vague on how to improve my article, or what was specifically wrong with it. My post here shows that: TechTalkPage. I have spent an immense amount of time preparing this and I completely understand if there's something wrong with it, but I would like detailed information so I can fix it, not a pre-generated response. I have read the guidelines on notability multiple times through, so that is one of the reasons I don't understand it was rejected, because it meets all guidelines.

P.s. I did add aditional references since he posted that(not sure if those are enough or not) Winvite (talk) 23:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are some issues with the draft that should be fixed, but I don't understand Techatology's concerns either. You clearly give enough third-party sources to establish that the company is notable - seed funding is reported for many startups, but this is the first company in quite some time where I see news sources bothering not just with that, but also with the company's troubles and layoffs. That said, several of your sources don't actually say what you cite them for. The sixth source, VentureBeat, doesn't mention T-Online. The source cited for the layoff of "18 employees" doesn't give that number, and what it says about the reasons for the layoffs is completely unrelated to what the draft says. I haven't checked all the other sources, but that is a problem. Huon (talk) 02:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]