Help desk
< August 13	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 15 >

Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

August 14

Four months (or more) for an AFC review? WTH?

I created an article last month on John E. Havelock, former Attorney General for Alaska and the author of the state's privacy amendment which protects (amongst other things) those seeking to terminate a pregnancy. He's been dead for almost a year. He was quite prominent in that state for many decades, running for the U.S. House in 1974 (finished second in primary) and U.S. Senate (finished second in general). It's a good article, well sourced, with a public domain photo, contributed to by another AK Wikiproject stalwart. For the first time ever I was diverted to AFC which contemplated a 4 month (or longer) delay in review. What's up? I contributed to another article, the attack on Salman Rushdie, which probably shouldn't even be an article, but I doubt it if was delayed by four seconds. P.S. That other AK Wiki editor suggested I drop the middle initial, with which I concur. Activist (talk) 14:50, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Draft:John E. Havelock -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Activist: there are a few things I'm tempted to say in response to your rather adversarial message, but I'll try to keep this constructive — what is your question? I get the feeling that you're unhappy about having waited for two weeks for a review, but that isn't a question, nor does it otherwise tell me what help you might want (other than a fast track review, but that isn't the way this thing works). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was concerned because somehow I was diverted to AFC when I had created that article. Only after reading your note to me did I find out that AFC is not mandatory, but rather a voluntary process. I don't know how that diversion occurred in my case. I've probably been creating articles on diverse subjects for a decade, and it had never happened before. I'll see if I can't simply replicate my article and remove the one I did last month, with the new (no middle initial or name) and that should resolve the problem. Activist (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Activist In the future, let us know you are experienced. It can be moved without losing the history while a Draft.Naraht (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:54:18, 14 August 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Hzt0208042508415531 tw

Hzt0208042508415531 tw (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Wikipedia:The Foundation's Action against Chinese Wikipedia in 2021 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

@Dan arndtI request a detailed explanation of why the draft was rejected: how to violate the "five pillars"? I am just translating articles in Chinese, and the whole process remains neutral.As the person in charge of the audit, you need to explain why to the original author.

Hzt0208042508415531 tw (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hzt0208042508415531 tw: I am not a reviewer, but please ask your question in the space between the draft name and your signature. Thanks! weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 22:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hzt0208042508415531 tw: Draftspace really isn't intended to be used to draft project-space pages. If this is intended to alert the community to the situation at zh.wp, you're better served writing about this at Meta. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 23:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a draft, and now it has been reviewed and rejected. Hzt0208042508415531 tw (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hzt0208042508415531 tw if this was intended to be an article published in mainspace it certainly does meet any of the standards. For example, there are no sources to support any of the claims made (note Wikis are not a reliable source so should not be used) and the way it is written is not suitable so the rejection is correct. Please see Your first article for guidance about how to create an article. However, if it can be sourced appropriately, the content likely belongs in the existing Criticism of Wikipedia article rather than a stand-alone article and certainly would not name individual editors, unless reliable sources published those names. S0091 (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@S0091 I think you meant "does not meet" in the first sentence. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 07:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been passed in Chinese wikipedia, and the reference in it is reliable and authentic. It is a brief description of the foundation's actions. Hzt0208042508415531 tw (talk) 03:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We're not Chinese Wikipedia, and have different policies and requirements. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 03:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the article will be re-examined and approved. Hzt0208042508415531 tw (talk) 03:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry: no. It is now deleted, as contrary to our purpose. It is unverified, it is not an encyclopedic article with a clearly discernible topic, it lacks any kind of secondary sourcing. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you contact the foundation or ask the administrator of the Chinese area. it is true.

What exactly is the so-called purpose? Hzt0208042508415531 tw (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]