"Oh Heavenly Day" does not exist! Nancy Griffin sang it - I cannot say for sure she wrote it - It sounds like something she might. I know she sang it. Is it a traditional song and cannot be attributed to her. Either way - however you resolve it - the song does exist - and she sang it. I am sure you will take care of this. I am not normally into Gospel - If she did not make me a believer - her voice - that song both should exist

William Di Russo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.79.251 (talk) 06:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this about a draft currently waiting to be reviewed? If it is please provide a link to it. Otherwise please explain better what this is about. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I chatted with someone a few days ago and did all the changes they asked for and resubmitted, however, even after that the article has been rejected. I got the following response, please advise what can be done to get my article live:

"his submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia."

Prasadgirish7 (talk) 07:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the linked guidelines yet? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer left an additional comment directly underneath the decline template. It appears your chosen subject is not notable enough to justify an article on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, this is not something that can be 'fixed'. Pol430 talk to me 15:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was creating a page. It wasn't ready, but I think it published. It was deleted because it contained copywrited materials. How can I recover what I wrote? Thanks, Eric — Preceding unsigned comment added by ESchultzDC (talk • contribs) 11:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! I took the liberty of putting this under it's own section heading to make it easier for everyone to reply and for the discussion to make sense. As I'm not an administrator, I cannot recover the material. I've asked an administrator to describe the contents thereof for me, and if you're talking about Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tedd Browne there was a reason it was deleted. You copied material from another website in creating the article, material that you either didn't have the right to release to Wikipedia under the correct licenses (CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL), or was still present as "copyright by someone (year)" or similar elsewhere. If you want to use material you have written but posted elsewhere, you'll need to follow the instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. However, since the most recent version apparently didn't have any copyright violation in it, I've asked for every revision after the copyright violations be "undeleted", basically brought back from the deep to continue working on it. It's now present at the link. Please try to stay clear of copying any material from other websites in the future; when in doubt, assume it's not okay, or ask first. Hope this helps! Charmlet (talk) 12:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Used a keystroke "&" (and) symbol in newly created article title, google results show %26 instead of &. Will a bot automatically clean this up in time, or is there another way to fix this? Article is Bigsby & Kruthers. GS Silver (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I understand these things, the page URL will always convert the ampersand character into %26. The page title displays with & and a Google search for Bigsby & Kruthers brings up the Wikipedia page with an &. I don't think anything is broken here, but I could be wrong. Pol430 talk to me 15:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I’ve tried to put two pages up on Wikipedia and have been unsuccessful getting them approved. This is the message I’ve received:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Can you give me a few examples of reliable sources?

Thanks for your help,

Mcneely12345 (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)McNeely12345[reply]

The real issue here is less about verifiability as it is about notability. You need to evidence that the subject's of these two submissions have received significant attention and that this is documented in reliable sources. Reliable sources include media interviews, reviews/interviews in widely circulated newspapers or magazines, coverage in published books (not self-published ones) etc. See WP:VRS for a summary of the salient points. Pol430 talk to me 16:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have references from HowtoLearn.com, Wall Street Journal, and Richmond Family magazine. Is it that we don't have enough reliable sources?

Mcneely12345 (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw that my article about the music group Brass Knuckles has been declined, and I was just wondering what exactly I need to add to the article to get it approved?

• I have that they are signed with Ultra Records, a major record label, and have released multiple singles with them
• I have included a couple of articles from notable publications about them
• I have also included that two of their singles have made the top charts

I can add a link with their tour dates (http://www.songkick.com/artists/664603-brass-knuckles) and a picture of when they broke into the top charts (http://brassknucklesmusic.com/our-single-bad-habits-just-broke-into-the-main-dance-chart-on-billboard/). I also have this (http://www.housemusicparty.info/2013/01/billboard-exclusive-release-january.html#.UbYWavb73Co), which shows that they were on the top chart in January on Billboard.

Is this enough or is there something in specific that you are looking for?

smfp9 18:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Smobs8

smfp9 17:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smobs8 (talk • contribs)

Your article has very few reliable third-party sources that are independent of the subjects. You have a few interviews (clearly not independent), some charts and search results (trivial coverage that provides no details), and some sources of dubious reliability that show no evidence of being subject to editorial oversight. I haven't found the "articles from notable publications". Furthermore, the draft's tone is unduly promotional far beyond what the sources support. Who called #45 on the Dance charts "solid success"? Who says Knife Party, Krewella and Adventure Club are "well-known electronic groups"? Which source says "The music video for “Bad Habits”, released in November 2012, sparked debate"? Not the one cited. So in short, this looks like a puff piece about a band that probably isn't notable (yet). Huon (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I need help on how to adjust my article on Vision Films so it will pass the review process. Not completely sure where I went wrong.24.199.55.42 (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to show that this company has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as articles in newspapers or reputable trade magazines. You have a single reliable third-party source (written today!), some IMDb (which is considered not reliable) and some primary sources such as their own website or their LinkedIn profile. Furthermore, the current content apparently is so closely paraphrased from the company website that it raises copyright issues, and I agree with the reviewer that the tone is highly inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. Huon (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{db-g7} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.19.145.21 (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you weren't alone in writing that draft you cannot nominate it for deletion in that way. Huon (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, My name is pepetink and I have recently created an article on Hector Rosales. I was just told that my article was declined for submission. Could you please tell me why my article was declined?

Thank you! Pepetink (talk) 19:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Pepetink[reply]

Have you had a look at the reviewers' comments at the top of your draft? Your draft is based almost exclusively on Rosales' own website, which is not the kind of reliable third-party source Wikipedia content should be based on. The two newspaper articles might be better sources, but I doubt you currently use them as such - you should add footnotes to clarify which of the draft's statements are confirmed by which of those articles. That said, two book reviews in the same newspaper may not be enough to establish that Rosales is notable enough for an article in the first place. Huon (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, hope you're good. I developed a page on an individual - Paul Naughton - at the end of last year, but I've noticed that it hasn't yet been uploaded. It seems to have been in the pending box for half a year. Is there a reason for this or is there anything I can do? Best wishes, Tim Collins — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoriana1977 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That draft has been reviewed on February 1, about a week after it was submitted for review, but the submission was declined because the draft did not clearly establish the subject's notability. The reviewer should have left a notification at your talk page but apparently forgot that step. I apologize for the inconvenience. Huon (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk: Articles for creation/William A. CohenMy submission has been critiqued as not being written in a neutral style. I had gotten this same feedback earlier and believed I had revised the submission satisfactorily, as subsequent editors declined the article for inadequate references to objective sources and/or incorrect formatting. Indeed, I have re-edited to remove additional material that seemed to provide family background information that might have been perceived as off focus. So, I need some help in identifying the aspects of the submission that are non-factual "peacocking." Is it a term (e.g. "master navigator," which is an air force designation) or terms? Or other facets of the style. Your help is much appreciated.Flairdrive1 (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Pecocking" isn't necessarily non-factual, it's a matter of tone more than facts. For example, "Cohen was recognized for his contributions to the development of Israel’s first fighter" - by whom? Which source says so? And "Cohen was named one of four Great Teachers in Marketing by The Academy of Marketing Science" - firstly, the source cited for that sentence doesn't say so, and secondly that sounds like a vanity award that no third-party source cares about. In general that draft is very short on reliable third-party sources; I'd only count the book review and possibly Who's Who (hidden behind a paywall so I can't access it) among them. Those sources don't suffice as the basis of an entire article, so there may be notability issues as well. My suggestion would be to find a couple of additional reliable third-party sources such as newspaper articles about Cohen and to bring the article's content, especially the lists of achievements, honors and awards, more closely in line with what those third-party sources have to say about him. Huon (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My article was declined 7 days ago. Reason : no reliable sources. It is about a special technique galvanizing with purest silver on non-conducting surfaces like porcelain or glass. This was developed over 100 years ago for decorative reasons. One of the centers was a Swabian town named Schwäbisch Gmünd (southern Germany). I am German and live close to that town. Years ago I started to collect and investigated a lot to get as much information as possible. The problem is : there is almost no written information about that theme (what you would call "reliable sources"). It is a forgotten craftwork. I think my article itself is good enough and I hoped that others who would read it in Wikipedia could add e.g. "reliable sources". I understand Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia where articles grow and get improved by others. I wrote also an article in German Wikipedia about "Friedrich Wilhelm Spahr", one of the most important designers of Silver overlay. I hope for your help and fairness to accept the article finally - thank you !Silberbelagwaren (talk) 22:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately we need reliable sources to accept the submission. What you have produced would be considered original research, and Wikipedia is the wrong venue for that. Besides, if you don't know of sources despite being interested in the topic for years, the chances for random people on the internet knowing better sources are slim. Huon (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Huon, thank you for that quick answer. I had similar difficulties in German Wikipedia when I wrote the Article about "Friedrich Wilhelm Spahr" who designed Silver overlay (finally it was accepted). Even when the town where he lived and worked (Schwäbisch Gmünd) had an exhibition about Silver works from there in 2010 they almost didn´t know anything about him and the other firms who were specialized in that very special technique. This is a real knowledge gap and a very good chance today is such a platform like Wikipedia to avoid the complete neclect of crafts or arts and crafts. The chances to find others are slim but they exist. I hope especially for more information / details from England and America because from there other inventors of Silver overlay originated in the end of 19 th century - and of course they also produced Silver overlay on porcelain and glassware. Dear Huon - one more question: does it makes sense or is it acceptable if I take my "literature and weblinks" of my article in German Wikipedia as "reliable sources"? There it was accepted - but these links are only in German language. SilberbelagwarenSilberbelagwaren (talk) 11:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in German might be exactly what the article needs to be accepted. The English Wikipedia accepts sources in any language, finding a reviewer who can read German is not difficult. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bit of searching with Google and discovered that if you write it as two words "silver overlay" you get far more results than if you use "silveroverlay". Maybe that is one of the reasons you struggle to find sources. It also strongly suggests that the article name (and usage within the article) should be two words, not one. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dodger67 - I search almost every day e.g. with Google and I use all possible variations of the word "Silver overlay". As a German also with the German words "Silberoverlay, Silberporzellan, etc."; this I do as a collector. Concerning my own investigations I reached much more knowledge about the whole craft when I searched in archives of Schwäbisch Gmünd or when I had intensive correspondence with the most important person and archivist for glass of "Jean Beck" which was also partly silveroverlayed. You are right that the article name should be two words. If I made a mistake there - how to change (simply by editing ?). But thanks for your comments ! SilberbelagwarenSilberbelagwaren (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dodger67 - I completed now my English article with literature and weblinks of my article in German Wikipedia. Could you check this please once more ? Thank you ! Silberbelagwaren (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have already done a review, it's better if someone else does the next one. You could improve the text by using inline footnote references rather than just a list of sources. See Referencing for beginners for guidance on how to do it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]