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


April 20

Request on 07:37:33, 20 April 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Rivkiyoudkevich

Hi, I submitted the article and it was declined. I dont agree with the reason and I tried not to make it an advertised article. Also, I placed 22 links and there are 50 more if needed (most in Hebrew as can see on the hebrew article). I dont know what to do so if anyone can help it will be a great help! Thanks

Rivkiyoudkevich (talk) 07:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Symbol declined.svg Declined for the reasons explained on the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Worldbruce yes but why? whats wrong with it? also, all the links i provided arent enough?? how can it be when i see articles with 2 or 4 links only? please help, thank you/ Rivkiyoudkevich (talk) 13:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
@Rivkiyoudkevich: Have you read the extensive comment I left on the draft, below the stacked pink boxes? Is there part of it that you don't understand? As for other articles, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Worldbruce yes, i read it but reading the article i dont see why you wrote it.. can you help with improving it? and also, what about the links, why arent they enough? i looked in other articles and most dont have the same amount and they are all good links... Rivkiyoudkevich (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
@Rivkiyoudkevich: I'm on the road and on a semi-wikibreak until June, so am unable to give you more extensive assistance at the moment. You aren't grasping the feedback, so try reading it again. I'm not sure how much clearer I can make some of the instructions, like "Don't use The Daily Mail as a reference." You can also seek help at the teahouse. I think anyone here or there will give you the same advice. If in 4-5 weeks you're still stuck, leave a note on my talk page and I'll see what I can do when I return. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

08:33:39, 20 April 2017 review of submission by Viktoriya.biliaeva

Hi there! I've been sending my draft for submission for several times, but it has always been rejected. After each submission I tried to follow the instructions and edit my draft so it wouldn't be rejected next time, in particular, I've added external references according to Chrissymad's comment, I've inserted inline citations as it was mentioned by David.moreno72. However, yesterday I got the reply from ProgrammingGeek that was different from the previous ones, as he stated that the draft looks like a sort of advertising. I just wonder how it could happen that none of the reviewers noticed that the draft is a sort of a product promotion before? Also, I'd like to know what is considered to be under 'notability' as I've come across a plenty of articles with no references at all! Thanks in advance. Viktoriya.biliaeva (talk) 08:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Viktoriya. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response. When reviewers decline a submission here at Articles for Creation, they very often identify only what they find to be the most serious problem. In looking at the history of your submission, I see that two of the three reviewers believed the most serious problem was the poor quality of the referencing, but the third thought it was "advertising" (which often means simply that there is little in the draft that wouldn't be found in a product brochure or advertisement). My own look at the submission tells me that both problems exist and that both need to be addressed before your submission can be accepted for publication. As for referencing, and despite your statement to the contrary, you have not provided in-line citations. Instead, you simply put a list of links near the bottom of the draft. You are, in effect, telling readers (and reviewers) that if they want to find the source for any particular statement, they have to click through each of the very many links in hope of finding the right one. This is not proper referencing and I encourage you to read through our WP:Referencing for beginners and our guidance on in-line citations. As for advertising, you really need to write an article that is more than a description of what the software can do. And so, you'll need to base your draft on what has been said about the software by reliable sources that are independent of your company (and the company's blog will not be sufficient for this). And as to the notability question, most reviewers here will be looking for you to demonstrate that the software has some measure of historical or technical significance. You might find WP:NSOFTWARE useful reading. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

11:47:40, 20 April 2017 review of submission by TeamAvB

Hello, We don't know if it is any use to go further with the draft about the painter Georgy Kichigin. We would kindly ask you to take a look at the information we have collected on and if there is based on this information any use in continuing with the draft. Regards, TIA.

⚠ Warning Username and above text implies shared use. Others, please advise. JTP (talkcontribs) 14:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

TeamAvB (talk) 09:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)Comment: The holder of the username teamAvB is just one person, other users have no access via this username. If there would be a positive reaction the draft will be continued by another single username. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeamAvB (talkcontribs) 16:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC) (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)Username changed to AvB679

@AvB679: Hello, AvB. Thanks again for your submission to Wikipedia. I think you have a reasonably good chance of getting an article on Kichigan published here on Wikipedia. The fact that he was one of the artists identified in a presidential proclamation back in 2006 certainly contributes to his notability. I encourage you to read through our notability guideline at WP:NARTIST with an eye towards assembling reliable sources that can demonstrate satisfaction of one or more of the criteria listed there. And although I don't think the website is itself a reliable source (it looks to be somebody's blog), the information there might serve as a useful guide to finding other sources. But right now, the larger problem you face is not the lack of Kichigin's notablity. Instead, it is the fact that your submission reads like an essay, and not as an encyclopedia article. What's more, it doesn't use an encyclopedic tone of voice. You might want to read through some of our better-quality articles on artists, such as El Greco or Caspar David Friedrich. Doing this will give you an idea of how an article should be structured and how the material can be best presented. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

AvB679 (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC) Thank you very much for your reply. It is clear to me. The link was merely because there was a extensive list of refs translated from Russian... most refs are in Russian.

20:22:44, 20 April 2017 review of submission by

There is need for assistance to check grammar mistakes and advice if there is need for any further improvement of the draft. (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, IP address. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. I've published your submission, after doing some mild copy editing in the lead paragraph. But I didn't try to do more. Wikipedia has a group of volunteers who do that kind of thing and, if you would like their assistance, place the {{copyedit}} template at the top of the page (but be aware that they have a backlog that stretches back several months). You might also want some assistance with translation. I saw that the final sentence in the lead paragraph translated the Japanese source as saying the song is about the "essence of human beings". It seems to me that there must a better English translation of whatever the original source was saying. You can ask for translation help at WP:JAPAN. Thanks again for your contribution to Wikipedia. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

April 21

01:50:10, 21 April 2017 review of submission by Edpendrag

Edpendrag (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC) It is evident that this site is unworthy of its inclusion on the Internet and should be removed.

Hello, Ed. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. Concerns about the existence of Wikipedia are best addressed to User talk:Jimbo Wales. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

15:26:04, 21 April 2017 review of submission by Senfee

I cannot locate the reviewer comments on this page from last September. How can I find them? Were they emailed to me?

Thanks! Senfee (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Senfee. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. If you're talking about Draft:Dorothy K. Burnham, the reviewer's comment appears right above the draft and also appears on your Talk page. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

15:33:00, 21 April 2017 review of submission by Dempseycarroll

Not sure as to why the submission is rejected again as we updated the language/added more sources to the best of our ability? Please, advise. Thank you! Dempseycarroll (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, DempseyCarroll. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. I assume you're talking about Draft:Dempsey & Carroll. If so, your submission wasn't "rejected again". Quite the opposite -- you recently received a comment saying that a reviewer was ready to accept it for publication, providing you fixed up the referencing (and that reviewer advised you to take a look at WP:Referencing for beginners). I also see that you have ignored a previous comment advising you to remove peacock language from the draft. To this, I'll add that the lengthy listing of "collaborations" is unencyclopedic and should be removed prior to publication of the draft. On a different note, I see that your user name strongly suggests that you are affiliated with the subject of the draft. If you have not already done so, you should read through our conflict-of-interest guideline. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

April 22

Request on 17:41:23, 22 April 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by

as I submitted article for creation without reference will staff archive enrico j Madrid and article enrico j Madrid for reference (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Reply - I see you have added several references. Before re-submitting for review, I would ensure you are complying with Wikipedia:Reliable sources as regards the references you select, and I would ensure that you better comply with the Wikipedia manual of style as regards the formatting of your draft. Isingness (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

23:20:40, 22 April 2017 review of submission by Wernien

Wernien (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

May I please as, why the review of my draft article takes that long? I don't want to complain, but could it be that the article has been overlooked or is still not good enough to be published. - Thnak you very much. And I apologise in advance, I do not write very much here. Wernien (talk) 23:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Reply - It has only been less than three weeks; with the backlog you may be waiting a while longer. Regardless, you may want to add third-party references to all parts of your text so that when it is reviewed it does not get rejected for poor sourcing. From what I can see, the JSTOR link is also dead, so you likely want to ensure all parts of your draft are functional to avoid other issues. Isingness (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks - Thank you very much, I have repaired two links. I have also checked the references, To my understanding the sourcing should be OK. I am looking forward to the possibility that the article will be published.Wernien (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

April 23

Request on 05:28:59, 23 April 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by K1 ecentral

Hello, K1. Did you have a specific question? NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Request on 22:17:30, 23 April 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Takudzwa mususa

Takudzwa mususa (talk) 22:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Takudzwa. Did you have a specific question? NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

April 24

02:36:24, 24 April 2017 review of draft by Jkim713

This is my first submission to Wikipedia and I am trying to fix my reference list. How do I use a reference multiple times in my content. The last line in the my submission references 4 earlier cited remarks but when I cited it, the reference list created whole new lines, that is my list of 10 references became a list of 20 do I fix it? Jkim713 (talk) 02:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, J. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. I think you're looking to use the "named reference" technique. You can learn about it at WP:REFNAME. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

02:45:00, 24 April 2017 review of submission by Pergameno

I have writing an entry on Margaret Manion. I have received this message "This article's lead section may not adequately summarize key points of its contents. Please consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of all important aspects of the article. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page. (April 2017)" I have tried to write a lead section. Would you please let me know how to make it better conform with the requirements.

Pergameno (talk) 02:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Reply to Pergameno - While this is not generally the place for questions about accepted pages, and is instead a venue for questions regarding pages not yet accepted, there is some easy advice I can provide. A proper lead generally covers all the major aspects of the page in general. Your current lead does not appear to cover all her positions or major publications, if appropriate. A few more sentences should do it. Then ask on the talk page if other editors (especially the person who posted the tag) is/are comfortable with removing the improvement banner. If you do not hear back, you can take that as a yes, and if you do, then re-engage. Hope this helps! Isingness (talk) 03:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Request on 05:07:21, 24 April 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Kenj005

Parthesh Patel (Gujarati:પાર્થેશ પટેલ)

Kenj005 (talk) 05:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Kenj. Did you have a specific question? NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

13:43:36, 24 April 2017 review of submission by Skyking30

Hello K6Ka, I respectfully requested that the present photograph of myself be removed and I will provide a more accurate Official Air Force Photograph. The present photo appears to have been "edited" or photo shopped....I will be pleased to provide an Official Photograph upon removal of the present One. Thank You, Christopher S. Adams, Jr, Major General, USAF (Ret)

Skyking30 (talk) 13:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Please submit this as an WP:Edit request or on the talk page of K6ka. JTP (talkcontribs) 14:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Request on 14:22:12, 24 April 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Marc Daum

14:22:12, 24 April 2017 review of submission by Marc Daum

I noticed the article « Bijoux Burma » was declined. I understand i have to rewrite the article to appear to read more than an entry in an encyclopedia. So i will. But also: do you think my article has enough references and sources to establish its notability ? Only two of them i mentioned, are written in english and independent. The other one are in french (for example a thesis from La sorbonne University) or coming from Bijoux Burma official Website. Should i add more? May I add 10 others including articles in Vogue and Paris-Match.They’re not written in english but in french. If so, how long could be the article ? Thanks a lot for your precious help. Marc Daum (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Marc Daum (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Reply - While the quality of the references you have used will be reviewed by the person who decides whether or not to accept the page, and I do not want to step on their toes, I would definitely state that you do not have enough references for the content you have written--because not everything has been cited. If you cite everything, you will stand a better chance for acceptance, if the subject matter is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Isingness (talk) 02:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

14:36:01, 24 April 2017 review of submission by CRDAVIS14


May the following articles, while not suitable for coverage in the page itself as not specifically about CollectPlus, not provide requisite evidence of notability for CollectPlus, as per the guidelines? [1] This article references CollectPlus as a key rival to Royal Mail amid its plans to develop its click-and-collect offering. [2] Similarly this article references CollectPlus as a rival that Tesco is seeking to match with development of its click-and-collect offering. [3] this article discusses the best and worst parcel firms in research conducted by MoneySavingExpert, again referencing CollectPlus with significance.

The following are published articles discussing research conducted by CollectPlus: [4] [5] [6] Again, hopefully they show notability but were not included in the original submission as they are not directly about the company.

I hope this demonstrate notability of CollectPlus, but if there anything further I can do, please let me know. CollectPlus is the returns service for a number of known brands such as Amazon, John Lewis and Asos, and announcements in national press can be provided as citations as well if necessary.

Thank-you for your consideration. If none of these are considered sufficient for notability and the article submission remains rejected, I will wait for more notable coverage to be obtained before considering again.


April 25

04:07:41, 25 April 2017 review of submission by Hankthetank78

HankTheTank (talk) 04:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

How is this not enough notable sources?

The draft doesn't start by stating what its subject is, is written in unacceptably promotional language, and seems to be largely a rant about how its (unspecified) subject is notable. For example, the shortest sentence in the draft reads "He has made a widely recognized contribution that is in his specific field." Who has? What field? What contribution? Who says that it's widely recognized? Maproom (talk) 10:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

07:00:39, 25 April 2017 review of submission by Stingslp02141989

I would like to know which sources we used in the reference are not verifiable? Is the source below a reliable source according to Wikipedia requirements? Stingslp02141989 (talk) 07:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I've no view on whether it's reliable. But I doubt that it's independent. It looks to me to be based on a press release. As it says in the rejection note for the draft, "Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Maproom (talk) 10:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

17:36:15, 25 April 2017 review of submission by Arsenl2017

Arsenl2017 (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Good afternoon. I recently participated in the creation of an article on Gryphon Investors. The article was accepted for publication several weeks ago. Its TALK page indexes in search engines, but the article itself does not. Two things I note: 1. On the Page Information page, it says that the article page is indexable. 2. In the lines of code within the article page, I see 'noindex/nofollow'. Is there a setting that needs to be changed?

Thank you.

Arsenl2017 (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

April 26

04:31:19, 26 April 2017 review of submission by Oleg Sergeykin

This draft was already submitted three times. Last time, it was rejected by a very odd way (see details below). The draft's text and references were significantly expanded and wikified during these updates:

The last time the discussion on the draft was moved from here to Draft Talk:ShrinkTheWeb where I was asked by NewYorkActuary to provide "three references that you feel best demonstrate that the subject has been the recipient of substantial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I pointed out these three very reliable sources (Technorati,, MakeUseOf) explaining successful usage of ShrinkTheWeb on their sites. After that, further discussion was ignored, there were no any replies from moderators - neither positive nor negative.

So I guess the aspect of notability has already been covered in sufficient details in those discussions according to "A company ... is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject". That's why I submitted the draft again on Feb 25 (for the third time) after adding some additional references and some additional information about Amazon's not so successful thumbnail service (it shows notability and importance of entire website screenshot niche).

The reviewing of the draft took very long time (more than a month) and had resulted very oddly. On Apr 2, there was an attempt to erase the draft with violation of the Wikipedia procedure thru AfD category by CatSleepingOnTheKeyboard (the account was already deleted!) thus avoiding making a decision on the draft in the correct Wikipedia section (AfC). Immediately after the failure of this attempt, on Apr 4, the article draft was rejected by NotTheFakeJTP using the standard "read more like an advertisement" template without any additional explanation from the reviewer.

Why these accounts tried to reject my draft in such an odd way? Is there any connection between these two accounts? Does such "approach" to AfC reviewing allowed by Wikipedia rules?

And, most importantly, give me a meaningful answer on the same two my questions which I asked in :

1) please recommend how to improve the draft or

2) provide me some examples of similar articles which are OK with this "advertisement vs. encyclopedia" requirement

I was not given any answer to these question in the discussion on Draft Talk page Draft Talk:ShrinkTheWeb:

"reads as if its objective is to promote the product" is just a synonym of "read more like an advertisement", so it is not an answer to the questions. Which phrase reads so? Where is the bias in the draft?

I have thoroughly read and I really would like to know what is the "differentiation" "between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities" regarding this draft.

Please read all previous discussions about the draft (Jan 4, Jan 23, Draft Talk) before commenting to avoid duplicate questions already discussed regarding the draft. Oleg Sergeykin (talk) 04:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude, but are you suggesting that I am a WP:SOCK? If so, please WP:Assume good faith. It was pure coincidence that I reviewed your draft after the AfD. We reviewers have a "random submission" button, and, if I recall correctly, that it what I clicked and your draft appeared. JTP (talkcontribs) 16:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Request on 07:31:40, 26 April 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by

Hello! The article I posted was declined and I dont really understadn why and what could I change about it so that it will be approved. this is the message I got: quote This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time. unquote

I wanted to write an article about them because I really like their glasses, I think is a creative idea to make glasses out of vinyl records, and I realized they have a Hungarian wiki page, but not one in English and I thought I write one.

Please, could you tell me what should I do to get it approved?

Thanks a lot in advance! Best, Julia (talk) 07:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The draft is excessively promotional, reading more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article. It cites no references at all, and therefore doesn't even begin to establish that its subject is notable. Both of these are very clear reasons for rejection. Its first sentence does not explain what "Tipton Eyeworks" is, indeed it does not even mention it. You state above that they "make glasses out of vinyl records", maybe this should be mentioned in the draft?
If you want to improve the draft so that it can be approved as an article, I suggest that you start by finding and citing sources to establish the subject's notability. Without this, any other work you do on the draft will be wasted. Maproom (talk) 09:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Heading text

14:19:04, 26 April 2017 review of draft by Jaxson1

Hello, I have 2 questions please How do I change the name of my Wikipedia page from Blue Dogs to Blue Dogs (band) My page redirects to The Blue Dog Coalition Wikipedia page how do I correct this? Thank you

Jaxson1 (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done ProgrammingGeek talktome 15:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

14:59:06, 26 April 2017 review of submission by THE PEOPLE OF MBIABONG ETIM, INI - AKWA IBOM STATE



Mbiabong Etim is a statutorily recognized community/area in Ini Local Government Area of Akwa Ibom State, and listed in the official Gazette under the Traditional Rulers Law, Cap 134, Laws of Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria, and with zip code NO. 531108. The Community has a State Government official recognized traditional Ruler/Head which is officially certified by the hand of the State Governor. The History of the Community which had been passed from one generation to another, had been loosely documented and is gradually being forgotten by the newer generation of indigenes and people due to its non-formal and non-official documentation. To enable the preservation of the official history of the people and the community, a committee of scholars and elders were constituted to officially narrate, document and preserve this history. The product of this committee is what is being hereto published in an on-going basis. Please help us to public and permanently preserve our history. I know we do not possess all the skills and knowledge necessary to meet the Wikipedia conditions, but we do not also have know or have access to any specialist within our area on how to get our get our page published. Please help our people and community. Thank you.

Pictogram voting info.svg This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. If you would like to start writing a new article, please use the Article wizard. If you have an idea for a new article, but would like to request that someone else write it, please see: Wikipedia:Requested articles. I hope this helps.
ProgrammingGeek talktome 15:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

15:36:42, 26 April 2017 review of submission by MickeSSS

There is very little info on internet about this formula. I have asked/emailed several places regarding how to calculate mW/cm2 into the UV level they (WHO and many more)showing. Only 11+ UV and noting more. I think they/many are afraid to get out info. I was having here in Thailand one day 468 mW/cm2 and i must have been calculate wrong. (Divide with 25)Because we would have a UV on 19. So if the good people at Wikipedia could find out the formula so that people can calculate. MickeSSS (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Symbol move vote.svg This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Please consider asking this question at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what the Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. ProgrammingGeek talktome 15:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
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