Hi,

I'm trying to offer a new wikiProject Article for the Droidcon series of Android developer conferences in Europe. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Droidcon

The draft article has been refused a couple of times with the comment that there weren't enough references.

I resubmitted each time, finally including references to Droidcon from within existing pages of wikipedia itself.

That submission was also declined, with the comment that "Sources are dubious, questionable and outright bad at some points. One even refers to a source on Swiftkey on this Wikipedia which refers to the reference page which refers to "(2010-11-3). "The London droid community choose – Swiftkey – APPCircus@Droidcon winner". appcircus.com. Retrieved 2012-9-20""

Perhaps the existing references to droidcon within wikipedia are dubious questionable, or outright bad, but I don't see why my proposed article should be held hostage to other entries on wikipedia.

If the editors could indicate which references they regard as substandard, I will remove them. Are there then enough good references to admit the article? What process can I follow to get this accepted? It seems perverse to exclude an entry for the largest Android-only Developer conference in the world.

Pvdl (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia content should be based on reliable, independent sources such as news coverage or maybe articles in reputable software magazines. Since anybody can edit Wikipedia, Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source - people could just make the article they cite say what they want it to say, or engage in circular referencing. So you shouldn't cite a Wikipedia page. That Wikipedia page's source might itself serve as a source for your draft, but in this particular instance you found an article which is itself sourced to highly dubious sources (and it's tagged for reading like an advertisement, a clear sign that you shouldn't use it as an example). The source in question, http://appcircus.com/blog/london-droid-community-choose-swiftkey-winner, looks like a blog post without editorial oversight to me - not quite a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. By comparison, this PC Magazine article, the draft's 40th source, is indeed a reliable, independent source - but unfortunately it doesn't mention DroidCon and doesn't support what it's cited for. Huon (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to expand on what Huon mentioned. The article goes into too much detail on why Android software is notable and does not concisely explain why the conference itself is notable. I'd remove this content (first two paragraphs) and leave a link to Android instead. If users want more information on Android they can look at the main article.

Important points on the conference (third and fourth paragraphs) are not attached to any relevant sources. The references that are supplied are superficial at best. Many are trivial mentions on the conference, such as when the conferences start or a company stating that they will be attending, and do not help to establish the notability of the subject. If I were you, I would remove all those references and try to find more reliable, indepth sources to support the article. Funny ^Pika! 01:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I titled my articles for creation "Annie Lucasta 'Lou' Rogers" (full legal name) but I just read something that I should have used her professional name "Lou Rogers" and then use a redirect. Can I change this now without losing my place in the queue? Maineshepp (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add a comment to that effect to the top of the draft; when it's accepted the reviewer will know that it should be moved to "Lou Rogers", not "Annie Lucasta 'Lou' Rogers". Should that fail, we can simply move the article to the correct place later. Huon (talk) 04:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Last night 1-23-2013 into 1-24-2013 I was working on the above page, Ethel Myers. I was pasting items in and out to explore how to use a Gallery for a proper layout (having pasted in some Gallery examples from the Degas page just to look at how it was done by selecting "edit".) In creating an earlier page that I finished successfully, I learned my way around by finding examples done by people far more advanced in Wikipedia than I was at the time. I would copy a small portion of something, then paste the piece on my draft page and select "edit" and then look at how exactly an advanced user got the format layout they achieved. For instance, when on the Degas page, I selected "edit" but never made any changes on the page. But when I pasted it on my page I then choose the edit command, I could see how it was setup. It was easy to see how to change a row of 4 pictures to a row of 3 pictures or even 2. I could also change the size of pictures. I saw how the list of pictures was entered and the format used on each line. Again I never saved any of this into my page, actually all I have been doing with my page is entered text and such, experimenting with layout clicking on the "Show Preview" button, reviewing what happened, and then selecting "edit" again. Some days ago when I first started I had tried a "save" command, but got an error message. So it appeared that while working on an Article for a creation page I was not being allowed to save my work as I did it. I was sort of trusting that the Wikipedia system itself would protect me from losing the work I had been doing. This morning it now appeared that was not the case. I have to guess that it was my experimenting with the Degas Gallery material that must have sounded some alarm. Still I never had any intention of keeping it on my page once I had learned the tricks of good formatting. I did actually creating a gallery heading using photos of my own that were uploaded to Commons. I really don't know what I was doing wrong. I hope I haven't lost all the additional work I have spent some days starting to prepare on the artist Ethel Myers. I would very much appreciate somebody getting back to me about this issue. I really thought the way I was working and what I was learning from others was exactly the right way to go. (Of course, maybe this problem was caused by something else happening. I just can't imagine what.) Thank you, BEDownes (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't saved any changes to that page since 18th January.

And yes, if you don't click Save Page, the page isn't saved.

(Any files uploaded to Commons are presumably still there.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia English article which I recently submitted (Lyle D. Goodhue) is my first, and I guess I'm a babe in the woods --- apparently not knowing how to do it properly. I tried to upload it and was told by Wikipedia online that I should first upload it to "Wikipedia Commons", which I did in pdf form. Then I uploaded the same article (excluding pictures) for review in the Wikipedia English version, as I thought I was supposed to do. Now I'm told that the Wikipedia English review is blocked by someone in Ireland because the article "Already exists here: ...Wikipedia/Commons" I would be happy to delete the Wikipedia Commons article (assuming that can be done) if that would solve the problem. Dr. Goodhue died in 1981. I am his son, 78-year-old Jackson Goodhue, and the rest of the living family has asked me to do this article, which has taken considerable research in family files and elsewhere. It would be sad at this stage to waste that effort. What do you advise? ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackson Goodhue (talk • contribs) 16:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure why the article was declined for that reason, as that doesn't make sense. Perhaps the reviewer thought it was a copyright violation of a file already on Wikipedia. In any case, the real problem with your article is that it reads too much like an essay, and the formatting for references that you've used doesn't really go into specific enough detail for the information to be verified. Unfortunately, personal research in family files is not enough to get an article on Wikipedia - you need significant coverage, such as major national newspaper articles for an article to pass. The good news, however, is there do appear to be reliable sources about him, such as this coverage in the Encyclopedia Britannica. In my view, the man who invented the Aerosol Container (and has a mention in that article!) is notable. I've replaced the decline reason on your article with a more suitable one, which has links to "news" and "book" searches you can use. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have started again and writen the article in my own words. I clicked save and the article had been submitted for review. I just want to know if the text is alright before I start doing all the referencing and links. Best wishes Sylvia C Tring (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Your article did not cite any reliable sources, so unfortunately I have had to decline it. Have a look at the advice on the "submission declined" box for further advice on how to add references, and where to get them from. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]