Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Main page Talk page Submissions
Showcase Assessment Participants
Reviewing instructions
Helper script
Help desk Backlog drives
Welcome to the Wikipedia Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions to Wikipedia. Are you in the right place?
  • For your own security, please do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page; we are unable to provide answers via email.
  • Please keep in mind that we are all volunteers, and sometimes a reply may take a little time. Your patience is appreciated.
  • Bona fide reviewers at Articles for Creation will never contact or solicit anyone for payment to get a draft into article space, improve a draft, or restore a deleted article. If someone contacts you with such an offer, please post on this help desk page.
Click here to ask a new question.

A reviewer should soon answer your question on this page. Please check back often.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions


March 15[edit]

01:34:29, 15 March 2018 review of submission by[edit]

I Put 2 References in this Article I Hope This is ready for Article space now I hope it is. (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC) (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

06:43:58, 15 March 2018 review of submission by Johnson.devaraj[edit]

Volunteers can help writing this article Draft:Arthur Margoschis which is about an Christian Missionary. Johnson.devaraj (talk) 06:43, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

09:42:10, 15 March 2018 review of submission by MickeyViolet[edit]

On 3 March, I asked why page had "been declined this third time in such a rude manner? The reviewer said I had "stubbornly refused" to pay attention to comments but I have only just started editing Wikipedia and believed I was following earlier advice." It had been very rudely declined by David.moreno72. I subsequently followed the advice of the person who kindly answered the reasons for the page being declined, KJP1. However, the earlier reviewer, David.moreno72, declined it again - this time without a detailed explanation. I would like to be reviewed by someone else, please. It is clear that this reviewer is somehow intent on declining this page. MickeyViolet (talk) 09:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC) MickeyViolet (talk) 09:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

09:50:55, 15 March 2018 review of submission by MickeyViolet

I would just like to add to my previous query, that David.moreno72 has since left his reasons - apologies, as there were no reasons given initially.

MickeyViolet (talk) 09:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

MickeyViolet (talk) 09:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

15:13:28, 15 March 2018 review of draft by Plant321[edit]

I created the page "Editing Draft:Annegré Bosman (Filmmaker/Photographer, Director, Producer)". The submission of it was declined and I edited the page to improve it. I hope that now it is ready and am wondering how if it can get published on to Wikipedia. I would like to hear from you to help me out. Kind regards.

Plant321 (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Plant321, you will need to resubmit the article before it can be re-reviewed, which I have done for you. I'd take a look at your references, and also take a look at the general notability guidelines, and make sure the subject passes this from the references givem. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

20:10:55, 15 March 2018 review of submission by DamienDaEsketit[edit]

it was a draft.

DamienDaEsketit - Hi Damien, we get that it is a draft, but you keep putting it up for review. If you just want to continue working on it to improve it, that's fine, just don't submit it for review until you're ready. KJP1 (talk) 07:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

March 16[edit]

09:54:24, 16 March 2018 review of submission by[edit]

Why is My Draft Declined? Because I Created it and it's disappointing that i have declined. (talk) 09:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

DamienDaEsketit - Damien - You need to have a look at the comments the reviewers left. They've given clear guidance. Your draft was declined because it doesn't have any sources. Sourcing is essential for Wikipedia articles - it shows Notability and lets readers check the content. Without them, the draft will just keep getting rejected. Look at the Eminem article. It's got over 300 sources. You don't need that many but you do need some. KJP1 (talk) 10:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Request on 10:48:57, 16 March 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by SLSSLee[edit]

My draft has been declined as I need to add more references to back up statements, however I am unsure which statements exactly need to be supported with citations. Please could somebody help me to identify them? I asked the reviewer but haven't heard back from them.

SLSSLee (talk) 10:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Every statement needs to be supported by citations, SLSSLee. A core policy of Wikipedia is that all our information needs to be verifiable. Anything not referenced is liable to be removed.
However, the larger problem is that you seem to be writing a promotional piece on the company you work for. Your draft is unlikely to be accepted on that basis. Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral and independent encyclopaedia, not the yellow pages. – Joe (talk) 11:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Two other quick points, in support of the above comments. None of your sources are inline. so it's impossible to tell what content they are supposed to support. When for example, you say "In 2007, SLS became the distributor for BD Bioscience and company turnover reached £16m", you need to immediately follow that with a reference that supports the claim. Secondly, you've a load of embedded links to external sites. We don't use these, except in an External links section at the end of an article. But, as the reviewer above says, your biggest issue is that you're writing a promotional draft about your company. That's a clear Conflict of interest, and you should declare it, which you don't seem to have done, and read up on our guidance about editing with a conflict. KJP1 (talk) 12:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

16:12:09, 16 March 2018 review of submission by Saveydude[edit]

Im getting error on top This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. She has done in many movies have articles wat is the reason for deletion kindly help me Saveydude (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Saveydude: this page is for articles in Draft form, and yours is a published article (that maybe should have stayed a Draft until it was more improved). The best defense to the proposed deletion is to add more sources to the article from serious newspapers (preferably English, but other languages are also allowed). MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

19:54:47, 16 March 2018 review of submission by Justin Goldsborough[edit]

I submitted the McKeel Hagerty draft earlier today and there were some errors with sourcing. An editor declined the draft and asked me to fix the errors. I fixed the errors and published the changes. Can you verify that the draft of this article with my updates has been resubmitted to the editor queue? Thanks! Justin Goldsborough (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Justin Goldsborough (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Justin Goldsborough: you are indeed in the queue, per the Yellow box on your article. While you are waiting for review, one good step for tidiness is to use the guidance at WP:REFNAME to avoid repetition in the footnotes when you use the exact same source several times. Refname will take, say the identical footnotes "#7" and "#10" and make them "#7a,b" to keep things tidier. Not mandatory, just looks more professional and you have time since we're backlogged. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

22:03:46, 16 March 2018 review of submission by MickeyViolet[edit]

Due to the reasons mentioned in my previous query (15 March), I would like to know if its possible to have a new reviewer. I believe that the person who has reviewed my submission the last two times has been unnecessarily rude in manner and will likely decline the page whatever amendments are made.

MickeyViolet (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

March 17[edit]

Request on 00:23:03, 17 March 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by 2606:6000:6AD3:7D00:117E:C52B:1E0E:57F1[edit]


My name is Izuchukwu Ezeonu, and my concern is with the creation of Izu Osirus being a conflict of interest. The publication is necessary to define myself for whom I have no physical connection to. I have over 1,000 listeners on all streaming platforms. Spotify alone has an option to include a wiki link but I do not know how to substantially publish on wiki nor am I able to. Can I please receive assistance with this creation?

2606:6000:6AD3:7D00:117E:C52B:1E0E:57F1 (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello 2606:6000:6AD3:7D00:117E:C52B:1E0E:57F1, I looked at your draft, and a couple comments:
  • Wikipedia is not here to provide you a platform to advertise yourself
  • You do not appear to meet WP:Notability (music) and thus we don't need an article about you until you meet those requirements, at which point it is very likely that a fan will have written a page about you. To be perfectly blunt, if there is nobody on the planet who is more interested in making an article about you, other than you, that's a pretty good sign we do not yet need an article about you. I would encourage you to focus on your music career and social media platforms (which Wikipedia is not) and not try to push through an article about yourself. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

01:18:38, 17 March 2018 review of submission by[edit]

Can you Move the 2018-19 NHL season by team template from the draft space to the Main Article Space please because I created the Template today. (talk) 01:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC) (talk) 01:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

15:44:07, 17 March 2018 review of submission by[edit]

Can You Fix This Template Please I would Accept it now. (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC) (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

22:46:24, 17 March 2018 review of submission by Happypretty1[edit]

Happypretty1 (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Created article for Iciy Hot reason for debate? Happypretty1 (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Happypretty1: did you read the large Pink boxes at the top of your draft? That is your explanation, so please do read it and let us know if you have any questions. MatthewVanitas (talk) 10:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

March 18[edit]

11:25:30, 18 March 2018 review of submission by Arno Hazekamp[edit]

Hello. I want to ask about AK-47 article submission. I have rewrited information from table at page and included it into the article. Should I use another source? Or I can just remove referencing? Arno Hazekamp (talk) 11:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Arno Hazekamp. The draft is very short, and cites a single source. Therefore the topic would be more appropriate as a sub-section of Cannabis strains#Varieties than as a stand alone article. If the sub-section grows large enough, with well-sourced information, it could be spun-out into a stand alone article in the future. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Worldbruce. I saw this strain in List of names for cannabis, so decided to add article for it. How large article should be?
@Arno Hazekamp:. Guideline Wikipedia:Article size contains some relevant information. I would not spinout AK-47 until that sub-section has grown so large that it overwhelms the rest of the varieties section. There is no exact answer, but I would say it should be at least twice as long as the Charlotte's Web sub-section before it would be worth spinning out. More importantly, it should reference at least three in-depth reliable sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

21:40:04, 18 March 2018 review of submission by Tialaramex[edit]

When people search for "62 Group" they get shown an anti-fascists. Who are awesome, but also ceased to exist a long time ago. The 62 Group of Textile Artists still exists, it'd be nice if Wikipedia suggested that might be what they're looking for. I have seen two different things on Wikipedia, is one or other of them a good choice here?

1. Mentioning the other article in each page, saying e.g. "This article is about the anti-fascist group, for the artistic collective, see 62 Group of Textile Artists"

2. A disambiguation page which lists all the things the reader might be looking for under the name "62 Group" (currently two things, but maybe there are others?)

Tialaramex (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

22:47:36, 18 March 2018 review of submission by Bhusyma[edit]

Bhusyma (talk) 22:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

March 19[edit]

02:34:24, 19 March 2018 review of draft by Lilianmonique92[edit]

Thanks, I'm curious how to change the title of a creation page. Right now it is Miss Skills (TMS) but I'd like to change it to Mamy (TMS) where Mamy and The Miss Skills and Miss Skills and TMS would redirect. Is it an easy edit with some redirect inputs or should I recreate the creation page? Please advise


LMVALLE 02:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Lilianmonique92 The article is currently in the wrong language (I'd assume it's Spanish). the English Wikipedia is only written in English; so there is no chance of the article being accepted at this current time in this state. There are generally naming conventions for articles such as this to follow, but renaming is something that is relatively easy to do, but only if the article is suitable. Redirects should only be created when the article is accepted, and in the main space. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

12:31:11, 19 March 2018 review of submission by EyesoftheFlash[edit]

Hello all,

The article Geoff Green was denied today as it lacked reliable sources. At this point of time, I would simply ask Wikipedia to reconsider their position that references relating to the source, as being unreliable. is a very critical source and important in creating the article's notability beyond being a simple eSports gamer. Firstly, I would like to say that is a primary source that is directly relevant to Green's achievements. This source can be verified by cross-referencing to the other sources provided in the original article.

My case in defending this source's validity is based on the accountability that is provided on the website. This isn't a simple opinionated blog, it was a hub for everything concerning the official Procon product. I would like to point out that over 1087 pages of users who have registered with the website. This is a demonstration of the interest surrounding Green's business. I would like to point out that all the sources I provided from this website were directly relevant and were the source of official news for this product. Green's announcements only ever specifically focused on providing updates to his consumer base regarding his product's releases or updates on the development of the product. Considering for his niche market within the community of the Frostbite engine he was extremely notable. Based on his success of Procon, he was the subject of an interview within the Battlefield Communities (sourced). I also have demonstrated his product being recommended externally on Cybergamer, Australia's leading eSports organisation since 2007.

When concerning the article that is being created, he was a notable public figure to both software developers and consumers within the Frostbite community. His success was determined by what is a marketing piece, not an opinion piece for his product. It is also important to note, that users have the ability to discuss directly with the developers as either commenting on the news articles or posting on the forums.

This leads me to my next point. Currently, Wikipedia doesn't seem to want to recognise an internet forum as a legitimate source of credible material. However, I disagree with this assertion. Both eSports and eCommerce are a growing field which are rapidly integrating various technological elements. This is no doubt evident by to whom is difficult to classify as it has integrated various referential material into a single source. I am a supporter of the idea that an internet forum has the same sort of legitimacy as either a video or an audio recording, however it being only in virtual reality. The only difficulty in its validity is it can be difficult to establish the true identity of whom the users involved in the discussion.

However if sufficient evidence is demonstrated between a link with a forum user and a real life individual (to which I think I have a very strong case between the link of Geoff Green and the pseudonym, Phogue) then I cannot see any reason why internet forums should not be considered a valid source. Especially since it was the hub for which a business owner could have a public and direct conversation with their consumer base. In fact, if it is possible to establish a link between a pseudonym and a real life individual, then I am of the opinion that internet forums should be classified as an incredibly reliable source of information.

Thankyou for reading and I eagerly await your response.

EyesoftheFlash (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

EyesoftheFlash (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Reconsidered. No change made in policies or guidelines. Affirm reviewer's conclusion regarding Draft:Geoff Green's failure to demonstrate notability. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

12:37:40, 19 March 2018 review of submission by Dean.Connor[edit]

Hi there, just checking in to see if there is anything further I need to do to allow for publishing. Looking forward to hearing back from you!

Dean.Connor (talk) 12:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

18:22:27, 19 March 2018 review of submission by WattStreetWhiteStreet[edit]

Hi. I'm a new editor and still very much learning my way around. In my not-at-all exciting life I came across this gentleman today, Professor W Scott Thompson - ([1]). I'm amazed he doesn't have a page - he's a major foreign policy academic and has served in at least two US governments. Is there a place where I can suggest/ask if someone else would be willing to start a page as if I do it it will be woefully inadequate. 18:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)WattStreetWhiteStreet (talk) WattStreetWhiteStreet (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


  1. ^
Hi WattStreetWhiteStreet. Articles can be requested (suggested) at Wikipedia:Requested articles. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

18:50:27, 19 March 2018 review of submission by Lyza6107[edit]

Hello! After several rounds of edits, paying extra attention to the credibility and newsworthy reference materials in the citations (along with neutrality), this article is ready for re-review. My initial reviewer and another Wikipedia editor confirmed it was indeed in the queue to be re-reviewed. I'm hopeful for any insight on how far this article is on the list of waiting articles (like is it article 10 on the list, or 2,000)? If there's any insight that can be shared, great! My next Wikipedia article will be based on progress I made with this one. Thanks in advance for reviewing this message. Lyza6107 (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Lyza6107. Thank you for being patient as we attempt to reduce the backlog. This was caused by a now-complete article creation trial that caused a massive influx of AfC submissions. Based on my quick counting, I believe your submission is number 303 or so, and should be reviewed very soon. Thanks for your patience! JTP (talkcontribs) 19:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Request on 19:16:20, 19 March 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Mwmcelroy[edit]

I sent a response to AfC reviewer Chetsford this morning after receiving his/her notice of rejection and wanted to be sure it was received. All of your input pages say how important it is to hit the "Save page" button, but THERE IS NO SUCH BUTTON on your input pages. Did Chetsford receive my reply?

Thank you, Mark McElroy (Mwmcelroy)

Mwmcelroy (talk) 19:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mwmcelroy Your response to Chetsford was saved at User talk:Chetsford#Request on 15:09:31, 19 March 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Mwmcelroy, and that is where you should expect any continuation of the discussion between the two of you to appear.
Thank you for bringing the button labeling issue to our attention. I believe the "Save page" text you encountered has been corrected to "Publish changes", but let us know if you encounter the problem again. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

March 20[edit]

Request on 00:58:10, 20 March 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Erlan Azahra[edit]

What should I fix for my article to be accepted? Please Help me . . Erlan Azahra (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Erlan Azahra (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

09:52:28, 20 March 2018 review of submission by Carlethan[edit]

Carlethan (talk) 09:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

13:42:45, 20 March 2018 review of draft by FloraSanz[edit]

Dear librarian, My name is Flora Sanz and I work as a librarian in the Main Library of UNED. I have just created the profile of a UNED Professor and scientics named Sara Osuna. She has a profile in the Spanish version too

and I have several doubts in the English version. May you help me, please?: 1. How can I insert the photo in a biograhical template? 2. How can I insert de Authority Control such as ORCID, VIAF, Google Scholar, Worldcat?

At last, how can I publish the definitely Sara Osuna webpage not a one draft? Best regards and I'm looking forward hearing from you

FloraSanz (talk) 13:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi FloraSanz. You seem to have figured out how to add a photo. The authority control identifiers come from Wikidata via the {{Authority control}} template. I'm not sure whether it will work while the page is a draft. I suggest reexamining the question after the draft is accepted for publication.
The draft is in the queue to be reviewed. Osuna is widely cited, so Wikipedia should have an article about her and I expect the draft will be accepted eventually, although whoever reviews it may suggest improvements first. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
I've tagged the article for notability and COI; Worldbruce; if I've missed evidence that the subject is widely cited, please remove the notability template. Regardless, I think the new user has conflict issues regarding the library where she works, and have left messages for her regarding her edits, at least some of which appear to include copyright violation and promotional content. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

18:40:11, 20 March 2018 review of submission by Nagarashi[edit]

While I do understand - partly - why the submission was declined, I'm still finding it rather unclear as to what exactly proper sources of notability are. I've seen many an article on Wikipedia with far less sources and far less coverage in those sources that what I've listed yet they don't seem to have any issues being on Wikipedia.

I understand that the subject in my page isn't exactly the most well-known author on the planet but it seemed to me that I listed plenty of decent sources. Would it be accepted if the page was a bit curtailed or are the sources just not adequate in general? How are video sources being looked at? A 40 minute interview is quite a notable source, I thought.

Nagarashi (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nagarashi. Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality articles. The existence of articles that do not meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines does not mean they have been in any way "approved". It may simply mean that no one has gotten around to deleting them yet. They are not a good excuse to create more such articles. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. If you wish to learn from example articles, be sure to use only Wikipedia's best.
To the extent that an interview is just Pennington in Pennington's words, it isn't independent of Pennington, and so doesn't help show notability. Interviews in which there is substantive analysis of the subject by the interviewer, often using sources other than the subject, are more likely to be judged as independent secondary sources that contribute to demonstrating notability.
Reviewers are likely to discount Alumni magazines, notability-wise, because of their narrow audience, their incentive to identify and promote alumni in every issue, and their dependence on their subject for information (they're not scholars or investigative journalists with an army of fact checkers, they're marketers for the university). Curtailing the page might help if it allows you to get rid of some poor sources, doing so can make the better sources stand out, but in general the draft needs better sources - ones that are all three of: in-depth, arms-length, and reliable.
For an author, the typical way to demonstrate notability is by citing in-depth reviews of their work by professional book critics in reputable outlets (think 1000+ words by Michiko Kakutani in The New York Times). --Worldbruce (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

March 21[edit]

12:54:39, 21 March 2018 review of submission by[edit] (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC) Why it's taking so long?

There are hundreds of newspaper and other references to this article Sanjana Sanghi. Review it as soon as possible.

22:52:07, 21 March 2018 review of submission by ITLRosanna[edit]

My article for Dancewave was rejected twice. After the first time it was rejected, I worked on it to remove language that sounded promotional. After submitting it again, I was told that the article was still promotional in tone. Can you provide me any detailed feedback as to what is so promotional about the article? ITLRosanna ITLRosanna (talk) 22:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, ITLRosanna, I couldn't see it, personally. I've accepted the article on your behalf, and accepted it. It seemed like an article good enough to pass an WP:AfD argument. I've also done a little cleanup. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

March 22[edit]

05:23:53, 22 March 2018 review of submission by Mukund01[edit]

I wrote a biographical article but don't know how to make sections having bold subtitles. Can you please help?

Mukund01 (talk) 05:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mukund01 headings are made by putting two equals symbols before and after the heading text, which must be on a line by itself.
This coding creates a "main" section heading.
==A section heading==
Subheadings are made by progressively adding another pair of "=" like this:
===Sub-section heading===
I believe up to five levels of sub-sub-sub... headings can be created, but more than three levels is quite rare here on Wikipedia.Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

11:10:33, 22 March 2018 review of submission by Johnson.devaraj[edit]

My article Draft:Arthur Margoschis has been declined once for not being in an encyclopedic format and peacock terms. It is still at a draft stage. I feel that my article is a very important one. It is about a Christian SPG Missionary who made valuable contributions to my place and people. Most of his details could be at Oxford and Cambridge libraries. Now am not able to consistently do researches on him, and write this article. Now I just wanted to know if there are any voluntary writers who are assigned by Wikipedia to complete this article. by Johnson.Johnson.devaraj (talk) 11:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Johnson.devaraj (talk) 11:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Johnson.devaraj: Your question was already answered at the Teahouse. Please only ask questions in one place. JTP (talkcontribs) 13:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)