Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Baganwala, Jind I want to edit thei place in wilipedia but i think there is any problam . Kindly tell me the process to edit a place in this website..Looking forward for your positve respons Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18jitu (talk • contribs) 06:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page is only for questions and help with the Articles for Creation process. For general questions like this please visit: WP:TEAHOUSE or WP:Help desk. If you have a specific query about Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Baganwala, Jind, let us know. It was rejected because it lists no sources for the information. Please see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Wikipedia:Citing sources. We cannot accept articles without reliable sources. Voceditenore (talk) 08:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note we already have an article on this subject. See Baganwala. You are welcome to add information to that article but you must provide a a source for it. Voceditenore (talk) 08:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.242.196.215 (talk) 07:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

<copyvio above redacted> Voceditenore (talk) 08:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I have also nominated Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/sabarimala ayyappa seva samajam for speedy deletion. It is a blatant copypaste from various pages on sabari.org . I'm not putting the live link as it's flagged by Google as "This site may harm your computer" (i.e. installs malware). Voceditenore (talk)

Hello, is there still any other action required to save the page? Please review when possible. Thank you. Frieda-Marie (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)Fieda-Marie[reply]

The draft still heavily relies on primary sources such as Benecke-Kaliko's own website. The entire "history" section and the vast majority of the "main sites and products" section only cite such sources, but Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are indeoendent of the subject. And Highbeam is just a directory entry, hardly the significant coverage we're after. Huon (talk) 12:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia,

I do not understand why my article was rejected. I spent a significant amount of time creating this and gathering sources (and even longer waiting for it to be reviewed). I've followed the guide for citing my sources. Also - there are hundreds (if not thousands) of articles with fewer sources than mine. I think my article was unjustly declined. Can you please re-review it? http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Eran_Schweiger Thank you. --Rmcohl (talk) 11:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)Rmcohl[reply]

• Hi. The problem with your sources is simply that they don't contain significant coverage of Schweiger, but merely have a passing mention of him. Unfortunately, to be considered notable and hence have an article pass, you must have several sources that talk specifically about him, and in some depth. You might find this essay interesting reading, as notability and passing an article through AfC are closely related. Finally, I can only apologise for the delay in reviewing your article, which is caused by a substantial backlog of about 1,500 articles. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, other insufficiently sourced articles may exist, but that's no reason to create more. Each submission must stand on its own merits. Furthermore, major parts of the draft aren't supported by any of the sources at all, both of the eCornell sources only use Schweiger as a spokesperson (for exactly the same quotes) without providing much information about him, and they don't even confirm his participation in "monitoring visits to field missions", something they're explicitly cited for. Blue Beret looks like a primary source to me. Huon (talk) 12:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gathr (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)Hi On my proposed wiki article there is the following statement :[reply]

This sandbox is in the Wikipedia talk namespace. Either move this page into your userspace, or remove the {{User sandbox}} template

what does the above statement mean...and if I should do what it is requesting ...how do I do it?

Als my proposes artice is now Article for creation...preferred etc

the article draft in question(in the style of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alexander Coucoulas

Thanks user name Gathr

• Your article was moved from your sandbox by MatthewVanitas to a consistent place where articles can be reviewed. Quickly looking at your article, though, I see problems with some of the sources, which are articles by Coucoulas as opposed to about him. Also, you cannot use Wikipedia's article on Thermosonic bonding as a reliable source - though you could use the sources in that article if they are about Coucoulas specifically. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please give me some guidance regarding link specificity. I am creating a list of film festivals within Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/A House, A Home (film). Some of the festivals are Wikipedia Articles, e.g. Raindance Film Festival, New Orleans Film Festival, Woodstock Film Festival. Others have not been added to Wikipedia yet (e.g. New York City International Film Festival, International Film Festival Antigua Barbuda, Short Sharp Festival Australia. With the latter I have created links to specific film festival lists and added the festivals to those lists, e.g. New York City International Film Festival, International Film Festival Antigua Barbuda, Short Sharp Festival. Can linking to specific lists ever be considered over linking? Thank you. Cameraf72 (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The "Official Selections" section probably isn't necessary. Aside from actual articles that are lists, Wikipedia articles should avoid having lists, but instead include the relevant links in the prose. The manual of style for embedded lists has further information. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thank you for your help. Cameraf72 (talk) 12:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]