Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2013 October 31

= October 31 =

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christopher O'Connor
Hi,

I'm not sure why this isn't being accepted. Please help!

Sebastiend15 (talk) 05:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, there is always a reason given on the page in the grey section of the pink box- does that explain things or do you need help with that? Rankersbo (talk) 06:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cochrane Stroke Group
Hi, my page has just been rejected due to copyright issues but I have no idea why. Could you let me know the reasoning behind this? Everything on it (other than the quote) was written by the group itself. Csg1993 (talk) 09:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The group itself is not independent as a source about their own organisation and its activities. In order to prove the notability of an organisation by Wikipedia's standards, articles require references demonstrating significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. You can read more about this at VRS and WP:ORG. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shine.com
Hey everyone, I'm waiting for a review for my submission, which was declined earlier due to lack of references. The article was put up on October 1 - please help me by reviewing it and clearing it. In case, there's still a shortcoming - please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vmg writer (talk • contribs) 09:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Note - submission is currently awaiting review. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Review of User:Adoromedia/sandbox
Hi, What i should improve to post ma article successfully.Its my first attempt trying it,so help me with wat criteria the article should have to be posted. Thank You in advance-AdoromediaAdoromedia (talk) 10:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The criteria you need are at COPYPASTE, Close paraphrasing, VRS, NOTADVERTISING, PEACOCK, Conflict of interest, and finally, CORPNAME. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Burkard Schliessmann
Hello dear all, we do know, that you have a lot to do and many articles are waiting for reviewing, but perhaps, if possible, you could have a look on the mentioned article we have submitted since october 24. The artist is on concert-tour next week, so it would be good if the article would appear on Wiki. Now, everything is veriable with references in detail, so it would be very kind if there could be a way. Thank you so much. Best wishes, Joanna --Joanna at EVP (talk) 14:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that there is no deadline on Wikipedia and while I myself like to improve articles to get mentioned on the front page at a specific time, there's no obligation to do so. Schliessmann does look notable from a first glance, but somebody will need to go through and check all the references thoroughly, and this can take at least half an hour, and frequently longer. Multiply that up by the 1,400 submissions currently queued and it's easy to see why there's a backlog. Sorry. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   15:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The purpose of Wikipedia is not to provide back-up public relations for an artist's concert tour. I should also tell you that if that draft goes into article space in its current state, it will be immediately tagged for multiple issues:
 * 1) It reads like press release rather than a biography
 * 2) It requires extensive copy editing to comply with the Manual of Style/Biographies and neutral encyclopedic tone
 * 3) Parts of it contain verbatim copy-paste and close paraphrasing from this website. See Duplication detector
 * 4) It appears to authored by an editor with a conflict of interest (and clearly shows in the article)
 * Joanna at EVP, you also have referred to yourself as "we" and "us" on several occasions. Is there more than one person editing the draft from this account?
 * Voceditenore (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, no, the article is from myself and there is no interest of confloicht, this I can ensure. When I wrote "we/us" it's only because I collaborated intensively (and had been consulted) with someone specialized on 'biographies'. So, I'm again upset again that it's not ok, whereas 'Arthur goes shopping' on october 25 told me, that I can resubmit it, after I asked him, whether it's now ok. What do you mean with point 3: "extensive copy editing"? I have proved all in an objective and neutral manner with all references. It's really frustrating. If you can give me further help, it would be fine. Thank you. Best, Joanna--Joanna at EVP (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Joanna at EVP, you have identified yourself on your talk page as being an employee of El Virtuoso Productions Ltd. . It is a PR agency which lists Schliessman, as one of its clients. You have a clear conflict of interest here. One of the reasons why Wikipedia strongly discourages editing under those circumstances is that it is virtually impossible to write a non-promotional article, and this draft clearly demonstrates that to any neutral observer. Trust me, I've been writing and editing classical music articles here since 2006 and have dealt with numerous articles on classical performers written either by the artists themselves or their PR agents. The promotional style stands out a mile, and actually detracts from the subject's image rather than enhancing it. I assume that Arthur goes shopping was referring to the fact that there are probably enough references to establish Schliessman's notability and I agree. However, he missed the close paraphrasing and copying from his official biography (it's easy to do), and that is a barrier to acceptance which needs to be fully addressed. I could rewrite the draft into a much shorter but well-referenced and neutrally-worded article that could go into main space without the tags for copy-editing and promotional language, but I probably won't be able to get to it for several days, maybe longer. Voceditenore (talk) 16:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Voceditenore, just a quick note, I've not actually reviewed the submission in question, I merely informed Joanna that it was OK to go ahead and submit it for review, and told her how to do so. (I think I may earlier have advised her that a previous version had few or no appropriate sources at all, but I didn't review that version either.) Unfortunately, as you and Ritchie have both pointed out, Joanna seems to be in a great hurry for commercial reasons, which does not help things to work smoothly. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Arthur, I was pretty sure that was the case. But even if you or anyone else had reviewed it, the copy paste can sometimes be difficult to spot. I was actually looking for it because I had to stub a previous version of this draft which consisted entirely of a verbatim copy of his official bio. Voceditenore (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Voceditenore and Arthur goes shopping: Under (9) I made the reference to the bio on . I hope, this is what you want. Feel free, if you want to make any changes - I think you are experienced very well. Do we hope it works out now. Thank's for collaboration. Best, Joanna--Joanna at EVP (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No it's not enough. You have to write the article in your own words. Just because you say where you copied from, doesn't change the fact that it's a copyright infringement and it cannot remain in the article. Please read COPYPASTE and Close paraphrasing which explains this more fully. One of the reasons the article sounds like promotional PR is because it's copied from promotional PR. Voceditenore (talk) 19:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

So I will rework at it. Sorry about! Best, Joanna--Joanna at EVP (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Merwyn Carlyle Gill
Articles for creation: Merwyn Carlyle Gill (October 30)

I have no idea what is wrong with my submission. I read the "before" suggestions and thought I had followed them. Can someone please tell me what exactly is wrong so I can correct it and resubmit please? If I don't know what was wrong how am I supposed to fix it??????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.132.15.82 (talk) 14:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I assume you've read Referencing for beginners? Which parts of that tutorial are confusing you? Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   14:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Punjab College Gujrat
I am wondering why did Wikipedia declined my article. Wikipedia gives me reason that this article is already present in Wikipedia. But on the other hand, a college article named [PGC Kharian] is also in the list of "Punjab Group of Colleges". But this is accepted and Wikipedia had declined my article. I need your help that what can I do. --FSCEM45212 (talk) 14:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia says: "This college is already mentioned at Punjab Group of Colleges. There is no evidence that this particular college is notable outside of the group and it appears that the group acts as a support network to mainstream education. By extension, this college must demonstrate its own notability according the standard defined at WP:ORG or WP:GNG and quite clearly it does not. Moreover, the content and formatting of this submission show it to be nothing more than a veiled advert or an attempt to create a 'profile' page -- neither of which are acceptable to Wikipedia. This submission cannot be accepted unless it clearly demonstrates compliance with the above notability guidelines, and it think it is unlikely it will be able to achieve that".


 * Do you wish to demonstrate that the college is notable according to the standard defined at WP:ORG or WP:GNG? If you do wish to do so, you would do so by adding references to significant coverage of the college in independent reliable sources. Reviewing VRS and Referencing for beginners may help with this. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing us towards the PGC Kharian article, which I have now recommended for deletion. Bellerophon talk to me  23:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/PharmFilm
Can I get an estimate on the review time for the document I submitted? It has been several weeks. Thank you. Peterniemi (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Because at least two of the four sources currently provided are not independent (and the other two are excessively vague), and because the submission is rather promotionally worded, any review in its current form would almost certainly decline it. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Corm Capital Draft
Hello, I submitted an article for creation that was refused. Now there is an embarrassing link retracing the whole conversation that appears on the first page of a Google search on "Corm Capital": en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Charlescorm‎

This link is embarrassing and is causing confusion among my clients. Can you PLEASE "kill it" or tell me what to do at charles@corm.com

Thank you, Charles Corm --Charlescorm (talk) 16:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I have tagged this page for speedy deletion. I have not sent any email. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Even when it's deleted, it will still appear in the deletion logs.--ukexpat (talk) 20:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes but the discussion that happened is gone, and the deleted page doesn't show on google. Rankersbo (talk) 02:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems the editor was speaking about their user page rather than the AfC draft. Google does not index the Wikipedia talk namespace, so there is no reason it should appear in search results. Their user page however does, but has now been blanked. Regardless of blanking or deletion the page will still appear in Google search results so long as it remains cached. There is nothing Wikipedia can do about this. Beware the law of unintended consequences. Bellerophon talk to me  07:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Elsa Cladera Encinas de Bravo
Hello, The article under user Nadezhda Bravo Cladera that I can read in the Internet and the one that is here below are not the same, why?

Nadezhda Bravo Cladera (talk) 20:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Elsa Cladera Encinas de Bravo
Hello, The article under user Nadezhda Bravo Cladera that I can read in the Internet and the one that is here below are not the same, why?

Nadezhda Bravo Cladera (talk) 20:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand your question. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Elsa Cladera Encinas de Bravo is a draft article that has been submitted to Articles for Creation by an unregistered IP address. Why would it be identical to your User page draft? By the way, your User page is not the appropriate place to write articles - the best place is in your 'sandbox' (see link at top right of your screen). Sionk (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

AFC Removed?
Hi,

I am just getting into Wikipedia contribution and made my first article based on a notable person that was not already included.

I have many more articles that I would like to submit about a few topics/people that aren't featured in Wikipedia but are highly notable where I come from in the UK.

My article was rejected and I got an email notifying me of this. It said that I can click through to a page and provided me a link to see the notes left by the user who reviewed it as to why my article was rejected. This feedback is important as I am new to Wikipedia as a contributor so I am very much looking forward to learning how to successfully submit content. When I clicked through the link it appeared that there were notes and what I had written so far had been removed with no comment.

The article in question was about a rapper who is doing well at the minute and from my home town and I would like to get more content about my local town on the website.

Many thanks,

Robertjeffries29 (talk) 20:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Robert


 * The draft is in your user sandbox at: User:Robertjeffries29/sandbox. You can always find your user contributions at Special:Contributions/Robertjeffries29.--ukexpat (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)