Help desk
< March 28	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 30 >

Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

March 29

Review of User:Gabe.chaleff/sandbox

Hi, I was curious as to the reasons for the denial of this submission. thanks Gabe.chaleff (talk) 03:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gabe.chaleff - Have you read the Review at the top of the page? The main problem is that you have not properly referenced the article. See Referencing for beginners for guidance. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

child immunization 1966 USA

YOU ARE WRONG I WILL GET THIS PUBLISIED!!! YOUR DENIELS ARE A JOKE__I KNOW YOU!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karen1408 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, actually you do know me, Karen. Good to see you again! How are you doing? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:0Aliuk/sandbox

Why do I keep getting declined?? I don't know what to add or improve at least explain to me what to add not just wanting to delete my page! What do you mean it is not important!. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:0Aliuk/sandbox https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Web_Designs_4_U https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Ali_ibraheem— Preceding unsigned comment added by 0Aliuk (talk • contribs) 11:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read the decline reason given in the pink box at the top of the page - and also read the guideline pages linked from there. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ Candida Moss

Hello - I submitted this article for creation, the first article on WP I had written, before I realised that I could just create it myself, I thought every new article had to go through this process. I told someone at AfC that I would just create the article myself now I knew I could so they could drop this draft, or whatever you call it, and they said they would, but apparently they didn't, so it should have been deleted a long time ago. ThanksSmeat75 (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confuzzlement. The stray draft, i.e. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ Candida Moss, will probably get deleted in six months or so from whenever it was last edited. It probably doesn't cause many problems in the meantime. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/JuliaBella

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhripunov (talk • contribs) 22:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The backlog is several weeks, but since this submission was seriously flawed and there is a high probability that this company does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines and therefore cannot have an article at all, I went ahead and reviewed and declined it. You can see additional comments at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/JuliaBella. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of FlyersRights.org

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/FlyersRights Does anyone know why the nonprofit consumer rights group, FlyersRights, was just rejected?? Libby Norman emailed me, but don't know the reasons why. Please help.

Thank you ANYONE for a response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendall44 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you,

kendall ann FlyersRights.org kendallc@flyersrights.org 424-789-9304 Kendall44 (talk) 23:46, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the information in the pink box at the top of your submission and the comment that appears immediately below the pink box. In a nutshell, you need more-appropriate references and you need to write with a less promotional tone. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wyrd Arts Initiatives

Hi,

I tried to create a wiki for Weird Canada / Wyrd Arts Initiatives, and it was rejected. I would like to find it to try again, but am really struggling. Please help me to find it?

108.161.126.113 (talk) 01:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wyrd Arts Initiatives? You may wish to create an account so that you can track all of your contributions. When you edit without logging in, only your current IP address is associated with the edit. When you change IP addresses, it's easy to lose track of your earlier edits. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Only1tomfriar/sandbox

Hi, I was wondering if you could help. After recently submitting my article it was rejected with reasons: Not the place for original theories. Majority of sources are the creators of the concept. No evidence that it has been accepted in general use. The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 14:28, 29 March 2014

I'm a little confused by this, firstly since this theory has been recognized in the literature since 1992 and is certainly not original; secondly, the sources provided do contain several Robert Sternberg references but they are all from well recognized respected journals and are of academic quality - these are the best quality references available; thirdly, the theory is widely accepted e.g. see http://www.craigkunce.com/creativity_investing.html , http://www.kent.edu/ehhs/oaa/dissertations/upload/beinejeffery.pdf , http://livingwithlivewires.com/the-investment-theory-of-creativity. In addition, Wikipedia itself references to the investment theory already within https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Creativity . Within google scholar the investment theory is cited by 661 sources...

Ok cheers, any thoughts are appreciated -Tom

@Only1tomfriar: First, I moved your sandbox to Draft:Investment Theory of Creativity. You are welcome to remove the redirect and utilize your sandbox for something else if you so desire. Second, the problem with Investment Theory of Creativity is that it heavily relies on Sternberg's work. I could find many journal articles citing his work in their papers, but I had a hard time finding any third party discussion of the topic at all. That said, does the theory pass general notability if no one else is talking about said theory? I'm inclined to support accepting this article but I'm really uncomfortable with it being so reliant on the originating academic. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chris. I'll have a look at the referencing again + see if it can be diversified. Thomas Friar (talk) 06:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]