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 Jordanslp312 (talk | contribs) at 21:17, 11 March 2019. 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, 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 5

01:09:52, 5 March 2019 review of submission by Jeffy7Jeffy


Asking for help. Jeffy7Jeffy (talk) 01:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:27:58, 5 March 2019 review of submission by Dliccardo


Improvements made based on feedback.

Dliccardo (talk) 06:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dliccardo: - hi there. If you've improved your article based on the feedback, then you'll need to resubmit it and it will be re-reviewed in time. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Per this Tech Crunch article, this new venture firm is one of the most notable new firms of 2019:

https://techcrunch.com/2019/03/02/2019-us-vc-funds-take-a-more-boutique-approach/


Dliccardo (talk) 06:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure. See User talk:Dliccardo#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dliccardo: TechCrunch has a poor reputation among Wikipedians. One described it as a PR mill that "reprints every tech press release that comes across the transom". Their contributors' opinions don't make the company meet the encyclopedia's corporate notability guideline.
The guidelines were toughened last year, greatly expanding the types of coverage that are considered trivial, and thus do not help establish notability. They include standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage of capital transactions, such as raised capital, which is what a number of the draft's sources are.
The VentureBeat article is a start, but it may be unrealistic of you to think that a private company formed last year would have garnered the significant attention from the world at large over a period of time necessary to be a suitable topic for an encyclopedia. I recommend reexamining the topic in a few years, by which time substantive pieces may have been written showing what significant or demonstrable effects the company has had on culture, society, economies, history, science, or anything, really. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:22:00, 5 March 2019 review of submission by Mountain Child


Hi Wiki Team I have been tasked to create a Wikipedia page for our business but have been unsuccessful and I am not sure why. I have kept the articles short, factual and submitted a link which supports each fact to avoid being seen as marketing. All our competitors have pages and I have kept to their format. What am I doing wrong? Are there any suggestions to getting this right. Mountain Child (talk) 08:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure. See User talk:Mountain Child#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:14:41, 5 March 2019 review of submission by Dancesnitch

Hello, I would like to know more about why my recent article post has been rejected. Furthermore how can I edit the article correctly enough to have it published.

Kind Regards.

Dancesnitch (talk) 10:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dancesnitch. The draft has been rejected because the topic is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). No amount of editing could make a draft on the topic acceptable for publication. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:33:46, 5 March 2019 review of submission by Daniyaleroor


Daniyaleroor (talk) 10:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


10:35:14, 5 March 2019 review of draft by 202.88.244.213


202.88.244.213 (talk) 10:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, @202.88.244.213: - you've made alterations and reuploaded, so it will be re-reviewed in the fullness of time. A NOTE - you can't use Wikipedia as a source for Wikipedia. I'd suggest going to the article and finding the original source and using that instead. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:55:01, 5 March 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Suzannekelder


I was told last year my article was rejected due to lack notability, per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Pornographic_actors_and_models Since then, the subject, Maestro Claudio, has been inducted into the AVN hall of fame which is mentioned as a requirement in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Pornographic_actors_and_models I have also provided many sources and information, following the format of many other pornographic directors and actors. Is there something that I am missing? Thank you.

Suzannekelder (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:07:57, 5 March 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by IanOverington


Having had an original attempt at an article for Wikipedia rejected, I re-read lots of policies of Wikipedia and could see that there were several places where my original article could be deemed unacceptable. Hence I tried to re-write the whole article, using as many earlier citations as possible to avoid excess reference to my own published work (primarily a book published over 25 years ago through Elsevier, North Holland, which I have always assumed to be a reputable publisher!). Instead I have gone back to first publishing of several of the items which are relevant to the whole topic. But my own research (originally carried out whilst employed by BAe in the UK) was really only primarily putting together a number of individually published items by several other researchers, where the final result was (is) that a claim made in Wikipedia under the main heading Hyperacuity has been proved completely out of date (by about 30 years!). So instead of the human visual system's use of Hyperacuity waiting for discovery it has been shown to be well understood (and has been for over 30 years!). My whole aim is to demonstrate that this capability is now perfectly viable and understood - but has only been demonstrated in my own publications (the book and a number of open publications primarily in the 1980's) and also in a software simulation. I did not set out to be at the forefront of the field, but that seems to be how things now stand and I feel, before I die (I am now 88 years old), that it is important to correct the long out-of-date statement. Also a long standing claim in Mathematics is that the best edge detector is the Canny Operator (nearest pixel) - as also claimed in Wikipedia. But by copying human vision, the best edge detection can also be improved by at least a factor of X10, as well as being as individual local vectors instead of scalars. Hence this also needs seriously updating! To deal with all the foregoing I have re-written my original article to include as far as possible all the original sources of various components of the whole. But this cannot be sorted out simply by small edits of the existing Wikipedia documentation. Rather, it needs quite a re-write - which is what I have now attempted to do. Also, because I seem to have become the leader in at least part of this, there are a few items which I have had to develop for myself which therefore seem to be what is classed original research in Wikipedia - despite them having been published (by me) as part of my book! But how do I now get all this even offered for publication in Wikipedia? IanOverington (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


IanOverington (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff you published is not a good source. You have a WP:COI here. Legacypac (talk) 06:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand how you can claim that the stuff I published (more than 25 years ago) is not a good source. Also I can find nothing therein or in my original request for help which should trigger a WP:COI. IanOverington (talk) 12:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@IanOverington: Computer Vision: A Unified, Biologically-Inspired Approach is a good source, and you may cite it. The relevant behavioral guideline is WP:SELFCITE. What makes the citations problematic is that 80-90% of the draft's inline citations are to your work. That will be seen as excessive. Whether it places undue emphasis on your work or not is a matter of opinion, but it's a call you shouldn't be making. (You have a conflict of interest when it comes to evaluating how important your work is.)
The larger problems are that the draft is written in the tone and style of a textbook rather than an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia is never going to accept an article X that says its article Y is incorrect. If Y is incorrect, the solution is always to edit and correct it, not to create another article. You are free to improve Hyperacuity (scientific term), but unlearning the scholarly writing habits of a lifetime may not be something you want to embark upon at 88.
I strongly suggest that, instead, you add a short new section on Talk:Hyperacuity (scientific term) to the effect of: "Attention editors: Ian Overington (1992). Computer vision: a unified, biologically-inspired approach. Elsevier. ISBN 978-0-444-88972-0. could be used to improve section A (in particular pages j-k) and to add a new section B (in particular pages m-n). Full disclosure, I'm the author Ian Overington." Experienced volunteer editors will eventually take note of your message, go read your book, and update the article accordingly. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:26:33, 5 March 2019 review of submission by Robert Beckham Mugimba


Robert Beckham Mugimba (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I kindly request for assistance after submitting my draft anumber of times and its always turned down and rejected for almost a year now. its a biography of a living person and everything needed is available including my pictures. i really need help so that my biography draft gets into articles space.

Sending to deletion discussion Legacypac (talk)

March 6

03:04:06, 6 March 2019 review of submission by Helhelfafa


Helhelfafa (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not an article. No question here. Legacypac (talk) 03:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:15:48, 6 March 2019 review of submission by Hsvenkatesh


Hsvenkatesh (talk) 08:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hsvenkatesh: - you don't include any sources so there's no way this draft could demonstrate its notability. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:58:09, 6 March 2019 review of submission by 60.241.181.164


I am asking for a second opinion on the acceptance of the page of Colin Guillarmou, a French mathematician. The draft was rejected because it contained too many citations to subject's own works. However, this is common in a mathematician's page. Compare this entry, for instance, to the one of the following mathematicians: Guido De Philippis, Vincent Pilloni, Fanny Kassel, Serge Cantat, etc. The fact that we refer to a mathematician's accomplishments by quoting its publications is normal. What gives credit to them is the fact that the publications appeared in prestigious journals. For a mathematician, the very top journals are: Acta Mathematica, Annals of Mathematics, Inventiones Mathematicae, Journal of the American Mathematical Society, Duke Mathematical Journal. The caliber of these journals correspond to the one of, say, Nature (journal) for a natural scientist. If you check the Wikipedia page of the other mathematicians that I mentioned, you will see that they all cite the person's best papers.

60.241.181.164 (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RSPRIMARY, the bulk of any article should come from reliable secondary sources. Guillarmou's works are primary sources with regard to any information about Guillarmou. The mathematician examples you give are not great articles, so they are poor patterns to follow. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. If you wish to learn from examples, be sure to use Wikipedia's best, such as Georg Cantor, Johannes Kepler, Emmy Noether, or Marian Rejewski. They contain a sprinkling of citations to their own work, but mostly they cite what other people have written about them.
As far as notability is concerned, the caliber of journals in which an academic has published may be used as a contributing factor in satisfying criterion #1 of WP:PROF, but it isn't normally sufficient. The draft could do a better job of conveying which criteria you think he satisfies, and how. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the pattern of a mathematician's Wikipedia page should be similar to those of Cantor, Kepler, or Noether, you may as well go ahead and remove the Wikipedia pages of 99% of contemporary scientists, as well as those of 99% percent of the statesmen (say, those whose patterns fall below the ones of Julius Caesar and Napoleon). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.78.56.218 (talk) 06:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:19:14, 6 March 2019 review of draft by Venusthelovegoddess


Venusthelovegoddess (talk) 12:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever I try to edit the information about Zafar Sareshwala, it gets changed. my edited details are removed and the page goes back to its previous form. please help me to improve the details about Zafar Sareshwala.

@Venusthelovegoddess: - so this draft was correctly declined as there is an actual article on it already - you've already edited it, so I assume you're now aware of that.
This isn't really the place for you having content difficulties on an article, but to save you bouncing around, I'll give a few points.
The editor who reverted your edits did not do so unreasonably. There were two main faults with the changes.
1) They were written in a promotional manner - generally a very positive tone "here is the good thing he did, here's another" etc
2) Articles on living persons have to use inline sources (the little blue numbers) for any controversial detail. By its nature, this generally includes anything in a controversies section and anything particularly positive about an individual. Inline citations has a few different ways to add inline citations.
If you have disagreements about your edits being reverted, then going to the talk page and asking the other individual why they're reverting it and saying why you think it should remain are critical to the whole process. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:20:21, 6 March 2019 review of draft by Dosseman


After having added pictures to three important wooden mosques (some on UNESCO lists) in Turkey and having received "thanks" messages from another user for doing so I noticed that, though mentioned several times in articles, there was no information in the English Wikipedia on a mosque in Afyon(karahisar) that is important too. I thought I'd be useful in supplying some pictures and what information I had in my first article in the WIkipedia. I now am informed the information lacks a source.

Though I know several languages my Turkish is poor. But I checked the Turkish Wikipedia and found information about this mosque that roughly corresponds with what I wrote, though Google translate corrupted some parts. A first question is: might I use that as a reference? What worries me is that the three sources mentioned as reference in that article all link to the WaybackMachine. I find that very many articles nowadays about Turkey end up there, probably because the English Wikipedia is blocked in Turkey.

I found a picture I took in 2012 of a notice at the mosque itself, undoubtedly put there by (or accepted by) local authorities. In English it provides the information I used in my article. I might put a jpg of that picture in the gallery I put in. Might that be a reference, and be sufficient?

I also find the information confirmed in several travel guides that I own and use, how valid as sources would you consider those? I mentioned a Dutch translation of a Knaurs book, I find the same information in a Dumont "Reisefüher" in German, as well as on several tourist sites on the web. One I found (in Turkish) seems to be by the government (gv in the address: https://www.kulturportali.gov.tr/turkiye/afyonkarahisar/gezilecekyer/ulu-camii839501 ) Might that be a valid source?

Sorry for asking many questions, I try and write a good article, but Turksih sources that are dependable are hard to find. Dosseman (talk) 13:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dosseman (talk) 13:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dosseman. No language version of Wikipeida may be cited as a source, because all are user-generated, and thus not reliable.
If a source is reliable, then the same source archived in the WaybackMachine is also reliable. The fact that it's archived shouldn't worry you. Ideally all sources would be archived there.
A sign may be used as a reference. There is even a {{cite sign}} template for the purpose. It won't be sufficient to demonstrate notability for two reasons. First, a single source is alsmost never sufficient. Second, if it was erected by the organization responsible for managing the mosque, they have a vested interest in promoting it, so it isn't independent.
Travel guide books (whether in Dutch, German, or by the government) are an acceptable source for much of the information about a tourist attraction, but they aren't as desirable as a scholarly source, and I wouldn't use them for history because they aren't written by historians. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A published travel guide is as good as any RS for the history. They have editors and verificatio processes and don't just make stuff up. A government source for the history is also fine unless there is a reason to believe it is inaccurate but it seems unlikely the government of a muslum country will fabricate hisory of an old mosque. Legacypac (talk) 03:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a speedy answer. Could you confirm you read this, my answer, as I do not understand the Talk-system quite yet?

When writing "Travel guide books" I meant "published travel guide" books. I have contributed to several over the years and know how thorough their proof-reading and checking of sources generally is. As for history of muslim buildings, I'd not be too trusting. For certain periods the source may be just one traveller who visited a town and wrote a book about his travels, or such. Or a stone above the entrance. Because of earthquakes and resulting fires many archives were lost. And there also is the problem of differing calendars and resulting errors. Dosseman (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:33:47, 6 March 2019 review of submission by Kunwarbrarmusic


Kunwarbrarmusic (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for speedy deletion as spam. Username is also promotional so will tag that. Legacypac (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:17:25, 6 March 2019 review of submission by EdgarJackson


Any suggestions for resubmitting this? If I can gather more notable sources is that sufficient?

Thanks for any guidance you can provide.

-Edgar

EdgarJackson (talk) 16:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While there is always room for more good sources, I've accepted the page. Obviously notable to me - non notable organizations do not get Past Presidents and royalty from various countries to speak at their conferences. Legacypac (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:39:02, 6 March 2019 review of submission by Mamtapawar512


Mamtapawar512 (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mamtapawar512: - hi there. The previous editors were correct, as films are rarely notable before they are released. The sources given are not special enough (most are completely unsuitable - twitter, quora etc aren't reliable) to change that. Just hold the draft until release, add any reviews about it, and resubmit then. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


March 7

00:05:46, 7 March 2019 review of submission by Yungzizope


Yungzizope (talk) 00:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC) why is my article named Yungziz not accepted[reply]

Hi Yungzizope. Draft:Yungziz has been declined for the reasons explained in the big pink box at the top of the draft, and in the comment the reviewer left below it (both also appear on your talk page within a large mustard yellow box). --Worldbruce (talk) 02:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

00:06:06, 7 March 2019 review of draft by HHHOSMER


I have many external links, but need help getting them into the external link area. Same for references and a photo. I will take the Adventure tutorial soon. HHHOSMER (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HHHOSMER. I suggest that you forget about photos and external links for now. The presence or absence of photos will have no effect on whether or not the draft is accepted. Articles do not require any external links.
Concentrate on references. "Personal conversation, 1979" is not an acceptable source. Unlike other types of writing, on Wikipedia all references must be published. The remaining four citations do not adequately describe the sources you're citing. I strongly recommend that you use templates within the ref tags, such as {{cite book}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite web}}, etc. By structuring the bibliographic data, they help you make sure you've given readers everything they need to find the source for themselves. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:06:59, 7 March 2019 review of submission by LRamachandran (International Photographer)

Why my wikipedia page got declined. Can you pls suggest in this regard LRamachandran (International Photographer) (talk) 06:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zero sources on a BLP. Answered on draft and requested a username block, as it needs to be changed before we carry on. Legacypac (talk) 06:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


The Draft:Akash_Ambani is completely eligible to be at Article Space of Wikipedia as its completely based on the reliable sources. everyone can find the 100s of sources from Google. It was created earlier without sources. Akash Ambani is now completely Notable Person by his Work, Family, And Media Coverages.

Radadiyageet (talk) 08:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Radadiyageet: - we are an encyclopedia. We exist for the benefit of our readers - and so we don't set them the obligation of hunting down sources to see if there reliable support. Article creators are obligated to find the sources. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosebagbear: - Well said dear, But each and everything are based on Reliable Source, That is only The Draft:Akash_Ambani is completely eligible to be at Article Space of Wikipedia.

09:21:43, 7 March 2019 review of submission by MLKinsella


Hey. I'm currently writing the draft:buyagift page and looking for some feedback. Is there anything you'd suggest to make the article better? Is the layout good, or does it need to be broken down more? Any feedback would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks.MLKinsella (talk) 09:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC) MLKinsella (talk) 09:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I remember helping delete that advertisement before. Please don't post it again. It's been tagged for deletion again by another reviewer. Legacypac (talk) 09:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:29:30, 7 March 2019 review of draft by Salim Blasini

Hello, I joined Wikipedia today and I created an article about "Red Squad Reborn" but it got declined, can someone please help me with it? Any help is appreciated. Thank you in advance! :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Red_Squad_Reborn

Salim Blasini (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Salim Blasini, reliable sources are required for Wikipedia articles in order to verify their content and ensure their notability. For a walkthrough on formatting citations, please see WP:REFB. Thanks, SITH (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:23:49, 7 March 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Scotteggert


An article that was drafted, one of my first Wiki submissions was tagged as "speedily deleted". The subject was the employer of a good friend who is a prominent African American entrepreneur. The article was drafted in a neutral third person voice without superlatives. I included links to several other articles and a single citation. I was going to proceed with writing about some personnel and a couple of businesses he owns that would reference him.

I would appreciate some pointers about how to edit this to Wiki standards. I drafted a similar article about six years ago under very similar circumstance, and as another user, which remains mostly intact today.


Scotteggert (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scotteggert, I can't see the deleted page, I am pinging Liz, the deleting admin, for input. SITH (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:50:24, 7 March 2019 review of draft by MachieMadden


I am not related to James C. Madden. The fact that we share the last name is a coincidence. However, I am employed by the PR firm that represents his company. Can you tell me if, and where, I need to disclose this? Thanks! MachieMadden (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MachieMadden, if money is involved, you need to see WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE and follow the instructions there. If no money is involved, putting {{UserboxCOI|Draft:YOUR DRAFT HERE}} on your userpage will suffice. Thanks, SITH (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:09:18, 7 March 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by 24.136.10.218


I am working on a biography of Stefanie Minatee for Wikipedia. The first time the article was declined, I was asked to add more citations. I have done that. Today it was declined again; here is the message I received this time around:

Please list the WP:THREE sources that would enable this person to meet notability. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

In my list of sources, I have included one book not associated with the subject (The Gospel Truth), an online resource not associated with me (GOSPELflava), though my Journal of Gospel Music has been cited on Wikipedia by others in the past, a newspaper (Union News Daily), and two online news sources (Nj.com and northjersey.com). Are none of these sources enough to determine notability?

The other question is, where do I list the WP:THREE sources in the body of the article, and are any of the references cited considered one of these three sources? If not, do the three sources need to be paper-based?

I apologize for my confusion – I have seen Wikipedia articles with only three references get published and I have provided more than 20 and can’t seem to get through the system!

Best regards, Bob Marovich


24.136.10.218 (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

General comments. Use the Draft talkpage to list your best sources. We have several thousand Draft pages waiting so wading through 20+ sources is not a good use of time when the WP:N is not obvious. Quality of sources, not quantity is important. Sources do NOT need to be paper, and online sources are much easier for us to check. I'll look at the page for you now. Legacypac (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:18:56, 7 March 2019 review of draft by Scott8905


Our content was reviewed and denied. So I had a question about how we can get our specific content up as a separate article. Our office, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, is mentioned on the United States Attorney Wikipedia page, but there are significant differences between the US Attorneys (USA) office and the Executive Office for US Attorneys (EOUSA). It was recommended that we add our content to the EOUSA section of the United States Attorney page. I would submit that adding this content would cause confusion to readers since US Attorneys and EOUSA have different responsibilities and perform different roles withing the Department of Justice. EOUSA provides support with respect to policy and guidance to all 94 US Attorneys' offices including overseeing their budget, but EOUSA does not make decisions affecting civil or criminal cases. US attorneys are the chief Federal law enforcement officers in their district. They lead investigations and direct the prosecution of criminal and civil cases on behalf of the Federal government. The Director of EOUSA oversees the evaluation of those offices, supervising the operation of the Office of Legal Education, the Attorney General’s Advocacy Institute and the Legal Education Institute and much more as our submission provides. Thirdly, US Attorneys are appointed by the President of the United States and have to go through the Senate confirmation process, while the Director of EOUSA is selected by the Attorney General.

Though I would agree that referencing EOUSA on the US Attorneys Wikipedia page would provide the reader a basic understanding of who US Attorneys work with regarding Department of Justice policy and guidance. I would reiterate that having all the information about EOUSA on the US Attorneys Wikipedia page may cause confusion to the readers since the responsibilities and leadership roles differ greatly. To have a separate EOUSA page linked to the content on the US Attorneys and the Department of Justice’s Wikipedia pages would provide readers a separate resource focused specifically on the function and responsibilities of EOUSA and avoid confusion with the duties of the US Attorneys.

Lastly, other Federal agencies have pages devoted to specific offices, bureaus and divisions. Please see examples under the following:

1. United States Department of Justice under Offices - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Justice#Offices 2. United States Department of State under Organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_State#Organization show a number of different offices/bureaus with their own pages. 3. United States Department of Agriculture under Organization, budget, and tasks - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Agriculture#Organization,_budget_and_tasks 4. United States Department of the Interior under Operating Units - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_the_Interior#Operating_units

These are just some examples of pages that reference other offices who have their own dedicated page.

Should I resubmit for someone to review? Or, what would be the next steps to get a separate posted. Previous reviewers did not have an issue with the being a separate article. They provided other input with respect to adding more specific references about the content pulled directly from Justice.gov's website.

Any direction and guidance would be greatly appreciated.

Scott8905 (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)Scott Armstrong-Cezar (employee of the US Dept. of Justice)[reply]

Scott8905 (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who suggested that it belongs on the other page but if a seperate page explains the difference between the titles that is fine. If you include material from gov published sources that is fine and copyright free but be sure to very clearly label the source and comment on ten talkpage. Executive Office for United States Attorneys already exists as a title but it is currently a redirect. You can just replace the redirect with the new article. You don't need us. Clink the link to the Executive Office page, scroll to the top, and click the redirected from link. Then paste over the # REDIRECT. Thanks for helping improve the coverage on Wikipedia of the DOJ. Legacypac (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:42:14, 7 March 2019 review of draft by BlazeJimX


Companies such as Microsoft and Google have 'Company' above their wikipedia logo. How do i do the same for companies i write about?

BlazeJimX (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is an infobox. Responded on the draft. You have much bigger problems in your effort to promote your company - like no good sources. Legacypac (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 8

01:34:15, 8 March 2019 review of submission by Gravis Sonjiuson

CLOSED
User has been blocked. SITH (talk) 11:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gravis Sonjiuson (talk) 01:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block of this user requested. Only here to promote his creation. Legacypac (talk) 06:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

03:14:21, 8 March 2019 review of submission by Sizcoo


Sizcoo (talk) 03:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had an article rejected, but the editor has not come back after a really long time, and not responding to their Talk. I am concerned. Any help would be appreciated. The article is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nick_Birbilis Thanks Sizcoo (talk) 03:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC) Sizcoo[reply]

Meets WP:PROF so I accepted. We have a large backlog Legacypac (talk) 06:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:21:14, 8 March 2019 review of submission by Minu Bakshi

Please advise me what changes I can do to approve the content.

Minu Bakshi Minu Bakshi (talk) 07:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for bringing your amazingly self serving page to my attention. I've sought deletion on it. Don't post it again. Cheers Legacypac (talk) 07:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:30:52, 8 March 2019 review of draft by Mitchelaaa


Draft:International Achievement Recognition Awards UK try to review it faster and improve this article I have written. Mitchelaaa (talk) 09:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchelaaa, we'll review it in due course. Thanks for not making it a copyright violation this time, that helps. SITH (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:15:03, 8 March 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by RimaPOD2018


Hello, thank you for your feedback and input. I was wondering if social media sites might increasingly count as 'reputable' sources. There is plenty of coverage over facebook, linked in and youtube. Impact Profile can be downloaded and used and so on. My point is that it's out there and has a lot of coverage, it seems perfect for wikipedia article! Thank you again for everything you do.

RimaPOD2018 (talk) 10:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RimaPOD2018, please see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Facebook and YouTube are not considered reliable because reliable sources e.g. NYT, BBC, WaPo, NBC also self-publish as well as publishing videos on such sites, making references to them unnecessary. SITH (talk) 11:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:24:24, 8 March 2019 review of draft by Catoco


Trying to fully verify sources, but some information was gathered directly from band members, through messenger and email, not a published article. How can I site this source?

Catoco (talk) 12:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Catoco: Unpublished information may not be included in Wikipedia articles. Putting it in would violate one of the pillars of the encyclopedia, verifiability. It's common for Wikipedia articles to present an incomplete picture of a subject (in the sense of lacking some information that a reader might like to know). That's okay if there is no reliable published source for the information.
If you're close enough to your subject to be emailing and instant messaging them, you probably have a conflict of interest. Be sure to disclose the nature of any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:00:15, 8 March 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Scott8905


Our content was reviewed and denied. Since we disagree with the reviewer's reason, should we resubmit? The individual who denied our content recommended that our content be added to the United States Attorney Wikipedia page. Though our content is written about very briefly on the United States Attorney Wikipedia page, adding information about the Executive Office for US Attorneys (EOUSA) does not make much sense to us since the roles of US Attorneys and EOUSA are very different. For example, the responsibilities of EOUSA is to provide support with respect to policy, guidance. and budget to the 94 US Attorneys offices including. EOUSA does not make decisions affecting civil or criminal cases. On the other hand, US Attorneys are the chief Federal law enforcement officers in their district. They lead investigations and direct the prosecution of criminal and civil cases on behalf of the Federal government. Additionally, US Attorneys are appointed by the President of the United States and have to go through the Senate confirmation process, while the Director of EOUSA is selected by the Attorney General.

Though I would agree that referencing EOUSA on the US Attorneys and the Department of Justice's Wikipedia page would provide the reader a basic understanding of who US Attorneys work with regarding Department of Justice policy and guidance. I would submit that having all the information about EOUSA on the US Attorneys Wikipedia page would provide confusion to the readers since the responsibilities and leadership roles differ greatly. To have a separate EOUSA page linked to the content on the US Attorneys and the Department of Justice’s Wikipedia pages would provide readers a separate resource focused specifically on the function and responsibilities of EOUSA and avoid confusion with the duties of the US Attorneys.

Lastly, other Federal agencies have pages devoted to specific offices, bureaus and divisions. Please see examples under the following:

  1. United States Department of Justice under Offices - [[1]]
  2. United States Department of State under Organization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_State#Organization) show a number of different offices/bureaus with their own pages.
  3. United States Department of Agriculture under Organization, budget, and tasks - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Agriculture#Organization,_budget_and_tasks
  4. United States Department of the Interior under Operating Units - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_the_Interior#Operating_units

These are just some examples of pages that reference other Federal agencies who have dedicated pages specific to offices within their Department who perform a specific function.

Previous reviews of our content did not make the same recommendation for our content to be added to the US Attorney Wikipedia page, their only suggestions were to add more specific references to the content that was directly pulled for the Department of Justice's website. Any insight and direction would be greatly appreciated.


Scott8905 (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Answered above [2] Legacypac (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:20:48, 8 March 2019 review of submission by Catoco

A wikipedia article I submitted for publishing was rejected on the grounds that the " subject was not significant" enough to qualify for it's own page. My draft is about the Bär McKinnon music group Umlaut, which can easily be located with a google search. Draft here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:UMLAUT_(band) 

Bär McKinnon has his own public Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_McKinnon_(musician)

Which mentions the band, as well as the related group, Mr Bungle: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Bungle Maybe I am misunderstanding the "significance" mention, because the subject seems quite significant. Catoco (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it were significant, there would be sources to the article not related to the subject. You have provided no evidence of notability as we define it here whatsoever. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:05:09, 8 March 2019 review of draft by Martimartins

hi, I need help with the creation of my first article. I cannot understand if my article in English about Patrica Kaersenhout has been sent to review or not? If not, how can I do it? thank you for your help!

Martimartins (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was sent for review and found to be a copyright violation. You must use your own words not copy from sources. Legacypac (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


March 9

00:19:13, 9 March 2019 review of draft by Haleyofwg


I was wondering if i was aloud to use places such as Apple music, spotify, twitter google box etc. i see other artist do it but when i do it always says that i'm advertising. Haleyofwg (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need reliable sources WP:RS about the artist not just links that proge they released music Legacypac (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:54:37, 9 March 2019 review of submission by Mohit Bajgain

Why My article is Not posted?

Mohit Bajgain (talk) 05:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Mahadev Bajgain draft

@Mohit Bajgain: - it's not become an article yet because you posted 3 days ago and there is a backlog in excess of 7 weeks at the moment.
As a mayor, he falls into one areas of political notability that will require significant judgement to be exercised - as their notability is based off how major the region/city is. Please just be patient. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:51:16, 9 March 2019 review of submission by Rohit sir india


Rohit sir india (talk) 10:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rohit sir india: - as the reviewer noted, this is just an advertorial few facts about the individual (yourself?) and the company. It also has no sources which means it could never be added to Wikipedia. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:15:19, 9 March 2019 review of submission by Rohitiyengar1729


Rohitiyengar1729 (talk) 12:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rohitiyengar1729: - there's nothing in the article that suggests he meets what we call notability. Additionally, Wikipedia can't use primary sources of information, we need things like newspapers, books etc - not personal accounts. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


March 10

02:49:23, 10 March 2019 review of submission by 141.0.155.187


141.0.155.187 (talk) 02:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@141.0.155.187: - the original reviewer was correct in this not meeting corporate notability, remember that sources have to be secondary (newspapers, books, journals, etc). As such, this draft is not notable Nosebagbear (talk) 11:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

02:52:32, 10 March 2019 review of submission by 141.0.155.187


I disagree with this article being rejected. This business is a well known one within the Linux community and others like it with equal notoriety have a Wikipedia entry. They have appeared in technology news numerous times and Forbes was even sourced for this article. I would appreciate it is this article is reviewed again. Thank you for your time.

141.0.155.187 (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

www.forbes.com/sites by contributors (rather than Forbes staff) are not the same as Forbes magazine. They are blogs, so not reliable sources for facts, only for the opinion of the author. As for articles similar to the draft, see the essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to understand the flaw in that argument for inclusion. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you disagree with AfC you could create an account, edit with it for a bit, and create your own pages. As an IP you have to use AfC Legacypac (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:27:05, 10 March 2019 review of draft by Pequena Princesa


1. Is YouTube not a reliable source for the creation date and number of views on a YouTube Channel? 2. Is YouTube not a reliable source for the fact that the subject appears in a number of videos on YouTube doing a certain thing? 3. Is the subject's website not a reliable source for a photograph of the subject?

Pequena Princesa (talk) 11:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pequena Princesa. YouTube can be a reliable source sometimes. See Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites for a fuller discussion of the problems with YouTube as a source. What is perhaps more relevant in this case is that being on YouTube does not help establish that a person is notable (suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). Nor is it usually worth mentioning in an encyclopedia biography, unless the presence on YouTube has been discussed in mainstream media (think Billboard, Rolling Stone, Slant Magazine, and the like). --Worldbruce (talk) 14:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:36:01, 10 March 2019 review of submission by Ritu67


Ritu67 14:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

This is a recurring (near)blank submission Nosebagbear (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:37:47, 10 March 2019 review of submission by 117.234.121.8


Draft has been rejected for no reason. There is also a proper reference in the draft, which is worth making the article, all the references are official, I tried to get help from the English Wikipedia Helpline, I was blocked from there, if this article is not made If you do not want to do it, please continue it, thank you

117.234.121.8 (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@117.234.121.8: - this individual does not meet the requirements for musician notability. You can add loads of sources, but you just end up duplicating the same issue. Lots of sources don't cover him at all, which makes them rather pointless.
There is, in fact, a notability grounds that covers performing in films etc - criterion 10:
Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read the policy and notability guideline on subjects notable only for one event, for further clarifications).
However, there are two main flaws. 1) Your own source indicates that he was just a playback singer for one of the tracks. To qualify under this ground he'd need to be the primary singer for the whole film's music. 2) As the grounds says, this is currently his own claim, so it makes more sense to add him to the film's article, rather than generate a new article just for this.
He may in the future perform more and surpass both of those issues, but at this point, that has not been satisfied.
Finally, what do you mean by "English Wikipedia Helpline"? We have several help groups - chats, boards, email etc, but I've not heard of that one.
Nosebagbear (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:17:36, 10 March 2019 review of draft by NorthPark1417


Hello, I am the writer of Dagger that was recently deleted, and I've expanded the article, for review at Draft:Dagger (zine). - NorthPark1417 (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue. You need WP:DRV. We can't override the deletion discussion. Legacypac (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:48:39, 10 March 2019 review of draft by Esmemusic


Esmemusic (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

to check the new refrences and see if it is enough to publish the well known bachata artist Esme wikipedia page.

Nope no refs, and it is highly promotional of a non-notable singer, yiu. Tagged for speedy deletion. Also user blocked Legacypac (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:15:26, 10 March 2019 review of submission by Fyzix


I recently discovered this small and interesting up and coming band called Cvlt Ov The Svn. I fell in love with their music and wanted to honor them by creating a Wikipedia article about them so that others can find all and any information about them in a concise format on a well known website. The thing is, this band is brand new, and there's no information about them aside from their social media pages. There are only a few web articles that have been made about them but they all say the same thing. I was informed that social media is not a valid source of information for a Wikipedia article so I took all necessary information from one of these articles. As I then submitted my draft for review I was told that this isn't the type of article Wikipedia desires. Despite the fact that there are plenty of articles about even more trivial subjects, with no sources stating where the information is from, I was told that this isn't good enough. I just wanted to make a Wikipedia article about this cool band that I discovered. But my requests were denied. For what reason? Because the editor who happened to review it decided so? Because it's not what Wikipedia wants? Because who would care about some no-name band? Well let me tell you. I care. Fyzix (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Topic must be WP:Notable. If you see pages about non-notable topic send them to WP:AFD Legacypac (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:40:21, 10 March 2019 review of draft by Mkukuchka


Need clarification on my submission of Brian B Springer. First is it being treated as an article or a biography? It's a biography and I patterned it from another on Manny Marroquin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manny_Marroquin

"This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia."

Does he need to be the subject of interviews from studio executives, or others he has worked with? I included references listing him from Billboard, and other books.

Mkukuchka (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies are just a subset of articles about people.
The reviewer did not find the references to be sufficent. AfC is an an optional process so if you disagree you can move it yourself. Legacypac (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 11

05:21:25, 11 March 2019 review of submission by Mukesh Kumar Rao


I am requesting you, why you rejected this page. And tell me please what is the reason for rejection. Is I am violating any term or condition policy of Wikipedia. What is the thing should I follow to create this page. I am editing this page for a very geniue person. Who I am knowing personally, and He given me all the content which I write on this page, so there is no copyright issue arises. Please guide me to publish this page. Thanks in advance for Helping to create this page.

Mukesh Kumar Rao (talk) 05:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:28:11, 11 March 2019 review of submission by Ukunsumo

Can you help me to validate my own page in the sand box. See the link above Ukunsumo (talk) 05:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC) Hi all, I am a freelance web developer based in Japan. I wanted to create my own page in the sandbox as shown on YouTube. I received an error message: "Submission declined on 11 March 2019 by PrussianOwl (talk). This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources."[reply]

Can you give me some advices on how to resolve this issue. Cheers, Remi

Hi Ukunsumo. Unlike Facebook, LinkedIn, or similar networking sites, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a place to write about yourself. See Wikipedia:Autobiography for more information --Worldbruce (talk) 05:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:08:40, 11 March 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by RSMPAO


Good morning Sir, I am the Public Affairs Officers of the NATO Resolute Support Mission in Afghanistan. I wrote Draft:Salvatore Camporeale's draft and I always tried to modify it by following your suggestions. You tell me that the text is copied from the Resolute Support website https://rs.nato.int. However, I ask you to approve my draft for the following reasons: - I modified the draft by quoting the source from which I got the information (ie the Resolute Support website); - I modified the text as much as possible, but better than that I can not do because it is a short biography of General Camporeale; - in my opinion there is no copyright infringement because I am the Public Affairs of Resolute Support Missione, I am the webmaster of the Resolute Support website and I wrote the biography of General Camporeale which is published on https: // rs. nato.int. Please, I ask you, kindly, to help me write the draft in order for it to be published. Thanks in advance.


RSMPAO (talk) 07:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RSMPAO,  On hold. Pls disclose your COI on your user page and the Draft:Salvatore Camporeale article talk page - pls see the COI info and instructions at your talk page. Also, pls note that Wikipedia highly discourage (not welcome) editor with COI to edit/create the affected page as content at times does not meet WP:NPOV. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Ma'am CASSIOPEIA(talk), I followed your suggestion disclosing my COI on user page and on the Draft:Salvatore Camporeale. I try to be as neutral as possible, but the article is a simple biography. Please let me know if I have to do something else.
Thank you very much.
RSMPAO Greetings. Pls note the disclosure should be placed on (1) User page and (2) Article "talk" page and not article page. Pls read and follow instructions provided and rework. Please Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~).. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:17:07, 11 March 2019 review of submission by Savithashanmugam


Because there is no copyright content, or any kind of issues so that kindly re-review it. Savithashanmugam (talk) 07:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:59:27, 11 March 2019 review of draft by Lpouliot


The title of my Wiki article contains an error. It now reads Blake pouliot. Both first and last names should be capitalized to read Blake Pouliot. I do not seem have the faculty to make this edit. Can you do this for me? Thank you. Lpouliot (talk) 12:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC) Lpouliot (talk) 12:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:17:27, 11 March 2019 review of submission by Jordanslp312


After the helpful comments from DGG, all concerns raised were explicitly addressed, specifically showing significant coverage about Siraj's work in published, reliable, secondary sources (including a standalone piece in Forbes[1], among several others), as well as showing evidence that the scientific works referenced in the Wikipedia page is attributable to Siraj, given his first authorships. It is therefore puzzling what about the entry does not meet notability guidelines. It is also worth mentioning that Siraj appears in the Wikipedia entry on 'Oumuamua and on interstellar objects. Interstellar objects are a brand new field of astronomy; one of Siraj's works has pioneered the study of trapped objects, and another work has become one of the most-read[2] Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society.

Jordanslp312 (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Dorminey, Bruce. "Astronomers Are Tracking Four Potential Interstellar Objects Now In Our Outer Solar System". Forbes.com. Forbes.
  2. ^ "Research Notes of the AAS". Institute of Physics. IOP Publishing.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=887311015"