how do I submit the accompanying photographs with the submission?Bofico 99 (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you obtain the photographs from? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the submission is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jamestown Revival I have referenced the 2 accolades with links to online proof. Does the music I have listed also need references. Or are the references I listed not meeting criteria? 174.47.116.250 (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The list of musical works being unreferenced is not a particular problem. It seems to me that the issue is more that the references currently provided do not clearly establish that the group has received significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Wikipedia:VRS has some more information about this. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I start an article about Psymentology and it was deleted. Would you please help me to create an article with this subject on wikipedia! MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Thank you, Seyedehrahman (talk)seyed

Hello Seyed, there are a few issues.

• Please format your article at least basically like a Wikipedia article. That is, no heading before the article starts, the title term should start out your very first sentence, and you need to give a clear who-what-when-where-why in the first sentence or so. "30 years ago" is not helpful; what if nobody changes that and ten years go by? Be specific, 1982? 1983?
• You almost have footnoting format right, but not quite. Good first try though; see WP:Referencing for beginners for some tips.
• The absolute most important thing: you must meet the guidelines of WP:Notability. That is, you must show with footnotes that multiple, uninvolved/neutral/objective, reliable/reputable published sources have discussed your topic. Not a site promoting it, not Taheri's homepage, but we need to see things like (for fictional example): the magazine Psychology today writes an article about it, or "Trends in Neo-Psychology" by Professor Smarts of the University of Beirut discusses Psymentology for several paragraphs on page 137. Some things like that. If this is a "new idea" and "hasn't gotten enough coverage yet but it's really important and will be famous someday", then that's not enough for us to publish an article.
• I took a quick glance, and I'm only seeing a few mentions of Psymentology/Faradarmani online (Taheri's own work doesn't count as WP:Notability for its own self); can you find more and wider coverage of it? Can you find serious/professional publications in other languages online that give us more substantive coverage of it?

MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the Decline has nothing to do with whether we think Psymentology is correct/accurate or not. All that matters is a body of objective coverage of the topic, so for Wikipedia purposes it does't matter whether someone writes a serious theory about development of volcanos or a theory that unicorns live in the Arctic: the key is WP:Notability, having a body of published literature that has observed and discussed the concept. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iansmitth (talk • contribs) 03:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You did receive feedback on your draft, but you deleted it. I've reinserted the feedback so that you can read it; the feedback doesn't get deleted unless & until the article is accepted. - David Biddulph (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My article has not been accepted dur to lack of references. I fail to see how you can have references when simply writing a synopsis of a novel. The main entry for Henri-Francoise Rey has very little in it anyway, and a book synopsis is not the place for such things anyway. I responded to the fact that Les pianos mechaniques was underlined in red, encouraging someone to write about the novel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RP1957 (talk • contribs) 08:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that whoever made Les Pianos mécaniques a redlink did so in error. Either way, for topics to have articles about them on Wikipedia, they should already have received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. For a book, this might be in the form of reviews in newspapers or magazines. Wikipedia has a notability guideline for books at Wikipedia:NBOOK. You may also find Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners useful in adding the references. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Hi, I feel like I did everything right and provided lots of credible sources but my article was declined. I mean, how do you get more credible that Billboard Magazine? It's the go to industry source for the music business. I know that sometimes Wikipedia won't let you post an article for creation if it is coming from the same IP address as the company you are writing about. I guess they see that as promotion. Could you please help me figure out how to get this article created. It's very important to our company. Thanks. WarnerChappellPM (talk) 15:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few points:

• Billboard may be a good source, but that's only one single source with almost all your other footnotes being to the subject itself. WP:Notability does not mean "find one single objective mention", it requires a body thereof.

Oh wait, user is banned for promotional activities. Point remains. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I recently created a new user account, PrecisionEditorial, and used it with the intent of creating several new articles about authors and books. I have reviewed books for Library Journal since 1980. When I posted the first article for review, I received a message saying it might be weeks or months before it could be reviewed and placed. This raises two questions. First, what does it take to become an editor? I’d like to help improve Wikipedia, which I use all the time. Second, as soon as PrecisionEditorial is a recognized user, may I then post the article that is now pending directly to the active area? I am certain it meets all the guidelines for inclusion.

One more question: as the article was created in my user sandbox, the current title Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/PrecisionEditorial/sandboxis obviously not what it ought to be Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David W. Ball. I assume there is a way to update this article title at the appropriate time?

Thanks

Melinda PrecisionEditorial (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this question would be better asked at the Tea house it seems more there sort of thing. You can edit straight away, an editor is a basic level user. My recommendation would be to concentrate on reading and fixing existing articles before going for a full article written by yourself. Start small and work up- learn what works and what doesn't- that's my advice. Rankersbo (talk) 08:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]