I have submitted an article for creation here, i notice the article has been rejected initially for notability references - after that I had added two citations specifically from pretty notable newpapers, the article has been again rejected for the same reason now. I am not finding this to be valid review by the reviewer group. I want a third eye to look into this article again. For reference this is the link to the version at which it was rejected the second time. (though other editors have tried to add links after that, but I want to show that the state at which the article was rejected was atleast not for the correct reason) A m i t  ❤  02:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted Pol430 talk to me 08:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article has now been accepted. Looking at the previous reviews of it based upon the state of the article when reviewed, the most recent rejection was perhaps rather harsh, but not entirely unreasonable; the Times of India is a thoroughly respectable source, IMDB is not a reliable source, and only two other sources are listed, one of which I have not heard of (but may be reliable) and one of which is only a preview. So perhaps it should have been accepted at that time, but I don't think this was an especially awful review. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'm confused as to why my page was deleted. This is for an author that has written 40+ books for major publishers like Harper Collins, Simon and Schuster, and Hachete. At first it was rejected - saying it needed more sources - so I tried to add links I found to the publisher pages and to Amazon.

What is missing from this? It's not spam - and not intended to be spam in any way. Do we need to remove links or change them? There are 249,000+ results for Jess Michaels and her books if you search on Google.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jess Michaels 19:28, 4 July 2013 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jess Michaels (nn-bio / spam)

Thank You,

Fredsbro Fredsbro (talk) 08:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't view the deleted page, but I will ask RHaworth to comment here.

I will say that adding links to "publisher pages" and Amazon is not useful in proving the notability of an author, because neither Amazon nor the publisher are independent of the author. Amazon and the publisher both exist to sell the author's books. Instead, what you would need, at the least, is independent reliable sources that review the author's work in detail. For example, reviews of reasonable length in The Times, the New York Times, The Guardian or similar. An article in an independent reliable source about the author (not just about one of his books) would be even better.

The number of books a person has written, or the number of Google results for their name, are not good ways to measure notability by Wikipedia's standards. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Arthur goes shopping! I was just reviewing the notability document and would have no problem adding links to reviews, awards, and other info. The links I used (to the author page on Amazon and publisher sites), I was intending to show where I found information about the author (bio) and books released. Is that the right kind of source for that kind of information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredsbro (talk • contribs)

• OK Fredsbro, come clean - who are the "we" to whom you refer? Your message actually gives a hint to the deletion reason: you say "publisher pages and Amazon". Links to the publisher page are allowed. Links to Amazon are simply not needed. But what you have omitted are links to independent reviews. As to why I deleted, we have been too lax with AfC submissions: spam and copyvio are grounds for speedy in any namespace. In the case of this AfC, the reviewer had declined it as a copyvio from this page. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RHaworth, I know you deal with spammers every day, I'm not a spammer and not trying to game the system. When I say "Do 'we' need to remove links?" I was referring to the "we" as in the people of Wikipedia. If it all possible, can I please get the article back and rework it? I now see that I need to be specific with Wikipedia's "notability" for it to be included. I know there was an article in the Washington Post a while back and I can see what other independent sources I can find - plus add literary awards. Fredsbro (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RHaworth, Someone said you could give me a copy of the article text to fix. Could I just get the Bibliography and author info box? Those were not from the Amazon page and would be a real help for rewriting the article. PS, I'd encourage you to feel free to do your own research on this author: Jess Michaels / Jenna Petersen / Jesse Petersen - there are many independent reviews, awards, and bestseller information. Fredsbro (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You can have the entire text - e-mailed. The only way that you will convince me that you have no COI is when you have built up a solid history of contributions to a variety of articles. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RHaworth Thank You for sending me the text! I promise, I'll do better! It seems like it's a problem that I'm new and that I'm trying to add an article. I'll do my best to contribute in other ways. Thanks Again! Fredsbro (talk) 00:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Can you, please, suggest what I should change in my article in order to make it proper for Wikipedia? (Ruzhica (talk) 09:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]

The main problem is the tone, style and focus of the submission. It reads like an advertisement or marketing brochure, not like an encyclopedia article. Encyclopedia articles do not say things like "In the Society Online Store you can purchase the Secret Society of Happy People's Thirty-One Types of Happiness Guide". Phrasing like "a fun way to encourage other people to recognize their happiness" and "to enable managers to easily add some happiness in the workplace daily" also seem to be uncritical repetition of marketing claims the group itself makes, rather than presenting actual facts backed by independent reliable sources.

Take a look at some similar articles in Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society to get a better idea of the sort of tone and presentation that would be appropriate.

The good news is that your submission does seem to have a wide range of independent reliable sources, so proving notability of the organisation should not be a problem. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Can you please tell me what should I improve with my article in order to make it proper for Wikipedia? Thanks. (Ruzhica (talk) 12:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Please see my answers in the section immediately above this one. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll try to fix it. (Ruzhica (talk) 12:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHY I CAN CREATE A PAGE FOR THE SCHOOL I WORK FOR. I TRIED MAKING IT AND USING OUR WORDS. THE SCHOOL IS CALLED RICHLAND ACADEMY AND I WOULD LIKE A PAGE SETUP FOR US, SO PEOPLE CAN FIND US ON HERE. PLEASE HELP, HOW CAN I DO THIS.

THANK YOU

FELICIA CIMBRON. 24.235.118.114 (talk) 13:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking schools below secondary education level are not considered notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia; and so, unless you your school is a particularly special case and has received lots of coverage in mainstream, independent reliable sources (such as the national press) then I'm afraid it cannot be included in Wikipedia. Pol430 talk to me 18:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Mr. B's Bistro, unsure what I need to change

You need to show why this restaurant is so important that it should be included in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of business listings. Pol430 talk to me 18:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Trademark Clearinghouse

My Trademark Clearinghouse submission has been declined for a second time. It has been stated that the submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability. What have I done wrong? Does that simply mean that more references are required in the article?

Thanks :)

Comlaudesarahc (talk) 14:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this subject is sufficiently notable for Wikipedia; however, you need to furnish the submission with references to more independent sources. The subject's own website is fine for establishing basic facts about the subject, but we need references that point to third-party sources. Particularly, we need a good quality reliable source to evidence the outsourcing by ICANN. See WP:RS for more info on identifying reliable sources. Pol430 talk to me 18:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone add pictures and other necessary details to this?2.29.6.222 (talk) 20:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a picture in mind, you can make a request at Wikipedia:Files for upload for it to be uploaded to Wikipedia. As far as "other necessary details" goes, what exactly do you want adding and why can't you add it yourself? Pol430 talk to me 20:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why the fuck was my good article declined?!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.122.110 (talk • contribs)

That's fucking well explained at the top of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fake Lottery Tickets. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]