Help desk
< March 15	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 17 >

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 16[edit]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Content Central[edit]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Content Central

Hi

I m just wondering why the sources are not 1) reliable and 2) independent? Both the references are from independent sources .

Thanks Roystonea (talk) 11:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roystonea,

I checked your article and fixed one of your cites to a better page. You are correct the first 3 sources appear to be good. If anything, your article is leaning toward an advertisement. I compared your article to similar in the category. Your article is better than some and worse than others. All things considered, I don't see a good reason not to approve it. Thanks. :- ) DCS 15:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but how did it happen? The only usable source is ~~Yahoo news (speculation, lack of depth)~~ (sorry, it's press release), with all the rest being either completely obscure or known malicious sources. If not me, then someone else will bring this to AfD and it will get deleted right away. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Dimitri, Reviewers at AfC look over a huge range of subjects, we are not subject matter experts and cannot to be expected to interrogate WP:RSN every time we review a submission. In the case of this article, sources 1 and 3 look OK to me. The rest are either primary, unreliable or of dubious provenance. Personally I work to a value of three, in-depth, reliable, independent sources, before I approve (exceptions apply). I don't see any glaring lack of judgement in DCS's acceptance of this article; although his comparing it with other articles in the same cat was probably not the best measure of suitability, because WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is as much a reason not to include, as it is anything else. Our rule of last resort is: 'How likely is the article to survive AfD?' If the answer is 50/50 or better, then we have no cause to decline its creation. As you seem quite knowledgeable on software matters, perhaps you would consider joining this WikiProject and donating some of your time to reviewing such submissions? We get a lot of software related submissions and specialist knowledge would be highly appreciated. Pol430 talk to me 19:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From what I could tell, CMSWire and BERTL seemed like a reliable sources, am I hearing that they are not? I saw the forth cite was from the company and the fifth was a press release, but they were not used in the article to establish notability, only features. I looked at similar articles just to ensure that this one did not contain more feature/advertising details than is norm. I have assumed that in AfC we have to assume some good faith in that I/we can not check every citation for reliability or even existence, especially if they are not available on the web. And, that if a mistake is made, the experts out there will PROD the article. :- ) DCS 22:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, the sources to CMS Wire and CMS Critic look ok to me. Not sure about BERTL. I would probably have accepted to submission as well. I was defending your actions if anything. Pol430 talk to me 00:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm not asking for expert suggestion here. CMS critic is one-person blog proposing paid advertising articles, CMS Wire has absolutely no editorial oversight. Both issues are very easy to see just looking up About Us links if one takes time for; if not, why WP:AFC is needed at all? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this article's chances in AfD are close to zero. I would say, they approach zero from negative side of the scale, actually. Interested parties are invited to follow WP:Articles for deletion/Content Central. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitri, thanks for your input I'm sure DCS has taken it on board, I know I have. But there is really no need for denigrating comments like "why WP:AFC is needed at all?". Pol430 talk to me 06:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was a bit shocked with the replies to my query, and I overreacted. My apologies. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/DIOTIMA´ S WORD IS A PAIAN AND PROSODY[edit]

OK FELLOWS............. I ADDED THAT PROSODY EXISTS ONLY IN THE ORIGINAL SPEACH, SO ONLY THAT TEXT GIVES WHAT I WANT TO NOTICE.SO STOP WRITING ABOUT............LANGUAGES AND PUBLISH MY LITTLE WORK PLEASE, PROSODY/PAIAN IS SEEN ONLY IN ATTIC, WRITE ???? ARISTIDES — Preceding unsigned comment added by LAMBROPOULOS (talk • contribs) 16:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is English language wikipedia. There is little point publishing a tract of attic greek text that has no English language translation or explanation, because very few people here would be able to read it. Please provide a high-quality English explanation/translation to complement the original text. Until then, the submission cannot be published. Pol430 talk to me 19:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Court Reporting Institute[edit]

Note: page in question is actually Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Court Reporting Institute (2nd submission)

Hello, the feedback from the editor on our submission is that we used copyrighted information (from an article published on HighSchoolGraduate.com). But we (the Court Reporting Institute) actually wrote that article and it was published by HighSchoolGraduate.com. If you scroll to the bottom of the article on that web site you'll see that credit is given to the director of the Court Reporting Institute. So there should be no copyright issues. Thank you. Vatterottwiki (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it is a matter of Wikipedia policy to presume that copyright protection exists unless it is specifically disclaimed on the site that we find the matching text on. If you are the copyright holder of the original text, you can donate the text to Wikipedia. To do this you must contact one of our OTRS agents. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for info. Pol430 talk to me 19:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Syed Abdur Rahim Shah Bukhari[edit]

i did not know what can i do further ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fawad gohar (talk • contribs) 19:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hi this is the big reference of gazater of kohat and the tomb image of syed abdur rahim shah bukhari was provided to ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fawad gohar (talk • contribs) 19:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fawad, I'm afraid I can't make much sense of your submission. You seem to be struggling to contribute in English. You could try visiting: http://www.wikipedia.org/ and see if you can find a version of Wikipedia in a language you are more familiar with. Pol430 talk to me 20:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Canadian Institute of Forestry/Institut forestier du Canada[edit]

Hello,

I was wondering if someone would be able to assist me in clarifying the sections of my article that read "like an advertisement" rather than an encyclopedia. My article is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Canadian Institute of Forestry/Institut forestier du Canada. The hope with writing this article was to allow people to search the name of this professional organization and educate themselves about its history and its membership. It is a non-profit organization designed to connect professionals of the forest industry and laypeople with an interest in the forest with one another. Any advice would be appreciated.

Thank you CIF-IFC (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The promotional tone of the prose is not as outrageous as some submissions I have seen, but the plethora of contact information (some of which I have removed) and the number of external links in the body text is not in-keeping with Wikipedia's policy on neutrality. Also your username is problematic (I have sent a message to your talk page to explain why). Pol430 talk to me 20:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/no justice, freedom[edit]

Please let my article pass. i really need help on this situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.89.13.122 (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Please consider asking this question at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what the Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. Pol430 talk to me 21:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Hamill[edit]

Hello,

I tried to enter a basic synopsis of Michael Hamill, and it was rejected siting references. Can you please look at the entry and let me know what I am doing wrong there?

Since the facts are somewhat non-verifiable except by individuals statements, can you take those.

Essentially, what, specifically, can I provide you on exactly what details to make this work?

Thanks!

Matt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tahoe22 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all Wikipedia articles must be "verifiable", so those sources are an absolute must. Take a look at WP:VRS. Your article was declined because it only has one source (a good one, but only one) while still making other claims that aren't backed up. He was on a TV show/Junior Olympian? Those would help towards establishing notability a lot, as long as they have sources. And sorry, but we really just can't take anyone's word for something, for reasons I'm sure you would understand. Wikipedia must take biographies of living people, or WP:BLPs, very seriously. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 22:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]