Why wasn't my article accepted? It was an un biased actual story about an actual program that had somewhat of an impact on the Northern County of San Diego county — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oside SILENCER (talk • contribs) 03:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of the "references" you added to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vista Community Clinic (Step-Up Program) are any good at all. The article needs specific references to sources such as news articles. Please read WP:Referencing for beginners and if you have further questions please come back here. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To whom it may concern:

This is to draw your attention on the following: after having saved my article (not for review yet), i have been notified that the content is already existing in a different source. We have provided/allowed our own referee with the content, which is our press release, to be posted on his blog(the website where the information is duplicated). It is therefore only normal to be notified as such when we are trying to post an article on wikipedia. Could you please provide us with required steps to take, in order for the entry to be poisted and not deleted?

Thank you.

Ingie wiki (talk) 06:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Ingie wiki[reply]

1. The material is verbatim from http://www.ingieparis.com/en/home/story. Please see the terms and conditions of that website [1]—all its contents are copyright. We cannot host copyright material anywhere on Wikipedia unless it has been formally released under a free license. There is a procedure for obtaining the permission from the copyright holder and then verifying this with Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the guides. However, it's a quite complicated process, and frankly not worth it in this case.

2. Even if the material were appropriately licensed, it is written as a blatant advertisement and would need a complete rewrite before even having a chance of being accepted here. Please read Wikipedia:NOTADVERTISING and then look at the first sentence of this article:

"Ingie Chalhoub has long been established as one of the Middle East’s foremost fashion icons. Due to both her innate sense of style and her acumen in the fashion business, she has been pushing the boundaries of high fashion in the area since the opening the region’s first ever Chanel boutique in Kuwait in 1983."

The rest of the article is simply more of the same blatant PR.

3. You have provided no sources whatsoever which are independent of the subject (or her PR agency) which attest to her notability.

4. Finally, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

Voceditenore (talk) 07:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unresolved

hi, this is the first article I have submitted @ eng wiki & I don't understand the reason for rejection it. this same article was submitted @ the heb wiki and been accepted, with almost the exact same sources and info. the comment the editor left me was "subject appears to be a non-notable person" - how can I prove him wrong? the subject is well known expert @ information security and cyber warfare in israel and the whole world, nevertheless he is the developer of this breakthrough tec "paranoid". in his field, he is very important man and his actions have and will have far reaching implications. so I'd love some help here :)Shera.bashan (talk) 17:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After an article has been accepted and published, how long does it take for any modifications to be made later? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monathowfeek (talk • contribs) 10:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can edit it at any time once it is published in mainspace. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to add information on Tammy comic. It's genuine information. I worked in comics for many years at Fleetway Magazines and IPC Magazines in London. I know everyone in the many comics produced by those companies. I also personally know Steve Holland, the well-known expert on British comics, who has written much for Wikipedia. All that I have written is correct. Sincerely, Terence Magee — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.86.234.174 (talk) 10:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal knowlege is completely irrelevant - only published sources are acceptable, see WP:Verifiability. Please provide links to the page you worked on, as you are an unregisterted editor I can't find any AFC drafts in the contributions record of the IP you used to post here. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Help Desk, Referencing the above article for creation, the article has been drafted after the Project NExT page (a very similar program to CURM), which was accepted by Wikipedia. So, I am at a loss as to how the CURM article can be written in a less "advertisement" way. Could you please offer some guidance referencing specific sentences, etc.?

Thank you! DMCoff Dmcoff (talk) 15:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The submission has been clumsily paraphrased from one or more copyrighted sources which is not acceptable to Wikipedia. Moreover, the content of the submission provides little insight beyond a rehashing of first hand informational material -- there is much pseudo-marketing speak. When taken together, these three factors render this submission little more than a veiled advertisement for the organisation. To be acceptable to Wikipedia the submission needs to be fundamentally rewritten and evidence of the organisation notability made explicit through significant coverage in reliable sources -- per the guidance at WP:42. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 22:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I am asking for extra help because I have been struggling to correctly publish this article for weeks now, but appear to need extra assistance. I believe I used factual diction and that I was not biased in what I said about Amy, as everything mentioned can be back but to various sources.

I hope my re-submission is adequate, but let me know how best to get this article published.

Thank you for all your help and all you do!

Ben — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whiteben (talk • contribs) 17:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:INTREF and re-work your references so they are properly formatted. Also, the presence of duplicate references is making it doubly awkward for reviewers to verify what references support what information. Please remove any duplicate references. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 21:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Denise1gr (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC) Hello, I have two questions: 1. I have double-bracketed a number of names that link to articles within Wikipedia. I wonder, then, why is this article considered an orphan? 2. I checked all my urls and the ones that did not work, I archived and followed the Wikipedia format. l do have one Facebook site, but it is the only site of this Journal and since I am writing about the artist who illustrates all the covers, I referenced it. The site is public. Also, how do I figure out which are the bare URLs? When I click on them, I go straight to the site.[reply]

Any help would be grateful. Thank you denise1gr

Note - article is now at Alecos Papadatos.

Hi Denise. An article is an orphan if no other articles wikilink to it. Therefore, adding wikilinks in that article does not make it no longer an orphan! Only adding wikilinks to that article, from other articles, makes it no longer an orphan.

Alecos Papadatos is no longer an orphan because Logicomix wikilinks to it.

I don't think there are any bare URLs in your article now.

Incidentally, it is not essential to remove references that require a subscription in order to view - WP:PAYWALL says such references are permissible. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Could use some help here. New at creation and this author is my first submission. I have done some extensive research on this author after reading one of his books and noticed he wasn't listed on wiki. Submission was rejected needing independent and reliable references and stating the person is non-notable.

This author has published over 7 books, written articles and founded a crafts center in Vermont to be notable. Most of the books I cited with ISBN numbers. I was able to research original publication with reference to the founding of the craft center.

To address the issue of independent citations, I added text in first paragraph and cited two of author's works in an independent newspaper.

Is this now enough to resubmit or am I missing something? Thanks again for any help you can provide!

WilliamJLong72 (talk) 21:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sources do two things: verify the contents of an article and prove the subject is notable. The fact someone has published books does not make them notable. It's not the number of books published that make an author notable, but the impact those books have. We have people in wikipedia who have published fewer than 7 books, while other people who have churned out hundreds will never qualify for a mention let alone an article.

You need sources talking about the author. ISBNs are good for verifying the fact this guy is a published author, but to prove he is notable you need proof that people are talking about his work in the media or other published sources. Rankersbo (talk) 07:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Hi. I initially created this article on Oct 12, and it was promptly rejected the same day for reasons that are now evident to me (lack of references, failure to establish notability, wrong format...). I submitted a revision that I believe addressed most of these issues so it was not re-rejected immediately, and I understand that the review process is backlogged requiring two to three weeks. I also learned to check the queue, by age, patiently seeing my category (pending by number of days) move closer to the next "empty" category.

In the meantime I have continued to improve the article, adding further references, citations, and so on to convincingly convey notability of my subject. Normally, saving after improvements retains the same "priority" in the queue-- in that the entry remains in the same pending by age category.

Yesterday, a weird thing happened. After editing and saving as I have done in the past, my entry showed, in addition to the "pending for 14 days" category, and "submitted on Oct 13" category, two new ones; "pending for 0 days", and "submitted on October 28"-- which would mean "losing" two weeks in terms of queue priority! Now, when I check the "pending for 14 days category", I no longer see my entry, though it is still under the "submitted Oct 13" category-- and, to my utter frustration, see it in the "pending for 0 days".

Could you please help and explain to me what I did wrong, and better yet, make sure it continues to appear in its original priority queue (pending for 14 days)?

Many thanks for your kind assistance. (Masmahwik (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I now see the article for creation appears in the "pending 15 days" category, though it still says "14 days" at the bottom of the article and still has the "pending for 0 days" category. My concern is that the latter might over-ride the former. Thank you again for any advice/assistance (Masmahwik (talk) 23:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Oct 29 AM update: It looks like what I was fearing has happened; the submission is no longer in the "pending 15 days" (or 16) category; it is only in the "pending 1 day" category-- this seems really unfair. Is there a way it can be returned to its correct category, please? Thank you! (Masmahwik (talk) 11:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I've put the article back at the original place. When I cleaned it I didn't notice you had submitted the article a second time, so I have now set the article to the original submission time. Sorry. Now fixed. Rankersbo (talk) 07:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]