Please,provide any study or researches made to the above subject.

    God Bless  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.156.118.11 (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply] 

If you are not intending to submit an article for creation, your query might be better addressed at Wikipedia:Reference desk. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why my page is declined at Articles for Creation? Please, let me know the reason and help me in improving my article.Ikramafzal (talk) 07:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the submission was declined is listed at the top of the page. Links are also provided there to help you in improving the submission so that it is acceptable. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BEATLES ENTHUSIAST/AMATEUR HISTORIAN.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DAVE GILROY-SCOTT (talk • contribs) 09:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have declined the linked submission because it was blank. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles. A lot of Beatles related articles already exist - in particular The Beatles, John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr are all featured articles, which means they are considered some of Wikipedia's best work and must be edited with extreme care. We also have articles on tangential subjects such as 34 Montagu Square, Marylebone and Bigger Than Jesus. So while you might have an idea for a new Beatles article, the chances are reasonably likely that it already exists. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I asked to create an article for artist, Bunnie Mills; however, this article was declined. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesd1967 (talk • contribs) 11:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• MatthewVanitas explained to you underneath the "Submission declined" box why your submission was declined, and gave you some recommended reading to help you fix the problems. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My article looks doubled in my sand box?! I don't understand what has happened. In my sandbox page, I see my article and it says it has not been submitted, but if I scroll down, I see another, identical, box which says it has been submitted. I see the article in the main AfC queue so i'm quite sure it has been submitted. Somehow it looks to me as though there is a section within my article that has been submitted rather than the article itself??? But I don't know for sure. Anything I can/need to do? GMarin 11:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lrh246 (talk • contribs)

User:Lrh246/sandbox is only a redirect to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mobile Trauma Bay. Don't worry about the box saying that it hasn't been submitted. It has been submitted & will be reviewed in due course, & at some stage of the process the "not submitted" box will be removed. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted this article on the 27th of August and as it has not been reviewed yet, I'm wondering how much longer I can expect to wait?

Thank you,

Stability&strength (talk) 16:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are severely backlogged at the moment with close to 2,000 submissions awaiting review. Please be patient. However, the draft currently almost exclusively relies on primary sources, especially the company's own website. Wikipedia requires reliable sources that are independent of the subject to establish that the software is notable enough for an article. Without sources such as newspaper articles or reviews in reputable trade magazines we cannot accept the submission. You should add such sources immediately. Huon (talk) 00:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ThreadSafe was declined in May, on the grounds that the content was insufficiently notable and verifiable on the basis of independent references. At that time there were two references ([1] and [2] in the current draft) that, I agree, were not enough to verify the content.

I have now added two additional references ([3] and [4]). Now the submission has been declined again, on the grounds that "cluster of sources in the first pagragraph makes for uncompelling overall notability".

I don't quite understand: is the problem that it is a cluster, rather than individual sources relating to individual parts of the submission? Or is it that these 4 references together are still insufficient?

In my opinion, references [3] and [4] are high-quality independent references that contain enough detail to verify essentially all of the contents of the submission as well as its notability to a reasonable subset of the world-wide community of about 10 million Java developers (see Java_(programming_language)). I could reference the same sources repeatedly throughout the submission, but that would surely not improve its readability. Would it be enough to simply remove references [1] and [2], making the "cluster" smaller?

With a reviewing turnaround time of 4 weeks, it would be very helpful to have some guidance here! Thanks in advance.

Dsannella (talk) 17:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC) Dsannella[reply]

All the draft's content should be based on the given sources, and the purpose of footnotes is to clarify which source supports which statement. For example, the entire "Features" section seems to be based exclusively on the fourth reference. So it would probably be a good idea to move that footnote to the end of the section that's based on it. Right now the draft gives the impression that all four sources say the same things about the software, with the rest of the article unsourced. If you have to re-use some of the sources (see Help:Referencing for beginners#Same reference used more than once on how to easily do so), that's better than having statements whose source is unclear.

If the first two sources don't have anything to say about the software that isn't also said by the others you could just as well remove them, but only two sources that discuss the software in some detail are very few to establish its notability. Huon (talk) 01:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, My proposed article on the Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic (https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/User:Accuratezza/sandbox) was rejected because I had not provided references at the end. I do not know how to provide references for an entry on a journal, as I am unable to find any secondary sources on Google. Can someone advise me on what to do? Thank you. Accuratezza (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)Accuratezza[reply]

The sources need not be online, but they must exist to satisfy notability guidelines. You may cite offline sources with the instructions at WP:REFB ~Charmlet ^-talk- 17:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't find satisfactory sources you could perhaps add the information to the existing article about the Menninger Foundation. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Editor,

I have been graciously helped in putting together this article by Anne DeLong. She has now suggested I contact you in the hopes you will have a look at my article and point out any other things I should do to be accepted. Your help will be greatly appreciated.

Thanking you,

Johnzodrow (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(The page under discussion is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Rester Zodrow, which is currently waiting for review.) Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks to Technical 13 for reviewing my article. However I would like to point out that my article is a lot more detailed and accurate than the other article regarding Cristian Ceballos. I would like to ask for the submission of my article to be considered ahead of the other one if possible.

Thank You BobCg (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; I have accepted the draft. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia! Huon (talk) 01:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]