Just wondering why the Article 'Danny Rogers' was rejected. What needs to be done for it to be approved? JenaMC (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your sources are primary sources such as press releases; others mention Rogers only in passing or not at all. To be considered notable, a person must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as news coverage. Right now the only source that may meet these standards is The Music, but on its own it's probably not enough. Furthermore, Wikipedia content must be verifiable from such sources, and The Resurrection, for example, is not mentioned by any of the sources. Huon (talk) 01:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.250.56 (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll nominate the draft for speedy deletion for you. Huon (talk) 01:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello i was wondering if you could help me with the page of Love Songs i have given some information on the album and the single called nuclear. i was wondering if you could re work some of it because i know it needs more to it but im not sure what i hope this wont be deleted but will be re worked a little — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.75.9 (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts won't be deleted unless they're copyright violations or pure advertisement, so that's not a problem. At a glance the draft looked good to me; with sources such as the Daily Mail notability should not be a problem. Amazon and iTunes, however, are not reliable sources, and it would be better to use more reliable alternatives such as, say, AllMusic. It might also be a good idea to remove background information that none of the sources connects to this album. Huon (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Is there a way to get ride of the Contents box on the page?

Thanks

Deb Dutcher HNRCA (talk) 02:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technically yes, there's a magic word for that. However, articles should usually have a table of contents, and I don't know a single example of an article with sufficiently many sections to warrant a table of contents which doesn't have one, nor a reason why it should be suppressed in the first place. Huon (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I have created an article on the Tourism Board for Lanarkshire, which has been declined on the grounds of organisation notability. In order to avoid this I had added external references and one news article which shows why the organisation is of notable stature. Could I please have some clarification on what I need to do in order to get this article published.

Kind regards Lesarbresenhiver (talk) 10:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem with your article is you generally need multiple news items for an article to pass. You can use other news sources such as this, this and this. I would integrate information that mentions the Tourism Partnership in those news pieces in your article and resubmit for review. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This email concerns my submission for a disambiguation page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wavetrain which has been declined. Recently I submitted an article on Periodic travelling waves (which was accepted). In the mathematics literature, the term "wavetrain" is synonymous with "periodic travelling wave" so I thought of submitting a redirection. But in wikipedia "wavetrain" is currently redirected to Wave packet. This caused me to propose a disambiguation, but apparently this is not the right thing. Is it possible to get advice about how to deal with this ? (I am quite new to wikipedia editting and apologise for misunderstanding the correct approach). Thanks very much Jasherratt (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I declined this because there wasn't enough context from just looking at the disambig page to know if it was necessary or not. I would recommend asking this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation, as there are people there who are more experienced in determining the appropriateness of these sorts of pages. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all,

I have spent the better part of a year working on an article; sourcing/referencing it, maintaining a neutral, encyclopedic dialog, ensuring topics are not covered elsewhere, addressing topics of a very large & important global industry - valued directly in the billions of US $ and trillions of US $ in affected infrastructure & commodities it protects, making no direct marketing type claims. I have attempted to make it factual, on topic and comprehensive, because to separate out the parts into different pages would be the same as putting out unlinked topics, stubs, etc. Prior to going this route, I spent much time working towards cleaning up "problem" articles (Lightning, Lightning_strike, within the subject matter, and had to leave it all together given it turned into a battlefield, where many of my neutral revisions/improvements stand today, however the page[s] are still fraught with credibility & technical issues, where a wiki editor with limited technical knowledge on the subject can trump someone with technical knowledge of the subject simply by claiming CoI.

Immediately, upon submission, it was label "Unnotable"., by an editor who has no knowledge of the subject at all. In looking at the editor's page itself, it is quite obvious there are several pages which he was instrumental in having published, yet their notability is highly questionable, yet given status of a Wiki Editor, notability of said pages was never questioned.

Notability is subjective, this is a fact. What sets the bar for the determination of notability; financial valuation, number of people who know about it, a news story about in a budding online journal... then insignificant, now mainstay (ie Huffington Post), article in an industry/trade journal, etc?

I am looking/hoping for an objective, technical evaluation of my AfC based on its documented merits, not an immediate dismissal by someone who is unaware of its significance in the global arena simple because he/she has no experience with the topic.

p.s. I did clean/remove much superfluous information that was on my sandbox... I was using it as a "holding spot" as I only have one sandbox.... hence all the deletion edits.

Thank you Borealdreams (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Small note - I see all these submissions for "people", songs, bands, etc. What if they were played once on air, were a "one hit wonder", performed some small part in a movie, etc. and they were then mentioned in an article somewhere? It is a pretty flimsy evidence of "notable", yet these AfC's are being accepted. Subjectivity, I wish there was better determinations on "Notable" and the ease at which it can be thrown out there. Borealdreams (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The company might actually be notable, but right now it's very hard to tell because many of the sources seem to deal with entirely unrelated matters and don't mention the company. For example, I doubt any of the sources for the "Strike protection and generalized standards" section mention Lightning Eliminators & Consultants. In fact, I just checked a couple of the references at random, and not one of those I looked at (except a few primary sources such as the company's patents and the founder's own book) mentioned the company at all. Using sources that don't mention the article's topic to draw inferences on the topic is considered original synthesis, something we should not engage in. I'd advise you to remove all of the content from the draft that isn't specifically about the company itself - then we might more easily decide if the remaining sources that actually mention it suffice to establish its notability by Wikipedia's standards - whether the company has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as news coverage or articles in technical journals about the company. In particular, if the company is "significant in the global arena", then surely reliable secondary sources exist that explicitly say so.

On an unrelated note, you can easily create additional sub-pages of your user page if you're running out of sandbox space; for example, User:Borealdreams/sandbox 2 (or whatever title you prefer) may serve. Even your original sandbox, User:Borealdreams/sandbox, is by now empty again but for a redirect to the draft that has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lightning Eliminators & Consultants, Inc. Huon (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I get this error message:

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

But I can nowhere find any information about how to do this. I would be SO HAPPY to do it, if only I knew how. I looked at your "help" section and could not find anything with directions as to how to do it. I googled it, to no avail. I tried your live help chat, only find that I could not type a question. All very frustrating. Can someone help, please?

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alexandra Pierce

Thank you,

Mark C Carlson 22:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the template for you with this edit. I believe you have two copies of the draft on that page; you should probably remove one of the two lest the reviewer gets confused. Huon (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Huon. I am even worse off than before, though, as I also deleted all of the duplicated material in the edit box. This caused all of the <ref></ref> markings to be removed. So I recopied the whole article back into it, and the reference markings are there, but none of the footnotes shows up. To make matters worse, the article no longer shows amongst those being in the lineup for review. It's simply disappeared from that list, and I have no idea what to do at this point.

As you might guess, this is my first time.

Mark C Carlson 23:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markccarlson (talk • contribs)

I think I figured it all out--except for why SineBot says my comments were unsigned. I definitely signed them.

Mark C Carlson 23:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markccarlson (talk • contribs)

The draft's problems indeed seem to be resolved. SineBot requires signatures to link to the user's user page, talk page or contributions page; it won't accept anything else, and indeed our guideline on signatures says they should include at least one such link. The easiest way to sign your posts is by adding four tildes (~~~~). That's how my own signature is generated. The signatures page also explains how to customize the signature if you want it to read "Mark C Carlson" while still linking to User:Markccarlson. Yours, Huon (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]