Entertainment desk
< January 10	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 12 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 11

Article too promotional/advertising

Hello! I am writing a wikipedia article of a tattoo style 'Trash Polka'. Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Trash_Polka So far it has been declined for being too promotional. I have fixed it several times and was hoping that I could be pointed out which parts are too much like an advertisement and use peacock terms. I have put many external sources as well to show that it is not for promotional purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erwin Lackner (talk • contribs) 10:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's probably a few minor issues, but that can be cleaned up as part of the normal open-editing process by any other editor that comes along. Users who patrol AFC tend to be far too precious about their roles as self-appointed referees of Wikipedia, and I don't see a damned thing wrong with that article being in the mainspace. I went and moved it. For the record, AFC is an optional process. If you find it confounding, you can just ignore it and go ahead and create articles however you want; there's no rule that requires it. Just be aware that new articles in the main space will be ruthlessly edited and can be deleted right away if inappropriate, so there is that. But there's no rule that says you have to use the AFC process. --Jayron 32 11:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The other option - and the one I think most established editors use, including myself - is to create and edit the article in a user subpage and then move it to the main space once you're comfortable with it being evaluated and edited by others. Per Jayron, you don't usually need to have anyone's permission to upload an article to main space (though it's usually not bad to get a second opinion, especially if you're new to writing articles). Matt Deres (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's true, asking for help is always good; it's the culture at Wikipedia which has shifted towards making new users feel like WP:AFC is the only way to get an article created; and that if an article fails a review at AFC it is doomed. While it is true that many articles that fail WP:AFC would be deleted if they were mainspace articles, the problem is that it goes too far in the other direction. AFC reviewers should focus (IMHO) solely on whether or not an article would be deleted if in the mainspace. If it would survive AFD discussions, it should be passed on. Full stop. The normal editing process can clean up issues with tone, formatting, style and the like. AFC holds up articles for trivial reasons, and it creates a HUGE barrier to entry for new users. People ask why Wikipedia's new editor base is dying off; AFC is the reason why. New users get smacked when they try to play around a bit; a decade ago we weren't so precious with this stuff and we helped users learn how to do it right. Now, all we do is say "fuck you, you're not good enough!" with no guidance or help or mentoring or anything. AFC is a big part of that, a giant pink "fuck you" banner with no effort to help the new editor fix the problems. WP:AGF has flown out the window, and everyone assumes every new user is here to advertise some business or promote themselves, with no effort made to help people write good articles anymore. It's no wonder no one wants to start editing anymore. --Jayron 32 16:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]