Help desk
< March 25	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 27 >

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.

March 26

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Prophetess Tasha Slaughter ministries

HELLO IM WANTING TO CREATE A PAGE FOR PROPHETESS TASHA SLAUGHTER MINISTRIES AND IT DENIED IT. PLEASE HELP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.69.202 (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That draft doesn't cite any reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles. Without such sources we cannot accept the draft. Huon (talk) 00:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Suzette Pettway

[Draft removed] TeePett1 (talk) 02:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't paste your draft to the help desk; edit Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tanya Suzette Pettway instead. The draft did not show Pettway has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. We need such sources, both to establish Pettway's notability and to allow our readers to verify the content. If, as your username suggests, you are Tanya Pettway, you may also want to read our guideline on conflicts of interest - writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged. Huon (talk) 02:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

article review IIT tanzania

I have submitted article and got reply that it was not accepted , but i dont find reviewer comment , why this was not accepted, if i need to edit what part is needed to edited , — Preceding unsigned comment added by IIT Tanzania (talk • contribs) 10:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer's comment is at the top of the draft. In short, the draft cites no reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and it's written in a non-neutral, unduly promotional tone. The entire draft would have to be rewritten from scratch, based on what reliable sources such as newspapers say about IIT. Huon (talk) 11:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two pages that were the same

Dear editors: I found two pages that had the same content. An older one Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Media for Equity has been declined three times. The messages in the declinations make it clear that the reviewers thought that "Media for Equity" was the name of a company, when in fact it is an investment strategy used by many companies. Obviously the article was not clearly written. Then I found that another user had submitted to the Afc the exact same text under another name, with a note added that this topic is in the German Wikipedia, so I moved the new one to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Media for Equity (2). It looked like neither of the two originators (if they are really two) had any intention of improving the article, so I decided to rewrite it and add more references. Now that I'm done, though, I realize that I shouldn't review it myself. I am concerned that the edit history of this text is spread over two different users and pages, and when it comes up for review, the reviewer should know about the previous declination notices on the older article. How is a situation like this usually handled? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's somewhat messy. For licensing reasons we need the first draft's edit history. The best way forward would be to summon an admin and have him merge page histories. I'll try to find one via IRC; that's probably faster than WP:AN/I. Huon (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Shirik. Huon (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. One more article off the Afc list. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My article for creation: LOT-EK

Hi all,

I'm trying to have my article approved Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/LOT-EK. I've made changes on March 12 to have it read more objectively. I saved after it was edited, and I want to confirm if there is another step I need to take to have the article reviewed and approved. Thank you!

Oliverbailey31 (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page is correctly submitted for review, but you have two versions of the draft on the page and should remove the old one to prevent confusion. I'd also say the sources could use more work - some paragraphs have almost excessively many sources, others none at all. Huon (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks -- will take a look and re-submit. Oliverbailey31 (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two pages that should be merged

Dear editors: This user Euh1er has made a page User:Euh1er/sandbox on March 5 and submitted it for review. Then on March 8 the information on this page was copied rather than moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/IUPAC Subcommittee on Structure and Properties of Commercial Polymers. I guess these two pages need to be merged. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first page you mention was edited only by User:Euh1er, and the second page you mention was created by the same user. So why the need to merge the edit histories?

I see someone has marked the second-mentioned page for speedy deletion anyway. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/IUPAC Subcommittee on Structure and Properties of Commercial Polymers doesn't have any relevant edits, I've tagged it for speedy deletion so we can move User:Euh1er/sandbox properly. Huon (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:KFlatten/sandbox

Until my article is reviewed and accepted I can not insert images into the article. That is my understanding. I have tried to upload photos and get hung up on the name of the Wikipedia article. Don't reviewers need to see the photos in their review? KFlatten (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)Kay FlattenKFlatten (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC) Wikipediatalk:Articles for creation/KFlatten/sandbox[reply]

No, images do not affect the review decision. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Whether images can be added to a draft depends on the images' copyright status. If they are freely licensed so that anybody can re-use them for any purpose, they can be added to drafts as well. If they're non-free content, they can be used in articles only, not in drafts.

Anyway, reviewers won't need to see the images; reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles, are much more important. Major parts of the draft don't cite any sources at all, and several sources seem to originate with Happehatchee Center itself - clearly not independent. WGCU doesn't even write a single sentence about the Center, and the Florida statutes should be considered primary sources. I don't think the current sources suffice to establish Happehatchee Center's notability. Huon (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declining a sandbox

Dear editors: Yesterday I was reviewing this page: User:Jalpahsoni/sandbox. It was probably submitted by mistake, since it's a conversation. There wasn't any title so I tagged it manually as not suitable for Wikipedia. It displays the tag, but it's still on the Afc list. Did I miss a step? —Anne Delong (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently that sandbox had two submission templates; you declined one, but the other remained and kept the page submitted for review. I've removed it. Huon (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, you added the second template yourself - you should have added the "d" and "not" parameters as the first two parameters to the existing submission template. Huon (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll keep that it mind.—Anne Delong (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Aradhna_Krishna

Hi,

It has been months that I have been working on a page Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Aradhna_Krishna, and I have answered to all the reviewers' comments. My last efforts were appreciated and it seemed that the page was going to be accepted with minor reviews. I have done the minor reviews 3 weeks ago and I am just wondering how long could it take to have an answer. Thank you very much for your awesome work!!!

Alfa privativo Alfa privativo (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It could take several weeks longer for the submission to be reviewed again. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another merge

Here are two more pages that seem to be continuations of each other:

First, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Keaton Henson

Then: User:Violetcries/Keaton Henson

—Anne Delong (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

..and the same user has at least two other pages duplicated the same way. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, what a mess. However, since both versions are by the same author, we're still crediting the correct user if we simply ignore the versions in userspace or decline them as duplicates. Thus I'd say no merge action needs to be taken. I'm not an expert on the correct attribution of Wikipedia content, though. Huon (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eleanor Spiess-Ferris

Please let me know the status of my article "Eleanor Spiess-Ferris"Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eleanor Spiess-Ferris I submitted it for review on February 15. My Wikipedia Talk page, however, has a notice that the article is NOT submitted for review. I submitted it again, and the article was rejected because the same one Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eleanor Spiess-Ferris was already in review. Still, however, my talk pages says the article isn't in review. Also, another Wiki notice informs that there is a big backlog of articles for review at this time, and to expect delay. I'm okay with that, but I'm not sure if the article (Eleanor Spiess-Ferris) is actually in the review queque .. Please inform. Umberto TosiUmberto3000 (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a mistake on the reviewer's part. The original draft was never submitted for review; I have now submitted it (thus we can ignore the duplicate draft). At a glance, many of the sources seem problematic. For example, Spiess-Ferris' official website is a primary source, as are the websites of her husband or of galleries which have exhibited her work. While such sources might be acceptable for uncontroversial facts such as her birthday, they should not serve as the sole basis for large amounts of content; Wikipedia content should be based on reliable, independent sources such as newspaper articles or articles in reputable art magazines. Huon (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]