Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 274: Line 274:


:Hi {{U|MPaul}}. Which criterion of [[WP:PROF]] do you believe Chilingerian satisfies? Awards and top ''n'' lists carry little weight at Wikipedia unless independent reliable sources cover them. --[[User:Worldbruce|Worldbruce]] ([[User talk:Worldbruce|talk]]) 14:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
:Hi {{U|MPaul}}. Which criterion of [[WP:PROF]] do you believe Chilingerian satisfies? Awards and top ''n'' lists carry little weight at Wikipedia unless independent reliable sources cover them. --[[User:Worldbruce|Worldbruce]] ([[User talk:Worldbruce|talk]]) 14:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

== Request on 14:29:39, 27 March 2017 for assistance on [[Wikipedia:https://Draft:Luis_Joaquin_Katigbak|AfC]] submission by 112.208.0.141 ==
{{anchor|14:29:39, 27 March 2017 review of submission by 112.208.0.141}}
{{Lafc|username=112.208.0.141|ts=14:29:39, 27 March 2017|declinedtalk=Draft:Luis_Joaquin_Katigbak}}

<!-- Start of message -->
The reason why i write the article is to help college students to easily find a reference about the Filipino writer Luis Joaquin Katigbak. Please help me for this article.

<!-- End of message -->[[Special:Contributions/112.208.0.141|112.208.0.141]] ([[User talk:112.208.0.141|talk]]) 14:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:29, 27 March 2017

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, List, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
  • Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.
Ask a new question
Please check back often for answers.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions


March 21

00:49:42, 21 March 2017 review of submission by Hespeb

Hello, 

 I submitted a revision of my entry over a month ago.

Please let me know it's status. Thanks, Bob


Hespeb (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You actually just submitted it two weeks ago. The AfC system has hit another backlog, this time at about 850 submissions. Please be patient as we reduce the backlog and get to yours as quickly as we can. Thank you, JTP (talk • contribs) 01:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

02:59:16, 21 March 2017 review of submission by Tabrown5


Hello, I am requesting help! Please help me by reviewing this article to verify that the draft is ready for publishlication. The article was previously rejected for "badly formatted reference links" and I would like to ask help for someone to review the article to check that the reference links are better formatted, and give an opinion as to whether the article is ready to go live. I really appreciate your help so that the article is not rejected again, or heaven forbid we upset the Wiki-Gods! Thank You. TaBrown5

Tabrown5 (talk) 02:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tabrown. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Your formatting looks fairly good, and far better than many of the other submissions we receive here. I'm confident that the Wiki-Gods are well-pleased with your efforts. But since you've asked, I'll point out a few things. First, the dates of the AllMusic references should be the date that the web entry was posted on the AllMusic site, not the date the album was released. I understand that AllMusic generally doesn't date its postings and, if I'm correct about that, then the "date" parameter should be left blank. Second, Wikipedia's Manual of Style differs from those of other publications. And so, just because another publication chooses to use all-caps in the name of an article, we don't feel obliged to follow their practice and, under our Manual of Style, we don't follow their practice. The same is true for a publication that uses all-caps in its title. And third, reference no. 18 ought to use the {{cite interview}} template, which will facilitate presenting the information not normally required for non-interview references. And two final points -- your references should include the "access-date" parameter, which is essential for citing web material (because the material in a web posting can change over time) and the "Additional references" section can also use the citation templates for their formatting. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

04:55:09, 21 March 2017 review of submission by Rdev5


Received the following comment from SwisterTwister on an article pending review (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rdev5/sandbox):

"Specifically focus with all majorly published book reviews in major publications; notability cannot be inherited from others. SwisterTwister talk 22:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)"

Does he mean that our citations should be trimmed down to only majorly published book reviews in major publications, or is he attempting to alert other reviewers that our content is no good because it attempts to inherit notability from others?

Also, can you please clarify what this line actually means: "notability cannot be inherited from others." I've read a little bit on it on Wikipedia, but am not entirely sure which citations or content specifically are held in question here.

Thanks!

Rdev5 (talk) 04:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rdev5: Please clarify what you mean by "our". The policy on Wikipedia is "one user—one account". Usernames should not be shared by multiple individuals.
"Notability is not inherited" is the idea that the notability of a notable subject doesn't rub off on related subjects. Clearing away the name dropping in "she was appointed by President Reagan’s Treasury Secretary Donald Regan to serve as special assistant and chief of staff to Undersecretary for Monetary Affairs Beryl Sprinkel," does being special assistant and chief of staff to an undersecretary automatically make one notable? No. Tone down the name dropping and the citation overkill.
If the premise is that Machol is notable as an author, the sources to concentrate on are book reviews by professional reviewers in reputable publications. Interviews of someone on a book tour to promote their book are apt to be regarded as primary sources and not independent. Get rid of forbes.com/sites. These are blogs. Those written by contributors rather than Forbes staffers are not reliable sources for facts, and Wikipedia doesn't really care about the opinions of random bloggers. The same probably goes for sites like Fatherly and mom.me. Wikipedia is user-generated, so it is not a reliable source, and should not be used as a reference. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Worldbruce: Understood, thanks. The use of "our" is not meant to suggest there are multiple individuals using this account (which is strictly mine). This is my first Wikipedia page, so bear with me. There's one other person helping me with content and proofreading (in this case, citations) that came to mind, but they're not using my account to make any edits on anything.

21:38:11, 21 March 2017 review of submission by Islamborinca


Wha i should do exactly?

no Declined for the reasons explained on the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 22

09:31:30, 22 March 2017 review of submission by 95.92.171.211


On 2nd February I created an account. However I did not notice that I had received an email confirmation message, and it seems the account now does not exist anymore.

It is somewhat confusing, because on 24th February I managed to submit my article for review, and was not informed of the lack of account. At this point, I am happy to create a new account, but am perplexed about having to create the whole text and code for the article again. Is it at all possible to a) retrieve the account, or if not, b) at least retrieve the article User:Christopherbochmann/sandbox/Christopher Bochmann so as to be able to work on it further?

Thank you for your time. Looking forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards 95.92.171.211 (talk) 09:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Accounts are outside our scope, and you may have better luck asking about them at Wikipedia:Help desk, where editors will try to answer any question regarding how to use Wikipedia. That said, I'm not sure what makes you think the account doesn't exist anymore. To me it looks like there is a Christopherbochmann from 2 February and an older ChristopherBochmann. If you entered an email address when you created these, and still have access to that email account, you should be able to reset the password on one of them and continue using it.
With regard to the draft submitted for review, it is located at Draft:Christopher Bochmann. Wikipedia strongly discourages autobiographies. If you are Christopher Bochmann, please write about yourself at LinkedIn, or Facebook, or your own website, anywhere but Wikipedia. You're very welcome to edit Wikipedia, but please stick to topics with which you have no conflict of interest; we have over five million to choose from, such as:
--Worldbruce (talk) 14:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:01:05, 22 March 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Jenniobidike


I have been working on updating and revising the page Sam Angus (writer)and have edited the page to address some of the issues of the currently existing page. I have been working on this page for a few weeks now and believe the current edit, which I think can be found on my user page under contributions. I think this edit is more suitable and ticks many of the boxes many of the other users have addressed. I would like some feedback to see if this edit can be accepted. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Jenniobidike (talk) 11:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Jenniobidike (talk) 11:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jenniobidke. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. Your draft no longer exists separately from the Main space article. Any edits you wish to make to the existing article should be discussed on the article's Talk page. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:41:19, 22 March 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by LouiseSheffield


Hello,

I am looking for some advice on the above submission. I have been transparent throughout and have tried to remain neutral by just putting the facts of the wildlife centre. Any advice on specifically which bits to cut out would be very gratefully received. Or would anybody else be open to editing the submission so that it is acceptable? I do believe that it is notable for Wikipedia, as it attracts 150k+ visitors a year and is no.1 on TripAdvisor for Sheffield, no.4 for South Yorkshire. Smaller wildlife centres and farms are on Wikipedia.

Kindest Regards,

LouiseSheffield

LouiseSheffield (talk) 12:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LouiseSheffield, the problem is actually that you have no acceptable sources. You need to find articles in the mainstream press, newspapers and magazine articles about the centre, but not press releases, they must be real journalistic articles. Academic articles are also good sources. See the notability standard for organizations for more specific guidance. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19:58:37, 22 March 2017 review of submission by MakinASarah


MakinASarah (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To those working at the articles for creation help desk,

My page submission has been stagnant for 3-4 weeks now, and I was wondering if there was any way to monitor its editing and submission progress? Is there any way to view what priority the submission has been given? Is there any way to address concerns by reviewers that might expedite the process?

Thank you for your time taken to address these questions. Sincerely, Sarah

The backlog count is at Template:AFC status. We are highly backlogged at the moment, and will try to get to yours soon. Thanks for your patience! JTP (talk • contribs) 20:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

23:14:49, 22 March 2017 review of submission by Laurars


After I started my draft I noticed I entered the title as Automated efficiency Model. I am unable to determine if it needs to be changed to all caps - Automated Efficiency Model - or first cap - Automated efficiency model. Also unable to make the change. Are you able to fix this or provide instructions? Thank you.


Laurars (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article now appears at Automated efficiency model. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 23

06:04:01, 23 March 2017 review of submission by Rdev5


Need to revert draft back to my sandbox for further editing (i.e. cancel submission for review). Please advise.

Rdev5 (talk) 06:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rdev5, there's no need to move it, just work on it where it is, that's what draft-space is for. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dodger67: Gotcha, thanks. But just to clarify: the page is currently in draft-space because I submitted it for review. As such, I don't actually want it to get moved to article space unintentionally as there are still edits to make. I'm under the impression that even if left in your sandbox for a month, no one's really going to see or do anything with it until it gets submitted for review I'd prefer not to be in a "pending move to article space" state until I have more time to edit and resubmit. Please advise.
You can leave a draft in draft-space without submitting it for review. Reviewers are overworked as it is, just trying to keep up with the drafts that get submitted to them – they certainly don't go looking for unsubmitted drafts and reviewing them regardless.
A reason to prefer keeping it in draft space, rather than moving it to your sandbox, is that other editors may help you to improve it while it's in draft space, but will generally regard it as "rude" to edit the contents of someone else's sandbox. Maproom (talk) 12:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Rdev5: I've made a pro forma "decline" of your submission, thus removing it from the list of drafts waiting for review. You can add it back to the list by clicking on the "Resubmit" button near the top of your draft. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

13:35:36, 23 March 2017 review of submission by Maria Grimana


Maria Grimana (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


MAURIZIO PELLEGRIN page

Hello,

on March 10th NewYorkActuary gave me good advices on how to improve my page that was previously declined. I followed his/her advices. Can a reviewer let me know if she/he thinks that the page looks acceptable now? Is there anything else I should work on? thank you so much in advance for your help! all the best, Maria GrimanaMaria Grimana (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16:22:07, 23 March 2017 review of submission by Larsonite

16:22:07, 23 March 2017 review of submission by Larsonite



I am trying to figure out why my sources are not considered notable or trustworthy when I sited the largest most read publication in the technology world (engadget, techcrunch, PCmag, MacWorld. I also sited original (OEM) websites that are most credible for the devices and inventions mentioned on the article.

Thanks for the help.


Hi Larsonite, the problem is really very simple, the only referenced sources that even mention Coaction Consulting is the company's own website. The article is (falsely) claiming that the subject received awards that were actually given to other companies. Your sources must actually discuss "Coaction Consulting" in significant depth and detail (see WP:CORP and WP:CORPDEPTH) but you have failed to provide even one passing mention. The current references are of no value at all. Do some real research and start over - if you can find actual sources. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 24

14:08:05, 24 March 2017 review of submission by Andrewfwilson


Hello. I submitted the above page for review 14 days ago (10th March). The subject was turned into a redirect in 2010, and with the updated information in the draft I think it is now sufficiently notable for a wikipedia page. My question is this: are you waiting for further information from me? I ask because there is a note in REVIEW WAITING box at the bottom of the draft, which says "Warning: The page Jez Bond redirects to Park Theatre (London). Please verify that it is not a copy of this submission and that this page does not need to be moved to a different title." Is that an instruction to me or to the reviewers? If it is to me, I don't understand the sentence, or what I should do about it. The title of the page would be "Jez Bond", but would cease being a redirect. Looking forward to hearing from you. Andrew

Andrew (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Andrew. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Right now, there are about 450 submissions in the queue ahead of yours, so I expect that it will be another two weeks or so until a reviewer has a chance to look at it. Thank you for your patience. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The existence of a re-direct at the intended page name is something that will be addressed by the reviewer who accepts your draft for publication. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:30:31, 24 March 2017 review of submission by Adsiah

I received a reviewer's comment that my page, which is now live, should be moved to draft space until it is ready to be uploaded onto mainspace. How do I move a live page to draft space? Adsiah (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Adsiah. Your article has been moved to Draft:V-Key. When you are ready to submit it for review, click the button that appears near the bottom of the box at the top of the draft. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:40:24, 24 March 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Stevedr83


Trying to start our page for our carousel so we can link to it from the other wiki pages. Here is our website, www.albanycarousel.com, any help would be appreciated. Stevedr83 (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stevedr83 (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To have an article accepted, you will need to establish that its subject is notable by including several references to reliable published independent sources. That draft has only one reference, to a source that is not independent of the subject. (It is also misformatted, but that could easily be fixed.) Maproom (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

21:27:53, 24 March 2017 review of submission by Maxieds


My draft article has been waiting for a review for over a month now. I think it's because the article is somewhat long and the topics are mathematically oriented. How do I find an appropriate reviewer to approve the article without waiting for an eternity for some other mathematician to notice that it exists and needs review? (n.b. I have already included a link to the article on the Generating_function main article where it belongs with a note that it needs review)

Maxieds (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Maxieds. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Right now, there are about 70 submissions in the queue ahead of yours, so I expect that it will be another two or three days until a reviewer has a chance to look at it. Thank you for your patience. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

23:01:55, 24 March 2017 review of submission by Silver Water


1) Did I miss any links that need to be included in this re-written history of the city of Eugene, Oregon? 2) Cullen thought that the second paragraph under the subsection, Indigenous Presence, was too detailed. I am thinking of simply deleting it. What do you think? 3) Do you have any other suggestions before I submit it for review? 4) Is submitting it for review by using the button at the top of the Sandbox page the appropriate next step? Thank you for your help.

Silver Water (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Silver Water, welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk. Submitting for review would be the thing to do for entirely new articles. But submitting is not designed for adding new content to existing articles. So long as you're the only substantive contributor to the draft in your sandbox (it's more complicated if you aren't, in which case the draft's history must be preserved), you have two options:
  1. You can be bold, copy your drafted text, edit Eugene, Oregon and paste your text into the appropriate section(s).
  2. Or if you think your changes are controversial, you can start a new section at Talk:Eugene, Oregon saying "Hey, I've drafted a proposed change to the history section over at User:Silver Water/sandbox. Let me know what you think. If I don't hear anything, I'll make the change in seven days." Optionally, you can ping active editors who've made significant contributions to the article. If after a week no one objects, then go ahead with option #1.
Asking for feedback here may get a response if someone here is particularly interested in Eugene, but because we have our hands full with new articles, you're more likely to get comments at the article's talk page. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce: Very helpful comments. Thank you for the direction. It is just what I needed. Though I don't think my proposed changes are controversial, I am new so I took the conservative route and asked for feedback at Talk:Eugene,Oregon, just as you suggested. After I posted, I saw other comments, none relevant to my topic and the most recent from last fall. Thank you again for your help. I'm excited to soon be able to post. Silver Water (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce: One final question: Do the footnotes automatically interlace with the ones already present? How does adding footnotes actually work? Thanks again for your help. Silver Water (talk) 00:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Silver Water: Automatically interlace is a pretty good description. Conceptually, when you click "save", the file is re-parsed. Ref tags are turned into superscripts in numerical order that link to the full, formatted citation, which is placed wherever the {{reflist}} template is. Inserting your new text in Eugene will behave the same way as if you inserted a new ref in the middle of your draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 25

19:56:03, 25 March 2017 review of submission by MakinASarah


MakinASarah (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 26

Rajeev Kathpalia

Rajeev Kathpalia The deletion of the autobiographical article Rajeev Kathpalia is currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajeev Kathpalia. As a mainspace article, the AFC system is not the right place to get assistance, but the WP:Teahouse is a good place for beginner editors to get help. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20:18:37, 26 March 2017 review of submission by Neilchristopher100


My page has been declined as the reviewer noted the sources are unreliable. I have included articles and pieces from National mainstream newspapers (New Zealand Herald and La Stampa in Italy), as well as articles from internationally recognised Dance journals and international press such as the Telegraph in London, the National Business Review and the Ministry for Cunture and Heritage, all refer to Mr Ventriglias work directly related to this article, and are third party independent sources not related to the subject himself. I have also referenced websites like the Royal Academy of Dance, Maggio Danza, Royal New Zealand Ballet and Dance Lines.

I have removed the Bold links (as requested by the reviewer), and I am hoping to get some further guidance on what constitutes a reliable source, or indeed if there are particular references I've made that are unreliable. I thought perhaps it was the awards that were not verifiable.

Thank you, any help is appreciated before I resubmit for approval.

Neilchristopher100 (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neilchristopher100. I saw four sources referenced. The first was the Italian Wikipedia, which is user-generated, and thus not a reliable source. The second was Royal New Zealand Ballet. It is reliable, but as Ventriglia's employer, is not independent, so it does not help establish notability. The other two were dead links.
I've turned the first into an inter-language link, which is allowed, but does not verify the statement or help establish notability. I repaired the two dead links, which were malformed. The one to Royal Academy of Dance is reliable, but does not contribute to notability because there is not a significant depth of independent information there. I'm unfamiliar with Danza & Danza. If it's a well-respected magazine it's likely a reliable source, but the url you've supplied is just its home page, which says nothing about Ventriglia. We want the address of a webpage that says Ventriglia won "Best Director of the Year" in 2012 for his work at MaggioDanza.
With regard to the other sources listed in your question, I suspect you're confusing references with external links. See "Referencing for beginners" for how to cite sources. To turn an external link into a reference, you'll essentially move it from the external links section to immediately after the statement it supports and enclose it in opening and closing ref tags. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

22:23:28, 26 March 2017 review of submission by 2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:AB


I have written hundreds of Wikipedia articles, all through AfC now that IP users can't create them, but I have never waited so long, over a month, for a draft to be reviewed. In fact, it usually only takes a few days. Now I submitted an article I was still working on, Ian S. E. Carmichael, and it was moved faster than I can blink. Although I am an experienced editor, I still thought AfCs were worked on in some date order.

I had questions about the Schmalholz article, also, that I could not get answered. Like Ice-Q, most of the sources are about his stage name, and that is what the article fame is about, and I would like the article there, IN-Q, but could not figure out how to do it. I asked around, but got no good answer. How do I do this?

Is this a regular occurrence, waiting over a month, and is there some reason my articles haven't been waiting this long, and this one did, while a later article flew through?

I write mostly science biographies, plant viruses, and paleontology articles, half the time I ask for project help, and I write minor celebrity articles, usually singers, but I am working on improving slam poetry articles overall on Wikipedia.

Yes, be patient, but this is a long time. No, I don't want an account.

Thanks, --2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:AB (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC) 2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:AB (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC) If[reply]

It is not especially unusual to wait a month for a review. Many reviewers work the drafts that have been in the pool the longest, others prefer to work the most recently submitted. If your question is how to change the name of a draft, that's called moving a page and it's one of a number of things IP editors are not allowed to do. If the draft is accepted, the accepting reviewer will use a title they believe best follows titling guidelines. If you disagree with the title they choose, you may then request a move to a different title. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 27

05:55:46, 27 March 2017 review of submission by MPaul


Hello, in the interests of full disclosure, please know that I am submitting this draft entry as a former student and occasional research collaborator of Jon Chilingerian, Professor at Brandeis University. I am Mitchell Glavin, Associate Professor at Stonehill College.

The main sources for the draft I have submitted are the faculty profiles for Dr. Chilingerian at the websites for the Brandeis University Heller School and the Tufts University School of Medicine. While I am aware of the Wikipedia guidelines that frown upon using text from external sources, I was not entirely sure how to proceed here since these faculty profiles are largely composed by Dr. Chilingerian himself and intended for the widest possible distribution. Since Prof. Chilingerian is still very much alive, there are to date no obituaries or historical profiles that have been published about him.

As you can see, this is my first attempt at a contribution to Wikipedia. I would be happy to try to revise this profile into an acceptable format if I can get some actionable suggestions. Thank you! MPaul (talk) 05:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MPaul. Which criterion of WP:PROF do you believe Chilingerian satisfies? Awards and top n lists carry little weight at Wikipedia unless independent reliable sources cover them. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:29:39, 27 March 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by 112.208.0.141


The reason why i write the article is to help college students to easily find a reference about the Filipino writer Luis Joaquin Katigbak. Please help me for this article.

112.208.0.141 (talk) 14:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=772476355"