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)
Mark it as Copyright and Promotional. The page was already updated recently so we've already got a relatively young article to begin with. Hasteur (talk) 03:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, I can't tag it for speedy deletion under two categories (or can I? Please inform - shift key doesn't do it), so are you suggesting that I (1)submit it (2) delete the copyrighted sections (3) decline the rest as promotional and leave a note about the deleted parts? —Anne Delong (talk) 13:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Are you using twinkle? At the top of the "Choose critera for speedy deletion" there's a checkbox next to "Tag with multiple criteria" that removes the radio buttons and instead puts in check boxes so you can nominate under multiple criteria. Bit of caution, only nominate under criteria you think are patently obvious as I know that some admins react very poorly when a page is nominated under multiple criteria because it seems (at least to the admin) that you're throwing a mess of spaghetti at the wall to see what will stick. Hasteur (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I hadn't noticed that. —Anne Delong (talk) 06:34, 27 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)
It's similar to the non-IP-editor's user page. I would've left it as a user page, changed the "state" of the submission to draft, and left a note on the author's talk page explaining my actions. The other alternative is to summarily decline the submission and leave a note on the person's talk page asking if he wants it moved back. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:42, 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)
Strictly speaking, no, because it is not entirely blank. However, it might be possible to delete it as a test page. If the author wants to start a new article, they should make a new submission. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:09, 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)
Perhaps ping an admin to come over, delete it G12, and leave a stern warning on the talk page? If he does it again after that, a block is in order. Tazerdadog (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Restore the AfC headers, warn the user that they're not supposed to delete AFC process banners. I've also had success at requesting RFPP-Full for a 6 month period (to get it down to the G13) Hasteur (talk) 17:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
That would be fine if it wasn't a copyvio. It's one thing to haave an article on a non-notable dongle sit for 6 months, but copyvios are a whole other ball of wax.Tazerdadog (talk) 03:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Dear editors: Can anyone explain this decline reason to me? —Anne Delong (talk) 11:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
It appears that originally there was a hold status as part of AfC that indicated that a reviewer saw a problem with the submission and put it on hold for 24 hours [1] to give time for the author to correct it prior to having a decline handed down. Because the author did not make the necessary improvements a decline was handed down. We could add the original hold comments to the current version as a {{AFC comment}} to help indicate why there were problems. Hasteur (talk) 13:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, it was a long time ago. I just thought I might learn something from it. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Ian Freckleten - Can Someone Take A Look at This?
I've been trying to help clear out the backlog, going in reverse chronological order. I keep hoping that someone else will review this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)
Based on your summary: Decline on bio (Non-notable biography) add in the comments [[WP:CITEKILL|Over-cited]], please condense the references to only use the essentials. Significantly below the format necessary to accept into mainspace Hasteur (talk) 11:47, 30 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)
It's now in mainspace. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:06, 31 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)
The "canonical" thing to do is ask an administrator to split the history and delete the one edit that overlaps, then tag both for G13. The practical thing may be to just G13 it as is, with a note added to the edit history noting that if a REFUND is requested that only the recent revisions OR the early revisions be restored, but not both. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
How should something like this be handled? (Looks to me like an attempt to use AfC, but not quite knowing how to do it)
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)
I don't see any evidence that it was intended for AfC. I think it was meant for article space, so I'd move it there and then treat it like any other new article. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, we don't allow IPs to add to article space, but we do to AfC, which if why I assumed it was a failed attempt to add something via AfC. When an IP wants to create an article, isn't AfC the venue? Thus, if anything, I would expect the advice to be to move it to an AfC page (which I do not know how to do). I'm not aware that we ever move an IP created page directly to main space, am I missing something?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I didn't fully respond to your opening sentence. I'd say the evidence is murky. One possibility is that an IP tried to create an article, failed, but found they were able to edit a talk page, so did so, hoping we would fix it. Another possibility is that the IP knew that articles are usually started in article space, but there is an exception for AfC submissions, which are started in Talk space. Maybe the IP thought to start an article in Talk space, and figured someone would help add the AfC templates. I don't know which of these scenarios is correct, or how to tell them apart.
What I do know is that G8 was designed for situations where an article and a talk page existed, then the article got deleted, so the talk page needs deletion. These two examples are not such situations. Thus, I feel certain the CSD should be declined, but I do not know what else should be done. Given that they are attempts to create an article by an IP, which is what AfC is designed for, I thought someone here might know how to take them over.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
In this case it looks to me, as Sphilbrick guessed, that an unregistered IP has created Talk:Erik Borg because they've been unable to create Erik Borg directly. It seems to be more or less a copy-paste of his university profile, so there hasn't been a great deal of effort expended! If it was moved to AfC it would be deleted as a copyright violation. There's also a possible COI.
Maybe we should give the IP a few days to see whether they edit it or move it themselves? Either way, it's inappropriate for article space or AfC at the moment. Sionk (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
A copyright violation must be deleted, no matter where it is - no exceptions or excuses. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, but tagging it as a G8 and deleting as a G8 is wrong.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Brand-new editors should be welcomed, and informed about general policies. Even when an editor submits a copyvio, we normally tell the editor why it is a problem. In contrast, a G8 is considered a technical deletion, and there's usually no attempt to inform the editor or contact them in any way.
I confess I'm puzzled at some of the reactions. I fully expected the response to be, "yes, that is clearly an attempt by an IP to create an article, thus one of the things that AfC handles. We'll pick it up from here."--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
For this sort of case I would move it to article space and then tag for deletion as an article with the copyright problem. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Submissions with no template
Dear reviewers: What should be done with these redundant articles?
Each of those articles are over 6 months old, so I suggest g-13 them. That's what I've been doing with submissions that have already been copy/pasted into mainspace. LionMans Account (talk) 02:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Tried that. Apparently not allowed; real people aren't supposed to nominate articles for G13, and the bot won't find them because they have no templates on them, so I am posting these here for someone else to deal with. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Anne Delong Nice non-confrontational swipe. Please read up where you last complained about the "HasteurBot monopoly" on G13s and see that the admin was suggesting that there are probably better usages of your time. A change was enacted to the CSD:G13 template so that if the nomination is by HasteurBot, it sets a flag in the template to indicate that it's a bot nomination. That way admins can, at a glance, look and see which nominations are by real people and which one is automated process. Once we get the big backlog burned down I suspect that 90% of the nominations will be real people nominating the page. At this time there are no pages that are currently ripe for the automated process to nominate (Waiting the 30 days between warning about eligibility and nomination), so admins would recognize that the current nominations are editors evaluating the pages and seeing no redeeming qualities.
For ones that are obviously the forks of the mainspace article, redirect them to the mainspace. For ones that are obviously different articles, put them up for AfC review (submit) or put them into AfC draft. Hasteur (talk) 13:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Hasteur, the more I talk to you about this the more confused I become. I have dutifully stopped nominating articles for G13. However, when I was looking at the sorted category of eligible submissions using Technical 13's handy user box, I tried to use the review script to post a comment on one I wanted to save, and I see that there is now an option that says "Nominate for G13" or something like that. I would like to nominate some of the most obvious ones that I am already looking at, so that the next "rescuers" won't waste their time looking at them again. This would save time for others, not waste it, but I haven't been doing it, trying to be cooperative, not confrontational. From your comments above I can't tell if you are saying that this is now acceptable up until the date that the bot starts nominating, or if this option has been added only for later use after the bot has done its huge task. With the constant changes in Afc lately, I feel as though I am in one of those Fun Houses where the floor keeps moving as you try to make progress across it. Please confirm one way or the other on this point. Then I will not bother you about it again. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
First: In the development tracking version of AFCH there is an option to Postpone G13 deletion per the discussion we had a few days ago. Example of the Postpone G13 button in the development tracker version of AFCH. Second, if you or others want, you can pick pages in the G13 eligible category to save by bumping their edit date. That gets them immediately out of danger of being deleted soon. If you want to go ahead and nominate for G13 now, you can, and it will go through. Obviously we probably should be focusing on any of the G13 eligible submissions to look for potential ones we could save so admins are going to try to encourage users who are making G13 nominations to only look for submissions that could be saved or reviewing pending submissions instead of working on something that a bot can take care of easily by evaluating the logic for the criteria. If a page has been passed on for saving by multiple volunteers it's perfectly fine. None of the volunteers saw the potential to save it so the bot can be the low level broom sweeper that pushes the pages along. I looked in the records and currently there are no pages that meet the 180 days + 30 days notified criteria, so at this point, the bot is not nominating anything for G13. Starting September 5th, the bot will start nominating again because that's when the 30 days notified window will expire for a great many of the pages. At that point the bot will start following the consensus that was agreed to. Once the bot starts up, the admins may want to disclude regular users for a while due to the fact that the bot's rules are very precise and they don't want to spend a lot of time double checking the eligibility. Hasteur (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Hold the phones... Those are very simple, if there is article in the draft that isn't in the main article, request a history merge to get the information in there. If there is nothing new worth saving, tag it as CSD:G6 - Copy-and-paste page move. If it is an entirely different article, and there is something there worth approving, approve and disambiguate. Did I miss any possibilities? :) Technical 13 (talk) 13:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you missed the case where it's an entirely separately written article, not a cut and paste, about the exact same topic, which four out of five of these are. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:27, 5 September 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)
When it moves the page, hopefully the helper script is smart enough to move the talk page with it. If not, you might have to review and move them manually, selecting the "Move talk page" option on the move dialog. theonesean 02:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I think the script actually creates a talk page, placing the Afc banner on it, when the article is accepted. Well, these are on my watch list now, so I will wait and see. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:14, 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)
As far as I can figure out the editor actually just created another user called "Drafts". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:56, 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? theonesean 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)
I have just reverted them; due to it being identical to the submission. Mdann52 (talk) 12:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Good idea. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:22, 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. AnupMehra✈ 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)
I would say to try and merge any information into Code page 437 that is reasonable and then propose a rename of the page (with redirect) per WP:COMMONNAME to Windows alt codes maybe? Add some links from the other possible search terms and call it a day. Technical 13 (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
As far as I know, this information isn't all in one place in Wikipedia, and I'm not sure it should be. The specific information listed amounts to trivia. However, this information and much more is split between Alt code, Unicode input, and the various code pages and other code tables including Code page 437 and those listed in {{Character_encoding}}. In any case, Code page 437 should not be moved, and the information in the submission is only valid on computers using the same code page as the submitter. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it would be nice to see a redirect with a more common name, but there are so many different sets of character codes that it may be difficult to find one that is both accurate and also likely to be typed in as a search term. Windows Alt Code redirects to Alt Code. What about Windows Alt keycodes? It also redirects to Alt Code, but the codes aren't actually on that page. I could propose on its talk page that it be redirected to Code page 437. I'm sorry that this has strayed far from the submission listed at the top; I guess every topic is connected in one way or another. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
There is a more fundamental problem with the content of the submission: It only works on machines which use that code page. Outside the United States this is probably a minority of Windows computers. However, the same general trick - ALT + numeric sequence on the number pad will generate different glyphs on computers with different code pages. You are right that the article's talk page is the right place to discuss this. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, at any rate I can explain to the submitter why his article will not work for everyone and can't be accepted. Thanks, everyone. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
iDonate Pakistan
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)
Hello David, Thanks for posting review request here and i appreciate your help and efforts for Wikipedia Project. Wikipedia is free to use by anyone and we face IP vandalism every other minute, if someone moved the page to "iDonate" and then the creator of the page moved it back to its "Original" shape I don't see any big issue in this, untill the pages have redirect tags on them. You are concerned about Notability and tagged Wikipedia Project Pakistan already, I think you should wait and accept the decisions of Pakistani Editors, as they are experts in their locality. Asian organisations doesn't always get publicity in BBC or CNN so let Wikipedia project Pakistan to look into matter and review their local news channels. Its better to improve existing articles instead of deleting them just because you want it so. I hope it helps. Thanks Once again. Cheers --Jay (Lets Talk) 17:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello David, Since you have requesting Wikipedia Pakistan project for assessment you are not supposed to rate or rank this article yourself. If you do not like any Page on Wikipedia doesn't really mean you should go to any extent to delete it. I request you to stop ranking or rating this article and let Wikipedia Pakistan Project administrators to access this. Thanks. --Jay (Lets Talk) 17:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Jay: For the record, another editor notified WikiProject Pakistan. I intend to wait a reasonable time for the article to be improved. My fellow AFC editors: Jay was the original contributor for this submission. He was not the one who moved it to iDonate. Another editor, one with less than 2 weeks of experience here, did that. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Just to clear one thing up - no-one has notified Wikiproject Pakistan about this article. It is showing in their feed of new articles related to Pakistan, but that's it - so don't expect editors from the wikiproject swooping in anytime soon. - Happysailor(Talk) 18:13, 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)
Who "controlled" the interview and what is the nature of the interview? A "hard" interview by 60 Minutes is a lot more reliable than a "promotional interview" that an author might get from a talk-show host while on a book tour. The former is pretty reliable, the latter, not so much. An "advertorial" ("advertisement+editorial") interview is pure marketing and is no more reliable than the author's own web site. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Davidwr. I suspect it was more along the lines of a promotional interview done after a press release was sent out by the author. Perhaps someone with good Spanish would know for sure, the translations were sketchy.The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk)
If the interview is published in an established source (with an editor), then usually you can rely on information that the interviewer writes, since the editor should check that. However, what the subject of the interview says is just written as is, so if the interviewer just asks questions, there's no independent, reliable content. Even in regular newspaper articles, the journalists sometimes avoid having to verify facts by just saying "so-and-so says" (which is true). —Anne Delong (talk) 19:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Is there a way to find out? —Anne Delong (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
One could order a copy for $40 (or more depending on format). Short of that, it looks very much like the same study, or a very similar one, perhaps a replication. Even if it isn't a copyvio (for example, if it has been rewritten) Wikipedia is not the place to publish or re-publish original research, which this seems to be. I am not so worried about the copyvio, as the user seems to be (or claim to be at least) the same person as the original author. Yes i know that isn't enough, but it reduces the urgency in my view, and there are other evident reasons to decline. A note to the submitter about WP:OR and WP:COPYVIO might be in order. DES(talk) 05:01, 11 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)
From my experience it seems that (formerly or currently) inhabited places and geographic features are basically deemed to be notable based only on proof of existence. However, I haven't seen any guideline or policy statement to that effect, it's merely the impression I have from being an active editor for about 6 years. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
The fact that the National Park Service put this on the National Register of Historic Places is generally regarded as sufficient evidence of notability. The same is true of other countries which have similar designations. Be careful though, for countries like the UK that have "levels" of historic designations, the "lower grades" of historic designation may not be considered by the Wikipedia community to be evidence of Wikipedia:Notability. The best advice would be to consult relevant WikiProjects.
Having said that, it's theoretically possible that a place that has NRHP designation does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. However, anyone claiming such a place is not notable will have to make their case for non-notability. With that in mind, when I review NRHP-designated places, I do not use lack of notability as a reason to decline the article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
There's been a back and forth fight as to if a single reference to the NHR registration is enough to sustain a article in mainspace. I'm not expressing ANY oppinion on the matter as I've expressed opinions before and I'm involved with a WP:NRHP based initiative to tag pages that are poorly referenced. I'll ping the project to give them a chance to opine on the page. I would also note that there was proceedings before ArbCom with respect to the editor who created the submission. If you feel that the page does not meet the standards necessary to move into article space or is too heavily dependant on the effective single source, it's your responsibility to decline and explain why. Hasteur (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I'll preface this by saying that I'm involved with WP:NRHP. I think, in general, that sites on the NRHP are notable, and that information on most (if not all) sites should be presented somewhere on Wikipedia. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that each one deserves and individual article (though many do). One idea, if there is a determination that this historic district shouldn't be a separate article, is that the six HDs in Natchez (Clifton Heights, Downriver, Holy Family, On-Top-of-the-Hill, Bluffs, Woodlawn) could be combined into a single article (maybe Historic Districts of Natchez, Miss., including only the NRHP HDs). I'm not advocating that this should be done, only that it is a possibility. Chris857 (talk) 16:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I created the article to begin to make use of 34 photos of the district recently uploaded by a wp:Wikipedia Loves Monuments photo contributor, as part of the September-long WLM event. This is off-topic, but I am mildly worried that I cannot identify the specific addresses of the houses in the 2 photos I included into the draft; i am stuck taking the submitter's word that these depict houses in the district. Any further discussion about those photos should take place at Talk page of the article, once the article is accepted.
But there's no issue of wikipedia-notability here. NRHP-listed places are generally accepted as wikipedia-notable because there exists extensive reliable-source documentation which exceeds Wikipedia-notability requirements, i.e. the nomination document (which is not always online but is linked in this case). The nomination process requires nomination meeting extensive standards covering eligibility for National Register listing, and it goes through local, state, Federal review processes. This article is supported by two sources, in fact: mainly the NRHP nomination document but also an NRIS database reference (which supports a little bit not included in the other, e.g. the reference number and listing date). As Chris857 notes, sometimes it is possibly better to combine multiple NRHP listings into one article, which is a matter of judgment. For a current example by me, please see AFC submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kilauea Plantation which covers 3 NRHP listings. (and feel free to approve that!). --doncram 17:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Google Street View or satellite or aerial photography from online mapping services, or similar services may help verify the photograph matches the address. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Good point, but it's a big district to scroll around in Google for. I also suspect the houses' pics could show up in NRHP nom docs for the nearby Natchez On-Top-of-the-Hill Historic District or another Natchez HD, which I'll do some development in. And i'll try to contact the contributor. Thanks! --doncram 18:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Spectacular house mislabelled, in fact
DES, who opened this thread, approved the article, so this is Done, i think. :) --doncram 18:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes the question about identifing specific buildings cna now go to the talk page. Notability was really my only issue. More sources would of course be good, and perhaps some will be added in time, but this is enough to support the article as it stands I think. Thanks for the input and advice. DES(talk) 22:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome, for my part. FWIW, the Swiss chalet style spectacular house does in fact turn out to be a house listed in adjacent Natchez On-Top-of-the-Hill Historic District, instead, as I suspected could be possible; it was mislabelled by its uploader, in choice for filename in Commons. Documented more specifically at Talk:Downriver Residential Historic District now. Oh, well. Good for me, to have guessed and caught it, but now what to do, i am not sure. :( --doncram 08:22, 12 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)
I would WP:USERFY this and other non-article-candidate pages that somehow made it into WT:AFC/ space. If a speedy-deletion criteria other than G13 applies, consider using that instead of userficiation. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
One more thing, since this page has the names of real people on it AND the author is no longer active on Wikipedia, I would courtesy-blank so search engines don't pick up the names. Consider sending the author an email inviting him to add {{db-user}} to the page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:11, 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)
Sorry, I looked, but didn't find anything. It's obviously copied from somewhere; it even has unrecognized characters in the text. However, it may not be an online source, or even a published source. —Anne Delong (talk) 09:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Just a guess, but I suspect it may have come from an instructional or informational CD, or a web source behind a paywall as part of a course or in how to use this standard, or in accounting of some sort. In any case, this wouldn't be acceptable as curently written due to tone and lack of sourcing. DES(talk) 13:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Here is some general advice, not specific to this submission:
For a straight "move" or a move using the AFC Helper Script: Just treat it like it was created in mainspace, but clean up any AFC leftovers and remove any AFC templates on the talk page. Explain why you are removing them in the edit summary (e.g. "author approved own article, not a true AFC-reviewed article").
For a copy-and-paste move: If there were substantial contributors besides the editor who moved the article, consider requesting a history merge. Otherwise, just let the declined article sit. Check the copied article for AFC-related stuff and remove it.
In any case, if the article has issues, apply the appropriate templates, notify the author, and/or solicit help from an appropriate WikiProject. If it's a seemingly-hopeless case (e.g. non-notable topic, irreparably promotional to the point where starting over is better, etc.), consider WP:PROD or WP:AFD to have the article deleted. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sweaty Neck Syndrome
For what it's worth, if I saw this during NPP I would speedy it as a blp violation or a hoax. Dr. Patadia is apparently a real person but he has nothing to do with 'sweaty neck syndrome'.--TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 01:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I used WP:NOT as the decline reason for now. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I replaced the submission's text with {{afc cleared}} and added a comment explaining why. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:10, 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)
If you haven't done so already, immediately edit out the copyvio. Consider either rewriting it or just replacing it with a boilerplate message like
I hid the web page behind a link to avoid it being mentioned as plain text, in case it is a spam link. If you are sure it's not spam, there is nothing wrong with leaving it in plain sight. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
It probably isn't (intentonal) spam, considering Our Dogs is a pretty widely-read publication in the UK dog world. I've removed the copyvio portion of the article - You might like to know that the remainder is copied directly from Dog World (newspaper) with minor wording changes. --TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 16:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Depending on how minor it may be a "close paraphrase" which is still a copyright violation. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, if it's copied from another Wikipedia article, is it still a copyright violation? —Anne Delong (talk) 22:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Oops, my bad, misread you to say that it was copied from the newspaper, not the Wikipedia article about the newspaper. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:40, 20 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)
Nominated for deletion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:39, 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)
The script used to offer separate check-boxes for "blank the submission" and "nominate for deletion" for certain failure codes like copyright violations, attack pages, and other likely-speedy-deletion reasons. Yes, if it's a clear copyvio/attack/whatever AND there is no specific reason to keep anything, you should slap a db-whatever template on it. HOWEVER, sometimes there is a good reason to keep the references, the non-copyright text, or even just the AFC comments. In those cases either just doing the "afc cleared" thing and/or NOT telling the AFC Helper script to blank the page but doing selective redaction after declining the submission may be in order. I recently had a copyright issue that I declined but there's a good possibility that the copyright owner will release the text under a compatible license, so I just blanked the page and left instructions for how to donate material to Wikipedia. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:20, 24 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)
By navigating to the "Template:AfC postpone G13" page, and clicking on "What links here", you can see all of the pages that have that template on them. After the backlog drive maybe we can put some work into improving some or at least reporting them to Wikiprojects. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Administrator help required at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Global Apartheid
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)
I wonder what the response/reaction to using {{Admin help}} on such drafts would be. Would that be an appropriate this to do? Is there a better option? Posting here and "hoping" an admin notices seems poor to me. Would it be appropriate to tag it as {{Db-g4}} and let the first admin to arrive review it, and if that was done, would they just remove the tag if it was inapplicable, or would they comment on the draft? I'd like to hear back from admins on this so we can figure out what the best course of action is, as that would be a useful addition to our "reviewing instructions" page.
On that same note, what might be the best course of action for approving pages that were salted? Technical 13 (talk) 03:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, admins are the only one that can look at the deleted articles, so if we want to avoid recreating articles that have been deleted for cause, I don't see any other option than to involve an admin. According the the documentation, "When used, this template categorizes the talk page into Category:Wikipedians looking for help from administrators. The IRC channel #wikipedia-en-help is notified when this template is used." So as long as there are admins checking these things, davidwr's tactic should work. I've used it a couple of times when new editors asked me for help with things on my talk page that had to be done by an admin. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion, which is not particularly highly informed, the message could have gone there, as long as an explanatory message was included, or here as long as a link was provided, but not both, since then two admins might respond. The difference that I see is that the submitter is more likely to see it there than here, and I am not sure if that is a good thing or not. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I had forgotten about {{admin help}} but I knew there were a few admins who are involved in AFC, and I was specifically looking for one of those admins if possible. If nobody acts on the requests in a day or two, then a broader appeal to all admins may be needed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
What think? (If I keep it here it gets six months...) —Anne Delong (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
This isn't Banner's (or their previous name of Night of the Big Wind) first rodeo. Hold their feet to the fire. Per their own admission they admit that they haven't done anything about this "rescued" AFD. The AGF extended to the userfication has been spent IMO. Hasteur (talk) 22:23, 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)
Unless it gets changed into something that qualifies for speedy, I think MfD is the only way to delete it. More productive would be to just ask the editor if he wants it "userfied" and if so, remove the AFC templates. That would at least get it out of our queue until it's ready for re-submission.
Although it would be WP:BITEy, if an editor repeatedly re-submitted something with little or no attempt to improve it, that would eventually become disruptive, and WP:ANI could be used. I would consider this a near-last resort. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
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)
[2] is the history page for that wiki. Its tough to find from the main page, but its in the pulldown menu from "View Source". Looking at the wiki, I see no evidence of large-scale copy/pasting and it dates to August 2010. Probably not a COPYVIO, but I wouldn't accept it simply because the history is dubious (not accounting for other reasons). LionMans Account (talk) 22:27, 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)
Example of when clearing but not CSD'ing is preferred
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)
WikiProject Mathematics
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)
I'm finding most of the duplicate text on the respective story page on Wikia, which is subject to similar licensing conditions to Wikipedia; so it's probably not a copyright violation but it's also not properly attributed. Also, some of the repeated text appears to have come from a Facebook page, and that could very well be a copyright violation. I've blanked the submission for this reason and declined it as not suitable for Wikipedia because it's little more than a plot summary surrounding a fictional character. Pol430talk to me 19:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. You found basically what I did. I had left a message about WP:Plot summaries, but was waiting for a second opinion about the copyright situation before declining, so I appreciate your help. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:09, 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)
Is the Polish newspaper in question online only, or a print paper as well? An acceptable solution might be to use a cite news template to reference the print version newspaper article that supports the assertion that it is the first and oldest website of its kind. This one aspect would seem to be pivotal to the subject's notability and so I would be uncomfortable accepting the submission without verifying those facts. Pol430talk to me 20:01, 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)
Despite the author's request to 'review anyway' it is not feasible to review an incomplete submission; indeed, I would consider it a waste of reviewers' time. The reviewer's decline comment was rather brief and did not offer the author any additional information or guidance. In summary, I think the decline was technically correct, but the reasoning for it was not properly explained. I wouldn't call your comments unjust. Pol430talk to me 20:16, 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)
It appears he has now undone his undo and redid what he undid with his undo... Newbies :) Bellerophontalk to me formerly Pol430 17:07, 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)
Wow what a pile of stinky vanicruftispamtisment! I've slapped G11 and A7 Speedy tag on it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Do species articles get Italic titles?
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)
Nevermind The question is solved and the answer is Yes, use {{Italic title}}. I found the answer by looking at a few other articles. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:49, 6 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)
If the issue is anything other than notability, then we can just re-write the submission from scratch. If the issue is notability and we can easily find additional references but don't have time to rewrite it, we can add an afc comment listing those references and ask the person to rewrite the article using them. If the issue is notability and we have not convinced ourselves that the subject is notable, then we can add a comment along the lines of
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.
It may not be a large enough problem to spend time on, but what I'm saying is there's no option to say "No, never going to happen, stop wasting your time and ours". I guess you could take it to MfD if that were really the case, but that seems kind of counter to the mission of the AfC project. Gigs (talk) 17:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Judging notability from offline non-English sources
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)
Hello again Quadell! If you can't tell, you could try contacting a Wikiproject, either the one for Russia, or I believe there's one for Visual Arts. Or, you could post a notice here, because one of the other reviewers might be familiar or have access to the offline resources. You can converse with the submitter and ask if the sources are interviews, announcements of shows, news reports, etc., and that may help. The submitter may say "I did submit lots of references - look at all of the blogs and twitter feeds I cited". As you can see though, it's not a good idea to decline if you aren't sure; it's perfectly okay to back out and leave a submission for another reviewer. I do it all the time. Thank you for following up on this, and thanks for including links to the relevant articles and discussions. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again. The nominator gave me a lot more information, and I was able to accept the article. – Quadell(talk) 19:19, 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)
I didn't look at the article on its merits but I did postpone G13 deletion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Weird one, but there is certainly enough coverage to, when taken together, make a reasonable assertion of notability. I've accepted it. Bellerophontalk to me 21:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Great - one down, 40,000 to go... —Anne Delong (talk) 04:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
It's a little promotional, but it's not blatantly so. Gigs (talk) 18:28, 21 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)
It looks like the creator had at first pasted in tons of material from Chloe (film) to use as a model for the article format and infobox of Please Kill Mr. Know It All. He/she removed the material from Chloe as soon as it was created. The removed refs all applied to Chloe, not this film. You could ask for history merge, but not much point as Atouchofgreydotca was the only significant contributor to the draft and likewise the creator the article. Voceditenore (talk) 10:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to sort that out. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:30, 25 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)
I also suspect it's a copyvio. Even if it's not, when imagining what it would take to integrate the article into other articles on social justice and St. Louis, I think it would be a lot of effort and would require someone passionate about the topic. Since it's only had meaningful content added to it once, in one edit 6 months ago, I'd be inclined to let fade away. – Quadell(talk) 13:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Looks like a copy and pasted college paper prepared for a class. I would chuck it. Gigs (talk) 22:07, 26 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)
Yes, I've removed the offending text. Quoting copyrighted text is acceptable, but only if the text brings some encyclopaedic relevance to the article/submission and lengthy paragraphs are unacceptable. Also, the subject already has a Wikipedia article; so I've declined the submission for this reason. Bellerophontalk to me 17:03, 29 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)
Yes I agree. Each entry needs to be reliably sourced in this article, and not just at the main article for that sub. – Quadell(talk) 14:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks; I have declined it. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:55, 6 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)
Just work with the best version and move it mainspace when you're happy with it. There is no parallel histories issue and no attribution issue because all three versions were created/edited by different users. In time, the remaining two pages will be G13'd. Bellerophontalk to me 16:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, that's what I thought, but it's good to hear that someone else thinks so too. Thanks. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
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)
I'm not an admin but moved the page from WP to article space without problem. I've CSD'd the WP space redirects under g6. EdChem (talk) 12:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, EdChem. The reason that you didn't have trouble is that the existing mainspace page was deleted in the meantime by an admin after my request. And thanks also for taking care of the extra redirects. I didn't like to leave this in the middle, but there was a medical emergency in my family and I was called away. I still don't understand, though, why my Afc review script wouldn't accept the article, but I guess that doesn't matter now. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:34, 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:
Did I make a mistake in accepting it?
Should I have let someone else review the article after I helped to overhaul it? In general, do you feel like that kind of involvement compromises neutrality? (I work with a lot of editors on second and third submissions.)
Thanks for the input, Julie JSFarman (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I think you were wright to accept the submission. The website and app has been reviewed in two national UK newspapers, and it won a significant award in its field. Personally, I feel the AfD nomination was without basis (indeed, no nomination statement was written). Sometimes these things happen, sometimes perfectly acceptable articles get deleted needlessly and sometimes crap articles that scrape the bottom of the barrel of notability survive. You seem to be doing a fine job, keep it up! Bellerophontalk to me 20:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Bellerophontalk to meThank you so much for taking a look, weighing in at AfD and also for the vote of confidence -- I really appreciate it! Julie JSFarman (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Dodger67 Or they happen to get the spotlight on them and get accpted. I'm trying to be more understanding, but I definitely found enough to justify moving it into article space. Hasteur (talk) 21:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok in this case the outcome is fine - but the general principle is an entirely different kettle of fish. Scenario: Student submits a draft, we take a month to tell them there is a problem with the references - student fixes references in 10 minutes and resubmits - we take another month to tell student the tone of the prose it not acceptable - student copyedits and resubmits three days later - we take another month to decline it again for whatever reason - meanwhile the semester has ended and the poor student failed the course because their article was never completed. AfC is simply not compatible with student assignment drafts - they in any case have a very comprehensive support system that is tailored specifically to cater to their requirements. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Speaking of educational projects (and this whole "history of suppression of journalism" or whatever it is project has turned out some really impressive articles), can someone good at move/merge lend a hand at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/HornAfrik Media Inc? The article is ready to go, but someone apparently stubbed the topic just today so I can't get the big article into articlespace. Anyone with a quick hand? MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I deleted the stub. Fire at will. – Quadell(talk) 17:28, 18 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)
Greetings, JSFarman. I've asked CFCF, a fellow Wikipedian who can read Swedish, for help. Could you explain your question here for him, assuming he's never worked with AfC before? (I want to make it as easy as possible for him.) Which links exactly are you concerned with, and what info do you want to confirm that they contain? All the best, – Quadell(talk) 19:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Quadell and hello CFCF! The only information originally covered in the references was about the research that the company has done -- there was no background on the company itself, or any of the claims made about it in the article. The author added more references -- to support the location of the plants, the revenues, number of employees, etc. -- but I can't tell if they're from an independent source. Also, there were no sources to verify the entire first paragraph. CFCF, if you can check the references against the assertions made in the article and hit me back with your findings, it'd be incredibly helpful. THANK YOU! JSFarman (talk) 23:13, 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)
Much appreciated, CFCF - exactly what I needed - Thanks! Julie
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)
The Herbrand Award is a strong (but not definitive) indicator of notability. If notability is the only thing holding up this submission, accept it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I added a couple of citations just to be sure. The description of his work will probably need adjustment, but that can be done later. I accepted it. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Resolved
Unresolved
Done, i think. :) --doncram 18:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)