Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2601:647:5400:a833:7c:8d21:ea8d:ba4d (talk) at 21:36, 14 January 2017. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category — List (sorting)		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


January 8

19:21:46, 8 January 2017 review of submission by 93.41.8.102


93.41.8.102 (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please, rename new "S-class_patrol_boat" as "200/S-class_patrol_boat". Thank you

Done. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 9

Request on 06:38:00, 9 January 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Penuliswiki39


I have received a rejection on my page submission because it does not satisfy Wikipedia's standards and policies of notability. Thing is Chong Ket Pen really is a notable person in my country. His company does all the roadworks and maintenance in my country and he's a very active philanthropist. He is also now working on building affordable homes for the citizens here in Malaysia (not on Wikipedia yet). I don't understand how he is not a notable person as oppose to this guy Tey Por Yee who is just a regular Malaysian businessmen or this guy Mohd Nazifuddin Najib who is nothing but our Prime Minister's son. I don't understand how their article is approved and published as apposed to the one I wrote on Chong Ket Pen. Also Chong Ket Pen has been given the title of "Dato' Seri" which the highest state title conferred by a Malaysian Ruler on the most deserving recipients who have contributed greatly to the nation or state, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malay_styles_and_titles#Dato.27_Sri

I understand that most our my sources link back to Protasco Berhad but doesn't that count as a reliable source since they are a public listed company? They are required by law to publicly announce everything they've done and is planning to do.

I honestly feel this person should be part of Wikipedia I'd appreciate the help on how can I get it approved. Appreciate the help and advice.

Thanks!

Penuliswiki39 (talk) 06:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Penuliswiki39, the problem with using the subject's company website as the major source is that it is not Independent. A subject is only considered Notable if people who have no connection to the subject have published significant in-depth information, analysis and commentary about the subject, in reliable sources such as newspapers, magazines, books or academic publications. Wikipedia does not really care what a subject has to say about itself, nor what the subject's company, friends, family, associates, employees, employer, agent, representatives, or any other connected person says about the subject. I have Googled your subject's name and have found numerous newspaper articles about him and his business activities, and that was only in the English language, newspapers such as "Malay Mail Online", "The Star Online" and "The Sun Daily". I presume you would be able to access even more sources in other languages. Use company or personal websites only for uncontroversial simple facts such as dates, addresses, correct spelling of names, etc., never for opinions or arguable claims, unless you are clearly quoting it to make a specific relevant point. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Having said all that and read your draft, I think you might find it easier to write an article about the company, rather than about the current boss. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20:31:46, 9 January 2017 review of submission by NeheScar


Hello, I am not necessarily requesting a re-review. I just wanted to know which sources the reviewer deemed as trivial and how many non-local sources this business would need before being considered notable? I did send the reviewer an email earlier this morning, but upon reviewing her talk page it says that she is temporarily retired? Can someone help me with this?

Hello, NeheScar. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. It seems that your question has been answered by the reviewer at the top of your Draft. If we can be of any further help, please let us know. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

23:29:24, 9 January 2017 review of submission by Boxx96


I've added more significant independent news sources, I am a bit on the fence including awards and recognitions but the projects hold significant value as almost all of them have existing Wikipedia pages with thousands if not millions of theme park guests and visitors a year.

Hello, Boxx. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. The reviewer has left additional comments at the top of your Draft. If we can be of any further help, please let us know. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 10

01:32:42, 10 January 2017 review of submission by Mcintouch


i am trying to create a page for a 3rd wave coffee retailer similar to starbucks ans stumptown. but i'm being told my 13 references are not enough. what exactly should i do?

Mcintouch (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mcintouch - Well, first, I will be blunt, but referring to a 3rd wave coffee retailer sounds like market-speak, and so I have to ask whether you have a connection with the subject. Second, just numbering the references at the end of the article rather than making them into footnotes isn't ideal. Third, sometimes just adding more references doesn't make a company notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:01:45, 10 January 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Swam44uk


I believe that John Hemming-Clark deserves a Wikepedia page because he unity and has written three books which are available on Amazon and through a reputable publishing company (Searchline Publishing). John is also a scout leader and has written books about this. Antonia De Sancha has a Wiki page but John Doesn't and John seems to have done a lot more work towards positive causes etc. Please can you advise on how we can make John notable.

Many Thanks.

Swam44uk (talk) 14:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swam44uk (talk) 14:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will comment that the section on Politics is not written from a neutral point of view and appears to be written to advance his political career rather than to describe. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Swam44uk - The draft is not in good grammatical English and needs work in that regard. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16:06:00, 10 January 2017 review of submission by Mcmlis


Hello, I edited an article for submission about 20 days ago, and I was wondering where it might stand in the queue. I'm excited about the updates I made to it and I'd love to see it published. The article is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Miguel_Eduardo_Padilla_Silva

Thanks for your help! Mcmlis (talk)merrily Mcmlis

Mcmlis (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mcmlis - I have looked at your draft, and I see significant tone issues with it. It appears to be written to praise its subject and to promote his career rather than to describe him neutrally. Focus on what third parties have written about him, if he is notable. If I were reviewing it at this time, I would decline it. Maybe I ask the same question over and over too many times, but do you have a connection with the subject or his company? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do not use Wikipedia as a reference. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback, Robert. I had previously revised the post to make it more notable. Can you suggest edits and other posts that can help me toe the line between notability and praising more carefully? I had read articles about other executives at FEMSA and thought Padilla was worthy of an entry. I appreciate any help you can offer. Mcmlis (talk)Merrily Mcmlis – Mcmlis —Preceding undated comment added 16:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't answered my question. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

21:19:01, 10 January 2017 review of submission by Redshojin

Hey there. So this draft was declined because the references used don't show the article's notability. It's a game currently in paid pre-release so until it's released and there are reviews and other coverage that is understandable. My questions are more geared toward how to help the page along once it does reach a certain aspect of notoriety. Could someone let me know which references being used currently are in favor of it's notability, and which references are unnecessary? I ask so that it can better fit into wikipedia's idea of notability.

Second question: is it safe to leave a page within it's draft format for now until which time there is enough suitable references, or does that leave the page in danger of being auto-deleted? Is there a good way to back up the page, perhaps somewhere on my user page so that I can keep formatting and content? And finally, third question: can an image be added if it's a copyrighted image but released for use by the press from the company? Perhaps another user with more permissions to upload would have to do that. Thank you! Redshojin (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Redshojin. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. If you haven't already done so, you ought to take a look at WP:WikiProject Video games/Sources for detail on the usefulness of different kinds of sources. Also, the Talk page connected to that page, or the Talk page for WP:WikiProject Video games, will be excellent places to ask questions about specific sources. As for the length of time a draft may be retained, automatic deletion usually will not occur until after six months of inactivity. As for uploading images, that can be a complex process. WP:Uploading images will provide an introduction to that process. But note that, if you upload an image under the "fair use" doctrine (which is what you appear to be describing), it will not be retained unless it is being used in an article. And that means article, not draft. So, uploading that image should wait until your Draft has been accepted for publication. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

22:49:43, 10 January 2017 review of submission by Toux


Dear support, my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Carbohydrate_Structure_Database was declined on Dec, 22nd, I corrected it on Dec, 26th, and wrote a comment for reviewers, what I changed and why. 16 days passed since then but the article is still awaiting a review. Is this normal?

Toux (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Toux. Thanks again for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response. We continue to be backlogged here at Articles for Creation and, as I post this, there are approximately 100 drafts that have been submitted or re-submitted earlier than yours. We regret the continued delay. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 11

00:17:50, 11 January 2017 review of submission by UND08844


I have been encouraged by previous reviews to use a neutral tone. I have been working on it and would like a re-review to point out any changes that need to be made. Thank you.UND08844 (talk) 00:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, UND. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response. I see that the current version of your submission is not wholly given over to promotional or flowery language, though I do see some room for improvement. Specifically, the "Leadership style" section serves little purpose, especially given that half of it simply repeats eulogizing comments made by friends/colleagues in the immediate aftermath of the subject's death. And the other half of that section doesn't really seem to be about "leadership style" at all. On a different note, the lengthy external links section probably could be pared down according to WP:ELNO, though I must admit that I haven't looked at each of the linked items. But all of this is minor compared to what I see as the more serious problem you will face in getting this submission accepted for publication -- there's little evidence here that the subject meets Wikipedia's notion of "notable" (for which see WP:GNG). I don't see much in the way of substantial coverage from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject, which is what will be required as a necessary condition for accepting the submission. Most of the references address a company that the subject headed, and I think that it would be difficult to demonstrate that this company itself was notable (in the Wikipedia sense). I suspect that you likely feel differently about the substantial nature of your sources, in which case I suggest that you look through your references to identify the two or three that you feel most clearly provide substantial, reliable independent discussion of the subject (and not his company). If you can identify such sources, you might indeed have the basis for an acceptable article. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

00:33:13, 11 January 2017 review of submission by Chemical.investors


I have written this article on a thought leader and a dealmaker in the chemical space. Independent references (from the most respected chemical industry trade group AICHE, a newspaper in the middle market investment space listing him as a top dealmaker to follow, his Bloomberg profile), yet it is rejected by reviewer with the reason being "it is just a business listing,.... no notability...". The article is on the person, not his companies. I have provided additional references since the rejection. Please help.

Referring to the subject of an article as a "thought leader" always strikes me as marketing buzz-speak. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20:03:41, 11 January 2017 review of submission by Benjamin Messmer


Any help on article improvement would be great.

Hello, Benjamin. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response. As for improving the submission, I can offer the same advice that has already been provided by previous reviewers at the top of the submission. First, you have not addressed the concern about "bare URLs", which force the reader to leave Wikipedia if they want to learn essential bibliographic detail such as who wrote the reference or when and where it was published. (You will find that using the {{cite web}} template makes it easier to provide this essential information.) You also have ignored two reviewers who asked that you provide some demonstration that this particular military unit meets Wikipedia's notion of "notable". Our Military History project has stated (at WP:MILUNIT) that a battalion-level unit might be notable if it is "capable of undertaking significant, or independent, military operations". From reading your submission, I get the impression that this is not the case for a police unit located in New York. But if you disagree, you will need to demonstrate -- with reference to reliable, independent sources -- that this particular unit meets the criterion set forth in WP:MILUNIT. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:56:08, 11 January 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Stephvanb


Hello - I have tried to submit information regarding a software company ClioSoft and I keep getting denied. Can you please help me so that this could get published for one of our clients?

Stephvanb (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stephvanb - I have a comment and see two issues. You say that you "keep getting denied", but it appears that your draft was submitted and declined once. That is a minor point. There are two major issues. First, your draft has no references. In order to establish corporate notability, the references should include independent (third-party) coverage of the company. Second, you acknowledge a conflict of interest if the company is a client. Wikipedia strongly discourages editing by editors who are affiliated with the subject (in this case, the company). Wikipedia is based on neutral point of view, and editors who have a special interest can seldom write neutrally. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 12

02:38:10, 12 January 2017 review of submission by AI8O


How do I piut hyperlinks to other Wikipedia articles in a new submitted article? AI8O (talk) 02:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AI80 You use [[name here]]. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

09:06:26, 12 January 2017 review of submission by David hewick


I have received a comment on my draft article page (just under the 'review waiting' Yellow Box). Can I reply from the draft article page via the 'talk' button. It is not clear how you send a reply back to the person who made the comment. I have replied via the Teahouse, but this separates the answer from the original comment. David HDavid hewick (talk) 09:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC) David hewick (talk) 09:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David hewick. Just as you have in your signature above, and I have in mine which you will see at the end of this post, the person who commented has a link to "talk" in his signature, which leads to his talk page. This is the most direct way to contact a specific user--when you do so, the person get a message that there is a post at their talk page, which you may have seen for yourself, when someone posted to yours. You could also post to the draft's talk page, but if you want the reviewer who posted to the draft to see it, then you should ping him there, by including a link to his username in your post, and make sure you sign your post (pinging will not work if you don't successfully sign your post in the same edit; you will see how pings work because I've pinged you to this post). I understand you're essentially asking abut responding back directly in the draft, but the reason I've gone through these methods is that we don't generally do that—have a back and forth between reviewer and reviewee directly in the draft, though I doubt anyone would object greatly if you did. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:57:47, 12 January 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Benmeling


Dear wikipedia help desk. I am currently working on an article on my father the artist Gerhard Meling. I have a lot of references but am uncertain how this works. I am not at all proficient within this user interface. Is there anyway the article can be edited by someone professional from your staff for a small fee? I would in this case be able to send/email references, together with some pictures we would like to insert at various places. In the mean time i will be educating myself on how this is done, still i would appreciate all the help and info i can get on how to get references and how to verify source materiel.

Thank you!

Ben Meling


Benmeling (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ben. I'm afraid you might have misunderstood how Wikipedia works. It is written and maintained entirely by volunteer editors. There are no staff and paid editing is heavily frowned upon by the community. On a related note, our conflict of interest policy strongly discourages editors from writing about people or topics they have a personal connection to, because this compromises our neutral point of view. I think the best thing for you to do in this circumstance is to request an article about your father. You can provide any references you have with the request for a volunteer to use when creating the article. – Joe (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

21:06:24, 12 January 2017 review of submission by Tdmjulie


I am requesting guidance on how to revise the submission to meet the Wikipedia standards.

thank you.

Hello, Tdmjulie. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Frankly, I don't see how any revision of your submission is going to change the fact that this particular jewelry store probably does not meet Wikipedia's notion of "notability". If you disagree, you will need to demonstrate that the store has been the subject of multiple instances of in-depth coverage from sources that are both reliable and independent of the subject. And, they may not be limited to purely local sources or to sources that are of interest only to a limited audience. There is more detail on these requirements at WP:COMPANY. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

21:20:50, 12 January 2017 review of submission by Powderday


Dear all,

After posting a new draft for the website "the people's cube", the first reviewer of the draft SwisterTwister (although I of course appreciate his or her time in reviewing), did not really respond on questions about the validity and notability of these new sources. And now the new draft was tagged for "speedy deletion" by a rather avid opponent of the first version of the page dedicated to this topic (Exemplo347).

I wonder if an unbiased reviewer could be requested to check on the notability and neutrality of the listed sources in my draft. If not, can someone help me in understanding what exactly is wrong with these sources? Once more, I appreciate the Wiki work of Exemplo an SwisterTwister, but maybe they missed something in their first review or that their decision is not based on political bias (and I hope, as a long time Wiki reader and very recent contributor this is not the case) .

Kind regards and many thanks in advance,

Powderday (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What you've failed to mention here is that this draft is a recreation of an article deleted as the result of an Articles for Deletion discussion - WP:G4 applies. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your efforts in reviewing. Apart from the fact that the WP:G4 does not apply to this draft, I think you will see the history and "media" sections have been thoroughly cleaned out to delete all double information and to smoothen the grammar. A significant number of new sources (notable, neutral, third party) have been provided as compared to the original draft. On the whole, I think this new topic page is more encyclopedic and relevant than the previous. Greetings Powderday (talk) 08:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

22:43:09, 12 January 2017 review of submission by MinecraftKitty

Why did you not submit my article? Please tell me ASAP MinecraftKitty (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MinecraftKitty. The reason it was declined is stated at your talk page. We already have an article on Eleanor Roosevelt, and a rather good one, at the title (aptly enough) Eleanor Roosevelt. We don't create articles at title forms like: "All about SUBJECT" and when we do want alternate names for the same topic to work as search terms, we don't duplicate the existing topic at the alternate title, but rather create redirects – but we would not do so for the title you used. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fuggetaboutit: Thank you for replying. I should try harder on articles!!!! Wikipedia rocks MinecraftKitty (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 13

06:37:35, 13 January 2017 review of submission by Vikash rajendran


I have added reliable sources only. Hindu. Behindwoods India glitz. These are all reliable sources only. What u exactly need. The article is about him only. Please do the needful. U plz corrected and submit.

Hello, Vikash. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Both of the reviewers who declined your submission noted that you failed to demonstrate that the subject is "notable" in the sense that Wikipedia uses the word. For this subject, that would mean satisfying at least one of the criteria set forth in WP:FILMMAKER. And from what I see, you have not made that demonstration. Nor have you even provided anything approaching the in-depth, independent coverage of the subject that would be needed for finding notability under the general guidelines of WP:GNG. Nor, frankly, have you even provided reliable references for the subject having been the art director for all of the films listed in the Filmography section (and note that IMDB will not be a reliable source for this information). In all, I believe that the two previous reviewers were correct in declining your submission. If you believe that the subject is truly "notable" in the sense that Wikipedia requires, then you will need to present better evidence. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

08:07:58, 13 January 2017 review of draft by DanielJacob


Hi! I am trying to submit this draft to be accepted but it won't submit, would you be able to submit it or help me?

thank you

DanielJacob (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Daniel. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. Regarding your question, what happens when you click the "Submit this draft" button in the large box at the top of your draft? NewYorkActuary (talk) 08:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up I figured out the problem (I think). Your draft now appears to be in the queue for review. If you have any other questions, please let us know. NewYorkActuary (talk) 09:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:56:13, 13 January 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Lucfloreani


I'm having trouble creating an article "Dan Olsen" as I have re-submitted many times but the message says "This article would be greatly improved if the style more closely followed WP:MOS". However I'm having trouble following WP:MOS and don't understand the article. Is there any way of a user creating the article for me if I provided all the necessary information, references and links? It would help me out greatly as I'm struggling to create the article. Thank you.

Lucfloreani (talk) 13:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16:48:52, 13 January 2017 review of submission by 107.181.26.252

Draft: Novitex Enterprise Solutions My article was declined because you said I had used copyrighted language. While the language does also appear on my company's website, I myself wrote it. Altering the text just for the sake of making it appear differently on wikipedia, than on my own site, would make the language less accurate, and less economical.

I would like to see my article approved in it's current form, as that is the most accurate, and economical version of that text. Also, I actually did make a substantial number of edits from what appears on the Novitex site, and what appears on Wikipedia.

Thank you,

Peter 107.181.26.252 (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:09:31, 13 January 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Internetgal


I’m looking for help with a Wikipedia page I submitted. My submission was rejected by the editors because of the references noted in the article and the editor said the author was not notable. The author has published 9 books, received a COVR Award, received an IPPY award, and had two reviews for books in Publisher's Weekly. She also has a #1 new release on Amazon.com. Here’s a link to my draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tess_Whitehurst. I modeled my page after two of her peers in this field. Here are links to their pages: Christopher Penczak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Penczak and Scott Cunningham https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Cunningham. She’s also referenced in the following Wikipedia articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_Champa, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zsuzsanna_Budapest Internetgal (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 14

17:53:10, 14 January 2017 review of submission by Rozybienert


Telecoming

Hi, I was wondering what improvements can be made on this article in order to make it a more suitable encyclopedical content. In my opinion the language used is quite neutral and free from adjectives which may indicate a precise positioning regarding the content. Nonetheless, I am determined to follow your advice concerning the content adaptations. I would be really thankful if you could give me some examples on how to improve it. Many thanks Rozy(Rozybienert (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC))

Rozybienert (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

21:36:29, 14 January 2017 review of submission by 2601:647:5400:A833:7C:8D21:EA8D:BA4D


I am trying to create a page for author Brian Doyle. It is a popular name and there are other 9-10 other pages for such-named people, even another author. But not for this one. How should I specify that this isn't duplicate?

2601:647:5400:A833:7C:8D21:EA8D:BA4D (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=760080918"