User talk:DumplingStardust

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hayes Greenfield has been accepted

Hayes Greenfield, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Mach61 17:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi DumplingStardust. Thank you for your work on Hayes Greenfield. Another editor, Mach61, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Please replace the Discogs citations per WP:DISCOGS

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mach61}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mach61 17:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Also, check out the news article citation I added to Talk:Hayes Greenfield Mach61 17:28, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Hayes Greenfield moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Hayes Greenfield. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh Please don't draftify AfC approved articles per WP:DRAFTNO criterion 6 Mach61 15:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Frankly @Mach61 this page should definitely not have been accepted. A page being moved from draft space to main space once, in of itself, is not a good reason not to send a poor article to draft space for further work. Note that three of the sources are created/affiliated with the article's subject and the other two are discogs. I will continue to draftify poor articles, such as this. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh Draftification has a poor rate of actually getting people to fix problems and regardless, unambigiously should not be used once a third party has approved the page or when the page creator challenges draftification once. That's just slow motion move-warring.

Re: page quality, my only standard for approving articles is "is there literally a >50% chance at survival at AFD", so I don't see occasional AFDs of approved articles as a failure. Although do see the newspapers.com clipping at Talk:Hayes Greenfield Mach61 19:05, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

@Mach61: This is certainly not a slow move-warring situation, as I only draftify articles once. I also disagree with your interpretation of what's appropriate to draftify. If you truly believe that anything accepted by someone at AfC should automatically be ineligible for draftification then make the case at WT:Drafts to explicitly add this verbiage. You should also consider that, by accepting articles unready for main space and contesting their draftification, you're forcing people to go through AfD, which often forces users off the site in a way that asking them to improve their work doesn't. 7 days to learn our policies and notability guidelines, or your work is deleted. You're forcing people's hands into the bitier option, instead of the one that allows for better editor retention. Regardless of how this AfD turns out, this very clearly should not have been accepted based on the sources used (3 from the subject and 2 discog sources). Hey man im josh (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of Hayes Greenfield for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hayes Greenfield is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hayes Greenfield until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Hey man im josh (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)