Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main page Talk page
Showcase Assessment Participants Reviewing instructions 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 19

04:18:10, 19 March 2017 review of submission by Janweh64

I believe this article qualifies under WP:GNG. The three main sources used are The Bulletin (Bend): [1] [2], Fast Company (magazine): [3] [4] and The Oregonian [5]. I have removed the only possible offending source which was Portland Business Journal.

I appreciate your time spent and attention. Declaration of COI. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 04:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Janweh64: Hello, Janweh. Our apologies for the delay in response. Since you made this posting, your submission was declined by a second reviewer, on the same grounds as noted by the first. For what it's worth, I too would have declined your submission, but my concern would have been more with the local nature of most of the sources. Except for Fast Company, all of the sources are media outlets that primarily serve Oregon. And although this does not apply to Fast Company, the coverage in that national publication is not very substantial, nor does it address the topic (cannabis sales) that receives most of your draft's attention. I think that demonstrating notability will be a lot easier for you if can show that the subject's cannabis business has received attention in national media outlets. Alternatively, you might try to show that the subject merits a stand-alone article solely on the business of his non-cannabis endeavours, but I think that this will a much tougher sell. Either way, I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
@NewYorkActuary: Thank You for your time. There is also a High Times article about the subject. I have even purchased a copy of the back issue to confirm that it is legitimate. I only hesistated including as it requires a subscription. Would that help to convince you any more. You can read it here without a subscription. Also, Fast Company has two articles about Hadar, the second more significant about his lawsuit. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 03:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
@Janweh64: Hello again, Janweh. The High Times interview certainly doesn't hurt your chances at establishing encyclopedic notability for the subject, but there's a reasonable question as to whether it does much to support those chances. There are some here on Wikipedia who say that interviews don't do anything to demonstrate notability, because they are essentially nothing more than the subject talking about himself. I take a less extreme view -- the very fact that a magazine is willing to devote some of its limited page space to the subject conveys something about notability. But how much? To my mind, not a whole lot, especially considering that here it is a very brief interview appearing in what could properly be considered a "niche" publication. As for the Fast Company article, there is a question as to whether the article would even exist had one of the litigants not been a Hollywood personality, so I'm seeing something along the lines of a claim of "inherited notability". In all, I concede that your draft presents a case for notability that is more "borderline" than most of the ones we see here, but I still believe that it falls on the non-notable side of the line. I recognize that this is not the answer you were hoping to get. But other reviewers might feel differently than I do, so perhaps the best course of action is to wait and see what happens when the next reviewer takes a look at your draft. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

11:45:44, 19 March 2017 review of submission by Goernitz

Hello! Goernitz, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! DavidWestT (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The article is a translation of the long existing articleörnitz why should this not appear also in the English wikipedia?

Goernitz (talk) 11:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Goernitz. Thank you for your translation. Long existence is not proof that an article complies with Wikipedia's rules. It could mean only that no one has gotten around to deleting it yet. In any case, each language version of Wikipedia operates according to its own policies and guidelines, set by the community of editors who contribute there. So an article may satisfy the rules for the German Wikipedia but not the English one, or vice versa. The good news is that if an article satisfies one set of rules, it can often be improved to satisfy another set of rules with a small amount of work.
The problem with Draft:Thomas Görnitz is the sources. Much of the material in the "Life" section cites no sources. Most of the draft's sources are written by Görnitz, so they are not independent of Görnitz. Of the three independent sources, only the first mentions Görnitz.
The English Wikipedia requires that most of the material in an article come from sources independent of the subject - sources about Görnitz rather than by Görnitz. Typical sources would be reviews of his books, written by other academics and published in scholarly journals. WP:PROF explains other sources frequently used to demonstrate the notability of academics. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
@Goernitz: I agree with everything said by Worldbruce. This search may help you. But avoid chapters written by Görnitz, books co-authored by Görnitz, or edited by Görnitz. Some possible sources I found, [6], [7] [8] [9] —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

March 20

10:12:45, 20 March 2017 review of submission by Naepin

Hi please can you help me how to add photos to my edited article. Thank you Naepin (talk) 10:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Naepin. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Adding images to articles can be a complex process; you can learn more about it by reading WP:Uploading images. But before doing so, I think your efforts would be better directed towards improving the text of your draft. Right now, it consists largely of unsourced biographical detail, followed by an overly-long listing of details that would be appropriate for the subject's resumé, but not for an encyclopedia article. In its current state, it is unlikely that your draft will be accepted for publication. I encourage you to seek out reliable sources that are independent of the subject and that discuss him in depth. It is this type of material, and not a listing of presentations and articles, that will lead to an acceptable article. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

17:17:26, 20 March 2017 review of submission by CountryCousins1951

Hi I sent the following message and got the following response but the actual article I was discussing was requested and declined in the past 2 months. I thought I was putting it somewhere where someone 'neutral' could write the article, so I am confused as to why it was deemed not neutral. Am I better off writing it myself and trying to submit it that way?

Hi, I wrote a request for an article to be written about a school, it was declined. I thought by requesting others to write the article I would obtain a neutral response and am confused as to why it was classes as advertising. I included a lot of information/published sources about the school that were not by the school. Other schools have wikipedia pages, I would like to know how to arrange one for this school also. Caitlin Cronin - Secretary and Registrar 12:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CountryCousins1951 (talk • contribs) Hello, Caitlin. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. Your submission was declined two years ago because of concerns about advertising, but it was deleted about 18 months ago because you did no further work on it. Because it has been deleted, we are unable to see exactly what might have raised the concerns about advertising. However, "abandoned" drafts are fairly easy to get restored. You can do so by making a request at WP:REFUND/G13. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC

Caitlin Cronin - Secretary and Registrar 17:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CountryCousins1951 (talkcontribs)

Hello again, Caitlin. Might you specify which article was "requested and declined" two months ago? NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

March 21

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Received the following comment from SwisterTwister on an article pending review (

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

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

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


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

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

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

Wha i should do exactly?

Symbol declined.svg Declined for the reasons explained on the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

March 22

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

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

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

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

Kind regards (talk) 09:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Kindest Regards,


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

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

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

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

To those working at the articles for creation help desk,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 23

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

Thanks for the help.

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

March 24

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 25

Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA