Shortcut: WP:DRAW

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for creation, Wikipedia:Peer review, Wikipedia:Centralized discussion, and Wikipedia:Requests for feedback

There are many new articles that are being created that appeal to a wide audience. Likewise, there are many people with good ideas for new articles that might interest other people but they want to discuss it with others first. This page is for discussing ideas you have about new articles before you create them. It allows you to ask the opinion of others before spending time in creating an article. If you post here, you should explain (briefly) why you think an article is merited (that is, why a subject is notable), and you should provide at least a couple of links (to demonstrate that there are reliable sources for such an article).

Here are other options besides posting to this page:

• If you simply want to suggest a topic for an article without giving any details or sources, go to Wikipedia:Requested articles.

• If you're not a registered editor, and you've written a complete article, you can submit the text of that article at Wikipedia:Articles for creation, for review (and, if acceptable) posting to Wikipedia as new article.

• For questions about general knowledge, please use the Wikipedia:Reference desk

• For questions about how to use Wikipedia, the place to go is Wikipedia:New contributors' help page

• If your idea is directly related to a specific article that already exists, it is probably better to discuss it on that article's talk page, or at the relevant WikiProject (which normally is listed at the top of the article's talk page).

• If you're a registered editor, discussing articles before creating them is optional. If you're ready, be bold and start the page!

To start a new discussion on this page

1. Do not include your e-mail address.
2. After you have posted your comment, sign your post by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end. The software will automatically convert that into your signature and a time stamp.
3. In your post, you can ask that you be replied to on your own user talk page, but normally you should check back at this page for responses. (If your post is no longer here, please check to see if it has been archived.)
4. Click here to start a new discussion

Stutzboy3 and Fabroman

Stutzboy3 and Fabroman are a comedic, skit acting duo on youtube. Trying to follow in the footsteps of SMOSH, the two begin filming around December 27, 2007. So far the two have around 41 videos. Around August 2008, the two opened up a new account just for bloopers. The duo are well known for there weekly wednesday broadcasts which they use to mock daily news. Here are the links to both pages. http://www.youtube.com/user/stutzboy3 http://www.youtube.com/user/stutzboy3fabroman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpdellx (talk • contribs) 01:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, I've already responded to your first post above. Unfortunately your article does not meet out notability guidelines for web content. A further explanation is that for a youtube channel the group has a rather low number of views so far. While that in and of itself isn't a criteria for inclusion, it is a somewhat reliable indicator. If I am incorrect and this group has had either: a) multiple non-trivial works written about it; b) has won major awards from a respected organization or; c) has been distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators (note that YouTube is specifically mentioned as not fulfilling this criteria). Then please provide links to any sources that prove that this group is notable. If you do not and try to create this article, then it is likely to be deleted either through the articles for deletion process, or as a speedy deletion (most likely for being blatant advertising, or for not asserting its notability). -Optigan13 (talk) 06:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Ronnie Money

I am loking to make apage about Ronnie Money (and other members from the band Escape The Fate) Pleasee reply to my user talk page to help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by PinkIsGood (talk • contribs) 03:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the wikipedia drawing board, while we provide assistance with creating new articles, we generally handle requests where the initial editor (you) has provide most of the content and sources. If you would like to create an article based only on a name then you should try WP:Requested articles. Allow please follow the suggestions left in the welcome message I left on your user talk page. -Optigan13 (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

loudspeakers

does any body know how they work because my homework needs to be in tomorrow! 79.76.139.253 (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Please do your own homework. Welcome to the Wikipedia Drawing board. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misevaluation, but it is our policy here to not do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn how to solve such problems.
Please attempt to solve the problem yourself first. You can search Wikipedia or search the Web.
If you need help with a specific part of your homework, the Reference desk can help you grasp the concept. Do not ask knowledge questions here, just those about creating Wikipedia articles. -Optigan13 (talk) 00:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Saami Shaibani

Extended content
The following content has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability.
Dr. Saami Shaibani is a physicist who has testified in numerous criminal trials in several states throughout the United States. 1 2 3 He was accused of perjury during the Michael Peterson (author) murder trial in Durham County, North Carolina, on September 26, 2003. 4 5 Judge Orlando Hudson Jr., ruled that Shaibani had committed perjury and instructed the jury to disregard everything the witness had said.6 During the David Aesoph Habeas Corpus Appeal he was found credible by Hyde County Circuit Court, South Dakota on June 16, 2006.7 Michael Iver Peterson murder trial Shaibani was an expert witness in the Michael Peterson (author) murder trial in Durham County, North Carolina. During the trial he was accused of perjury on September 26, 2003; specifically his affiliation with Temple University was questioned.8 9 David Rudolf produced two letters. One was dated September 27, 2001, and addressed to a Washington defense lawyer from Edward T. Gawlinski, chairman of Temple's physics department. The letter, Rudolf said, was addressing Shaibani's testimony as an expert prosecution witness in a murder trial. "Any claim by Mr. Shaibani that he is now a member of, or even affiliated with, the Temple University Department of Physics is fraudulent," read a Sept. 27, 2001, letter from Edward Gawlinski, then chair of the Temple University physics department. 10 David Rudolf then produced a letter dated September 25, 2003, from Virginia L. Flick, Temple's associate university counsel, "Any current representation that Mr. Shaibani is employed by or affiliated with Temple University is simply untrue." 11 Judge Orlando Hudson Jr., ruled that Shaibani had committed perjury and instructed the jury to disregard everything the witness had said.12 The docket (court) number of the Michael Iver Peterson murder trial is, 01 CRS 24821. David Aesoph murder trial Shaibani was an expert witness in the David Aesoph murder trial in South Dakota. 13 David Aesoph was convicted of first degree murder on October 5, 2000, for the murder of his wife Tania. 14 David Aesoph, Habeas Corpus Appeal Aesoph filed a habeas appeal contesting the credibility of Shaibani. A hearing was held on September 9, 2004, in circuit court on habeas corpus petition. 15The circuit court denied Aesoph's request for habeas relief on September 6, 2006, as well as his motion for a certificate of probable cause. The S.D. Supreme Court also denied Aesoph's motion for a certificate of probable cause, determining that an appealable issue does not exist. 16 It was found that Dr. Saami Shaibani was, in fact, appointed as Clinical Associate Professor in the Physics Department on July 25, 1995 by Carolyn T. Adams, then Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Temple.17 Official Temple Appointment for Dr. Shaibani Testimony of Temple University Associate University Counsel, Virginia L. Flick On September 9, 2004, Temple University Associate University Counsel, Virginia L. Flick, testified that she had found additional documents in 2004 which related to Shaibani’s affiliation with Temple University. 18 Flick also indicated that she had discovered a July 25, 1995 appointment letter for Dr. Shaibani at Temple, as well as a September 27, 2001 letter written by Dr. Edward Gawlinski, Chairman of the Physics Department, which incorrectly stated that Shaibani had never been a Clinical Associate Professor of Physics at Temple University. 19 20 Flick’s testimony lends credibility to Shaibani’s testimony at Aesoph’s trial. .21 Letter from Dr. Gawlinski Angela O'Brien murder trial Shaibani was an expert witness in the Angela O'Brien murder trial in Washington, D.C.. 22 The D.C. Court of Appeals is considering whether to grant a new trial to Angela O'Brien.23 The docket (court) number of the Angela O'Brien murder trial is, F7041-00. Douglas Plude murder trial Shaibani was an expert witness in the Douglas Plude murder trial in Vilas County, Wisconsin. 24 As a result of the Peterson trial, the Wisconsin Supreme Court awarded Douglas Plude a new trial in June, 2008. 25 The docket (court) number of the Douglas Plude murder trial is, 01-CF-117. Roy Denver Sluder murder trial Shaibani was involved as an expert in the Roy Denver Sluder murder trial in Bedford County, Virginia. 26 The docket (court) number of the Roy Denver Sluder murder trial is, CR01006057-000102. Edward John Stevens murder trial Shaibani was involved as an expert witness in the Edward John Stevens murder trial in Ada County, Idaho. 27 The docket (court) number of the Edward John Stevens murder trial is, H9700551. External Links Patent Supreme Court Upholds David Aesoph Conviction David Aesoph Habeas Appeal Virginia Flick Letter Edward Stevens Appeal USA Today Article AAFS Proceedings Michael Peterson Article from The News & Observer Michael Peterson Article page 2 from The News & Observer Michael Peterson Article from Court TV Michael Peterson Article from NLADA Douglas Plude Article from Chicago Tribune Angela O’Brien Article from Norfolk Examiner David Aesoph AP Article Madison Wisconsin News Article Bismarck Tribune Truth in Justice WRAL News References ^ USA Today. [1] ^ http://www.newsobserver.com/198/story/306560.html ^ http://www.newsobserver.com/news/crime_safety/peterson/story/306560-p2.html ^ http://www.courttv.com/trials/novelist/092603_ctv.html ^ http://www.nlada.org/DMS/Documents/1065021437.18/2899062p-2669833c.html ^ http://www.courttv.com/trials/novelist/092603_ctv.html ^ State of South Dakota vs. David Aesoph, Habeas Corpus Appeal. [2] "State of South Dakota vs. David Aesoph, Habeas Corpus Decision. Page 15, Paragraph 1, Line 17-19.” June 16, 2006. ^ http://www.courttv.com/trials/novelist/092603_ctv.html ^ http://www.nlada.org/DMS/Documents/1065021437.18/2899062p-2669833c.html ^ http://www.nlada.org/DMS/Documents/1065021437.18/2899062p-2669833c.html ^ http://www.nlada.org/DMS/Documents/1065021437.18/2899062p-2669833c.html ^ http://www.courttv.com/trials/novelist/092603_ctv.html ^ State of South Dakota vs. David Aesoph, Habeas Corpus Appeal. [3] "State of South Dakota vs. David Aesoph, Habeas Corpus Decision. Page 3, Paragraph 1.” June 16, 2006. ^ http://www.state.sd.us/attorney/applications/documents/oneDocument.asp?DocumentID=322 ^ http://www.state.sd.us/attorney/applications/cases/oneItem.asp?itemID=34&category_id=9 ^ http://www.state.sd.us/attorney/applications/cases/oneItem.asp?itemID=34&category_id=9 ^ State of South Dakota vs. David Aesoph, Habeas Corpus Appeal. [4] "State of South Dakota vs. David Aesoph, Habeas Corpus Decision. Page 13, Paragraph 2, Line 2-3.” June 16, 2006. ^ State of South Dakota vs. David Aesoph, Habeas Corpus Appeal. [5] "State of South Dakota vs. David Aesoph, Habeas Corpus Decision. Page 11, Paragraph 2, Line 6-9.” June 16, 2006. ^ State of South Dakota vs. David Aesoph, Habeas Corpus Appeal. [6] "State of South Dakota vs. David Aesoph, Habeas Corpus Decision. Page 11, Paragraph 1, Line 2-6.” June 16, 2006. ^ State of South Dakota vs. David Aesoph, Habeas Corpus Appeal. [7] "State of South Dakota vs. David Aesoph, Habeas Corpus Decision. Page 12.” June 16, 2006. ^ State of South Dakota vs. David Aesoph, Habeas Corpus Appeal. [8] "State of South Dakota vs. David Aesoph, Habeas Corpus Decision. Page 13, Paragraph 2, Line 1-2.” June 16, 2006. ^ USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-06-26-2301015538_x.htm ^ Norfolk Examiner. http://www.examiner.com/a-1700038~Wis__opens_investigation_into_bogus_expert_witness.html ^ USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-06-26-2301015538_x.htm ^ Norfolk Examiner. http://www.examiner.com/a-1700038~Wis__opens_investigation_into_bogus_expert_witness.html ^ http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-80574781.html ^ http://www.isc.idaho.gov/opinions/stevens25688.pdf Comments
The above is an extended discussion that has been collapsed for improved usability.

Any advice on this article would be helpful. Here is the AfD page on the first version of this article. I think notablity is established, but would like some help with this article. Thanks. Feel free to paste comments here or on my talk page.(Jvfulcher (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC))

There are still problems with WP:OR. The first two paragraphs might be okay; but there isn't any good reason to have separate sections on all those different murder trials. The Aesop thing is based entirely on primary sources -- see WP:PRIMARY. There's no justification for including images of private correspondence (which in any event does not meet WP:RS). Since my guess is that your motivation for writing this article is precisely to use that stuff to try to repair Shaibani's credibility, I wonder how interested you are going to be in an article that sticks to what has been written about him in the sources that will be accepted by others here as uncontroversially satisfying WP:RS. Remember that if an article is re-created and not deleted, you will not be able to control how others will edit it WP:OWN. 86.25.195.253 (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Post for Highly Relevant and Notable Rug Site

Hello, hope I have brought this to the correct area of Wikipedia. I wanted to enter info on a very unique site about Rugs called Rug Rag. Wikipedia has marked it for speedy deletion. What is the best way to go about posting background on this reference. They have excellent reputation, many first of their kind interactivity with users, info on rugs that most dealers would never reveal to their customers, and above all, they are the first independent rug reviewer. There is an article written up on floorbiz.com, and the site is very notable in the industry.

Would someone mind making suggestions on how best to represent this site and also appeal to wikipedia criteria? Much appreciation, thanks so much for your time in advance

here is what I had posted:

Rug Rag offers third party consumer safeguards with a "GIA equivalent" assessment for authentic Persian and Oriental Rugs. Rug Rag is the only known provider of this service.

Rug Rag created numerous interactive online tools for the General Public with the sole intention of educating consumers on and about Oriental Rugs and their care. These unique tools include the following.

1. An interactive "Rug Style Guide" 2. The "Rug Estimator Pro" (an interactive Oriental Rug Estimator tool) 3. A curator quality Stain Removal Guide for wool rugs (as well as fabrics and textiles).

The development of such tools is significant and unprecedented. The Rug Estimator Pro, created for educational purposes, uses a database of nearly 10,000 rugs from ORRA (Oriental Rug Retailers of America) member inventories and also incorporates several hundred rugs from auction houses such as Sotheby's and Christie's. The combined experience of the founders and affiliates involved in the task of creating this tool exceeds 200 years in the field.

The Rug Estimator Pro is a powerful tool which has received many positive reviews. A similar approach and formulation was created by Caroline Bosley in the book "Rugs to Riches" in the 1980's. Bosley proposed a way to calculate rug value based on factors such as origin, age, design execution and other factors. Rug Rag maintains its tool is for "instructional purposes" to understand the "multitude of factors which play a heavy role in grading Oriental Rugs. Rug Rag emphasizes that factors influencing the value and desirability of fine rugs exceed the common and popular designation of the KPSI measure (knots per square inch)."

Rug Rag is the first independent site to provide buyers and sellers "Rug Verifications" at no charge. This allows a seller to display an icon on their listing which lists a full complete assessment of the rug at hand including some 20 point check list.

http://www.floorbiz.com/BizNews/NPViewArticle.asp?cmd=view&articleid=3524

Onemigwire (talk) 07:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)