Help desk
< June 13	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 15 >

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

June 14

AFC Helper Script

Hi! I've tried to enable the AFC Helper Script, but I don't see anything that has the accept or decline buttons on it and don't know if it was installed properly. Can you please help me? Thanks, Electriccatfish2 (talk) 00:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are on a correct page, one that contains the AfC submission template, under a little arrow on the upper left menu bar, "Review" will appear. Click that, and you should get the review menu. :- ) Don 13:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I tried it the next day and saw a button called "Review" under the "Move" Button and now I am reviewing AFC's. Thanks , Electriccatfish2 (talk) 13:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/George Millett

My article has been rejected as it does maintain the standards of notability. I have indidacted in my sources a published article in Sunbury leader that George Millett was regocnised as one of the 175 faces of Sunbury, as pioneer to the area "George Millett - hotel proprietor and land owner. George came to Australia in 1834 to Sunbury and built Bald Hill hotel, located at the Gap. He provided employment and developed agricultural land."

I am trying to get the article published so that others can add more information to establish him as a notible to Sunbury and Buttlejorrk, where his article is linked from.

Can you provide me with more suggestions on what I can do to get it through.Theank you for your assistance.(165.228.125.80 (talk) 06:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Someone has obviously spent a bit of time researching this gentleman! However, by the letter of Wikipedia's guidance on notability, the reviewer was correct to decline your article. Millett's claim to being well known currently rests on (1) his wife's obituary (and subsequent disposal of their estate) and (2) a brief mention in a modern newspaper list. To be notable enough for Wikipedia, you generally need to show the subject has been talked about (to a reasonable depth) in multiple reliable (secondary) sources. You would benefit your case by adding more sources that talk about George Millett - did he have an obituary published in 1890? Is he mentioned in any history books about the area?

There may be another problem with your article - some of it seems to rely on WP:original research, which is strongly discouraged here. You would be better placed, in my opinion, to edit out any excessive genealogical information and keep only things which have been published in reliable sources. Sionk (talk) 11:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Halfin-whitt regime

Dear Sir I created a very short item because I am not an expert on Queuing Theory. However, I have enough knowledge that makes me sure that this item is very important. If you will approve it as a stub I am sure that many other experts will be able to contribute and let it grow into a good article.

Best regards Shuroo (talk) 12:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC) Shuroo[reply]

The draft was so short that I had difficulties to tell what it was about. For example, I expect it's about computer science, but it could be about traffic planning or maybe customer service, too. Maybe that's not even much of a difference and the result is applicable to all those areas, but I expect it makes some differences in modelling whether a "server" is supposed to be a person or a computer. Furthermore, it doesn't even mention what Halfin and Whitt's result is, just how they obtained it. It also doesn't have any reliable secondary sources but Halfin and Whitt's own paper (and I expect they do not use that name themselves). If that's an important result, surely others have written about it, explaining what the result says? Huon (talk) 12:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Steve Schlanger

I am confused as to the status of this submission. Can you please tell me where it stands? Thanks.

sessoccer Sessoccer (talk) 15:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is currently awaiting review: There's a message saying "Review waiting", and the page is categorized as "Pending AfC submissions".

The references might need some more work, though. You should include the external links in the relevant footnotes. Also, several of your sources, for example the Google Docs or the Wikipedia mirror, are not reliable, and others barely mention Schlanger. I don't think they provide the significant coverage required to establish Schlanger's notability. Huon (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changes have been made to this submission but every time I hit "Save", it immediately takes me back to the original page that says the submission was declined. What should I do?

Also, everything includes references that mention Schlanger and supports the claims that he has done or is doing the things that are listed in the article. Don't know what additional info would add more credibility since these are factual accounts. He has or is on several national T.V. networks and will be featured prominently on NBC at the London Olympics.

Please advise.

SessoccerSessoccer (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Robert Swann (1945-2006) - obituary of an actor

You say that my Robert Swann submission is not suitable for Wikipedia but fail to say why.

The Why Not page lists a dozen or more "reasons" - can't you try to be more specific?. The article is sourced and is verifiable and factual and breaks no copyright.

Please give some sort of detailed explanation not just a blanket rejection.

Wikipedia is supposed to be inclusive and this item is perfectly responsible, respectable and relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K7ght (talk • contribs) 16:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a memorial for deceased acquaintances. We write encyclopedia articles, not obituaries. To establish that Swann is notable enough for an article, you must show that significant coverage in reliable secondary sources exists. Your current sources do not show such coverage. Huon (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/VCII Incorporated

My article was rejected as containing unverified information. The article concerns a video distributor from the 1980's. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/VCII Incorporated The only information I included (or could find anywhere) was that which could be directly ascertained from the video boxes. How do I cite original materials like video sleeves in such a way as to make the article acceptable? Disfiguredfrolife (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can rely on the information on the video sleeves to make the article acceptable. Those are primary sources written by the distributor itself, but notability requires significant coverage in secondary, independent sources. Content should not be based on primary sources. If no other sources can be found, this company is probably not notable enough for an article. Huon (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chodykin

Hi, I would like to get an advice as to which paragraphs make my article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chodykin look more like an Essay than Encyclopedia article. Wouldn't want to make it bullet points only.

Regarding the last 2 paragraphs - they are succinct and do not provide any links to existing family members. But they are based on genealogy website managed and contributed by the family members. This makes it primary source. However, information in the site is referenced by archival sources. So should I put 10-20 links to the archival data instead of one link to the website? What would be the best approach there.

Appreciate your advice! Rambynas (talk) 18:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the problem is less one of tone than one of original research. I don't think any of your secondary sources provide coverage of the family, as opposed to coverage of individual members. In that case, you are creating an original synthesis of published sources, which is unfortunately not acceptable for a Wikipedia article.

Regarding the genealogy website, the archival sources would definitely be better. You could provide an external link to the website and still use the archival sources as references - if they too are available online and you can link them, so much the better. Huon (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review Submission

Hi,

My article of creation had last been reviewed at the end of March and I made suggested recommendations and added onto the article but I've still been waiting for review. I was wondering how I can check on the number of reviews that are still ahead of my article. Thanks.

DrMetadata (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC) Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/DoD Modeling & Simulation Community of Interest Discovery Metadata Specification (MSC-DMS)[reply]

Your article had not been re-submitted for review. I have done that for you. Currently there are about 850 articles awaiting review; it may take more than a week until yours gets reviewed. Huon (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Deep Foods

Please respond to Tandoorchef@rmdadvertising.com AND spendiff@rmdadvertising.com.

I have been working to get this article submitted and live for well over 2 weeks. We have yet to receive a timely or informative response from your reviewer team and would appreciate it if you would please give this your attention.

TAN1979 (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)TAN1979[reply]

That article has been written only today, less than 90 minutes ago. There are about 850 articles awaiting review; please be a little more patient. You may be referring to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tandoor Chef, which was last submitted for review on May 25 and reviewed two days later. That's about as timely as you can expect; since then the queue has only grown longer. That draft is currently not re-submitted for review, and I don't think your changes address either the reviewer's concerns or the reply I gave you on this page. Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source, and the other new sources are a press release and the company's own homepage, not reliable secondary sources either. The same holds for the new draft.

I won't write you mails; you'll have to check this page for replies. But since your mail addresses point to an advertising agency active for Deep Foods and Tandoor Chef, you might be interested in our guideline on conflicts of interest. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not to provide some free advertising. Huon (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]