Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ryan Saigon (talk | contribs) at 10:27, 23 August 2023 (Requesting assistance regarding Ximon Lee ). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category — List (sorting)		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply — By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
  • Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.
Ask a new question
Please check back often for answers.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions
Skip to top
Skip to bottom


August 17

03:59, 17 August 2023 review of submission by Neilf72

I am trying to have my page resubmitting, but the captcha requested comes up every single to I try to submit. I place all the captcha details in correctly but just keeps repeating every time I enter the new captcha phrase and click submit. Neilf72 (talk) 03:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was submitted correctly and is in queue at Draft:William Thomas Drain.--CNMall41 (talk) 06:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping @Neilf72:--CNMall41 (talk) 06:55, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:22, 17 August 2023 review of submission by Pragati Soni

I edited the article after it got rejected but I can't see the updated status on my dashboard. Please assist me in figuring out if the revised version of the page is good enough to be published or not. Pragati Soni (talk) 06:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it was declined today. You will need to take a look at the message templates and make adjustments to the draft accordingly. Once done, you can resubmit. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping @Pragati Soni: --CNMall41 (talk) 06:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:40, 17 August 2023 review of submission by EtherealOwl

I created my first article and submitted for review. But it was immediately declined because of lack of references. I updated it, still declined on basis of lack of significant coverage. I again edited and submitted it for review. I haven't had any more feedbacks. Does it mean it is being reviewed?

Plus I want to mention, that the biography is of an army official and therefore more references cannot be provided. EtherealOwl (talk) 06:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you submitted it correctly so someone will review it. Once it is reviewed, you will receive a message on your talk page with an update. I cannot advise how long this will take so your patience is appreciated. On another note, regardless of being an army official, reliable sources are needed to show notability so if these are the only references you have the topic may not be notable. I will ask how you are able to know so much information about this person despite not having references to support the information (a lot of the content has no sources at all)?--CNMall41 (talk) 06:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping @EtherealOwl: --CNMall41 (talk) 06:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 18

04:13, 18 August 2023 review of submission by Farnoodex

Hi, I hope all is well. I created an article page titled "Farnoodex." I submitted it for review a couple of weeks ago. Would you mind taking a look at the draft page? If you need anything, please let me know. Thank you. Farnoodex (talk) 04:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP: AUTOBIO, it is strongly discouraged to write articles about yourself. This article will, more likely than not, be rejected by a reviewer. Applescapable (talk) 04:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:10, 18 August 2023 review of submission by Drsushmarajput

i am not able to submit my draft getting this error WikiProject classification tags Start typing to search for tags ... Adding the 1–4 most applicable WikiProjects is plenty. For example, if you add the Physics tag, you do not need to also add the Science tag. An error occurred (TypeError: Cannot read properties of undefined (reading 'pages')). Please try again or refer to the help desk. Drsushmarajput (talk) 06:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Drsushmarajput: sorry, I'm not quite sure what you're asking? But I assume the draft you're referring to is  Courtesy link: Draft:Dr. Sushma Rajput? In which case, I can tell you there is little point in submitting that, as it is entirely unreferenced and very promotional. Please note that this is an encyclopaedia, not a place to tell the world about your exploits and achievements. (In any case, you shouldn't be writing about yourself, please see WP:AUTOBIO.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:18, 18 August 2023 review of submission by Driveslave

Hallo This draft page has not been accepted, but i do not understand why. I received a message saying there is no references tha can be verified, but if it is a new page the only references can be taken outside wikipedia. what should i do to see the page published? thx Driveslave (talk) 09:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Driveslave: you need to tell us where you got the information from, by citing your sources; see WP:REFB for advice.
What's more, those sources must meet the WP:GNG standard, to establish that the subject is notable, which is a core requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added to which, your draft is entirely promotional (yes, I understand that this festival was in the past, and is not currently active. But "promotion" has a wider meaning in Wikipedia). Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. If such independent sources do not exist, then no article is possible. ColinFine (talk) 10:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:30, 18 August 2023 review of submission by 83.2.41.42

Hello, I would like to ask for assistance in submitting this Wikipedia article. It got rejected for a lack of reputable sources to back it, but as far as I can see, it does have a number of them included in current version and they seem to tick all these boxes: - in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject) - reliable - secondary - independent of the subject At least 4 of the added sources match these criteria, (two in-depth reviews form GamingonLinux and 1 from PCMag, 1 from NAG) there are several non-english reviews added as well. How should I proceed, are we close? 83.2.41.42 (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Non English language references are fine. Youtube is deprecated as a reference. You should work from good references instead of finding references to suit your text. Tailor your text to suit the good references you find. WP:42 is a shorthand good guide to references 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:09, 18 August 2023 review of submission by Incognitopublisher

Dear Reviewers,

I'm reaching out to discuss the recent article that received attention from prominent national news outlets like Times of India, NDTV, Aaj Tak, News18, Jagran, Times Now, Hindustan, and Zee News. However, a reviewer raised concerns about the reliability of these sources. I've noticed that various Indian articles have consistently referenced these news sources as reliable points of reference.

Could you kindly provide guidance on selecting credible independent sources? Additionally, if there's a list of reputable sources available, it would greatly aid my future research.

Thank you for your assistance.

Best regards, Incognitopublisher (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Times of India is generally unreliable, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources for further help. Theroadislong (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:42, 18 August 2023 review of submission by Gsandler

I'm baffled by why this hasn't been approved yet. It is supported by published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject Please review and advise Gsandler (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The notability of Douglas Rigby is now well substantiated by reliable secondary sources. I don't understand why it has not been accepted yet?

"A person is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

Gsandler (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gsandler As noted at the top of your draft, "This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 4,343 pending submissions waiting for review." There is an extemely limited number of volunteers to conduct reviews of thousands of drafts; please be patient. 331dot (talk) 19:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:04, 18 August 2023 review of submission by Addax00

I need help to add a reference to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q8962748. This is the reference used on this article https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddy_Hardest. The article I have created is just a translation of the same content. Addax00 (talk) 19:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Addax00: there is no point in referencing Wikidata, as that wouldn't be a valid source for anything. And I don't see any references in the es.wiki article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 19

09:02, 19 August 2023

Доброго дня! Будь ласка, допоможіть мені краще зрозуміти, що саме потрібно редагувати в статті https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Martynenko_Ivan_Ivanovych_(1924) Чи правильно я розумію, що потрібно редагувати тільки розділ Біографія, інші розділи можна залишити без змін?

Good day! Please help me better understand what exactly needs to be edited in the article about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Martynenko_Ivan_Ivanovych_(1924). Am I correct in understanding that only the 'Biography' section needs to be edited, and the other sections can be left unchanged? 

Inna Ogiievska (talk) 09:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are many things wrong with this draft, but the biggest problem is that it is completely unreferenced. We need to see where this information is coming from. See WP:REFB for advice on referencing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:07, 19 August 2023 review of submission by Roast Etti

One of the reviewers said that the draft should show that the subject meets one of the eight conditions listed below. I wonder if any of the following (that are visible on the internet) may be considered? Grateful for your advice. 1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. (His recent chapters have high citation results. He has been selected for lead chapters in books. His books have been widely purchased by libraries in the US and Europe as seen in WorldCat. His research in international communication led to him being appointed as Foundation Chair of a new department). 2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. (He has received the prestigious Order of Australia from the Queen of England, as Head of State, for services to education). 3. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association. (He was elected Secretary General of the prestigious International Association for Media and Communication Research that was set up by UNESCO in the 1950s). 4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. (He has been a Visiting Professor at Sorbonne - Paris III in France; Jilin University, Communication University of China, South West University of Politics and Law, and South East Normal University - in China). 5. The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon. (He was appointed Foundation Chair in International Communication at Macquarie University. He was also appointed to the prestigious position of Professor Emeritus at the same university). 6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society. (He has served as Dean of the School of Society, Culture, Media and Philosophy). 7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. (His commentaries have been published in China Daily and other media. He chaired a panel with former Australian PM John Howard and Foreign Minister Gareth Evans in Parliament House, Australia). 8. The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area. (He has been Editor-in-Chief of The Journal of International Communication (Taylor and Francis) since 1994. Roast Etti (talk) 09:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Roast Etti: I'd say #8 is your best bet, assuming it can be verified from a reliable source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:25, 19 August 2023 review of submission by MUBARAK SHEIKH

WHY REJECTED MY PAGE? AND WHY NOT PUBLISHED MY PAGE YET? I AM LOOKING MY PAGE IN GOOGLE DID'NT GET MUBARAK SHEIKH (talk) 12:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MUBARAK SHEIKH: please don't SHOUT.
Your draft has been deleted as promotional. This is an encyclopaedia, not a place to tell the world about yourself. Try one of the many social media or blogging platforms. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:20, 19 August 2023 review of submission by Gsandler

This process is getting absurd The New York Times reviews are more than "passing mentions." They discuss the book and the author, Douglas Rigby, in enough depth to provide more than meet the Wikipedia guidelines. What's more, several of the citations are not accessible online. Have the reviewers checked those? Finally, his books were published by major publishing houses, further underscoring their "notability." I think this article provides substantial documentation. Gsandler (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC Gsandler (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A number of the sources fail verification, others are passing mentions, I can't see the New York Times review, perhaps you can elaborate on what it says in the text? Theroadislong (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gsandler: RE "finally, his books were published by major publishing houses, further underscoring their notability" – whether or not being published by a major publishing house automatically makes a book notable, that would be the book's notability you're talking about, not the author's. There is nothing in WP:AUTHOR that confers publisher-derived notability on an author. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note that the first source in the draft is actually written by the draft creator G. Sandler. Theroadislong (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:01, 19 August 2023 review of submission by HikingManiac2010

Asking if my submission for Lynn Sorensen has been approved as notable enough to have a Wikipedia page? If not, what more can I do to prove that he's had a lifelong professional music career with world renown bands? Thank you! HikingManiac2010 (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has been rejected twice, you have zero independent reliable sources to support any of the content, it will not be considered further. Theroadislong (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:28, 19 August 2023 review of submission by Pinkcell23

I believe I addressed any concerns some time ago about my Wiki article on Chris Jonas, and now I am wondering if it needs to be resubmitted or if it will continue to be reviewed as it now stands. I'm a little unclear on how the process works and I am still hopeful it will go live soon. Thank you for your help! 

Pinkcell23 (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Pinkcell23. Your draft was submitted for review, and it'll be reviewed in due course - though it may take up to four months. Qcne (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your help! I appreciate it. Pinkcell23 (talk) 20:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:59, 19 August 2023 review of submission by Gsandler

Hi, I'm baffled... as I have provided numerous citations related to the subject that were published in reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject, such as The New York Times, Harpers Magazine, The Pennsylvania Magazine of History, New York History, The Kirkus Review, The Red Rock News newspaper, and the Modernist Manifesto.

What's more the subject has written books published by major publishers, such as Harper and Brothers and JP Lippincott.

This more than meets Wiki's general notability requirement:

"A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." 

Gsandler (talk) 20:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Gsandler. Unfortunately your article has now been rejected and can't be considered further. Qcne (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:58, 19 August 2023 review of submission by Midwesterngal

I have re-done this article 3 times with a ton of secondary credits and each time it seems to be getting a _subjective_ "this person does not qualify for a Wikipedia entry despite this person having a two-decade career with numerous credits for writing, producing, voice over work and production in multiple entertainment mediums. He's even already on wikipedia pages (listed as winner/runner up in comedy competitions) - where, ironically other winners/runners up have far less. Examples: Tom McTigue - was a series regular on Baywatch - only his bio/imdb page is a source Ngaio Bealum - similar level of work, but mostly in the pot space, many sources are primary and not secondary Bill Radke - is a west coast radio host now - one of the sources being his station bio page Ricarlo Flanagan - this person was a semifinalist and had a handful of episodes - the notable was 4 as "davey" on Shameless; every source is an obituary Preacher Lawson - 4 sources, two of which are his YouTube channel

I could keep clicking through, but this is really feeling like once a single person decides "not for Wikipedia," the bar gets progressively higher and higher.

I would also point out that on the Stan Against Evil Page - Stan Against Evil - Matt also appears as the credited writer in Season 3. What's crazy is the only other writer without a Wiki page there is Jessica Conrad and that's downright criminal considering her career. Does Wikipedia consider writing to not be a substantial portion of entertainment? Is it only front of camera or directing that count? Trying to figure out what else needs to be found here - not really getting great feedback. 


Midwesterngal (talk) 23:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Midwesterngal: this person can be notable in one of two ways, by meeting either
  1. WP:GNG, but the sources cited aren't sufficient for this, with the LA Times piece being the only one that comes even close (note that interviews do not count), and it alone isn't enough; or
  2. WP:ENTERTAINER, but there is nothing in the draft to suggest this is the case.
So no, it isn't a subjective standard we're working to, it is very much an objective one; and it isn't a single person deciding, you've had three reviewers (and now me) all reaching the same conclusion. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Midwesterngal Just FYI you don't need to provide the whole url when linking to another Wikipedia article- simply place the target page title in double brackets, as I've done here. Please read other stuff exists. 331dot (talk) 09:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am still confused. The other sources seem to rely heavily on first-party sources (bios created by stations, managers and other similar items, including one of the above where all of the sources is a variation on that person's obituary (and, frankly, getting an obit in Variety involves emailing it with verifiable entertainment credits - and that's the same for the other sources).
He already appears in Wikipedia - will reviews of other media help? I can also get into the SF archives and find an older review if that helps.
This seems ridiculous considering his very active IMDB which includes shows with major presence, including Beware the Batman which is an IP based on that small indie DC comic publisher that seems to be going places.
I will add all of those with some minor adjustments to the article and hopefully this will help your team find that a writer in the business for over two decades with voice, acting, producing credits and a ten-year podcast which has led to additional credits just may qualify. Midwesterngal (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Midwesterngal. A should be entirely based on reliably published sources, and almost entirely based on sources that are wholly independent of the subject - not written by, published by, or based on information directly from, the subject or the subject's associates. If little or no such material has been published - i.e., few or no independent writers have chosen to write in depth about the subject, and been published by reliable organs - there is essentially nothing that can go into an article irrespective of what the person may have done, said, or created, or how famous, popular, or influential they may be. ColinFine (talk) 22:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Midwesterngal, any draft that includes language like has made a career that combined his passion for is going to be received by reviewers with well-placed skepticism. That's promotional "booster" language, not neutral encyclopedia writing. Also, per WP:IMDB, you should be aware that IMDb is not a reliable source for use on Wikipedia. The only things that matter on Wikipedia are references to significant coverage in reliable sources that are entirely independent of Weinhold that devote significant coverage to Weinhold as a person. Passing mentions and lists of credits and products of press releases or PR activity are of no use. As for the other articles you listed, Wikipedia has over 6.7 million articles and at least one million of them are in bad shape. Wikipedia editors work 24/7/365 to either improve or delete these articles. We do not accept the existence of older poor quality articles as a valid argument to create new poor quality articles. Cullen328 (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As for those other articles that you listed, Midwesterngal, all except one are listed as stub class, which is the lowest possible rating. One is rated start class, because there is some coverage in the Las Vegas Review-Journal. If you were taking a university level course, would you model your contributions on the work submitted by D students, with one barely getting a C mark? Or would you strive for a higher grade? Cullen328 (talk) 06:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 20

07:40, 20 August 2023 review of submission by Zia1985

Article creation Zia1985 (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has no content? Theroadislong (talk) 07:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:46, 20 August 2023 review of submission by Drmirror

Hey, I am working on a Wikipedia Page for Markus H.-P. Müller. He is a very influential person in the financial world with his focus on ESG and associated thought-leadership. This is the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Markus_H.-P._M%C3%BCller#Early_life_and_education Sadly it was declined twice. The help page told me I had too many sources. I now reduced to number of sources and focussed on summarizing the information from the sources like Reuters, Bloomberg and CNBC to form this article. Do you think this article may pass if I resubmit it now? 

Drmirror (talk) 08:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmirror: we don't normally provide pre-reviews on demand, but given that I have previously reviewed this and am familiar with the sources cited, I can tell you that this would not be accepted since none of the sources meet the WP:GNG standard for notability.
On a separate but related matter, you have not yet responded to the COI query I posted on your talk page ten days ago. Please do so now. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I have answered.
I just do not understad which sources I should find as he is one of the most influential thought leaders in the finance industry. This is also stated in the articles from renowned sources. The article just summarizes well recognized articles in the financial industry. I do not see a the difference compared, for example, to this article: Marion Laboure.
I certainly do not want to discredit you, but it is just frustrating when I got told in the first decline that the Bloomberg articles are solid and I need more of them. Then I find more of this sort of sources and it gets declined again. Drmirror (talk) 09:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources include [1], [2],[3],[4],[5], [6]and a passing mention [7] hope this helps. Theroadislong (talk) 09:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...and the rest are Müller commenting on things. For notability per WP:GNG, we need to see published sources talking about the subject, not the subject talking about something. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you, it is getting clearer to me. Just to clarify: Primary sources do not qualify as secondary sources are needed which talk about the subject, not the subject talking about something. Correct?
Thank you for your help already. Drmirror (talk) 10:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Drmirror, please be aware that thought leader is vapid 21st century promotional business jargon that conveys nothing of value to our readers. "Thought leader" is not a plausible claim of notability. You need to explain what this person has actually accomplished that makes him notable, avoiding all substance free public relations catchphrases. Cullen328 (talk) 01:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:06, 20 August 2023 review of submission by Vojtik2009

i dont know how to accept it Vojtik2009 (talk) 11:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Vojtik2009. Your draft has been submitted for review and will be reviewed in due course. This may take up to four months. Qcne (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i want to so that thai boon roong twin tower world trade center be public please make it public thank you Vojtik2009 (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vojtik2009: I'm guessing you're now talking about a different draft,  Courtesy link: Draft:Thai boon roong company? That will certainly not be published as it stands currently, as the draft (such as it is) is completely unreferenced with no evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User indeffed. Qcne (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:24, 20 August 2023 review of submission by Drmirror

It seems like I do not have enough secondary sources to publish this article just yet. I want to wait a while until more sources are published, and then contiue with this article.

Will the draft be deleted if I do not resubmit within a certain time? Drmirror (talk) 12:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Drmirror. Unedited drafts are deleted after six months. Just make a few minor edits to reset this clock. Qcne (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:47, 20 August 2023 review of submission by 46.222.248.116

I added some references for the article. These are advertisements published on some magazines from the UK en 1987-1988. One of the was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_and_Video_Games. I don't know how to add them in order to be correct. 46.222.248.116 (talk) 12:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor. I'll give some general advice on this draft, as it won't be accepted in it's current state.
The two references you added are just adverts for the game that appeared in a magazine. These are useless for showing notability: we need to see significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are not connected to the game - this means not interviews, not adverts, not PR pieces.
The third reference is an instruction manual which is, again, useless for establishing notability.
Please carefully read Wikipedia:Notability (video games) which explains in detail what sort of references you actually need. If you can't find suitable references, then I am afraid there can be no Wikipedia article.
Also: your External Links section is far too large. Please see the policy at Wikipedia:External links- you should only have one or two immediately relevant links, not random Lets Plays.
Your Commentary section is also completely unsourced. Who stated it was a game from the golden age of Spanish software? We need proof of there being a sequel too.
Sorry, you have a lot more work on this article before it can be accepted.
Let us know if you have any questions, though. Qcne (talk) 12:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:56, 20 August 2023 review of submission by 84.222.36.186

Excuse me, why was It rejected? This song won Sanremo, how can it come to be "not encyclopedically relevant"? I think basically any other Sanremo-winning song has its own page... 84.222.36.186 (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined, not rejected. Please see the message left by the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone has said it's "not encyclopedically relevant", but that the references (which are all but non-existent) do not establish notability. It probably is notable, but we need to see proof of that by way of reliable published sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks, now it's clearer. I've added some references, including an interview from Italian national broadcast (Rai) 84.222.36.186 (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't added any new references. You've added one external link, but it isn't cited anywhere, so isn't technically a reference. Please see WP:REFB for advice on referencing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 21

01:09, 21 August 2023 review of submission by Incognitopublisher

Although this article has received coverage from national news media in India, it has been nominated for rejection due to insufficient evidence of significant coverage. Could someone kindly assist me in identifying more reliable and independent sources that could support its content? Is national news not considered a reliable source of information? The list of prominent national news outlets includes Times of India, NDTV, Aaj Tak, News18, Jagran, Times Now, Hindustan, and Zee News. We need to engage in a discussion regarding the level of coverage required. Alternatively, please provide guidance on which news media or website coverage would be considered reliable for creating an article. Incognitopublisher (talk) 01:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Incognitopublisher. Our article Paid news in India describes the unethical practices of many Indian news sources, especially when it comes to the entertainment industry. This affects the Times of India, Zee News, Hindustan Times, and many other news outlets. As for the references in your draft, they seem very weak to me, and likely generated by paid public relations activity. We need significant coverage in fully independent reliable sources in order to establish notability. Cullen328 (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:26, 21 August 2023 review of submission by VishalParmar1

why my submission was rejected VishalParmar1 (talk) 10:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pravin Parmar does not meet the strict notability threshold as explained in this policy: Wikipedia:Notability (people). Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 10:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:10, 21 August 2023 review of submission by Shabiha Tasnim

It is not promotional. How can I make it acceptable? Shabiha Tasnim (talk) 11:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was deleted for unambiguous promotion or advertising. The fact it was titled 'MD Munib Fuyad's Bio' (emphasis mine) is a poor start. Wikipedia articles are about people, not for people.
Please carefully read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not which details that Wikipedia is not a social media site or a way to promote a subject. Qcne (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:11, 21 August 2023 review of submission by Artendeavour789

I am requesting assistance to update the sub title of Richard Malone (designer) to Richard Malone (artist) as Richard Malone is a practicing visual artist as opposed to "designer" Artendeavour789 (talk) 12:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both Draft:Richard Malone (Artist) and Richard Malone (designer) – which is an article, not a draft – exist, with the same content. If you want Draft:Richard Malone (Artist) deleted, then click "edit" and paste this text: {{delete|G7}}. It will tag it for speedy deletion at the sole author's (your) request, and will be soon deleted by an administrator. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 12:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You should use the "move" function not submit a new draft and do you have a conflict of interest with the subject by any chance? Theroadislong (talk) 12:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
no conflict of interest. they are an artist as opposed to designer. so ideally would change the exiting article (designer) to (artist) Artendeavour789 (talk) 12:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia goes with what the reliable sources say, and most seem to call him a designer [8]. Theroadislong (talk) 12:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ah I see, they would call themselves an artist however. so it is not possible to change what is in the disambiguation terms? Artendeavour789 (talk) 13:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Artendeavour789 Yes. Read all of the thread. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
{{Admin help}} is it possible to change the subtitle "designer" to "artist" Artendeavour789 (talk) 13:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just use the move function. You don't need to be an administrator. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 13:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Artendeavour789: per which source (would they call themselves an artist)? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Artendeavour789: I'm assuming you want the published article moved to a different title? In which case, this is not done by submitting a copy of it for AfC review.
The disambiguation term (in the brackets) is only there to distinguish the article from others with the same name; therefore, as long as it isn't incorrect, it shouldn't really matter whether it says 'designer' or 'artist'.
That said, anyone, including yourself, can move the article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thank you. is it possible to change it? Artendeavour789 (talk) 12:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Artendeavour789 Yes. Read all of the foregoing. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:10, 21 August 2023 review of submission by Uzungol1

Hello, Would it be possible to accept the draft of the article please? Uzungol1 (talk) 13:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Uzungol1. You've submitted your draft for review, as it states in the notice this may take four months or longer due to the current backlog. Please be patient. Qcne (talk) 13:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, apologies I thought it might have be accelerated since I already waited the 4 months prior to it being declined and resubmitted Uzungol1 (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. There is no queue. There is no sequence. There is no order. There is no priority. There is a heap of drafts from which the volunteer reviewers pick up the ones they choose to work on. Sometimes reviewers may look at how long drafts have been waiting, and choose the oldest to work on, but there is no guarantee of this. (And often, the oldest ones have been there longest precisely because they look difficult to review). ColinFine (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:16, 21 August 2023 review of submission by Dr Ajay Prakash Pasupulla

Why my article was declined My article was declined which is actually a autobiography. The editor is saying articles about self or individual persons are not available but kindly check the below link he is also an individual and his article was approved and also we can see plenty of self articles are approved, How?? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddhartha_Mukherjee Dr Ajay Prakash Pasupulla (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dr Ajay Prakash Pasupulla.
Please very carefully read the policy on biographies of living people here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.
Unfortunately Wikipedia has millions of articles and many are not suitable, they simply have not been improved or removed yet. The existence of another article has no bearing on how your draft will be judged. Qcne (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dr Ajay Prakash Pasupulla I would also add to the above that the fact that an article exists does not necessarily mean it was "approved" by anyone. 331dot (talk) 14:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And the article Siddhartha Mukherjeewas created by an editor called Sealpoint33 (who has worked on many different articles) and edited by 277 different editors. There is no reason to suppose that Mukherjee had any involvement in the article. ColinFine (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:51, 21 August 2023 review of submission by Patricia Mannerheim

HI.I have added three new, reliable, independent and secondary sources to the article. In addition to Farsi, two sources are also in English. But one word has confused me: Lecturer. My question: Is this university world class? Raitng maybe? I added this title to the article. Does my edit meet the policies? What is its alternative word in English Wikipedia? Assistant Professor? or something else.Best. Patricia (Talk) 14:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Patricia Mannerheim. It looks like Mehdi was not actually employed by the University as a teacher or professor, so I think public speaker would be better?
Your last clause in the opening sentence is suffering a bit from Wikipedia:Citation overkill however. Maybe reduce it to just the three strongest references? Qcne (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've also tidied up some of the grammar as it wasn't quite correct English in some places. Qcne (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the word you suggested. about too much references i am totally agree with you. three strongest references will be good enough. I will definitely follow this policy: Wikipedia:Citation overkill.Best.-- Patricia (Talk) 15:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
wow. amazing .thanks a lot for tidied up.Best.--Patricia (Talk) 15:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC),[reply]

16:48, 21 August 2023 review of submission by Jvaldry

What are the best sources to cite to improve chances of acceptance? I added JSTOR articles and a few others.

2nd question: Should I remove her middle name? Most of her publication's include her middle name but most news stories and web articles don't. Jvaldry (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jvaldry I would use her middle name as she does. It helps disambiguate between other Tiffany Lopezes. For acceptance, have a look at the guidelines at WP:NPROF. If you want to show that she meets the standards at WP:GNG instead, the problem with the draft at present is that most (all?) of the sources are not independent - that is, they are created by her or people who are affiliated with her, so we don't use them to determine notability. -- asilvering (talk) 23:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:53, 21 August 2023 review of submission by Bnavasky

Hi folks, I've been an occasional editor on Wikipedia and thought I'd try writing my first full article. It was rejected for lack of notability. I've added some mainstream sources as references (New York Times, Architectural Digest) and hoping that's enough, but if anyone can tell me if there's anything else I can do, I'd love to learn how to get this right. Thanks in advance for any response! Bnavasky (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bnavasky It looks like this will be a tough one, sorry to say, since it's a non-profit that engages in activism, so it will have a lot of coverage that isn't independent. Have a look at WP:ORGCRIT for the kind of sources you need to find. My advice would be to hang onto this one for now and to try writing your first article about something that isn't an organization or an event. You've started in hard mode, imo. -- asilvering (talk) 23:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:30, 21 August 2023 review of submission by Predator2773

Hello. I am trying to create , edit page for actor Yevgeniy Kartashov, but I am confused with all rules .. how I must write correctly with all those symbols, insert links from press, photos, make names to be blue you know what I mean. Could you please help me how I can do it. Predator2773 (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Predator2773 see WP:FIRST for tips on creating your first article. -- asilvering (talk) 23:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Predator2773. Absolutely the very first step in creating a Wikipedia article is to find sources which are reliably published (which IMDB isn't), completely unconnected with the subject (Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them), and contains significant coverage of the subject - which your Deadpool and Blood Weed reviews do not.
The reason why this is the very first step is that if you cannot find at least three such sources, then there is literally nothing that you can put into the article, and any other work you do on it will be a total waste of effort.
So, your job, if you want to create an article about Karshatov, is to find places where writers (journalists, critics, academics) have chosen to write whole articles about Karshatov - not just about one film he's been in, but about him; and been published by somebody with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control.
Actually, my advice (which is the advice I always give to new editors trying to create articles) is to forget about Kartashov completely for a few months while you learn how Wikipedia works by making improvements to some of our existing six million articles. ColinFine (talk) 14:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 22

04:14, 22 August 2023 review of submission by DMMKL

Hi all Hello, I would like to Requesting Help Member for review to draft submissions DMMKL (talk) 04:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DMMKL: please be patient, there are well over 4,000 drafts awaiting review, and this can take weeks or even months. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:04, 22 August 2023 review of submission by KKartist

Dear sir.. I am trying to create "Ramana Reddy Artist" page in wikipedia..But some querries are getting from review. Where is the problem i have done, i dont understand.Whatever i added whole information is genuine. Please help me to publish this page successfully. Thanks in advance. KKartist (talk) 07:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@KKartist: the problem is that the draft is entirely unreferenced (there are two alleged citations, but they don't refer to a valid source). You have listed a large number of sources at the end, but they have not been cited anywhere, so aren't technically references. Since this draft describes a living person, it is particularly important that inline citations are used throughout to support all material statements. See WP:REFB for advice on referencing. (And please don't cite YouTube, Twitter, etc., as these are not considered reliable sources.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:07, 22 August 2023 review of submission by Jpgroppi

I do not understand what is wrong with the text and the Biography of Jean-Pierre. The comments left by the rewiewers are referenced to too much points to look at that at the end I cannot understand what is wrong. Where can I find more clues? Because when I read your tutoriall I do not see errors in my text. The biography I preapred is almost what I found by other pages from other characters. I still do not know if referencing is OK now or not. It is difficult to reference someone dead in 2004 and had is major work done in the 70' since internet was not yet invented. Archive exist I can hold them but are all copies from newpapers at the time and were unfortunatly not archived on-line. I obvously need help more accurate of what should I modify and I would be please to understand who could help me. I really like to have Jean-Pierre return in memories, because he was well know by his time. Thank you anyway for your time. Jean-Marc Jpgroppi (talk) 07:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpgroppi: the first thing you need to do is declare your relationship to this person, which judging by their name and your username is likely to give rise to a conflict of interest (COI). I posted last week a message on your talk page User talk:Jpgroppi querying this; please read and action it now.
You ask for "more clues", yet you also say that there are too many points to look at in the comments; these seem contradictory. Each time a draft is declined, the reasons are given in the decline notice (the grey box/-es inside the large pink one), and those reasons contain hyperlinks to policy and guidance. Additionally, reviewers often leave comments, which can be found underneath the decline notices. There is little point in me repeating all those comments; I would only be regurgitating the same information and pointing you towards the same guidance as has already been provided.
That said, I will summarise the biggest shortcoming with this draft: almost the entire content is unreferenced. This creates two problems. Firstly, the information needs to be verifiable from reliable published sources, but as you cite hardly any sources, this is not possible. Secondly, we need to see evidence that the person in question is notable in Wikipedia terms. This is again done through sources, and therefore we have the same problem that the sources are simply not there.
Finally, regarding your point about pre-internet sources, please note that sources do not have to be online, offline sources are acceptable, as long as they are correctly cited, and of sufficient quality in terms of being independent and reliable, etc. Sources also do not have to be in English.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jpgroppi In addition please use the past tense of verbs. I think English is not your first language. We expect all matters in Wikipedia to be reported speech an to have happened in the past. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your gentle help. I am the wife of the defunct Jean-Pierre, dead in 2004. I get help from a software engineer to write the page. I cannot find your last messages that ask for the relationship in the talk page. Is this a COI?
I own the pictures that are part of the (draft page). Its my own work. But own can I react since it is not a Request for deletion? How can I prove I made this picture?
For the rest I will look on how to make offline reference sources since I still own all the news paper or magazin that mention Jean-Pierre. Thank you for this good help Jpgroppi (talk) 08:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Jpgroppi. Please see the reply I posted to another editor above (#23:30, 21 August 2023 review of submission by Predator2773). One of the things that makes it difficult to write an article when you know the subject is that articles must be entirely based on published material, and almost entirely on independently published material. Absolutely nothing from your personal knowledge of your husband should go into the article unless it has already been published; and nearly nothing should go in unless it has been written and published by people entirely unconnected with you and your husband. ColinFine (talk) 14:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great thank you this info, this is clear now. The biography I wrote was made by an Art critics and was posted almost as is. But seems that I have to write it in the past and not in present (?!). So now I encounter a problem... Also the article is part of news papers and also magazin which I have the originals but cannot find on internet. So I will have to find out a way to reference as offline... Thank you again all for the tips Jpgroppi (talk) 14:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jpgroppi The picture(s) will become available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0; once you provide a statement to the Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team that meets their needs. For the picture to be kept on Wikipedia via the WP volunteers, or, and better, on Wikimedia Commons by your providing that proof to c:COM:VRT. COM:VRT will restore pictures that you can prove your copyright ownership of.
Here, Wikipedia:Precautionary principle applies.There c:COM:PCP applies. We protect copyright owners rigorously, and by doing so we protect the Wikimedia Foundation 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again Jpgroppi. Citing offline sources is perfectly acceptable: the important parts of a citation are bibliographic information like date, title, author, publication. A URL is (in most cases) a convenience for the reader (and reviewer), not a crucial part of the citation.
There may be a language issue here, but I am concerned when you say "The biography I wrote was made by an Art critics and was posted almost as is", and "the article is part of newpapers". If you are saying that part of the text of your draft has previously been published, that is also an issue of copyright, which (as Tim Trent says) Wikipedia takes very seriously.
Generally we recommend that an article summarize the content of its cited sources without plagiarizing the text. Short passages may be presented as explict quotations.
But if part of the text in your draft has previously been published then it may not be copied in Wikipedia unless it has been explicitly released under a suitable licence by the copyright holder (see donating copyright materials. ColinFine (talk) 10:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:57, 22 August 2023 review of submission by KannappaSara

Hi, We are contacting you on behalf of the Tennis Premier League marketing team. We are one of the top 5 leagues in India as attested by Forbes India and we are still not able to create our Wikipedia page as it has got declined twice so far. We are the Indian Premier League, Pro Kabaddi League equivalent for Tennis in India.

Please guide us on the procedure to create the Wikipedia page for Tennis Premier League. KannappaSara (talk) 07:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@KannappaSara: firstly, your entire edit history consists of this post here at the help desk. Have you been previously editing under a different account or IP address?
Secondly, when you say "we are contacting", who is the "we" in that? Please note that Wikipedia user accounts are strictly for use by a single individual.
Thirdly, if, as you suggest, you are associated with the league, you need to make a conflict of interest and/or paid-editing disclosure. I will post a message on your talk page with more information on this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:21, 22 August 2023 review of submission by Khunou S

Dear wikipedians, What should I change or improve to get published this Article? please help. Khunou S (talk) 09:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Khunou S: you have submitted the draft, and it will be reviewed when a reviewer picks it up; they will then provide feedback where necessary. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:21, 22 August 2023 review of submission by Creation07

I need assistance for helping me in creation of new wikipedia article Creation07 (talk) 11:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Creation07. What assistance do you require? Your draft was declined as it looks like Mukesh does not meet the criteria for a Wikipedia article yet. Please carefully read Wikipedia:Notability (people) which explains what we need to see.
It might be worth reading Wikipedia:Your first article which gives you the dos and don'ts of creating an article, plus the Wikipedia:Citing sources guide that explains how to cite sources.
The easiest way forward is to find reliable, independent, secondary sources that cover Mukesh in detail, and then summarise them in your own words. That should make up the content of your article draft. Note that the sources must be:
- Reliable: Your article should rely on strong, reliable sources that are published by reputable institutions. Primary sources can be used for basic facts (such as a date of birth), but they should be supplemented with strong secondary sources that offer analysis or interpretation.
- Independent: Your sources should be independent of the subject, for example not self-published or from the subject's own website.
- Show significant coverage: Your subject should be discussed in detail in the sources you find. The sources should provide in-depth information or analysis about the subject, going beyond basic facts or promotional material.
- From multiple places: You should find at least three separate reliable, independent, secondary sources that discuss your subject.
- Not original research: Wikipedia articles should summarise existing knowledge about a subject, not present new research. This means you should avoid drawing your own conclusions or analyses from the sources. Stick to summarising what the sources say in a neutral tone.
Remember that your article should be written from a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
If you cannot find multiple, reliable, and independent sources then I am afraid that Mukesh would not meet the notability threshold at this time and therefore cannot have a Wikipedia article. Remember that Wikipedia is not a place for any type of self-promotion or advertisement. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia: not an advertising platform, directory, or a way to promote a subject.
Finally, please note that if you are connected in any way to Mukesh then you must declare your Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
Hope that helps, let us know if you have further questions. Qcne (talk) 11:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:50, 22 August 2023 review of submission by EtherealOwl

How to know if my article is being reviewed or not? EtherealOwl (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@EtherealOwl: it is in the pool awaiting review, if that's what you mean. For all I know, someone may be reviewing it as I type this, but there's no way of knowing.
What I can tell you is that when a reviewer gets around to it, it will almost certainly be declined due to insufficient referencing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. That makes sense. John E. Boyd (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:00, 22 August 2023 review of submission by John E. Boyd

Why Delete it? It was meant for a Likely future if sertent issues were not fixed. John E. Boyd (talk) 21:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:09, 22 August 2023 review of submission by Mayson Exantus

Cuz im sad Mayson Exantus (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we don't allow hoaxes, no matter the reason for the hoax. -- asilvering (talk) 22:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:11, 22 August 2023 review of submission by Mayson Exantus

please Mayson Exantus (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It is a long way from being an encyclopedia article. 331dot (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 23

03:22, 23 August 2023 review of submission by BestCorinth1867

How can I reply to comments about my article? BestCorinth1867 (talk) 03:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BestCorinth1867: if your reply is relevant to the draft review and needs to be seen by other reviewers, you can just manually edit the draft and enter your comment below the one you're responding to, although please keep it brief as that part of the draft isn't meant to be a discussion forum as such. For more extensive discussion, you can use the draft talk page, pinging in relevant users. Or if your reply is more of a personal one and less relevant to future reviewers, you can comment on the user talk page of the reviewer you are responding to. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:37, 23 August 2023 review of submission by Chikko waiter

Jay Pizzle has been mentioned in many reliable sources in Nigeria. He is a top producer who has worked not only with A-list musicians in Nigeria but also with international musicians. If articles about new or unknown producers like these are on Wikipedia, then it's likely my article that needs correction. Therefore, could you please provide me with guidelines and point out the mistakes I made so that I can make the necessary adjustments? Chikko waiter (talk) 06:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Chikko waiter. The most important thing you read is Wikipedia:Notability (music). Only artists who meet the criteria set out in that policy document can have a Wikipedia article. Qcne (talk) 07:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:12, 23 August 2023 review of submission by Jaipasltemps

Hello, I would like to make a Wikipedia reference page or a biography for a character I am online.

I would really like to know how I could achieve my goal. If it cannot be done, I would like to know why to be able to understand.

Thank you so much! Jaipasltemps (talk) 08:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but Wikipedia is not for that purpose. That is what social media is for. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia about notable topics that receive coverage in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 08:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaipasltemps: you cannot, and my advice is to stop now. Wikipedia is a global encyclopaedia, and we publish articles on subjects that are notable. This is not a fandom, social media or blogging site, or any other platform to tell the world about yourself or your fictional alter egos. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok sorry, I was missunderstanding. I am new here. Thank you for taking the time to let me understand, I appreciate it a lot! Jaipasltemps (talk) 08:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay. If you have a look around, read some articles, you'll get an idea of what sort of things we publish. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:27, 23 August 2023 review of submission by Ryan Saigon

Hello everyone, my article has been waiting for more than 4 months now and still have no official feedback. Please kindly help so I can work further on it. Thank you very much Ryan Saigon (talk) 10:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1171815531"