Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2013 April 12

= April 12 =

Abandoned articles in the AFC workspace
Have received this question on my talk page with regards to abandoned articles in the AFC workspace that have not been marked with a review or draft tag by their creator. Articles such as: Articles for creation/53,594. "Before you realize what I'm doing, and then talk to me on my talk page, since I see you're doing the job of rejecting a lot of these submissions, I thought I'd talk to you directly about what I'm doing. Essentially, I'm trying to get these marked "rejected" so they can be eligible for tl|db-g13 in the future. However, I realize that this is causing an additional workload in the WP:AFC queue, so I was wondering if there is a quicker way to get this marked. And if not, if you see any more submissions by me, no need to send me that notification template: unfortunately, I'm not a good judge (yet) if these are good articles to be used on Wikipedia or not, but am trying to learn as I'm doing this ... since I'm seeing there's a lot of these. Steel1943  (talk) 03:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)" What is the correct policy for untagged abandoned articles if not test page speedy? Thanks Charon123able (talk) 10:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This is not a test page or vandalism, as I'm prepared to believe that the article's creator made it in good faith with the assumption that what they were writing would benefit the encyclopedia. It's not at all notable in my view, being a neologism only supported by self-published sources, but that currently is not a criteria to speedy delete an article at AfC. The creator has only made this edit, so I believe this would be fair game to tag it as db-g13 at some point if the submission had been put in the review queue. Until then, there is no CSD criteria it can apply to. Above and beyond this, there's no policy to decline articles that haven't been submitted yet - G13 is, as far as I'm aware, for already declined drafts. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   11:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help. I take it that in the case of the 25 May 2012 version of the above article (unsure how to link it sorry), as the article has been untouched for eight months and is neither marked as a draft or awaiting review, it is eligible for deletion under 3, 7, 7, 8, 10 or 14 of WP:DEL-REASON. Just after confirmation, thanks again Charon123able (talk) 11:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of Articles for creation/U.S. Flagship Universities
This particular article has been contentious and was in process of being worked to a consensus. One editor submitted it for review after only 9 days in AfC status in what appears to be a move to prevent further editing. The article was placed into AfC status specifically to reach a consensus after extensive discussion and disagreement on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Flagship and previous pages including the AfC Project Talk page.

I would urge reviewers to return this article back to AfC status for continued work. Hopefully a productive result will be found and a solid and stable contribution to Wikipedia made. Sirberus (talk) 12:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see an issue. You can continue editing the article while it is submitted for review, and if it should be declined, you will still be able to improve it and to re-submit it later when you feel it's finished. Besides, we're severely backlogged, and it will probably take weeks for a reviewer to take a look at the draft. If you still feel that the draft shouldn't be submitted, you can remove the submission template per WP:BRD. Huon (talk) 13:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the explanation. I appreciate it. Sirberus (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kavi Shastri
what sources are reliable sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavishastripr (talk • contribs) 14:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Our page on reliable sources gives a more comprehensive overview, but in short, any source with an established track record of being trustworthy and being able to report information in a partisan manner without bias. Major newspapers and commercially published books are often considered to be reliable, but not in all circumstances. In your specific instance - IMDB is usually considered unreliable, since anybody can add any information at any time without any checking. You should also check your YouTube links do not point to copyright violations. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   14:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Applicant&
Hi, thanks a lot for your feedback concerning my article submission. I am wondering, if there's a chance to get it published, because I'm not sure, if it is possible to write about a new fact - which is the key issue of the article. Human Ressources and staffing is changing rapidly due to upcoming web features - and professionals and sevices must learn to adapt it. That's why I am working in practise to modify and adapt processes to the new features - like it was done for the customer journey, which obviously was modified during the raise of online shopping and web tracking features.

If you can provide me some hints - that would help me a lot!

best
 * Wolfgang

Wspresso (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's much of a chance of publishing this with Wikipedia. It sounds like an essay that contains original research, but Wikipedia should only summarize what has already been published in reliable sources. Huon (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You might be able to develop it into an article suitable for publication in a professional HR journal (a quick look with Google shows that there are many such publications) but you definitely cannot publish it here. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Article Alteraltions
I am writing because our article was processed and did not get approved. It says I can review the notes but when I go into the page, it says it was deleted, this is the first I've been on since I submitted it so I didn't delete it. Article is --> Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ActionFactory

Afstunts (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It's actually Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Action Factory, and it was deleted because it was "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". That's simply not what Wikipedia is for, and while we're usually tolerant of promotional drafts that might be salvaged, blatant examples may be deleted on sight.
 * There are two related issues. Firstly, your username is the name of a corporation (or of its URL, at least), a violation of our username policy; Wikipedia accounts are for persons, not for corporations (you even talk of "our" article - one account, one person, please). You should change your username as soon as possible or you might be blocked.
 * Secondly, you should read our guideline on conflicts of interest. Writing about your company is discouraged because it often leads to advertisement masquerading as an article - just as it did here. Huon (talk) 01:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)