![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Dear reviewers: The first half of the above article is a copyright violation. The second half appears to be written by the submitter. If I remove the copyright violation, it will mess up the dates. What to do? — Anne Delong ( talk) 03:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Is this someone's homework assignment? It doesn't appear to be an encyclopedia article. — Anne Delong ( talk) 03:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Dear editors: This editor erased all of the text of his article, then added just the name of a different person, and left it like that. Can this be deleted as "Author blanked page", or not? — Anne Delong ( talk) 02:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Draft declined twice, first by Anne, then myself. User deleted templates and uploaded pretty much the same information all over again, then contacted me asking for it to be reviewed. It's still a copyvio and should be deleted. Reverting his edits wouldn't be productive because he's likely to revert mine himself. Any solutions? Regards, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 13:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Dear editors: Can anyone explain this decline reason to me? — Anne Delong ( talk) 11:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I've been trying to help clear out the backlog, going in reverse chronological order. I keep hoping that someone else will review this ( /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Ian_Freckelton) but it's been sitting for 16 days. The guy is notable, but there are too many refs (some unnecessary) too many initials, and too much poorly-formatted info. I'd just fix it (to the extent that I'm able) but I have no time til Tuesday. Any guidance? Thanks. JSFarman ( talk) 17:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I initially took the review on this submission and had a few issues with it initially. I have worked with the author and have gotten it up to the point that it might be ready for mainspace. As I'm involved in helping advocate for this page, I'd like annother reviewer to take a look at it and {{ afc comment}} to note any further concerns that you have with it before the author re-submits it for AFC review. Thanks Hasteur ( talk) 16:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
This is an odd one. The article was declined, improved and then not resubmitted. It was then hyjacked by another editor to write an article about a different person of the same name. Rankersbo ( talk) 07:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
When I see a page like Talk:Erik Borg, it doesn't look like a G8, it looks like someone trying to submit an article via AfC, but not doing it right. Is it generally accepted that these efforts should just be blown away, rather than fixed? I contacted the tagging editor Aleenf1 about another such situation, with no response. What do the AfC experts think is the right practice?-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: What should be done with these redundant articles?
— Anne Delong ( talk) 02:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: I am not facebook user. Can someone please check the link in this article to make sure that there is no copyright violation before it is declined as not showing notability? Thanks. — Anne Delong ( talk) 12:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
If this article is accepted, what will happen to this one? Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Amateur Astronomers Association of Princeton I don't think it's normal for a submission to have a talk page. Or is it? — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Here's another pair:
Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Central Valley Recreational Swim League and
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Central Valley Recreational Swim League —
Anne Delong (
talk)
01:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I may have encountered another of the many corners of this project. I found this submission in user space, thought it was a cut and paste pair with Guy Olivier Faure, and moved it into project space, planning to ask for a history merge. Wel, it was, but, on checking the history, I found that the submitter had continued to work on this older of the pair after the other was in mainspace, and then had moved it to "User:Drafts/Guy Olivier Faure", where I found it still on the list of submissions. This is not the user's own userspace. Is it a special area that I should know about? — Anne Delong ( talk) 06:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
What... what is this article? It seems vaguely advertisement-like, cites a laundry list of studies (that look like, on the surface, they have nothing to do with the product, and is generally a strange duck of an article. Can I get a second opinion? the one sean 03:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: The above user has submitted her talk page for review. There is already another article for review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vanessa Brady (3). I can manually decline it as a duplicate, since we don't want the user's talk page in Afc, but are there any residual problems connected with the talk page having once been a submission? — Anne Delong ( talk) 02:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
It lacks inline citation and reliable references as well. It was submitted by User:Hammadhaleem and, is created by User:Michael.davies1. The subject of the article doesn't have significant coverage to have a separate article and moreover it is written like an advertisement. It is the University, Jamia Millia Islamia which is notable. The present AfC could be better merged into Jamia Millia Islamia article. The Afc was nominated for speedy deletion by User:Gmt2001 as per section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. What is striking is that, the AfC was accepted on the same day, i.e September 7, 2013. Have a look please, anyone? I am not sure, if it has something to do with Sock Puppetry. Anup Mehra ✈ 05:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: This article has been declined already, and doesn't seem to be improved. However, it contains useful information. I figured that this must already be somewhere on Wikipedia, since people are always needing symbols in their articles, so I wanted to decline it as "exists", but, surprisingly, I had a really hard time finding it. I tried Alt key, Alt code, Keyboard shortcut, Extended ASCII, Windows alt codes, Unicode, and several others, before I found Code page 437 which has this information. Not very handy is it? Isn't this information available on some more commonly named page? I hate to direct the submitter there. I have been looking it up off-Wiki myself. — Anne Delong ( talk) 22:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
iDonate Pakistan was approved by an inexperienced editor who has since been asked to stop reviewing articles. I proposed it for deletion but it was challenged. Some of the reasons for my PROD were made irrelevant when the article was moved back to its current location (it was moved to "iDonate" after being approved, after I proposed it for deletion it was moved back), but some remain. This article may go to AfD if it is not improved in a reasonable time.
If you can improve it so its notability is clear, or are willing and able to help the editors working on the article, please do so. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 16:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I declined and was approached by the submitter (who does not appear to be related to the subject). The fact that they wrote a book isn't considered enough to justify notability. Most of the references used were written by the subject. The only ones I would consider somewhat independent were two interviews of the subject. I consider interviews to be primary sources, but perhaps I should consider them secondary? So essentially there was nothing to support the notability of the individual. Like to have someone else take a look and see if this is an acceptable article or needs further work. Also -> How are interviews categorized in terms of sources? You can see the submitter's comments at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks! The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 ( talk) 18:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
It's likely that this article is a copyvio of the following:
http://search.proquest.com//docview/1329147443
Is there a way to find out? — Anne Delong ( talk) 20:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
This is an interesting article, but it is supported effectively by a single source, the (US) National Historic Register nomination statement (which has apparently been approved by the National Park Service). Is this sufficient for notability? Google searches return results that are mostly directory listings and/or rehashes of the NHR registration, or discuss single specific buildings in the district, or are ads for accommodations there. None of these would add much if anything to notability, in my view. DES (talk) 04:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
This article, which is old enough to qualify for G13, has been set up to use as a project co-ordination page. It once had an Afc template and was declined, but the template was removed, and the editor was obviously not creating an encyclopedia article. Can this be deleted, or at least tagged with G13? — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: Mr. Bokrugji really is trying to make an article; he just doesn't know how to do it. Today he saved his infobox in the at the infobox person documentation page. He's working on his user page now, and could use some help, and assumption of good faith. (Although he's making an article about himself...) — Anne Delong ( talk) 16:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: The creator of this article dropped it in Afc space, but didn't submit it, instead leaving a message asking for help in improving it. I've done that to a certain extent, but now I am too close to it (I am easily impressed by bluegrass musicians). Will someone please check and see if the references are acceptable? Thanks. — Anne Delong ( talk) 18:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Something about this headerless submission doesn't sit right with me. I can't find an exact source for a copyvio, but it has signs that it's been copy and pasted from somewhere. Could someone else take a look? -- TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 01:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I declined Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dylan Dreyer a few weeks ago. I just realized that that the author of it moved it to mainspace since then. Should anything be done in this situation? Jackmcbarn ( talk) 19:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I know Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sweaty Neck Syndrome needs declined, but I'm not sure why. It looks like a cross between vandalism, a joke submission, a hoax, advertising for the USB thing, and original research. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 00:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
This article has not been submitted for review. A message on the user's talk page was not answered. It contains a large copyright violation from http://www.ourdogs.co.uk/about/startod.htm, but there is enough material left that I don't feel I can call the whole thing a copyvio. The rest is a little promotional, but probably not enough to be deleted on this account. Until it's submitted it can't be declined as unsourced. What to do? — Anne Delong ( talk) 19:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
The above submission was properly decline and blanked. Now that the offensive material is hidden in the history, should it also be deleted? — Anne Delong ( talk) 22:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Am I remembering incorrectly, or did the script use to nominate articles for deletion if they were copyright violations, attack pages, etc.? I was surprised that this one wasn't when I declined it. Should I nominate it separately, or is there an option I missed? (I can't go back now to look.) — Anne Delong ( talk) 22:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Notability has been established with references to LWN.net, IEEE micro, and various Linux conferences. The article will require some cleanup to comply with standards, which I can take care of. I cannot move it to article space because the target title "SCHED DEADLINE" is blacklisted, presumably because it is written in all caps. The sources for the article refer to it as "SCHED_DEADLINE", so I think an all-caps title is appropriate. Can someone with the appropriate privileges mark the article as accepted? DPRoberts534 ( talk) 06:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
This Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Susan Wood (Photographer) may deserve a second look.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 01:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Also, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The reGives Network-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 12:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
An administrator is needed to compare a deleted article under a slightly different name to the submission to make sure it's not "re-creation of material deleted after a deletion discussion." It's also over a month oldso if you have time to give it a formal review I'm sure the submitter would like that. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 02:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
What think? (If I keep it here it gets six months...) — Anne Delong ( talk) 20:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I declined this last week; now it's been submitted twice more. Can we just delete it? Under what criteria? — Anne Delong ( talk) 00:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force#Possible COI editor creating new pages that need notability checks and wikification for the main request for help.
Please watch out for this inexperienced editor. Senseltd ( talk · contribs) has a habit of drafting and submitting AFC submissions then copy-and-pasting them into the main encyclopedia, sometimes on top of existing content as he did with senses (see link above and my request in Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen). To be fair, sometimes he does NOT submit them and when we add the template we "submit" them for him. I've already turned one such 3rd-party submission back to "drafT" state and notified him on his talk page.
He needs some major hand-holding with respect to learning the COI rules, learning notability guidelines, learning wiki-formatting, and improving his English-language proficiency. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 18:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I was checking to see if this article was a copyvio before declining it for one of several problems (mostly plot summary, notability, no references), and I found that is is pretty well copied directly from http://kanechronicles.wikia.com/wiki/Sadie_Kane . This is running on wikia, which I believe means that it could be licensed for use in Wikipedia; is this done? Also, some of the text is on other web sites going back as far as 2010; is there a way to find out when the text was added to wikia? If it's a copyvio it should be deleted instead of just declined. — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: On October 8, this article's first edit creates a redirect when MatthewVanitas correctly moves an the article to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christopher Morris (news presenter), (how can this be the first edit?). The next edit is Citation Bot, which I thought only fixes up citations, and now the page has a large article which is a duplicate of the other article. Can someone explain what happened? The only thing that I can think of is that someone was repairing a copy-paste and forgot to delete the leftover edits. — Anne Delong ( talk) 17:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I cleared but did not csd this likely-autobiography because a substantially identical copy of the text already exists on the web.
Had this person been a minor or had certain information present not been readily available I would have likely CSD'd it. Ditto if it contained anything negative about the person.
I also did not blank it because it was important for the submitter to see the extensive comment I left AND he was an IP-author so I could not leave it on his talk page and know for sure that he would see it.
By the way, thanks to G13, blanking-and-not-deleting pages which will almost certainly never be moved into the main encyclopedia is tantamount blanking the page now and starting the countdown clock on a "very slow speedy deletion" (remember, "speedy" refers to the streamlined process for deletion, not the time it takes to delete articles - some file-speedy-deletions are several days long to allow time for the issue to be fixed. BLPROD is in effect a 10-day speedy deletion in this sense). davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 17:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and
replied to the user's scathing comments from the other day. I do hope they decide to step in and do some reviewing if they have the time. The least we could do is to be on the same page, given they're one of the active WikiProjects, and we do get a lot of math submissions. We're having a very productive conversation over there.
FoCuSandLeArN (
talk)
14:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't know how to tell if this is a copyright violation or not. The text is posted all over the web in various wikis, and also on facebook pages. I hope someone can figure this out. It can always be declined as non-notable, but that has been tried once already and it came back. — Anne Delong ( talk) 00:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: I asked for an opinion at Wikiproject Poland, and an editor there has said that the above is a notable company, but that one of the best references, to a major Polish newspaper, here: http://technologie.gazeta.pl/internet/1,104530,8010794,Stopklatka___najstarszy_polski_serwis_filmowy_pozyska.html ...is a deadlink. The article must have recently been moved or removed, because Google still finds it. I tried a search at the newspaper site, but their search only seems to search the internet in general. I tried the Wayback Machine, but it seems to be down today. Should I accept the article anyway, based on Google's evidence that the source did exist? I know that the article still needs work, but it's reasonably factual, not a copyright violation, and so notability is the main hurdle. — Anne Delong ( talk) 09:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Please will someone check out the re-review of "Integrated Brand Communications" on this page. I failed it but later found a small comment integrated in the text which may have made my re-review too harsh and I am willing to be overruled. Thanks. — Anne Delong ( talk) 19:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
@ Zach Vega, RadioFan, Nathan2055, Millermk90, and SarahStierch:, @ Aaron Booth: Your collective input on this re-submitted submission would be helpful. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 04:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Just a heads up: There are a number of duplicate references in this article, which makes the list look longer than it really is. I tried to remove the duplicates and fix up an incomplete URL, but the submitter has reverted my changes. — Anne Delong ( talk) 22:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I would appreciate a second opinion on this article. Did I miss anything? — Anne Delong ( talk) 14:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: The second article here was cut from the first one and pasted into mainspace. I've declined the duplicate in Afc, and since it doesn't have significant history, I plan to tag it with db-g6 rather than ask for a history merge. The mainspace article has been heavily tagged, and I have removed a section copied from a web site, but is this enough? Should it be taken to Afd, or tagged for speedy deletion as advertising? — Anne Delong ( talk) 08:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I have just approved Chandlerella quiscali, I'm not sure if the title is supposed to be italic or not. If it should be, how do I do it? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 17:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: Please read the section of my talk page that is about the above article. Here it is: User talk:Anne Delong#Articles_for_creation/TestAuditor. My comments don't seem to be getting through. Can someone else try? — Anne Delong ( talk) 18:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I declined Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Billy Monk (criminal) on the basis of WP:CRIME but Jean Po is appealing on my talk page that there are exceptional circumstances here. Would appreciate a second opinion on this. -- LukeSurl t c 14:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
With the backlog ballooning, it's frustrating to see people who have been rejected 5 or more times just "rolling the dice" again with minor article changes. Is there anything we can do about this? Gigs ( talk) 17:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
It appears that your last few submissions have failed to demonstrate that this topic is notable. I have created a new section at the bottom of the article called "Possible references (AFC use only)." Please add 3 references which are "reliable" as defined by Wikipedia:Reliable sources and which, between them, demonstrate that the subject is notable as defined by either Wikipedia:Notability or one of the subject-specific notability guidelines listed on the "Notability" page. When you have done so, click on the "Click here to ask a new question at the help desk" link in the beige box above and ask that someone review the "possible references" to see if your topic is "notable" enough for an article. Until someone says "yes, the references are reliable and they demonstrate that the topic notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia" do not re-submit it, as it will only be rejected.
Greetings. I am a new member of the AfC project, trying to learn the ropes and reduce the backlog. I got a few tips from Anne Delong, who was extremely helpful. But I now have a situation I'm not sure how to handle.
I recently declined Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Czeslaw Znamierowski, a brief article about a Soviet artist, since I was unable to determine from the sources whether the artist is notable. The nominator contacted me on my talk page, claiming that he had cited multiple reliable, independent sources to establish notability. And it's very possible that he did; but I can't tell, since the sources are not in English, not online, and not clear to me. What is the best way to handle this sort of situation? – Quadell ( talk) 14:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
P.S. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Czeslaw Znamierowski. – Quadell ( talk) 14:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, reviewers! Can I have a second opinion, please? This article was turned down as non-notable. but I see all kinds of magazine and news articles. Some are by him, some are interviews, but some are about him. Is this enough for notability? — Anne Delong ( talk) 18:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
An opinion, please. These two articles were both started by the same person, but between the last edit on the first and the first edit on the second it seems that the article was pretty well rewritten. Should the two histories be merged? Also, can anyone figure out why in the next edit of the mainspace article the long list of references was deleted? — Anne Delong ( talk) 03:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: Here is one of those G13 eligible submissions. It has plenty of references, although it was turned down for lack thereof. It will soon be deleted if no one makes an edit. My spidey sense says copyvio, but I can't find anything on line. If it isn't, then someone has put a lot of work into it. Should it be kept? It's rather essayish. — Anne Delong ( talk) 03:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Is this a copyvio? The entire reviews section is just copy/pasted album reviews with a citation at the end. This doesn't sit well with me. -- TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 18:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow reviewers! While each of the items on this list has an article, and so is notable, I think I should ask for a reliable source for each, indicating that the submarine can be accessed by divers. What do you think? I haven't reviewed many lists. — Anne Delong ( talk) 03:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: I am not sure how to sort this out. The first article listed above was nominated under G13. I found some references and started to add them, postponing the G13. Then I tried to move the article to Afc space (which should have been done at the time of first review), and only then did I discover the second and third submissions. Although the third one is the most recent, the second is the most complete. They aren't all created by the same user, and they aren't straight copies of each other, although they appear to be related. What should be done with them? — Anne Delong ( talk) 05:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
A helpful editor from Wikiproject Chemistry tried to accept the above article, but ended up instead moving it to the wrong space. Unfortunately there is now a redirect at Crossover experiment (chemistry). I planned to accept it to a temporary title, maybe "Crossover Experiment (chemistry), and then request deletion of the various redirects that were accidentally created, and later moving the article to the correct title. However, the script doesn't appear to work on the article as it is. Should I move it back to Wikipedia talk? Or perhaps a friendly admin can sort this out? — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I declined a submission for AFerry, and later accepted it after working with the author, who got in touch looking for help. Shorty after it was published (like, within an hour), it was marked for deletion. I felt that the editor (who had an admitted conflict of interest) had proven the company's notability and that the tone was neutral, but in retrospect, I may have been wrong. So, two questions:
Thanks for the input, Julie JSFarman ( talk) 21:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I have just found a student draft from an educational project that had been submitted for review here. See my post at the talk page of the Educational Project concerned about why such drafts should never be submitted to AfC. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 21:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow reviewers. I tried to move this article to "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hagar" and also the same with "Hagar 2", and both are on the title blacklist. It's a submission that would likely be declined as a neologism. I presumed that someone had been recreating the title after deletion, but it doesn't appear in the deletion log. How can I find out what the problem is with this title and what to do with the submission? — Anne Delong ( talk) 23:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I declined Thomas Concrete Group originally because the references applied only to the R&D the company does. The original author added more references and got in touch with me, and while I'd love to give him some guidance I'm not comfortable with it -- the refs are mainly in Swedish. (I'd post this on the Swedish project talk page but it's a ghost town over there -- no activity since this past January - and I can't figure out if there's a way to ping for Swedish help.) Can anyone help? Thanks, Julie JSFarman ( talk) 17:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'm assuming you've read the English links so I will only go into the Swedish ones. The Swedish links in reference 1 are two reports authored by the company, but only go as far as to say this about the company itself:
Arbetet har utförts av Anders Lindvall, Thomas Concrete Group Centrala laboratorium i Göteborg.
Which translated is:
The work was performed by Anders Lindvall, Thomas Concrete Group Central laboratory in Göteborg.
(Also lacking page number in the magazine article (35-37).) Claiming "The company has a history of focusing on research and development" goes against WP:Original
The sources in reference 2 seems to be a pay-walled report that at least going by the title or abstract shouldn't mention too much on the company. Otherwise same as for the first reference. Lastly allabolag.se is a website covering all companies in Sweden. As far as I can see from the Swedish articles I looked through this doesn't pass WP:Notability or WP:ORG. As all references apart from allabolag.se are technical reports in engineering I only skimmed through them, but they just don't really mention anything about the company. CFCF ( talk) 23:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: The above article is about a semi-retired professor, so his web page at his university doesn't list notable accomplishments so that the article can pass WP:PROF. However, THIS Google scholar report shows 7353 citations. Is this report alone enough to establish notability as a professor? — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Dear reviewers: The first half of the above article is a copyright violation. The second half appears to be written by the submitter. If I remove the copyright violation, it will mess up the dates. What to do? — Anne Delong ( talk) 03:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Is this someone's homework assignment? It doesn't appear to be an encyclopedia article. — Anne Delong ( talk) 03:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Dear editors: This editor erased all of the text of his article, then added just the name of a different person, and left it like that. Can this be deleted as "Author blanked page", or not? — Anne Delong ( talk) 02:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Draft declined twice, first by Anne, then myself. User deleted templates and uploaded pretty much the same information all over again, then contacted me asking for it to be reviewed. It's still a copyvio and should be deleted. Reverting his edits wouldn't be productive because he's likely to revert mine himself. Any solutions? Regards, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 13:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Dear editors: Can anyone explain this decline reason to me? — Anne Delong ( talk) 11:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I've been trying to help clear out the backlog, going in reverse chronological order. I keep hoping that someone else will review this ( /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Ian_Freckelton) but it's been sitting for 16 days. The guy is notable, but there are too many refs (some unnecessary) too many initials, and too much poorly-formatted info. I'd just fix it (to the extent that I'm able) but I have no time til Tuesday. Any guidance? Thanks. JSFarman ( talk) 17:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I initially took the review on this submission and had a few issues with it initially. I have worked with the author and have gotten it up to the point that it might be ready for mainspace. As I'm involved in helping advocate for this page, I'd like annother reviewer to take a look at it and {{ afc comment}} to note any further concerns that you have with it before the author re-submits it for AFC review. Thanks Hasteur ( talk) 16:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
This is an odd one. The article was declined, improved and then not resubmitted. It was then hyjacked by another editor to write an article about a different person of the same name. Rankersbo ( talk) 07:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
When I see a page like Talk:Erik Borg, it doesn't look like a G8, it looks like someone trying to submit an article via AfC, but not doing it right. Is it generally accepted that these efforts should just be blown away, rather than fixed? I contacted the tagging editor Aleenf1 about another such situation, with no response. What do the AfC experts think is the right practice?-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: What should be done with these redundant articles?
— Anne Delong ( talk) 02:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: I am not facebook user. Can someone please check the link in this article to make sure that there is no copyright violation before it is declined as not showing notability? Thanks. — Anne Delong ( talk) 12:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
If this article is accepted, what will happen to this one? Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Amateur Astronomers Association of Princeton I don't think it's normal for a submission to have a talk page. Or is it? — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Here's another pair:
Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Central Valley Recreational Swim League and
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Central Valley Recreational Swim League —
Anne Delong (
talk)
01:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I may have encountered another of the many corners of this project. I found this submission in user space, thought it was a cut and paste pair with Guy Olivier Faure, and moved it into project space, planning to ask for a history merge. Wel, it was, but, on checking the history, I found that the submitter had continued to work on this older of the pair after the other was in mainspace, and then had moved it to "User:Drafts/Guy Olivier Faure", where I found it still on the list of submissions. This is not the user's own userspace. Is it a special area that I should know about? — Anne Delong ( talk) 06:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
What... what is this article? It seems vaguely advertisement-like, cites a laundry list of studies (that look like, on the surface, they have nothing to do with the product, and is generally a strange duck of an article. Can I get a second opinion? the one sean 03:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: The above user has submitted her talk page for review. There is already another article for review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vanessa Brady (3). I can manually decline it as a duplicate, since we don't want the user's talk page in Afc, but are there any residual problems connected with the talk page having once been a submission? — Anne Delong ( talk) 02:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
It lacks inline citation and reliable references as well. It was submitted by User:Hammadhaleem and, is created by User:Michael.davies1. The subject of the article doesn't have significant coverage to have a separate article and moreover it is written like an advertisement. It is the University, Jamia Millia Islamia which is notable. The present AfC could be better merged into Jamia Millia Islamia article. The Afc was nominated for speedy deletion by User:Gmt2001 as per section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. What is striking is that, the AfC was accepted on the same day, i.e September 7, 2013. Have a look please, anyone? I am not sure, if it has something to do with Sock Puppetry. Anup Mehra ✈ 05:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: This article has been declined already, and doesn't seem to be improved. However, it contains useful information. I figured that this must already be somewhere on Wikipedia, since people are always needing symbols in their articles, so I wanted to decline it as "exists", but, surprisingly, I had a really hard time finding it. I tried Alt key, Alt code, Keyboard shortcut, Extended ASCII, Windows alt codes, Unicode, and several others, before I found Code page 437 which has this information. Not very handy is it? Isn't this information available on some more commonly named page? I hate to direct the submitter there. I have been looking it up off-Wiki myself. — Anne Delong ( talk) 22:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
iDonate Pakistan was approved by an inexperienced editor who has since been asked to stop reviewing articles. I proposed it for deletion but it was challenged. Some of the reasons for my PROD were made irrelevant when the article was moved back to its current location (it was moved to "iDonate" after being approved, after I proposed it for deletion it was moved back), but some remain. This article may go to AfD if it is not improved in a reasonable time.
If you can improve it so its notability is clear, or are willing and able to help the editors working on the article, please do so. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 16:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I declined and was approached by the submitter (who does not appear to be related to the subject). The fact that they wrote a book isn't considered enough to justify notability. Most of the references used were written by the subject. The only ones I would consider somewhat independent were two interviews of the subject. I consider interviews to be primary sources, but perhaps I should consider them secondary? So essentially there was nothing to support the notability of the individual. Like to have someone else take a look and see if this is an acceptable article or needs further work. Also -> How are interviews categorized in terms of sources? You can see the submitter's comments at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks! The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 ( talk) 18:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
It's likely that this article is a copyvio of the following:
http://search.proquest.com//docview/1329147443
Is there a way to find out? — Anne Delong ( talk) 20:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
This is an interesting article, but it is supported effectively by a single source, the (US) National Historic Register nomination statement (which has apparently been approved by the National Park Service). Is this sufficient for notability? Google searches return results that are mostly directory listings and/or rehashes of the NHR registration, or discuss single specific buildings in the district, or are ads for accommodations there. None of these would add much if anything to notability, in my view. DES (talk) 04:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
This article, which is old enough to qualify for G13, has been set up to use as a project co-ordination page. It once had an Afc template and was declined, but the template was removed, and the editor was obviously not creating an encyclopedia article. Can this be deleted, or at least tagged with G13? — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: Mr. Bokrugji really is trying to make an article; he just doesn't know how to do it. Today he saved his infobox in the at the infobox person documentation page. He's working on his user page now, and could use some help, and assumption of good faith. (Although he's making an article about himself...) — Anne Delong ( talk) 16:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: The creator of this article dropped it in Afc space, but didn't submit it, instead leaving a message asking for help in improving it. I've done that to a certain extent, but now I am too close to it (I am easily impressed by bluegrass musicians). Will someone please check and see if the references are acceptable? Thanks. — Anne Delong ( talk) 18:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Something about this headerless submission doesn't sit right with me. I can't find an exact source for a copyvio, but it has signs that it's been copy and pasted from somewhere. Could someone else take a look? -- TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 01:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I declined Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dylan Dreyer a few weeks ago. I just realized that that the author of it moved it to mainspace since then. Should anything be done in this situation? Jackmcbarn ( talk) 19:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I know Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sweaty Neck Syndrome needs declined, but I'm not sure why. It looks like a cross between vandalism, a joke submission, a hoax, advertising for the USB thing, and original research. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 00:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
This article has not been submitted for review. A message on the user's talk page was not answered. It contains a large copyright violation from http://www.ourdogs.co.uk/about/startod.htm, but there is enough material left that I don't feel I can call the whole thing a copyvio. The rest is a little promotional, but probably not enough to be deleted on this account. Until it's submitted it can't be declined as unsourced. What to do? — Anne Delong ( talk) 19:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
The above submission was properly decline and blanked. Now that the offensive material is hidden in the history, should it also be deleted? — Anne Delong ( talk) 22:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Am I remembering incorrectly, or did the script use to nominate articles for deletion if they were copyright violations, attack pages, etc.? I was surprised that this one wasn't when I declined it. Should I nominate it separately, or is there an option I missed? (I can't go back now to look.) — Anne Delong ( talk) 22:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Notability has been established with references to LWN.net, IEEE micro, and various Linux conferences. The article will require some cleanup to comply with standards, which I can take care of. I cannot move it to article space because the target title "SCHED DEADLINE" is blacklisted, presumably because it is written in all caps. The sources for the article refer to it as "SCHED_DEADLINE", so I think an all-caps title is appropriate. Can someone with the appropriate privileges mark the article as accepted? DPRoberts534 ( talk) 06:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
This Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Susan Wood (Photographer) may deserve a second look.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 01:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Also, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The reGives Network-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 12:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
An administrator is needed to compare a deleted article under a slightly different name to the submission to make sure it's not "re-creation of material deleted after a deletion discussion." It's also over a month oldso if you have time to give it a formal review I'm sure the submitter would like that. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 02:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
What think? (If I keep it here it gets six months...) — Anne Delong ( talk) 20:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I declined this last week; now it's been submitted twice more. Can we just delete it? Under what criteria? — Anne Delong ( talk) 00:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force#Possible COI editor creating new pages that need notability checks and wikification for the main request for help.
Please watch out for this inexperienced editor. Senseltd ( talk · contribs) has a habit of drafting and submitting AFC submissions then copy-and-pasting them into the main encyclopedia, sometimes on top of existing content as he did with senses (see link above and my request in Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen). To be fair, sometimes he does NOT submit them and when we add the template we "submit" them for him. I've already turned one such 3rd-party submission back to "drafT" state and notified him on his talk page.
He needs some major hand-holding with respect to learning the COI rules, learning notability guidelines, learning wiki-formatting, and improving his English-language proficiency. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 18:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I was checking to see if this article was a copyvio before declining it for one of several problems (mostly plot summary, notability, no references), and I found that is is pretty well copied directly from http://kanechronicles.wikia.com/wiki/Sadie_Kane . This is running on wikia, which I believe means that it could be licensed for use in Wikipedia; is this done? Also, some of the text is on other web sites going back as far as 2010; is there a way to find out when the text was added to wikia? If it's a copyvio it should be deleted instead of just declined. — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: On October 8, this article's first edit creates a redirect when MatthewVanitas correctly moves an the article to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christopher Morris (news presenter), (how can this be the first edit?). The next edit is Citation Bot, which I thought only fixes up citations, and now the page has a large article which is a duplicate of the other article. Can someone explain what happened? The only thing that I can think of is that someone was repairing a copy-paste and forgot to delete the leftover edits. — Anne Delong ( talk) 17:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I cleared but did not csd this likely-autobiography because a substantially identical copy of the text already exists on the web.
Had this person been a minor or had certain information present not been readily available I would have likely CSD'd it. Ditto if it contained anything negative about the person.
I also did not blank it because it was important for the submitter to see the extensive comment I left AND he was an IP-author so I could not leave it on his talk page and know for sure that he would see it.
By the way, thanks to G13, blanking-and-not-deleting pages which will almost certainly never be moved into the main encyclopedia is tantamount blanking the page now and starting the countdown clock on a "very slow speedy deletion" (remember, "speedy" refers to the streamlined process for deletion, not the time it takes to delete articles - some file-speedy-deletions are several days long to allow time for the issue to be fixed. BLPROD is in effect a 10-day speedy deletion in this sense). davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 17:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and
replied to the user's scathing comments from the other day. I do hope they decide to step in and do some reviewing if they have the time. The least we could do is to be on the same page, given they're one of the active WikiProjects, and we do get a lot of math submissions. We're having a very productive conversation over there.
FoCuSandLeArN (
talk)
14:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't know how to tell if this is a copyright violation or not. The text is posted all over the web in various wikis, and also on facebook pages. I hope someone can figure this out. It can always be declined as non-notable, but that has been tried once already and it came back. — Anne Delong ( talk) 00:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: I asked for an opinion at Wikiproject Poland, and an editor there has said that the above is a notable company, but that one of the best references, to a major Polish newspaper, here: http://technologie.gazeta.pl/internet/1,104530,8010794,Stopklatka___najstarszy_polski_serwis_filmowy_pozyska.html ...is a deadlink. The article must have recently been moved or removed, because Google still finds it. I tried a search at the newspaper site, but their search only seems to search the internet in general. I tried the Wayback Machine, but it seems to be down today. Should I accept the article anyway, based on Google's evidence that the source did exist? I know that the article still needs work, but it's reasonably factual, not a copyright violation, and so notability is the main hurdle. — Anne Delong ( talk) 09:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Please will someone check out the re-review of "Integrated Brand Communications" on this page. I failed it but later found a small comment integrated in the text which may have made my re-review too harsh and I am willing to be overruled. Thanks. — Anne Delong ( talk) 19:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
@ Zach Vega, RadioFan, Nathan2055, Millermk90, and SarahStierch:, @ Aaron Booth: Your collective input on this re-submitted submission would be helpful. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 04:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Just a heads up: There are a number of duplicate references in this article, which makes the list look longer than it really is. I tried to remove the duplicates and fix up an incomplete URL, but the submitter has reverted my changes. — Anne Delong ( talk) 22:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I would appreciate a second opinion on this article. Did I miss anything? — Anne Delong ( talk) 14:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: The second article here was cut from the first one and pasted into mainspace. I've declined the duplicate in Afc, and since it doesn't have significant history, I plan to tag it with db-g6 rather than ask for a history merge. The mainspace article has been heavily tagged, and I have removed a section copied from a web site, but is this enough? Should it be taken to Afd, or tagged for speedy deletion as advertising? — Anne Delong ( talk) 08:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I have just approved Chandlerella quiscali, I'm not sure if the title is supposed to be italic or not. If it should be, how do I do it? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 17:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: Please read the section of my talk page that is about the above article. Here it is: User talk:Anne Delong#Articles_for_creation/TestAuditor. My comments don't seem to be getting through. Can someone else try? — Anne Delong ( talk) 18:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I declined Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Billy Monk (criminal) on the basis of WP:CRIME but Jean Po is appealing on my talk page that there are exceptional circumstances here. Would appreciate a second opinion on this. -- LukeSurl t c 14:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
With the backlog ballooning, it's frustrating to see people who have been rejected 5 or more times just "rolling the dice" again with minor article changes. Is there anything we can do about this? Gigs ( talk) 17:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
It appears that your last few submissions have failed to demonstrate that this topic is notable. I have created a new section at the bottom of the article called "Possible references (AFC use only)." Please add 3 references which are "reliable" as defined by Wikipedia:Reliable sources and which, between them, demonstrate that the subject is notable as defined by either Wikipedia:Notability or one of the subject-specific notability guidelines listed on the "Notability" page. When you have done so, click on the "Click here to ask a new question at the help desk" link in the beige box above and ask that someone review the "possible references" to see if your topic is "notable" enough for an article. Until someone says "yes, the references are reliable and they demonstrate that the topic notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia" do not re-submit it, as it will only be rejected.
Greetings. I am a new member of the AfC project, trying to learn the ropes and reduce the backlog. I got a few tips from Anne Delong, who was extremely helpful. But I now have a situation I'm not sure how to handle.
I recently declined Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Czeslaw Znamierowski, a brief article about a Soviet artist, since I was unable to determine from the sources whether the artist is notable. The nominator contacted me on my talk page, claiming that he had cited multiple reliable, independent sources to establish notability. And it's very possible that he did; but I can't tell, since the sources are not in English, not online, and not clear to me. What is the best way to handle this sort of situation? – Quadell ( talk) 14:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
P.S. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Czeslaw Znamierowski. – Quadell ( talk) 14:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, reviewers! Can I have a second opinion, please? This article was turned down as non-notable. but I see all kinds of magazine and news articles. Some are by him, some are interviews, but some are about him. Is this enough for notability? — Anne Delong ( talk) 18:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
An opinion, please. These two articles were both started by the same person, but between the last edit on the first and the first edit on the second it seems that the article was pretty well rewritten. Should the two histories be merged? Also, can anyone figure out why in the next edit of the mainspace article the long list of references was deleted? — Anne Delong ( talk) 03:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: Here is one of those G13 eligible submissions. It has plenty of references, although it was turned down for lack thereof. It will soon be deleted if no one makes an edit. My spidey sense says copyvio, but I can't find anything on line. If it isn't, then someone has put a lot of work into it. Should it be kept? It's rather essayish. — Anne Delong ( talk) 03:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Is this a copyvio? The entire reviews section is just copy/pasted album reviews with a citation at the end. This doesn't sit well with me. -- TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 18:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow reviewers! While each of the items on this list has an article, and so is notable, I think I should ask for a reliable source for each, indicating that the submarine can be accessed by divers. What do you think? I haven't reviewed many lists. — Anne Delong ( talk) 03:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: I am not sure how to sort this out. The first article listed above was nominated under G13. I found some references and started to add them, postponing the G13. Then I tried to move the article to Afc space (which should have been done at the time of first review), and only then did I discover the second and third submissions. Although the third one is the most recent, the second is the most complete. They aren't all created by the same user, and they aren't straight copies of each other, although they appear to be related. What should be done with them? — Anne Delong ( talk) 05:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
A helpful editor from Wikiproject Chemistry tried to accept the above article, but ended up instead moving it to the wrong space. Unfortunately there is now a redirect at Crossover experiment (chemistry). I planned to accept it to a temporary title, maybe "Crossover Experiment (chemistry), and then request deletion of the various redirects that were accidentally created, and later moving the article to the correct title. However, the script doesn't appear to work on the article as it is. Should I move it back to Wikipedia talk? Or perhaps a friendly admin can sort this out? — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I declined a submission for AFerry, and later accepted it after working with the author, who got in touch looking for help. Shorty after it was published (like, within an hour), it was marked for deletion. I felt that the editor (who had an admitted conflict of interest) had proven the company's notability and that the tone was neutral, but in retrospect, I may have been wrong. So, two questions:
Thanks for the input, Julie JSFarman ( talk) 21:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I have just found a student draft from an educational project that had been submitted for review here. See my post at the talk page of the Educational Project concerned about why such drafts should never be submitted to AfC. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 21:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow reviewers. I tried to move this article to "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hagar" and also the same with "Hagar 2", and both are on the title blacklist. It's a submission that would likely be declined as a neologism. I presumed that someone had been recreating the title after deletion, but it doesn't appear in the deletion log. How can I find out what the problem is with this title and what to do with the submission? — Anne Delong ( talk) 23:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I declined Thomas Concrete Group originally because the references applied only to the R&D the company does. The original author added more references and got in touch with me, and while I'd love to give him some guidance I'm not comfortable with it -- the refs are mainly in Swedish. (I'd post this on the Swedish project talk page but it's a ghost town over there -- no activity since this past January - and I can't figure out if there's a way to ping for Swedish help.) Can anyone help? Thanks, Julie JSFarman ( talk) 17:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'm assuming you've read the English links so I will only go into the Swedish ones. The Swedish links in reference 1 are two reports authored by the company, but only go as far as to say this about the company itself:
Arbetet har utförts av Anders Lindvall, Thomas Concrete Group Centrala laboratorium i Göteborg.
Which translated is:
The work was performed by Anders Lindvall, Thomas Concrete Group Central laboratory in Göteborg.
(Also lacking page number in the magazine article (35-37).) Claiming "The company has a history of focusing on research and development" goes against WP:Original
The sources in reference 2 seems to be a pay-walled report that at least going by the title or abstract shouldn't mention too much on the company. Otherwise same as for the first reference. Lastly allabolag.se is a website covering all companies in Sweden. As far as I can see from the Swedish articles I looked through this doesn't pass WP:Notability or WP:ORG. As all references apart from allabolag.se are technical reports in engineering I only skimmed through them, but they just don't really mention anything about the company. CFCF ( talk) 23:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: The above article is about a semi-retired professor, so his web page at his university doesn't list notable accomplishments so that the article can pass WP:PROF. However, THIS Google scholar report shows 7353 citations. Is this report alone enough to establish notability as a professor? — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)