The article reviewer's issue / question was that:

{{afc comment|1=If Mushroom Group shares the same birthday/date as Mushroom Records, surely they are the same entity?

In reality, the Mushroom Group started with Mushroom Records and one other company(Mushroom Music Publishing) simultaneously. In 1998, Mushroom Records was swallowed by Warner and became defunct, but the Group has grown to contain almost two dozen subsidiaries which are listed in the article.

My question is - how do I resubmit without encountering the same issue / question.

(203.37.171.134 (talk) 05:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

You could try to write a history section which clearly sets out the company structure; explicitly stating that Mushroom Group is/was the parent of Mushroom Records and other divisions/subsidiaries. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Might this be the right place for all public info to be gathered about the Boston Maration Explosion?

Is this the right forum for an index of youtube video's from people phones ect?...and not so much commments as "facts" derived from the video's. ...which might prove help full, vs just hearing on the news what clothes suspects were wearing....the facts easiest to change.

I think we can develop a "BIG BROTHER" Wiki related to all information regarding 'Boston Maraton Explosion'....

I would like help in this regard, Pls and thank you, Richard Jacoby. RichJacoby@hotmail.com RichJacoby (talk) 08:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Wikipedia articles are meant to be built on citations to secondary reliable sources, such as the work of professional journalists. We do not host collections of anything and everything related to any particular incident, nor is any article meant to be a mere collection of links to youtube videos, etc. See also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

My Article for Creation, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Prof. Arun Kumar Sinha, was declined and when I tried to find the reviewer's comments, I found written, 'sorry we can not accept blank submission.' What does it mean? My article had almost 3500 words. How to move further--please guide.

best

Saramohanpur1940 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saramohanpur1940 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This is because of a technical reason - much of the text was commented out. I have fixed this so the article's body is now visible. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. I found it so neatly arranged. Have re-submitted for a review. Hope it will be accepted for Article Creation on wiki.

best Saramohanpur1940 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saramohanpur1940 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can I edit the title of an AFC? I want to change it to "Lee H. Letts" because he is better known with the less formal name.

article draft: Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lee Harold Letts, III

Marion Simons (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)Marion Simons[reply]

I have moved the draft to the preferred title. Huon (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi:

We have been trying to submit information for Dulce Beatriz since March, 2013. It has been declined twice stating that it needs more sources. All the information in the submitted article is included in the sources mentioned in the References page.

Please advise on this issue.

Submission by Artisan Media

Regards,

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dulce Beatriz

Artisan Media — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artisan Media (talk • contribs) 17:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, as the reviewer said, you should use inline citations and footnotes to clarify which source supports which of the draft's statements. For example, which source says that Beatriz and her husband were named Ambassadors of Culture in 1977? I can't tell. See also WP:Referencing for beginners for an introduction to Wikipedia-style referencing. Secondly, her website, her husband's book and her papers are not independent sources; they are likely to be one-sided or biased. The Spanish book you cite doesn't seem to have been published with a reputable publisher; I doubt it would be considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards. That leaves us with the Golden Pages of the Cuban Exiles which may indeed be a reliable, independent source that covers Beatriz in some detail, but on its own it's not enough to establish that she is notable by Wikipedia's standards. Huon (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response.

Dulce Beatriz is a well-known artist internationally. Most of her publications are just her paintings. Biographical data only come from those sources and are from a long time ago considering she was born in 1931. Her art work is found on the web in places such as http://www.ebay.com/itm/RARE-ORIGINAL-DULCE-BEATRIZ-ARTIST-PROOF-ETCHING-DRAWING-PAINTING-SIGNED-FRAMED-/110991178243 http://www.artnet.com/galleries/artists_detail.asp?G=&gid=284&aid=2159&ViewArtistBy=online Her papers are held in the Library of a respected University: http://proust.library.miami.edu/findingaids/?p=collections/findingaid&id=1054 and there are small bios on the web but they aren't reputable published sources. Her husband co-authored the book, but isn't that usual for subjects of biographies to be involved in the process? Is he being penalized for putting his name as a second author? In terms of the "Ambassadors of Culture in 1977," they have a physical certificate as proof for it. Is there somebody we could send it to? There are many Wikipedia biography pages that have virtually no sources or references, certainly, much fewer than we are offering. How did they get their pages approved? She is in her later years in life and it is likely we won't find new publications. Is there any way we can sanitize this article so it meets guidelines or is there anything else we can provide?

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dulce Beatriz  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artisan Media (talk • contribs) 19:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] 

Wikipedia content should be based on published third-party sources. In short, we don't want her publications, we want what others have written about her - and her husband is hardly a third party. If, for argument's sake, Beatriz were a talentless hack, likely neither her husband nor a biography he co-authored would say so. The physical certificate is not a published source - we cannot expect our readers to visit Beatriz and take a look. If no third party has written about that award - say, a newspaper article - then it probably isn't that significant anyway.

And while other problematic articles exist, that's not an excuse to create more. Each submission must stand on its own merits.

The way to improve the article would be with additional reliable sources such as articles in newspapers or in reputable arts magazines that cover Beatriz in some detail. As I said above, you should also use footnotes to clarify which source supports which of the draft's statements, and if parts of the draft cannot be based on reliable, independent sources, we may have to remove them. Huon (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like I have submitted this article for review 3 times. The latest draft has not been submitted. Can I delete the past 3 submissions and make the current draft the only submission for review?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brentkearney (talk • contribs) 18:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned up the duplicate submission templates, but your sources seem to be a blog and the BIRS' own website. Those are not the reliable, independent sources Wikipedia content should be based on, and they won't suffice to establish the research station's notability. You should look for newspaper coverage or articles about the station in reputable magazines. Huon (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]