Help desk
< February 11	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 13 >

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.

February 12[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Marilyn Knowlden[edit]

This article already exists, in a sourced form, as Marilyn Knowlden . Span (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Prehistoric_Bajada_"Hanging"_Canals_of_Southeastern_Arizona[edit]

I have made the suggested revisions, added a new lead, fixed minor typos, and added another independent verifiable reference. I thought I resubmitted properly, but it does not seem to presently be in the pending review section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Lancaster (talk • contribs) 00:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AFC statistics is the grand list of submissions. Your article is submitted correctly and appears in the pending section. The list is updated every hour, so there might have been a delay. --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 20:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi, Wikipedia.

I want to ask about a submission from three weeks ago, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aline Waites. I took on board the info about articles submitted requiring this much time, but would now like to follow this up.

The article is carefully researched and concerns a subject with a high online presence, mentioned in many Wikipedia articles, including that for her late partner - one of the few that I have myself created, and that several years back. She seems to me to be clearly notable.

It was first declined on the day I submitted it, and I realised that I had forgotten the methodology for References and Sources. I therefore spent three days checking these, and re-submitted. Most published sources are in my large personal collection, others in the Westminster Public Library collection of Performing Arts material, in Trafalgar Square. (I research there a good deal.)

The article seems to me worthwhile and of value to other internet users, and I simply want to make sure it is or will be under consideration. I can always make further changes if appropriate.

Thank you so much - Roger Rogersansom (talk) 06:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roger. Yes, this submission is currently submitted for a second review. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Objective Stress Rates in Finite Strain of Inelastic Solids[edit]

Hi, may I ask you about the reviewing process of this article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Objective Stress Rates in Finite Strain of Inelastic Solids. I have redone it according the comments mentioned by the previous reviewer to fulfill the standards of Wikipedia and submitted it already 5 weeks ago. So I wanted to ask how long it will take for the new review. Thank you,Voreljan (talk) 08:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Voreljan (talk) 08:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for advice at User talk:Materialscientist. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm a representative of a public school. Can I write a proposal for an article about that same school?Or will contributions will ahve to come from unrelated people?

Best regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khadijehkobra (talk • contribs) 14:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editing with a conflict of interest is strongly discouraged, but it is not forbidden. Also, the articles for creation process is one specifically permitted avenue for editors with a conflict of interest to create articles. You should probably read Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines before starting. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bob Davis (businessman)[edit]

I am looking for help on how to improve my article for creation that was rejected on February 5. As the founder & CEO of a significant web 1.0 company I think it is a relevant wiki subject. Also, how do I edit the title to Bob Davis founder of Lycos?Alihoward (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Improve the submission by adding references to significant coverage of the subject in independent reliable sources. See Wikipedia:VRS for more information.

If the submission is accepted, the accepting reviewer will (should) change the title at that time to something more appropriate if necessary. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dušan Zmijarević je srpski košarkaš. Rođen je 25.02.1996. godine u Beogradu. Košarkašku karijeru je započeo u "kk As Basket" iz Novog Beograda čiji je predsednik bivši poznati košarkaš "kk Crvena Zvezda", Žarko Koprivica. Kao velikog talenta sa predispozicijama za ostvarivanje perspektivne karijere, rad na njegovom usavršavanju preuzima Goran Stefanović, individualni trener ruskog Triumpfa i koordinator svih selekcija u "kk Slodes" iz Beograda. Na kratko prelazi u navedeni klub "kk Slodes" posle čega odlazi sa nepunih sedamnaest godina u "kk Grouplje" u kadetski i juniorski tim kluba iz istoimenog slovenačkog grada. Zbog nerešenih klupskih finansijskih i organizacionih problema vraća se u Beograd gde nastavlja karijeru u "kk Slodes" posle čega ga poznati slovenački košarkaš a sada menadžer, Slavko Kotnik kontaktira i upućuje na probe u austrijski "kk Ece Bulls Kapfenberg". Probe uspešno prolazi i sredinom novembra meseca 2013, godine potpisuje ugovor sa navedenim klubom. Dušan Zmijarević je visok 207 cm i igra na pozicijama 3 i 4, poseduje vanserijsku tehniku i osećaj za timsku igru. Veoma je talentovan i perspektivan mlad igrač pred kojim je veoma uspešna karijera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.240.240.77 (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this is the English Wikipedia, we work only in English here. You might find your language Wikipedia at http://www.wikipedia.org -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

== Greenho (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just listing someone's published works is not the way to establish their notability for Wikipedia. You will need to find independent reliable sources, written by other people not by the subject, which discuss the subject or the subject's works. Have a look at Wikipedia:Your first article. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Submission of of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michele J. Gelfand, PhD[edit]

Hi,

I am trying to submit my article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michele J. Gelfand, PhD for review by hitting "save now", but it does not recognize that it has been submitted. What should I be doing differently?

Thanks!

Astillwell2014 (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)A[reply]

Hi Astillwell2014. To submit the article, you click on the white bar labelled "Submit your draft when you are ready for it to be reviewed!" in that big grey box at the top of the page. But don't submit it until it has references, otherweise it will be automatically rejected. References are required for biographies of living persons, not only to verify the information in the article but also to establish that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Note that you will need several references that are entirely independent of the subject. Here are some of academic biographies to use as models: Vincent Dethier, Joseph Kerman, Andrew Ladis, James V. Downton. You might also find the guidance at Wikipedia:Your first article helpful. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Powder coating on glass[edit]

I am baffled as to why my article is being turned down again. I have cited references...in fact, more than many other accepted articles on your site have. It is written objectively and the subject worthiness is strong because this is a relatively new technology created from traditional powder coating. What are the main problems with the article?

EPMogey EPMogey (talk) 23:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was rejected, with some validity, according to Wikipedia:NOTHOWTO, which is a policy. However, I've just accepted it, although I think it could still do with considerable improvement. (And the categories and wikiprojects I've added it to may not be the most appropriate). Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]