Hello, I created an article and submitted it. In my sandbox, I see the sentence below. I started to move the article into another are page of my sandbox but I get an error. I am not sure what to do. Best, HighSpeedWizzard

"This sandbox is in the Wikipedia talk namespace. Either move this page into your userspace, or remove the User sandbox template."

Hello HighSpeedWizzard It's just a coding issue, you're totally fine. I've been poking the programmers for a while asking them to fix that coding since it confuses folks, but it's not any problem with your draft, so just ignore that message until it goes away. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My question is simple: I tried to submit an article about a company and it was rejected because of advertisement reasons. How come companies such as Kickstarter or other big companies are allowed to have a page about their business with a link to their website ect...I do not see how my article differed from theirs other than the fact that their company is really famous. Even tough there is informative information about crown-funding for the kickstarter example, this page obviously serves for marketing purposes. I do not see any difference with what I am trying to do! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdogg514 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Advertising" is usually down to the tone of the article- encyclopaedia articles must flatly tell you the facts about a company, and be written from the perspective of a neutral observer. An article written from the perspective of the company, or that tries to tell you how great it is will be rejected.

Articles need to have sources to show that the company is notable- and yes unfortunately that sometimes means famous. But sources are also needed to show the facts in the article are true. Your article has no sources. Rankersbo (talk) 10:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/Solanum_pubescens.jpg

Solanum pubescens is a species of plant in the Solanaceae family. It is found in its natural habitat distributed in southern states of India. It is an unarmed shrub,grows to an height of 2m, fruits of which is edible and medicinal.

Solanum pubescens--Drorchidaceae (talk) 06:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC) Conservation status no data Scientific classification Kingdom: Plantae (unranked): Angiosperms (unranked): Eudicots (unranked): Asterids Order: Solanales Family: Solanaceae Genus: Solanum Species: S. pubescens Binomial name Solanum pubescens Willd. Synonyms Nil[reply]

<ref>1. Matthew , K.M. 1983 The flora of tamil nadu Carnatic Part 2 Gamopetalae and Monochlamydea. The Rapinat Herbarium, St. Joseph's college, Tiruchirapalli 620002, India 2. Compendium of Indian medicinal plants Vol 4. 1995, P. 682. CDRI Lucknow & PID New Delhi., 3. Phytochemistry 1984 23 2710. 4. Phytochemistry 1985.5. Phytochemistry 1986. 25 2003</ref> --Drorchidaceae (talk) 06:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, your question is about your declined article submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Solanum pubescens. But, what is your question? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am the editor of the entry Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bandung: Journal of the Global South and I would like to know if providing the publication agreement issued by the publisher Springer would suffice the criteria of the notability in order to get my entry approved? If so, is it possible to do it privately as the publication agreement is considered to be a confidential document?

Thank you very much for your help. FenixLai112 (talk) 09:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. The publishing agreement just shows the journal exists, not that it is notable. Notability needs to be shown by people talking about the journal. Rankersbo (talk) 10:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. As the University of Tokyo and different scholars from different universities have acknowledged the journal, we thought that the journal is sufficiently notable to have an article about it. But since notability is a subjective notion, may I ask by how the journal would be regarded as notable? It is because according to the Wikipedia:Notability_(published_works)#Forthcoming_publications, the publication agreement seems to be able to fulfill all the criteria listed there. FenixLai112 (talk) 11:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that page appears to be somewhat misleading. (Also, it is marked at the top as being only a proposed guideline, not an accepted one.) The availability of evidence to "indicate that production of the work has started" does not exempt the work from also meeting at least one of the "General criteria" further up that page. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On one hand, one of the reviewers advised me to look at the Wikipedia:Notability_(published_works) when the entry got rejected. On the another hand, another reviewer told me that that page is misleading and is only a proposed one. I would like to know if there are any uniform guidelines on notability to which I can reliably refer on Wikipedia? FenixLai112 (talk) 13:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia:Notability. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I tried to submit my most recent update on this article, but when I pressed save it saved an old version, not the most recent version. How can I fix this?

Thanks, Evan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eziporyn (talk • contribs) 18:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on View History at the top of the submission page it will take you to this page which is the history of the page. Once on that page, if you click on one of the time/date links on the left, you will be taken to an old version of the page, as it was at that time. You can then save that old version (with any further changes you want to make) and it will then become the latest version of the page. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I would appreciate some assistance and guidance on what I need to change in order to successfully submit this entry. I've followed some past advice, but without success and the entry was rejected (for a lack of notability) twice.

I have tried to demonstrate notability by including the following: - That the person is the CEO of the Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf, which is a big company (over 900 locations) and is very well known in the US and Asia. [[1]] - included links to articles from publications (Forbes, Nations Restaurant News) - included awards and nominations, with supporting links - included bio information, with supporting stories in notable media - included achievements under his leadership at the company, with supporting links

I also removed other information and links that were not sufficient, based on past advice.

Wikipedia has multiple entries for people that are IMHO, far less notable (based on title, achievements, company affiliation, etc.)!

I want to create other coffee industry profiles and content, but this has been discouraging and I'm ready to give up. Can anyone please provide me advice on how to better demonstrate notability, create an entry or deal with this process??

Thank you very much for your help! Jeff JeffAllenNYC (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)JeffAllenNYC[reply]

Hi, resubmitting this because didn't hear back; would appreciate your help. The last reviewer said that I have not cited to enough coverage of Shahshahani, so in addition to the journal article, I added cites to a few interviews as well as announcements of awards elaborating on her work. The most recent review says that these sources are not reliable. I am not sure what else I am supposed to cite to. Would appreciate your guidance. (I just re-reviewed the guide you all have for references and the sources that I have used seem to fall under the acceptable category; please advise). Mghovan (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]