Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2016 April 25

= April 25 =

Request on 03:05:03, 25 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by MrStegman
I have an article about a semi-pro soccer team that continues to get rejected and would like to make adjustments so it can be approved.

All other teams in the league that this team competes in have articles that have been accepted, often with less notable coverage than what this one has (an editor even calls the Minneapolis-St Paul Star Tribune newspaper "a local source" -- it is a major metro daily newspaper! Not sure what I have to do to get this article approved given comparable topics/teams are deemed notable. Specific help would be appreciated.

MrStegman (talk) 03:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi . Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality content and low quality content. One cannot assume that because an article exists, it is deemed notable or has been accepted. It may simply mean that no one has gotten around to deleting it. None of the articles you mentioned is a model that anyone should follow. I've commented at length on the draft regarding ways forward. Worldbruce (talk) 01:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Request on 09:43:37, 25 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Queen2016
Hello, I'm new in wikipedia, and I would like to know how to publish an article, I followed all the steps, put neutral and relevant references ( BBC, CNN ...), but unfortunately my article hasn't been accepted. I am a big fan of freddie mercury (Many thanks to all of those who participated in writing an article about him) and hospitality new services in the world (The reason for which I want to publish an article about dayuse.com). Could you please advise me to publish my first article.

Queen2016 (talk) 09:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . I've added three independent reliable sources to a further reading section. See what content you can squeeze out of them. Consider dropping Hospitality & Catering News. Trade journals aren't highly esteemed by Wikipedia as sources because of their limited audience and sometimes too-cozy relationship with businesses in the industry they cover. It's possible that someone will object to The Economist because it's not the magazine proper, but one of their blogs. If you integrate the three new sources and eliminate any that might be questionable, it's unlikely that a future reviewer will dispute the subject's notability. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

11:03:58, 25 April 2016 review of submission by Loci81
Please can you help me with more detail as to why my article is refused. I have made it less PEACOCK and taken away direct quote from a book written.

Any guidance would be great Loci81 (talk) 11:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

20:51:16, 25 April 2016 review of submission by Samlegacy
In Sandbox I used a working title without realizing that it might become the actual title. "Samuel Terrien" is the desired title rather than the working title, "Samlegacy."

Samlegacy (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. A reviewer will be along to assess the draft (now located at Draft:Samuel Terrien) in the future. Thanks, /wiae /tlk  22:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)