Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 December 17

= December 17 =

03:00:11, 17 December 2019 review of submission by CheatCodes4ever
I’ve fixed it. How do I submit the page for review? CheatCodes4ever (talk) 03:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , as a rejected draft, it can only be submitted by AFC reviewers using the script.
 * As the article currently has one source, a link to the chart position of a song they were involved in, it would be rejected if resubmitted.
 * As the article is a biography of a living person, there should be reliable sources to support all claims made.  Oxon Alex    - talk  08:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As the article is a biography of a living person, there should be reliable sources to support all claims made.  Oxon Alex    - talk  08:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As the article is a biography of a living person, there should be reliable sources to support all claims made.  Oxon Alex    - talk  08:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

04:30:36, 17 December 2019 review of submission by Sentai01
I wish I could resubmit my draft on wednesday but I can’t. It only says ask for advice but no resubmit. can you fix it please?

Sentai01 (talk) 04:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , it has been rejected, so can't be resubmitted, expect by AFC reviewers themselves, using the tool.
 * As I've previously told you, please see Too soon, and WP:Crystal Ball. The article can be submitted when there is more coverage to base the article on.  Oxon Alex    - talk  08:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As I've previously told you, please see Too soon, and WP:Crystal Ball. The article can be submitted when there is more coverage to base the article on.  Oxon Alex    - talk  08:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

06:29:34, 17 December 2019 review of draft by DonCamillo
Hi, I don't really understand why this article is not accepted. I agree that the article needs editing, and the media articles that are linked might deal with events that seem insignificant (even if in fact a big market fire is not insignificant in Nigeria) but they also establish that this is one of the main markets if not the main one for a 1,5 M+ city (Kaduna), and more than 40 years old. I've been there and it is a huge market (something like 2 hectares?). Kindly reconsider. Thank you. --DonCamillo (talk) 06:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

DonCamillo (talk) 06:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi . Instead of creating a new article, expand Kaduna, which currently has a single, unsourced, sentence about the market. Turn that into a well-sourced paragraph that describes the location, the mid-1990s fire, the 2000 fire, the rebuilding, and the renaming. If you wish, you may create a redirect from the name of the market to that section of the city article. Right now there isn't enough information about the market to justify a stand alone article focused solely on it. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

07:22:02, 17 December 2019 review of submission by Sunny4bd2
1. This is a web portal that is very useful for people in the region. 2. Unemployment rates are high in my country and people do not have sufficient resources. 3. If this article is published, it could help a lot of job aspirants by helping them reach for options and vacancies which are otherwise not easily accessible. 4. It's weird that the article has been flagged as "not notable" though the webpage clearly provides details that are useful to society as a whole. 5. Searches for Wikipedia articles are high in my area and inclusion of this article could be very beneficial for all age groups. 6. Rejecting the article without any advice or suggestions is not really a Wikipedia thing! Hope you help... Ninja (talk) 07:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , The page was rejected as isn't suitable for an encyclopedia.
 * However good your motivations are, we only host encyclopedic articles about notable topics, and are not just a web host.
 * Notability is determined by receiving significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the topic. If a subject doesn't have this, then we have no way to verify the article's contents, so can't have an article.  Oxon Alex    - talk  08:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Notability is determined by receiving significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the topic. If a subject doesn't have this, then we have no way to verify the article's contents, so can't have an article.  Oxon Alex    - talk  08:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Notability is determined by receiving significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the topic. If a subject doesn't have this, then we have no way to verify the article's contents, so can't have an article.  Oxon Alex    - talk  08:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Request on 12:49:00, 17 December 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Brenchristo
I need assistance to quote references in my article. What type of references do I need? Can I submit photos of my certificates? Brenchristo (talk) 12:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , to have an article, any subject has to have recieved significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the topic. This is so we have reliable information that is probably correct to base the article on, ensuring the encyclopedia's content is as accurate as it can be. See WP:SOURCES for what counts as a reliable source.
 * Certificates etc aren't classed as reliable sources, as they are unpublished. The reader should be able to verify the contents of our articles by reading the sources themselves, and they can't do this with unpublished material.  Oxon Alex    - talk  13:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * For how to actually add references to an article, once you have them, see Help:Referencing for beginners  Oxon Alex    - talk  13:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * For how to actually add references to an article, once you have them, see Help:Referencing for beginners  Oxon Alex    - talk  13:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

15:21:22, 17 December 2019 review of draft by Romdet
Hello, I don't understand the change of status on the SkyFirst page. Can you tell me how to get back to the normal mode, please ?

Romdet (talk) 15:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , your article was moved from the main encyclopedia to draftspace, as the sourcing wasn't deemed sufficient. You need to demonstrate (in the article) the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the topic, in order to have an article. This is so we have reliable information to base the article on, helping keep the encyclopedia as accurate as possible.  Oxon Alex    - talk  15:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

15:22:45, 17 December 2019 review of draft by The siner
The siner (talk) 15:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * , Please check WP:NACTOR. At the moment there is no evidence the subject meets these criteria for having an article.  Oxon Alex    - talk  15:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thank you, I applied changes, appreciated if you can check itUser:the_siner 17:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

All links are from notable resources, did you even check my update? The siner (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Did you check my update? The siner (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Multiple reviewers have already checked the draft. You haven't changed anything since the last review. Please don't continuously post comments here, this won't get the draft approved. I looked at the sources and none are in-depth, they all look like profile entries. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 20:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

16:40:35, 17 December 2019 review of submission by Kenpj
My thanks to the several editors who have advised on my draft "Percy Jackson Grammar School". I have tried to merge the content into the "Outwood Academy Adwick" article. I fear it needs tidying up with skills which I do not have! In particular, I have ended up with two sets of references and I have not managed to transfer the photos. Kenpj (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Kenpj (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

22:50:13, 17 December 2019 review of submission by Paul.jonah.paul
I would like to request that this page be re-reviewed. I disagree with the previous editors' assessments that it 1) is not notable enough of a subject to be published, 2) doesn't contain reliable sources, and 3) contains buzzwords. Thank you.

Paul.jonah.paul (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I took a look at it, saw the changes that had been made since the last review, and agree with previous reviewers. Most of the sources are from questionable or bad sources. This company seems to be run of the mill, and thus no reason we should cover it. I know that can be disappointing after working so hard on an article, but remember that creating an article from scratch is hands down the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. I hope you stick around, and find something else here that you are interested in editing. Working on existing articles is a good way to get familiar with how we do things, and help you should you decide to start another article. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC)