Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2014 December 24

= December 24 =

04:03:18, 24 December 2014 review of submission by Shelbylv
I submitted my article in November and was pleasantly surprised by a quick review, though a bit sad to see that my article was initially declined. I've cleaned it up and resubmitted, but I haven't heard back and it's been over a month. I added more citations, even though I think a few of them are probably redundant, to prove that the organization is notable, and several of them are from newspaper articles. Is the same person who looked at my article the first time going to look at it again, or is it a different person this time? I'm sure this gets asked a lot, but is there any way to speed this up? I had a response within two weeks for the first submission and I heaven't heard anything for so long, I'm worried my article will get buried. Shelbylv (talk) 04:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That you've posted here and gotten my response proves that the closed mouth doesn't get fed. I left comments on the draft. Be advised that drafts are reviewed at random so they only way to speed up the process is contact a specific Wikipedian or use the reward board to solicit help. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 04:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

05:57:03, 24 December 2014 review of submission by Doncram
Hi to Help desk. My submission was valid, with references, about notable topic of a Danish TV series, was submitted December 1. It was just declined by User:Kvng by reason that there is an article on the topic in mainspace. Well, now there is, since another editor created one on December 9. I am curious, what is the process when this happens. I kinda think it would be "fair" for my version to be approved, then have any additional info from the newer version merged into that, rather than the other way around. I don't terribly care if there is no remedy, but would like to learn if there is, for cases like this. Obviously one thing is that would help would be for me and more people to help out in AFC to reduce backlog, and I am interested but subject to a restriction that prevents me from doing so effectively...i can't put new articles into mainspace...maybe i'll appeal the ban. But even with less backlog this issue must come up sometimes though. -- do ncr  am  05:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Since I've never interacted with you I read up on your ARBCOM case. I won't register an opinion to your other points but AfC is strictly first-reviewed, first-served. You're welcome to edit the existing article but your draft has no purpose now. You could ask for a history merge if it matters to you to have your edits reflected. With your extensive experience I don't see why that would be important to you. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 18:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply. Right, i am quite experienced and it doesn't particularly matter for me about credit for that article or for a few articles ever, though I suppose it would kind of irk me in a way if there was a systematic dismissal of some bigger series of contributions of mine from the record.  I do believe that credit matters in general though, and at AFD I speak up about that sometimes.  Anyhow I came here more in way of reporting on my experience, of giving feedback that the apparently canned message "Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Dicte (TV series) instead" seems a bit off-putting.  I think that would be off-putting to usual AFC contributors.  I have been interested in helping at AFC, and have in the past contributed reviews and participated in AFC Talk discussion about processes (but, limited by restriction, i can't help very much as an AFC volunteer).  Specifically I was asking about what is the process, in general, whether there is process like for recognizing an AFC contributor and doing the history merge, i guess, if it is noticed that mainspace has acquired an article while an AFC submission was waiting.  It's not a big deal, necessarily, if there is no regular AFC process for this, but I do wonder how often this happens and I was asking if there is a regular process.  I gather there is not.  It would be better for some new wikipedia contributors especially, if their contribution was recognized rather than denied, in cases like this.  I'm still interested to hear if there are any numbers or there is any process, but also I'm okay with this "request" being over if no one who happens to read this knows.  Thanks. -- do  ncr  am  20:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

06:38:57, 24 December 2014 request for review by Helenaslesareva
As i am not receiving any reply and i want to know the problem so i am using this.

✅
 * Hello Helenaslesareva, the issue is that your article adds almost nothing that is not already covered at our existing article Alexei Navalny. Frankly, the draft comes across as just an advertisement for the upcoming protest, since the introduction simply states the protest's planned place/date/poster (and that image of the poster is very likely a copyright violation unless you personally own the rights to it and are releasing it).


 * Also, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, we largely do not write on future events, since generally those events' importance are not yet established, and might not even end up happening.


 * Here is my suggestion, you can just go to Alexei Navalny, ensure that our existing article isn't missing any major details, and after the protest occurs, if it is of great significance and impact (gets major media coverage, causes changes in a nation's policy, etc) then you can add coverage of the protest to the Navalny article. But broadly speaking individual protests only get their own articles if the protest itself is a subject of significant media and academic focus in its own right, and it's be extremely rare that we'd publish on a protest before it even happens. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)