Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2014 January 15

= January 15 =

Question about "fast-tracking" AFC submissions
There is a backlog of AFC submissions. I noticed some submissions by a user who is interested in film articles. Is it alright if I edit these article submissions and move them into the mainspace right away so they are not caught in the AFC backlog? If someone still has a question about notability they can be taken to AFD, but I am confident I will be able to show sufficient sourcing to comply with WP:GNG.

Thank you, WhisperToMe (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is we really don't want to encourage users who tickle particular reviewers fancy. What about all the other editors that have waited their turn patiently in the review queue as well? Hasteur (talk) 01:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I speak as a third party outsider, not as an official reviewer. If it wasn't for these existing AFC articles I'd be writing my own (it would in all likelihood pass GNG). While I see the AFC process as being beneficial for inexperienced users, I don't think it's for the best to encourage unnecessary bureaucracy. I think that if an outsider (especially one well versed in Wikipedia policies) sees a proposed article and says "Hey, it's a viable topic!" He/she should be able to take the article out of the AFC process and into the mainspace. That frees up time and energy for articles that do need to be reviewed by AFC. It makes things better for those that are waiting their turn and which may or may not be viable as topics (something to be determined by a formal reviewer). WhisperToMe (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, if you are confident that a particular subset of submissions all meet Wikipedia policy, you should go right ahead and approve all of those submissions. Their position in the queue is irrelevant. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Seconded. Rankersbo (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have begun this process. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/PIE Inc.
PIE ,established in 2007, hiding text for length — Preceding unsigned comment added by PIE Suite (talk • contribs) 07:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * , please don't paste the article draft here, this is a place to ask questions about your review. Just paste a link to your draft (I fixed that for you) and let us know what your question is. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MySurvey
Hello, resubmitted entry with supporting citations. Please see the entry and advise. Many thanks.

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/LightningChart
Dear reviewer,

I am the writer of LightningChart article on wiki. I have cited some reliable sources such as MSDN reviews in the article, I also did keep neutral position while writing article, except for sentences like "remarkable visualization performance" and " is claimed to be one of the fastest chart rendering SDK's on the market", though I provided a citations at the ends of these phrases, as those sentences are not made by me but by the users and programmers, who saw LightningChart in action and made their review. I sincerely want the article to be present on Wiki, so please, provide me with more detail about what exactly should I change in article to make it successfully approved.

Thank You. Lordink (talk) 09:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * MSDN reviews are not independent reliable sources; they are user submitted content. You need sources that meet VRS. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Spore-CTA
I should like to change the name of the proposed article to Spore (Agricultural publication). How do I do that? Thanks, Roundtheworld (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * See MOVE. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, I think you want to move it to Spore (agricultural publication) not Spore (Agricultural publication) Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Done. Roundtheworld (talk) 13:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

KELLY LYN NOONE'S DEATH
I was wonder if you could put a death report on here for me. I have looked and looked and I cant find anything, its my aunt Kelly Lyn Noone, she died june 3rd 2013, her mothers answer is Deborah K Noone. she was a very special person to me and I want to know as much as I can about what happened. Can you help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.185.129.71 (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to hear about your aunt's death. Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not perform investigations into deaths. If sources that give information about the death cannot be found, then Wikipedia cannot have an article about the death. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * We don't have an article about anyone named Kelly Lyn Noone. A list of the articles about people with that surname can be found here. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Plastic joining

 * Moved pasted article to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Plastic joining


 * , do you have a specific question for us? MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Elle Kaplan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Elle_Kaplan

I submitted this article several months ago, along with another article for Lexion Capital. Elle Kaplan's page was moved to Wikipedia talk and received no feedback but has also not been posted to the site. Lexion Capital's page received no feedback and appears to have been deleted entirely. I would like to figure out why and what the next steps are for editing or resubmitting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaetar17 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, the Elle Kaplan article had no headings on it, so it wasn't submitted for review at all, and we had no way of knowing it was there. I have now submitted your article and it should be reviewed in turn. Rankersbo (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lexion Capital appears to have been deleted as a promotional article back in November, sorry. Rankersbo (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aziz Nazan Qawwal
how can I upload pictures, plz help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naza mumtaz (talk • contribs) 18:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

why my article declined — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naza mumtaz (talk • contribs) 19:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * , did you read the very clear instructions in the pink box at top of your article which explains what needs to be fixed? MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

the format of the table is difficult to understand, can I upload the article file from computer, and how can I add pictures in it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naza mumtaz (talk • contribs) 20:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * , you are not required to use large and complex tables for dozens of recordings, why not remove the tables for the time being and focus on the article itself? Also, don't worry about photos now, focus on getting the actual article right. And as noted, do not indent starts of paragraphs, as it's causing coding errors. No, you cannot upload an MS Word file or such, you have to use the same Wikimedia code everyone else uses; if you're unclear please see WP:Your first article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Palm Beach Media Group
Hi there.

Could you please tell me why my article was rejected? What did I do wrong? I followed instructions :)

Mleeribeiro (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)MLee


 * , did you read the comments in the pink box and next to it that explain the issue? As noted, it is not at all acceptable to just cite PBMG about itself, and your very first sentence is clearly biased promotion rather than neutral fact. Please ensure you read your feedback, and only following that ask questions if things are still unclear, as it defeats the purpose of feedback if you do not read it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I did read your notes. You claim the article is promotional and say I should check other media entries for direction. I did. I checked Hearst and Conde Nast, and they are much, much more promotional than my article on PBMG. So your advice is confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mleeribeiro (talk • contribs) 15:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Neither of the articles on Hearst are Good Articles, and nor is the one on Conde Nast. You can find recognised Good Articles about companies and businesses at Good articles/Social sciences and society. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)