User talk:FoCuSandLeArN/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Article Denied, Charles stitch wong

Hi Focusandlearn! Thank you for spending the time to review my page. I have noticed that you have commented that the site isn't notable. However, Charles Stitch Wong has competed in Singapore Idol 2009, which is compliant to Criteria 9 in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MUSIC and he has also opened for Kanye West's Glow in the Dark Concert, which is compliant to Criteria 4.

Both of the above has been referenced.

Kindly let me know if there are further improvements that i need to make to this page before it is approved.

Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stitchbeatbox (talk • contribs) 06:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

No extensive coverage in independent nor reliable sources. If the appropriate references are not provided, even if a person's notable, the article won't be accepted. Find sources such as newspapers and magazines if you can. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 12:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! ACtually, Charles Stitch Wong has appeared on Singapore Idol 2009, and i have referenced this to the Singapore Idol Wikipedia Site. Its actually under "Season 3 (2009)" Will a wiki site be independent and reliable enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.193.124 (talk) 07:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 10:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok thanks! i've added reference from Today and The New Paper. kindly let me know if it meets the criteria now. thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stitchbeatbox (talk • contribs) 03:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

son of the velvet rat

Hi Focusandlearn! Thank you for reviewing my page. which reliable sources do you mean? isn't the austrian newspaper 'wiener zeitung' reliable and the official austrian charts - website? Both has been referenced. i have about 100 reviews about son of the velvet rat (newspaper, journals), there were features at the official austrian TV and Radio (ORF), he opened for Chuck Berry (http://www.kleinezeitung.at/steiermark/graz/graz/629639/index.do) and finally got the greencard to establish his music in the US. Lucinda Williams mentioned the band in an interview: http://stereosubversion.com/interviews/lucinda-williams .

Kindly let me know what further improvements that i need to make to this page before it is approved. Vanny terrain (talk) 05:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Those are a good start, but we need extensive coverage in independent and reliable sources about the band itself. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 11:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Page numbers required for Colonel Ivan L. Slavich, Jr. entry

Thank you so much for taking the time to review the article I submitted. You are correct that the page numbers for Prochnau, Booth and Tregaskis are not listed in the footnotes; however, the page number for each citation is listed immediately after it in the text using named references in conjunction with the Rp template to specify the page. Will that suffice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dslavichhixson (talk • contribs) 13:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dethiosulfovibrio peptidovorans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anaerobic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

AfC via WT:CHM

Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Warren L. McCabe, that you mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry, looks like a viable article. I don't know the technical intricacies of the AfC process, so feel free to do "whatever one does" in this situation.

Thanks for leaving us pointers to these new entries! It would be helpful if you included visibly the subject rather than having it solely hidden behind a "here" or "another one" link-pipe. That way we can tell whether we've already looked at it (I've accidentally re-followed the link to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Graphene transfer many times when looking back for things to do, or get lost among the various talkpage discussions). Would AfC (and projects that get referred to them:) benefit from a more standardized way of calling for project help? Maybe an AfC subpage for a certain field where you place links to request help, and then the relevant project transclude that to their project-space. Lots of projects have notice-boards or article-alert systems, some of which are (or at least used to be) automatically updated, but often stall. DMacks (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

International Human Rights Commission (IHRC)

Hi. My article International Human Rights Commission (IHRC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/International_Human_Rights_Commission_%28IHRC%29 has been declined. I wish to explain about the article. This article is about an Inter Governmental Organization commissioned and funded by more than 75 countries with its international secretariat in Poland. Its head office is in Islamabad and its Chairman is Honorable Ambassador Dr. Muhammad Shahid Amin Khan. This organization is working for raising voice against human rights violations all over the world. To give IHRC more outreach to the human rights activists and victims we want to launch the article so that people can find information on IHRC on wikipedia. This is out first attempt to create any article on wikipedia so we would appreciate any help we can get in creating this article.

Regards Ch. M. Qaiser IHRC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qaiserchaudhry (talk • contribs) 05:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Reasons for rejecting The Ram Bahadur Bomjon Controversy article

Dear FocusAndLearn, I have posted this comment on the Help Desk, as I did not first find a way to contact your directly. So sorry if I am repeating myself by copying the same here:

Dear Editors, My article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/The_Ram_Bahadur_Bomjon_Controversy had been rejected on the following grounds:"It's not clear what the article's actually about. There's a controversies section in the [Bahadur Bomjon] article already, but most of these statements are unreferenced, and will never be accepted into the encyclopaedia as they are presented".

I do not agree. These reasons can be checked by anyone, and will be hardly found true. I would like to ask if the author can ask for more people to review the article, eventually to review the review. Concretely, [article] very clearly states that it is about the wide range of controversies concerning Ram Bahadur Bomjon, and the text of the article is exactly about this, reading it one can clearly see. There is no other topic inside the article, than this list of all the known controversies. Thus your justification that "it is not clear what is the article about" is minimallt strange. All its chapters are just about the list of cont The Ram Bahadur Bomjon article mentions only 2 of them, and not linked to reliable sources. While I mention in [Ram Bahadur Bomjon Controversy article] all known cases (circa 15), linked to sources like Nepali TV news, French TV documentaries, and all the main Nepali newspapers. If this is called "unreferenced statements", then I am very surprised.

My article contains about 40 reference links, and not to such tabloid sources like the existing Ram Bahadur Bomjon article used (Hindustani Times justifying kidnappings and tortures by the victim's "witchcraft", for example, see recent edit history). Moreover there are tens of extra media links confirming the statements of my article, not only in the text body, but also in the References section. One familiar with the articles on Wikipedia knows that this is hardly the case of all articles (even less of the mentioned [article] on Bomjon! Yet the reviewer still justified the article's rejection by "unreferenced statements".

Another issue I cannot accept is his/her argument that the word "controversies" had been used in the [existing] Ram Bahadur Bomjon article: as I mentioned, there it shows only 2 out of about 15 known cases, moreover not linked to multiple reliable media sources, like [article] does (often confirming the statements by 2-3 independent sources in one chapter). Please re-review my article. I can only hardly "improve" a text which clearly describes the facts known by Nepali and international media and provable by police and government authorities.

I did not want to interfere with the apparent purpose of the author of the already existing Ram Bahadur Bomjon article, which is near to a propagational text: listing under this existing article 15 very controversial issues (including violent attacks with sword, for example), proved by police and media (see links in my article text and References), would probably not be welcome by the author, who had apparently focused on creating a one-sided image, leaving out the widely known and discussed controversies, but copy-pasting (is copying not against the rules of Wikipedia?) rather two long speeches, which are anyway part of all the official websites of Ram Bahadur Bomjon (of which that article anyway provide links).

But if the editors/reviewer advises me to do this (to add the whole list of 15 controversies under the Controversies Chapter of the existing article on Ram Bomjon, I can do it, though the whole article will become very long then.

Is it a usual argument to reject an article, on the base that its main topic (controversy) had been already - briefly and superfluously - mentioned in another Wikipedia article? If I rename the title for example the "Violent activity of Ram Bahadur Bomjon" or something similar, then it will be accepted? Yet the word "controversy" is less direct and giving more space to free assessment of the described affairs by the reader, and a few cases (document forgery, land ownership issues)simply are not violence, but are still serious controversies to leave out from an overview. It is a word I prefer to keep. How to proceed?

(Please, also take into account that holding back information which would balance the unrealistic image of a person who is publicly active, can cause a situation when the list of controversies would grow. To stop this is my only motivation to publish this balanced and full image of the controversies of Ram Bomjon, well-known to Nepali society, yet intentionally hidden from the international public - while three of Bomjon's violence victims had been foreigners: having had known about the former two controversies (Anil Khatri, Spanish woman) of this Guru from Wikipedia, which is the first source for every foreigner to learn about him, the would have not suffered the violence and other crimes! Thus it is a also the responsibility of an author, editor and reviewers to maintain a truthful picture of such powerful public figures. Encyclopedias should be not for intellectual pleasure only, but usable for practical issues and helping to make decisions and choices, which could often lead to life-or-death situations).

Thank you, Marici Punarvasu (talk) 05:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Marici PunarvasuMarici Punarvasu (talk) 05:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Marici Punarvasu (talk) 10:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Marici PunarvasuDear

Please comment on changes to the AfC mailing list

Hello FoCuSandLeArN! There is a discussion that your input is requested on! I look forward to your comments, thoughts, opinions, criticisms, and questions!

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.

This message was composed and sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		A barnstar to you for re-reviewing at least 25 user reviews during the WikiProject Articles for creation December 2013 - January 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive. Thanks for contributing to the backlog elimination drive! Posted by Northamerica1000 (talk) on 10:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation

The Bronze Wiki Award!

		The Bronze Wiki Award
		Congratulations, you have earned The Bronze Wiki Award for having performed the third highest number of reviews during the WikiProject Articles for creation December 2013 - January 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive. Thanks for contributing to the backlog elimination drive! Posted by Northamerica1000 (talk) on 11:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC), on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation

Can I delete the article I wrote?

Hello, FoCuSandLeArN, thank you for your advice. The title article had already existed, which I somehow did not find when I tried to search the title before creating a double. (Probably I typed the name of the title person in a wrong order.) I apologize for taking up your time and appreciate if you delete it. (Or, is there any way I can delete my own article?)Thank you. George0810 (talk) 15:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

No worries, it happens to all of us! Please continue contributing! Sure thing, I can request deletion. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

And now it is deleted! jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 17:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Your posts in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics

You give always the same heading to the new sections that you create in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. It follows that when following the link (in the watchlist) to your new section, one finds the oldest post instead of the newest. Please use different headings, for example by including the date or the title of the AfC submission. Thanks. D.Lazard (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, It didn't occur to me before; thanks for the heads-up! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation March 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello FoCuSandLeArN:

WikiProject AFC is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from March 1, 2014 to March 31, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2700 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script has been released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks.
Posted by Northamerica1000 (talk) on 02:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation

Kilgour

Hi there: my username is wimpole3 and I have put forward two entries on 'Kilgour' both of which have been rejected for reading 'like an advertisement'. Not understanding the Wikipedia protocol, I agree that the first submission was a little subjective but the second post was backed up (I thought) by independent verification of all the statements made which I included in the post. Have I inadvertently submitted the first post with the second? If not can you give me some indication of what the objection(s) is/are to the second post? Thanks Hugh Wimpole3 (talk) 11:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The current submission doesn't have any independent nor reliable sources and is extremely promotional in tone and language. Almost half or more of the sentences are so. I shouldn't have to state the obvious. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dinophysis acuminata, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phototrophic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Alexis Bonte

Why the article doesn't shows the notability of the person? I say that he has one of the most important starts up in europe and one of the most important music and digital services in Romania. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JofreS (talk • contribs) 06:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The review criteria are quite clear in this case. Please read the pink box and the comments below it. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 12:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Question on a rejected Article

Hello, Wanted to understand the issue on the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Saibanisa

Can you please let me know what is the issue and how can it be resolved?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijishvanya (talk • contribs) 14:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not at all clear what the submission is actually about. It seems to be a mix of religious texts, a subjective biography and personal reflections about someone and something. No personal opinion may be expressed on Wikipedia articles, unless it's by a third party and is appropriately referenced. Also, the article's subject needs to be notable, and count with appropriate sources to prove it. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Rejected "Deborah Burrows"

Hi, this entry has been rejected twice on the grounds of "notability".

Ms Burrows has had two novels published by Pan Macmillian. Her first novel was longlisted for a Dravitt award. She gives talks on our local Western Australian history eg: http://u3auwa.org/uploads/pdf/State%20Library%20Lecture/2013-10%20Perth%20at%20War.pdf these matters have been referenced. How more notable do you want? She may not be in Tim Winton's league ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Winton ), but she is an independently published Western Australian author. I am an acquaintance of Ms Burrows, but I have not seen her for 5 years or more. Wikipedia has entries for porn stars, so I think there's room for a new novelist! Please review your decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norpois (talk • contribs) 11:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

My comments were quite clear, but I include the appropriate links in case you didn't see them: WP:AUTHOR, WP:IRS, WP:IS and WP:COI. She might be notable, but you need to establish her notability through adequate sourcing; reviews from newspapers and magazines are just one example. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: Five Against Venus

When I first saw Wikipedia's list of science-fiction novels I noticed that roughly a dozen of the red-linked titles are books that I have in my personal library. I thought that I might write the basic articles on them, providing a description of the book and of the story in it, so that users of the list would at least have a means to find out what the book is about. But your requirement for notability and independent reference goes well beyond my competence: I don't even know what notability would mean for a science-fiction novel published in the 1950's, when the literary establishment regarded science fiction as beneath contempt and beneath notice. You need a real professional for this job. I can't give you what you want, so you should delete this file and not waste any more time on it.Kanawishi (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello there! Sorry you feel that way. It's not such a daunting job. A couple of reviews and media coverage should do the trick! You have to understand that otherwise Wikipedia would be a repository of book plots. There are millions of books out there, and we need to weed out the ones that deserve a spot in an encyclopaedia. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

About Fachübersetzungen

Hello, I am contacting you because I have added secondary citations to this article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Profi_Fach%C3%BCbersetzungen), but it is still rejected. They are German sources. Would you kindly tell me what is the problem with the page?--41.47.2.40 (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

You've provided no independent nor reliable sources, so it's not notable. It also fails WP:CORP. The only sources you've provided are press releases. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you!

After creating so many top-notch articles today, you deserve a beer. All the very best, Pjposullivan (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Natrinema versiforme, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pleomorphic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: Sara Jay

I don't know what I am doing wrong. Sara Jay is one of the most famous stars in adult. Don't that fact alone make her notable? Ilovepitts (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Nothing makes someone notable per se. On Wikipedia, we use independent and reliable sources to establish someone's notability. None of the references you provided qualified as such, therefore I declined your article at the time being. If indeed she is notable, you won't have any problem in providing these. Be aware that porn actors and actresses usually are considered notable when they have won a major industry award. You might also want to read WP:COI. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I did supply a major industry award... I have added other achievements including mainstream success. You guys are on a witch hunt. I could put a reference to Sara Jay being the MOST googled pornstar on the planet but you don't care. It's because she is in porn that you are NOT putting this up. She has won an award and has mainstream credits and done over 200 movies. All the references are done right. If you are just a bunch of uptight right wing fundamentalists giving me a hard time, just say so. Everyone in the world of adult knows exactly who she is. Heck she has 400,000 followers on twitter. Why are you making this so difficult? I am confused, upset and really think you are rejecting because of your dislike for adult stars. Correct me if I am wrong.

Ilovepitts (talk) 23:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course you are mistaken. As is often the case with adult-related article draft submitters at AfC, they think their particular porn star is of major significance and somehow "deserves" an article on an encyclopaedia, and come about aggressively when certain criteria are pointed out to them that need addressing. I am simply helping you correct these criteria in order to get the article accepted and you reply with pointless attacks. If you refuse to accept changes to the article you are better off not editing on Wikipedia, as it is a collaborative encyclopaedia and nobody owns articles. You also would have a very hard time editing if you treat your fellows in that manner. I remind you about the policies and guidelines I suggested you follow to improve your submission, posted after the submission's heading, and that it all comes down to adequate referencing. As a rule of thumb, AVN awards for the most important award categories are considered notable. Neither Twitter nor Google statistics have any bearing on notability. I also cannot stress enough that if you have an agenda or conflict of interest, it's best you do not edit articles that fall upon said conflict. Finally, please refrain from threats and accusations, as you will easily end up being banned. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I perhaps was upset that the effort going into the article was being out of hand rejected. While an AVN Award is an important industry accolade it is not the only industry accolade. AVN does not have a ton of accolades for interracial performers which is why the Urban X Hall of Fame Award is important. I have beefed up the article and I apologize if I upset you. I do think the google stats important because those were reported on by the press. Regards and thanks for your work on wikipedia. Ilovepitts (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello! WP:PORNBIO should be a good starting point. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Cheers. I have beefed it up with mainstream appearances, movies and credits as well as more traditional nominations. Hopefully it passes muster. I did not know how much work goes into article creation. Just as an FYI there are not a lot of girls in the business who could merit being on the Russell Brand show or getting a Fleshlight made (which is an expensive process for the manufacturer). Regards. Ilovepitts (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Jobvite

Hi, there! I posted about a high-tech company called Jobvite, and you said that the subject lacks notability. I'm an employee in tech in the San Francisco Bay Area, and it is prominent here. I would like to edit more tech articles, but I am new to Wikipedia. Can you help me determine why this company lacks notability but other tech companies in the SF Bay Area don't? I'd love your feedback :)

Thanks,

Rachel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raemorg (talk • contribs) 18:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello there! I'm glad you're willing to edit more articles on Wikipedia! If you're associated to that particular company, it's best if you weren't involved in creating its article or editing it, as per WP:COI.

As for notability, Wikipedia has its own standards with regards to companies and organisations, but if something has extensive coverage in independent and reliable sources it's usually considered notable. You didn't provide this, hence I declined the submission. Other SF companies might have articles on Wikipedia, but that shouldn't concern us at the moment. It all comes down to notability. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey

Hey i found more resources and references. but im having trouble with the page. is there anyway you could help me? I would really appreciate it. Im a newbie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Leah_Zell

thank you!

Molly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magriffin117 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure, how can I help? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!! so they told me i needed more qualified resources which i found and added. However the references section doesnt appear to show up correct. and my html skills are pitiful at best. Since you offered me advice on how to revise the page i was hoping you could help me figure out the correct formatting. and or tell me if you think it has the potential to get approved!!

I really appreciate your help. I wish i was more talented!!

thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magriffin117 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

No problem. The easiest way to place references is to use the helper tool when editing an article. At the top of the edit box you'll see two big As, a pencil, a chain, etc. and at the very right a blue link that says "Cite". If you click there then select an option below, where it says "Templates", you can choose which type of reference you want to cite: a website, book, etc. The other way is by using ref tags, which you can read about here. From the top I can probably estimate she has some degree of notability that might be enough for Wikipedia, but you definitely need to beef up those sources. Hope this helps, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I used it and it still is no appearing correctly!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magriffin117 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

They are, it's just that you placed them at the bottom of the article instead of where you actually want to make the citation. Just copy and past them to whatever section you want to reference. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

BY GEORGE I THINK WE GOT IT!!!! now i need help resubmitting. Thank you for your help!!! I cant seem to find resubmit button! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magriffin117 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Please don't remove what's between the {{ }}. Also remember to place the citations after what you want to confirm, not at the end of the article, as that would defeat their purpose. Just cut the ref tags and what's inside them to where you want them to appear. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 02:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Rejected Biography of Christopher Moll

Dear FoCusandLeArn,

I'm hoping you can be of assistance. A recent submission for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Christopher_Moll was declined for a 2nd time, and it's unclear to me why this bio is being declined, with notable references from publications such as Rolling Stone have been added. While I have read through the comments and requirements, it's unclear specifically what the issue is with the article. I can add more references and photos even...If you can give me a direct example of an issue with the bio that may need correction, or an example of one that would be considered a "best case" scenario, I would appreciate it. I feel very in the dark as to what the issues are, and have spent a great deal of time researching this bio for wiki entry because he is a notable musician.

Many thanks Mzheatheranne (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello there. Of the references presented, one is a blog, one doesn't mention the subject and the other is not enough to establish notability. Notability of the albums he's produced doesn't necessarily mean he's notable by extension. See WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Also, the biography's written in a promotional tone, e.g. "The Postmarks received significant airplay even before it's February release"; "Before the band had played a single show, See Venus gained an international reputation", "a number generally acknowledged to have magical qualities", etc. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#AfC_submission_-_03.2F03

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#AfC_submission_-_03.2F03. Tito☸Dutta 17:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

P36 locomotive AfC

Myself and another editor at WT:RAIL are of the opinion that the AFC is of sufficient quality to release into mainspace. Referencing could be a bit better, but it isn't that bad. Mjroots (talk) 13:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Kilgour

Hi there: my username is wimpole3 and I have put forward two entries on 'Kilgour' both of which have been rejected for reading 'like an advertisement'. Not understanding the Wikipedia protocol, I agree that the first submission was a little subjective but the second post was backed up (I thought) by independent verification of all the statements made which I included in the post. Have I inadvertently submitted the first post with the second? If not can you give me some indication of what the objection(s) is/are to the second post? Thanks Hugh Wimpole3 (talk) 11:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wimpole3 (talk • contribs)

It's still plagued with subjective comments and peacock terms, such as "instrumental in preserving and enhancing Savile Row’s reputation as a haven of the World’s finest tailoring", "employs only the finest specialists in their disciplines" and so on. It's also utterly unreferenced. WP:IRS, WP:IS and WP:REFB will give you a very concise account of what Wikipedia needs as sources. Also see WP:CORP about the notability of companies. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Davide Tucci Article Decline

Hello, I'm wondering the reasons behind the article about Davide Tucci being declined.

There are plenty of resources included.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Regards, Mack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maltesemacklemore (talk • contribs) 22:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

No extensive coverage in independent nor reliable sources, therefore non-notable. This should be quite straightforward. He's non-notable for Wikipedia, and doesn't seem notable at all after a quick search. Wikipedia is not a means for promotion. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 02:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Ursula Günther AfC thanks

Thanks for the help and cleanup on the Ursula Günther AfD -- I posted on my Facebook wall a call for female scholars to create articles on important women in the field of music who didn't yet have articles and I had one friend who had never edited WP who decided to take up the challenge. Thanks for the work on making it a worthy WP article. Günther was a major star in the field and I'll make sure that some of the biographical information gets inline citations to her biography in the reference music dictionary. All the best, -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

My pleasure! It's nice to accept a good article after the daily barrage of crap we get at AfC. I hope more of them take up the challenge. We get a few of these monthly, if you want to give them a heads-up to have a look at the queue on a regular basis. I usually refer articles such as these to Voceditenore, but the more the merrier! Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 03:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Rejected biography of Alessandra Marianelli: a question about sources

Hello FoCuSandLeArN,

I fully respect your rejection of my first draft. Also, thank you for the leads you provided me. I don't fully understand the use of quotes in a Google search, but I'm impressed by the harvest it yielded.

I have three opera/theatre biographies in rejection status. All of them need better sources. The sources exist, but they are not accessible by the Web. They tend to be newspaper clippings from the press books of the persons involved.

I'm prepared to create a Web site where I could park images of the press clippings, thus rendering them accessible by the Web.

Would this be acceptable?

If so, could you help me with the criteria for using these clippings?

- Does the clipping have to appear on a full page of the source, so that one can see the masthead, date and page number?

- If I don't have the full page, i.e. if I'm only able to show the clipping itself, is it enough to cite the name of the source and the date - or is the page number required?

Thanks - and best wishes,

Basil Carmody Lisaby 12:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisaby (talk • contribs)

There's no need to do the website thing, as long as you provide full citations of those sources, including page number, issue, etc. It's not extremely important if those aren't available, but try to convey as much information about the sources as possible. Beware that not all press coverage sustains notability. Minor local coverage will most likely land your article with another decline. Sometimes artists just aren't notable. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Hi, Lisaby, FoCuSandLeArN is right. The source doesn't need to be online, but if not, you must have physically seen the clipping (not simply taken the subject's word for it) and you must provide full bibliographic information, e.g.

Franchi, Susanna (22 August 2010). "Salisburgo sul lago ". La Repubblica, Section: Torino, p. 13

Just a couple of other things... Per the Wikipedia Manual of Style, the article's subject is referred to by their last name only after the opening sentence, never "Miss Marianelli". Links to Amazon.com and other commerical sites are never appropriate as references for recordings. The reference needs to be minimally the recording's catalog number, e.g. for Verdi's Un Giorno Di Regno use "Label: C Major #720208". Alternatively use the OCLC reference number. e.g. OCLC 851583956. Or far more preferably, use a review published in a reliable independent source, for example this one from Opera News. Hope that helps. Voceditenore (talk) 13:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Hi, Lisaby, me again. I also had a look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nagle Jackson. There, the entire "Personal" section is completely unreferenced and appears to contain biographical details which have not been published anywhere else. If you obtained them from your personal knowledge of the subject or by correspondence with him, the material is completely unusable, and especially in the biography of a living person. Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiabilty explain more about that. Having said that, Nagle Jackson is notable. There are multiple articles about him and his work—in English and online—here and here. These are what you should be using as references. Voceditenore (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello FoCuSandLeArN,

In your rejection of the Marianelli bio, you referred to "potted" biographies.

One of my references contains much of the same content as the potted biographies, but it seems to me to be independent.

It is signed by Renzo Bellardone on 27th December 2010. He is president of the cultural association "La Voce" (for info on R.B. see [1]

His interview of Marianelli is a contribution to the Una Voce Poco Fa blog:

[2]

Do you know of any reason why it shouldn't be considered independent and objective? Lisaby 21:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisaby (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, "potted" biographies? Unfortunately, neither blogs nor LinkedIn are considered reliable. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

"Potted biographies" is referring to my comments here. By that I mean, they are the standard brief biographies used in programme/liner notes. They are all virtually identical, are supplied by the artist or their agent and are therefore not independent of the subject. Ditto the one used at the outset of the blog interview. At most only one should be used, and even that only for the most basic facts, e.g. birth date and place and where she studied. They are not indicative of multiple in-depth coverage. This subject will pass notability at this point solely via criteria 5 and 6 of Wikipedia:MUSBIO, and to verify that, we need reviews/articles in sources which are completely independent of the subject and not from a blog. At most, the blog can be used as an external link, not as a reference for anything in the article. Even the competitions she placed in require independent sources if they are to be mentioned. However, note that neither the Cascinalirica nor the Concorso Spiros Argiris are major international competitions. The competition results are available online and I suggest that Lisaby use those as references, if he wants to add a mention of them. They cannot be referenced to any of the sources currently in the article. Lisaby, please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, all the way through. FoCuSandLeArN and I are not making this up. Voceditenore (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your additional comments. Following your advice, I've found about 60 references which I think will make the grade. My goal now is to finally have one of my three biographies approved. I hope that one of the two of you will be the editor assigned to evaluate it.Lisaby 20:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisaby (talk • contribs)

Hello FoCuSandLeArN, I just invited Voceditenore to sharpen his knives, because I was about to submit v. 2 of the Alessandra Marianelli bio. I wanted to include you in the invitation too.Lisaby 04:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisaby (talk • contribs)

Fixing the mess with Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Papaverhof

It's possible for an administrator to merge the two histories (as long as the draft isn't edited further). Then the the draft's creator would be credited as the article's creator. We can then restore the material in the history to the article with full credit. GiantSnowman did that for me once in a slightly different situation. See [3] and [4]. You should ask him. If he doesn't think that would work, I've got another plan up my sleeve. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

What's the issue here? GiantSnowman 16:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Snowman: this article was incorrectly rejected at AfC, and a stub created in its stead. We need their histories merged, and then we'll move the content over and thank the author if he or she's still around. Greatly appreciated, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to note that the stub was created by someone else in response to this. GiantSnowman, the current stub article is at Papaverhof. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I WP:Boldly fixed the mess by accepting the draft to Papaverhof complex and then tagged both pages for WP:Merging. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Cheers for that! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Kilgour

Sorry - what happened was I resubmitted the original post with the revised post so of course you had the same objections - I will now try and submit just the revised version which I think addresses the problems you raised. Best HRH — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wimpole3 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Wimpole3, this is Voceditenore. I do a lot work with Focus at Articles for Creation. Go back to the draft and remove all your previous versions. Leave only the final version you want to submit this time. Having said that, it will almost certainly be rejected again. This is an encyclopedia. Your newest version draft doesn't even say what the company is. It starts off: "Kilgour began as T & F French, founded in 1882. The business merged with A.H. Kilgour in 1923 and became known as Kilgour & French" . What "business"? Fishmongers? Chemists? Accountants?

Then we come to "A new collection of lean, unstructured clothing, pared down to the fundamental components of fine tailoring." (UGH!)

"The Spring Summer 2009 collection confirming Kilgour’s emergence as an international luxury goods brand." (UGH!).

Kilgour is a very notable company. Its clothes are held in the Victoria and Albert Museum and the Rhode Island School of Design Museum. There has been quite a lot written about it books, including a rather long analysis of the suit it made for Cary Grant in North by Northwest.

Do not concentrate on cherry-picked praise from fashion magazines. It stands out a mile as PR. "The first issue of Men’s Vogue waxed lyrical about Kilgour’s ‘lean, structured shoulders and the subtle uplift of the chest’" (UGH!)

Write a dry, boring, adjective-free, neutral, description of the company and its history, referenced to proper independent sources, i.e. write an encyclopedia article. And no, "A major relaunch of the brand is planned for Summer 2014." doesn't belong there either. Wikipedia articles are not press releases. I imagine the major relaunch and the mini relaunch due for the end of this month [5] are what prompted this submission? Whether or not they did, the article shouldn't read like they did.

Get hold of some decent books on the subject, e.g. Fashioning London: clothing and the modern metropolis; Saville Row: The Master Tailors of British Bespoke; Bespoke: Savile Row Ripped and Smoothed, Mad Men, Mad World: Sex, Politics, Style, and the 1960s, Fashion Brands: Branding Style from Armani to Zara. They all have material on Kilgour and of a rather more enduring quality than the stuff written in fashion magazines. Voceditenore (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Bank

Just trying to add an english translation of the bank info — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.82.53.168 (talk) 11:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok. It seems like you're still editing the submission. Please resubmit once you're finished, not before. And also remember to provide the appropriate references, following WP:CORP. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 11:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)