Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 May 29

= May 29 =

04:24:05, 29 May 2019 review of submission by 93.39.184.54
93.39.184.54 (talk) 04:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * With no sources other than itself, this can't be notable on Wikipedia Nosebagbear (talk) 08:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

07:05:51, 29 May 2019 review of draft by 86.13.186.156
why are new wiki submissions not reviewed in order of submission? Is there a policy wiki has for a target review time. It just seems unfair that it just says 'your article may take more than 2 months' without giving any more information.

86.13.186.156 (talk) 07:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As is says on the AfC banner at the top of the page, submissions are reviewed in no specific order. Some editors will start with the oldest, some will start with the newest and some will pick randomly. Because wikipedia is a volunteer service, editors donate time to the project, which means that it may be some time before this draft is reviewed. Unfortunately, I cannot give much more information on how long it will take, but I will have a look at it now. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 08:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

12:39:58, 29 May 2019 review of submission by E-Stylus
Would it be possible for an editor to take an initial look at this submission from March? I've noted notability references and my COI disclosure on the draft's talk page. While I understand that AfC is a volunteer effort and that there are currently 769 drafts in the "very old" category, this submission has not received an initial review like some of the other drafts in the category. Thanks. E-Stylus (talk) 12:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * This draft was declined shortly after the above post. Per the reviewing editor, I worked on improving the tone of the draft, however the content refers to independent, reliable, published sources to meet verifiability guidelines and establish notability. In turn, would an editor be willing to re-review? Thanks. E-Stylus (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

15:45:46, 29 May 2019 review of draft by INeedSupport
So my AFC submission has turned 3 weeks old, which makes me a bit impatient. I understand that there are literally over 1,500 submissions that are older than mine that are still awaiting an acceptance or denial. I see that I have the ability to move it to main space and leave it to the new page reviewers to review it instead of AFC reviewers. However, I feared that it would ruin my reputation since I may not have fixed the issue the AFC reviewer mentions. Is it okay to move it to mainspace or I should wait until somebody reviewed my draft article? Thanks!  I Need Support  :3 15:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If you believe it meets WP:CORP guidelines like the previous reviewer mentioned, by all means, move it yourself. If you are still a bit skeptical, wait the 5 or so weeks for another review.  JTP (talk • contribs) 19:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

17:54:19, 29 May 2019 review of draft by Lizzyd111
I submitted a draft page to be published over 2 months ago - am I missing something to make this public?

Lizzyd111 (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The draft was declined by Theroadislong not long after this question was posted. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

21:58:09, 29 May 2019 review of draft by WildChild300
Hi! I noticed that the current title for my article I just submitted currently redirects to the band's page. Will this be fixed if the article if accepted? If not, what do I need to add to the top of it to make sure it doesn't redirect? WildChild300 (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . If the draft is accepted, the accepting reviewer will deal with the redirect, you don't have to worry about it. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

22:11:18, 29 May 2019 review of submission by SlyKiinz
I do not understand why it was rejected. I would like feedback. I looked at tons of other articles published based on a person with A LOT less sources. It meets the qualifications. Please advise. SlyKiinz (talk) 22:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of the subject. Of the sources cited by the draft, the first two are written by the subject, so are not independent. The third is a brief mention by a non-notable organization that gave her a non-notable prize. The fourth is a passing mention. In other words, the draft cites zero sources that help demonstrate notability.


 * There aren't any articles that cite fewer than zero suitable sources, but if there are tons of other biographies that cite zero, the solution is not to create another, but to delete the ones that don't meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)