I edited my page for 4 times already. And it is declined, 3 times already. Based on the latest review on my page, it needed some independent sources. After I saw that, I searched some articles in some search engines related to my article.

I already tried my best to provide an independent source about this. Hoping you could review it now. I think it's already perfect. Would you please review my article now? Here's the link: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lyceum of the Philippines University-Laguna

Thank you very much. Have a good day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.207.23.180 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 4 June 2013‎

The page is submitted for review, along with almost a thousand other drafts. It may take about two weeks until a reviewer takes a look at your submission. Please be patient. Huon (talk) 02:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I reviewed it right now, but I had to decline it. See my comment at the draft. Huon (talk) 02:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.96.41.94 (talk) 03:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That draft is empty, and smileys don't work this way. Huon (talk) 12:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesotans for the WRITE Choice -- I have submitted a rewritten article, previously declined, with expanded citations. After submission of this article, I am advised it is pending review, then I am referred to original entry to make edits. Question: Do I wait for pending review of newly submitted article or should I go back and edit original, even though new article pending? Thanks very much. Razorfish721 06:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Razorfish721 (talk • contribs)

You had two drafts on that page; to avoid confusion there should only be one. I removed the old draft and tidied up the new one. Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source; it should not be used as a reference. Links to other Wikipedia articles are only a convenience for readers who seek more detailed information on related topics. Also, of the sources available online only one mentioned the "Minnesotans for the WRITE Choice", and that only in passing. Unless the print sources provide much more detail (which I doubt), the campaign probably isn't notable enough for an article of its own, and the content should instead be used to improve our Arne Carlson and Minnesota gubernatorial election, 1990 articles, especially the latter which has very little information. Huon (talk) 12:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

has emerged as one of the most successful post war business enterprise in Sri Lanka.

Comprised of several privately held companies such as Supreme Solutions, Supreme Petroleum, Supreme Ventures, SupremeSAT etc. The Supreme Group has made rapid progress over the last few years in the local and international arena. Insert non-formatted text here

Please use the Article Wizard to write a draft, and see our notability guideline for corporations. See also WP:Referencing for beginners on how to cite references. Huon (talk) 12:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing in reference to the recent decline notice for an article I submitted about Thomas M. Melsheimer:

Submission declined on 23 May 2013 by Mrfrobinson (talk). This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of people 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. What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.

I'm hoping you can help me understand why the article subject isn't notable enough to warrant a Wiki article, and what exactly can be done to make the article Wiki-worthy. The Wiki notability requirements say such articles about living people "should be "worthy of notice" – that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life." I've compared the Melsheimer article you reviewed (along with the independent references submitted for the article) to several of the other 2,017 Wiki articles about American lawyers, and it appears that Melsheimer has as many or more legal accomplishments, individual profile articles written about him, and individual professional recognition than many of the other lawyers who have current Wiki articles written about them. (For example: http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Stephen_Susman; http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/David_G._Epstein; http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Cesar_L._Alvarez) Save for the reference citing Melsheimer's law firm bio as the source for his current employment position and his educational history, all the references provided for the article are "secondary reliable resources that are entirely independent of the subject."

Your guidance is very appreciated.

Elvis1957 (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Elvis1957[reply]

The majority of your sources are just passing mentions of the "... Melsheimer said" variety. You do have some sources that cover Melsheimer in much greater detail, but they tend to get hidden in the less helpful ones - is the reviewer only checked a random sample, he may have overlooked the good sources. My suggestion would be to weed out lots of those passing mentions (and the primary sources such as his own company's website or the court document) and instead to emphasize the sources that cover Melsheimer in greater detail, especially the D Magazine articles ("Super Lawyer" looks a little suspicious to me; I'm not so sure that's not advertising masquerading as a magazine). Regarding the other articles you point out, other stuff exists (some of which shouldn't exist), but each submission must stand on its own merits. I've tagged one of those articles for deletion, but another was a law professor with a named chair who should be notable. Huon (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying, Huon, but I'm still confused. Are you saying I need to eliminate the reference to the subject's firm website, which I tried to use to illustrate his educational background and current employment? If that's the case, do I need to remove the language in the article that references where he went to school and where he works? Similarly, are you saying I need to eliminate the references that aren't specifically feature stories about the subject? As you noted, there are multiple feature stories from independent publications listed as references, including the article from Texas Super Lawyers, which does not accept payment for feature stories that are written and reported by independent journalists who are paid by the publication (like happens at most newspapers and magazines). If this remediation effort is as simple as eliminating the "Melsheimer said" references and including more feature articles, then I should have no problem. I'm just having a hard time understanding why this subject doesn't meet the notability requirements given his work in some of the country's top lawsuits over a period of decades, and the extensive news coverage devoted to those cases and Melsheimer individually by independent daily newspapers, legal publications and other media. Further assistance is greatly appreciated. Elvis1957 (talk) 22:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Elvis1957[reply]

Wikipedia measures notability not by a person's accomplishments themselves but by what others have written about them. Lots of passing mentions thus won't help establish notability; dedicated articles about Melsheimer will. In my opinion the current sources suffice to establish that he is indeed notable, but the good sources are hidden among lots of less helpful sources - the New York Times article, as an extreme example, doesn't mention Melsheimer at all and thus should not be used as a source in his article.

His own website, the University of Texas School of Law Chancellors web page, and the court document are primary sources. Such sources may be used for uncontroversial details such as his date of birth, but not for anything that might be seen as promotional, not for interpretation, and not as the sole basis of large amounts of content. If no third-party sourdce discusses his education, that's probably not that significant a part of his biography in the first place. Huon (talk) 00:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice, Huon. I'm going to give it another swing and see what response I receive. Your recommendations are very appreciated. Elvis1957 (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Elvis1957[reply]

Link from skyscrapercity works normally, but not when i am putting to template

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielDoinitsin (talk • contribs) 16:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that's due to the "&" in the URL; the url={{url|example.com}} parameter is meant for the building website (if it has one), not for third-party websites, especially not for forum threads. You could work arount the limits of {{url}} by using code like this: | url = [http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1618823 Skyscrapercity thread]

But for the reasons given above, you shouldn't add the Skyscrapercity link to the infobox at all. Huon (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. This is quite embarrassing for me. I revised it for 4 times already, but still declined. I already deleted sections in this article that I believe to be useless.

Please review it again and hoping it would be accepted now. Here's the link: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lyceum of the Philippines University-Laguna

Thank you very much. Have a good day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.207.21.114 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 4 June 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

I think the comment I left was clear enough: The draft sounds unduly promotional and doesn't cite a single third-party source that covers the university in any detail. We cannot just take the university's word for how great they are. I'll leave the next review to someone else, but the draft still doesn't cite a single third-party source that covers the university in any detail. Huon (talk) 05:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]