Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
CategoryList (sorting)
ShowcaseAssessmentParticipants
TalkBy subject
Reviewing instructions
Helper script
Help
desk
Backlog
drives
Welcome to the Wikipedia Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions to Wikipedia. Are you in the right place?
  • For your own security, please do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page; we are unable to provide answers via email.
  • Please keep in mind that we are all volunteers, and sometimes a reply may take a little time. Your patience is appreciated.
  • Bona fide reviewers at Articles for Creation will never contact or solicit anyone for payment to get a draft into article space, improve a draft, or restore a deleted article. If someone contacts you with such an offer, please post on this help desk page.
Click here to ask a new question.

A reviewer should soon answer your question on this page. Please check back often.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions


August 8[edit]

02:27:52, 8 August 2022 review of submission by SamanthaCola[edit]

I'm not sure why my page is being declined due to lack of notability. The musician has collaborated with other artists with similar catalogs that all currently have wikipedia pages (which I linked to) and he was part of a national copywrite lawsuit with Warner Bros, which I also cited. Thank you for your help! 184.178.79.151 (talk) 02:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A musician is not notable because they associate with other musicians that have articles(not "pages"). For a standalone article about this musician, you must show that they themselves meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request on 02:52:25, 8 August 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Trit6611[edit]


Hello,

My draft got rejected again for insufficient notability. However, I believe that I have fixed the first reviewer's request for proof of the use of the term "disease modifying treatments", "disease modifying therapies", or any other variations of that term by adding eight more examples of the use of that term beyond the scope of "disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs." These other examples included secondary source references of the "disease modifying treatments" term being used in various other medical literature such as HIV/AIDS, ischemic heart disease, and numerous neurological conditions that are beyond the scope of rheumatoid arthritis and have treatment classes beyond the scope of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Therefore, I was wondering if I could get more guidance on what more I could do to make the article notable enough to be approved. Thank you very much for your help and time!

Best regards, --Trit6611 (talk) 02:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trit6611 (talk) 02:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is nothing that you can do- this is why the draft was rejected, which means that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 08:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

04:40:14, 8 August 2022 review of submission by Bennair[edit]

I specifically fail to understand why this page is being rejected and considered as promotional. This page is about Union Coop, which happens to be one of the largest Consumer Cooperatives in the UAE today and is prevalent among the Emirati community in Dubai specifically. I will really be thankful if the moderator could point out specific CONTENT which is going against Wiki policy. Thank you for your time and Kind Regards, Bennair (talk) 04:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bennair The entire draft is promotional. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about something and what it does(such as, among other things, listing its press releases). A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability- in this case, the definition of a notable organization. The sources you offered are entirely announcements of routine business activities, which does not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 08:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

13:31:04, 8 August 2022 review of draft by 116.74.136.209[edit]


116.74.136.209 (talk) 13:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is your question? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Draft declined as there's been no improvement. Suggested they log in to their account. Star Mississippi 18:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

18:38:27, 8 August 2022 review of submission by Dcontu[edit]


Dear Wikipedia Team,

We have revised our article following the values and ethos of Wikipedia.

Could you please review it?

Thank you, Dimitris

Dcontu (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Who is we, @Dcontu? PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dcontu Not a formal review, per se, but all the same I'd say TRIL's earlier rejection still stands. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One of the "values and ethos" of Wikipedia is not plagiarising content. Another is writing descriptively and neutrally, rather than this advertizement/proselytising you've written. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

19:39:24, 8 August 2022 review of draft by Notadean[edit]


Hi - this if my first submitted article and I'm actually not sure what I/we can do to convince the reviewer that the topic is appropriate for Wikipedia. There are numerous newspaper articles, including both local coverage and US-national news coverage, of the events discussed and outlined in the draft article, including both factual primary and secondary review/opinion articles. The article itself provides the history of an important academic program at one of of the two major universities in Montana, from it's creation in 2000 to it's dissolution in 2019. Over that period, the program trained thousands of students and performed nationally and internationally recognized biomedical research in the area of Neuroscience. In addition, the program was the first Neuroscience training program (undergraduate and graduate level) in the state of Montana, making it an historically important program.

I'm glad to take a stab at revising, but really not sure where to start -- any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

Notadean (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey @Notadean! The first thing I notice while looking at the draft is that there are a lot of completely unsourced paragraphs. For example, the history section doesn't have any references. In general, you should try to make sure that at least every paragraph has an inline citation that supports it.
You can also try to look at similar articles to see how they are laid out. If you look at Department of Journalism, City University and Department of Law, University of Calcutta, you can see they are much shorter and just summarize the information. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 19:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ingenuity I would gently suggest that when you advise someone to look at other articles as a model, that you suggest they use those classified as good articles, to reduce the odds they will pick one that is not a good example. 331dot (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Notadean (ec) A Wikipedia article about a university department should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organization. It sounds like it could be notable, so you are partway there, but the sources and article content are the issue. Most of your sources seem to be either primary sources, which do not establish notability, or news reports that mention the department. What are your three best non primary sources?
The list of faculty plus their brief bios should be removed. 331dot (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

22:47:30, 8 August 2022 review of submission by Dazaew26h[edit]


Dazaew26h (talk) 22:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Michael De Santa (GTA V character)

Dazaew26h (talk) 22:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:Michael De Santa (GTA V character) has been declined twice for lack of valid references. David notMD (talk) 03:46, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 9[edit]

00:56:48, 9 August 2022 review of submission by Joshua Grech[edit]

Hello reviewer, I am trying to submit my article 'Rolling Line' article for creation however I am having trouble with its acceptance due to lack of 'reliable sources'. This is not my first time publishing articles for Wikipedia as I have successfully published the article: 'Burnett_railway_bridge' however the article 'Rolling Line' article is about a video game which has different types of sources.

I have attempted to use secondary sources to achieve a neutral point of view, although due to the nature of the topic (being a video game) most sources would appear as if they were a promotion of the game. In spite of that, I had tried to use articles which would give feedback in both the pros and cons about the game. I had only referred to primary sources when regarding the development of the game and gameplay elements.

Please let me know how I can resolve this problem and perhaps which articles would be the best for citing. Cheers


Joshua Grech (talk) 00:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Joshua Grech: if you cannot find suitable sources to satisfy the WP:GNG notability standard, then you cannot publish an article on this topic, it really is that simple. (Okay, yes, there are some exceptional topics that are considered inherently notable, but alas video games isn't one of them.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

01:28:30, 9 August 2022 review of submission by Jacckkis[edit]

Pedroedugz I published an article twice but it keeps getting declined. I have followed all the criteria needed for drafting an article. Why does it keep getting declined?


Lucynder (talk) 07:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Lucynder: three of your sources don't work, one is used twice (as in, with a duplicate rather than named cite), one talks about the issue of human trafficking rather than the film, and the YouTube trailer is meaningless in what comes to supporting the draft; this leaves basically just one valid source, which is not enough to establish notability. And given the problems with some of the sources, this also means that much of the content cannot be verified. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How do I delete the duplicate of the first article (the duplicated one)? Can the sources (references) that do not work be highlighted? Lucynder (talk) 08:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have highlighted the non-working ones, marking them as failed (this shows up in the text, right after the source is cited, rather than in the References section).
You don't need to delete the duplicate source, I was just making the point that there is one less source cited than what is listed in the References. If you want to use named references, see WP:NAMEDREFS. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

10:21:55, 9 August 2022 review of draft by Craftronics365[edit]


why my article is deleting

Craftronics365 (talk) 10:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(User indeffed.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

18:48:33, 9 August 2022 review of submission by Livitshiro[edit]

I am wondering why the page was rejected, I am aware that the sources are fairly exclusive to the esport it belongs to but that is because they are the most relevant references and since all of his teammates have their own pages I think it should be accepted but if it's not I can work with more specific examples of what is wrong so that I may add or adjust as needed. Livitshiro (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Livitshiro: the problem with niche publications is that they (perhaps understandably) think everything in their space, in this case esports, is newsworthy; they also tend to accept a lot of press releases and other marketing material, without applying any real journalistic judgement. Furthermore, many of the sources cited in this draft are primary, and don't contribute to notability in any case.
The whole thing is also very promotional in nature, and quite informal in tone, and could IMO just as well have been declined for those reasons. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request on 20:42:59, 9 August 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Rehanakhan1094[edit]



Rehanakhan1094 (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is your question, @Rehanakhan1094? The draft has been rejected and won't be considered further, as the subject is evidently non-notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

20:58:51, 9 August 2022 review of submission by WarMagician[edit]


I'm seeking advice on how to get this page published. I have limited the page to the bare minimum to constitute a page. All of the sections are factually accurate, and I've included citations to external sources to back these up (such as Companies House details, Times Educational Supplement articles, government website list awards status, etc). I've avoided any language which would constitute an advertisement. Could I trouble a reviewer to advise on what I should do to get this one over the line. Any help gratefully received!

James

WarMagician (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WarMagician The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about an organization and what it does. Any article about an organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organization. A small number of high quality sources is preferable to a large number of low quality sources. The reviewer rejected the draft because they think the changes of establishing notability are low.
If you are associated with this organization, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 21:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


August 10[edit]

00:03:26, 10 August 2022 review of submission by Rudyon[edit]

My submission was declined for lack of notability. I think the refrences in the page are enough to show that this subject is notable. I believe that this complies with the notability guidelines. I do not why it was considered not notable by the reviewer. Rudyon (talk) 00:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rudyon: sorry, but a CoHo record and three pieces of churnalism do not establish notability. Nor is there anything particularly encyclopaedic in the draft; it simply states that the company exists and provides some services. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

07:05:40, 10 August 2022 review of submission by Barrysbest[edit]

Courtesy link User:Barrysbest/Randburg Football Club Theroadislong (talk) 07:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have misunderstood how Wikipedia works. Notability is judged by looking at the depth of coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources, we have no interest in what you want to say about the club I'm afraid. Your draft has nothing to indicate that the club would pass the notability criteria. Theroadislong (talk) 09:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

08:45:38, 10 August 2022 review of submission by Zohaib Alee[edit]

I have provided all references related to the show. They are all independent sources but my article is not getting published. Guide me how my article can get approved. Zohaib Alee (talk) 08:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Zohaib Alee: we already dealt with this earlier — the draft has been rejected. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

08:54:42, 10 August 2022 review of draft by Writershelper[edit]


Could you please make changes to the name of the article? It should be Yuriy Serebriansky instead of I did. I could find where to do changes to the name. Many thanks in advance! Writershelper (talk) 08:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Writeshelper Writershelper (talk) 08:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Writershelper The title of the draft is not relevant to the review process; if accepted, it will be placed by the reviewer at the correct title in the main encyclopedia- please leave a note on the draft talk page. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much for promt reply! Writershelper (talk) 03:42, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request on 09:50:16, 10 August 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Panoramics[edit]


My draft for a new article has been declined. However, I am not sure what I need to change in order to make it fit for publication. Cou you tell me some concrete things that I can change? (for instance: remove a particular source, or change a particular sentence)

Panoramics (talk) 09:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Panoramics: you may want to review WP:FRINGE, for starters. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to that page, wikipedia articles about fringe theories should be neutral, without original research, and verifiable. I am not sure which one is the problem for my article. Could you tell me which of those requirements fails for the draft?
In other words:
Does the draft look neutral? Does the draft look like original research? Does the draft look verifiable? Panoramics (talk) 10:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Panoramics: there are many unreferenced statements, which immediately raises a possible OR red flag. And some of the sources cited are distinctly non-RS. Given all that, I think there is enough reason to put the onus on you to show that all the information is reliable, rather than on the reviewer to show that it isn't. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I have rewritten the article. What do you think of the stackexchange source? Panoramics (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

09:59:49, 10 August 2022 review of submission by Wahab98[edit]


what are the issues in this draft?

Wahab98 (talk) 09:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

10:00:39, 10 August 2022 review of submission by Wahab98[edit]

what are the issues with this draft?

Wahab98 (talk) 10:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Wahab98: The draft was rejected. See WP:TOOSOON. Better to wait until the film is released and see if it gets any reviews in the mainstream press. Also, read WP:YFA. TechnoTalk (talk) 06:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
this title has received reviews from mainstream media and cited those links as well Wahab98 (talk) 05:15, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

12:32:54, 10 August 2022 review of submission by Selim31081993[edit]


Selim31081993 (talk) 12:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC) Hi there,Reply[reply]

I'm just wondering what else I can do to get a Wikipedia page about myself published? I have made a start, and if you can take a look at my profile, suggest anything I can do further to increase my chance of being published. I do have quite extensive experience on my belt including involvement in the community, and would like to know what else I can do to get a page published for myself?

Regards,

Selim C.

Hi @Selim31081993: to put it bluntly, you shouldn't, and (judging by the content of your draft, so far) almost certainly cannot, "have a page about [yourself] published". Wikipedia is a global encyclopaedia, not a social media platform or similar, and you do not create a 'profile' just because you would like one. Once multiple independent and reliable secondary sources have published significant coverage of you, an article can then be created summarising those sources, but even then this shouldn't be done by you. Sorry, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

15:53:59, 10 August 2022 review of submission by RealHamzaPlayz[edit]

The person I am writing about is a really close friend and I think he's famous enough to have his own wikipedia page. There are no official websites with his information so I am creating this page so that people know more about him and have no confusion. RealHamzaPlayz (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RealHamzaPlayz, your perception of fame has no bearing on whether someone meets our criteria for inclusion, we define as notability. If no one not connected to the subject has taken the time to publish in depth coverage on the subject in reliable sources then you are wasting your time trying to create one for him. Your time is probably spent elsewhere promoting him through social media you will only find frustration here trying to push it. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

16:31:16, 10 August 2022 review of draft by Tommypaul76[edit]


I have created the draft few days back I need speedy publication of the article as the article about the politician from Jammu & Kashmir.

Tommypaul76 (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no deadline here, your draft will be reviewed in due course. Theroadislong (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

16:40:10, 10 August 2022 review of submission by Tigin taagane[edit]


Tigin taagane 16:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is your question @Tigin taagane? The draft has been rejected and will no longer be considered. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

20:44:02, 10 August 2022 review of submission by David the researcher[edit]


David the researcher (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC) hey i was just wondering that i was trying to submit Draft:IShowSpeed for articles of creations to move it it mainstream but it won't let me submit my article and it left me with an error occured message so how can i fix this? thank you and have a good day.Reply[reply]

well never mind i already fixed the issues but thank you anyways. David the researcher (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@David the researcher: You didn't add any new citations after the last decline on July 24. The draft will be rejected if it keeps getting resubmitted without improvements. The entire article appears to be an attempt to publicly shame a YouTuber who is a serial sexual harasser. While that is egregious behavior, the sourcing doesn't meet the notability threshold for a Wikipedia article. TechnoTalk (talk) 06:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request on 21:08:19, 10 August 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by GuptaHarshita[edit]


Hi, I have added citiation in my draft but again it is not accepted. Can you please help me to add reliable sources in this.

GuptaHarshita (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@GuptaHarshita, I have helped you be removing the improperly source biography section. That section needs to written in a neutral manner based off of what we classify as reliable sources have written about the subject. I have also removed the CV style table that had no place in the article. You are now only left with 1 primary source that is not enough to establish notability. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 21:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your information! Now if I add content like what I added in the Ravi Mehrotra section, then it will not get declined. Am I right? GuptaHarshita (talk) 07:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 11[edit]

06:22:06, 11 August 2022 review of draft by Alicia.Lizzo97[edit]


The references I gave for my article are not enough to publish my article. I don't know what else I need and should give as a source for the music label.


Alicia.Lizzo97 (talk) 06:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Alicia.Lizzo97: the draft only cites the label's own website, which does not contribute towards notability per WP:GNG. We need to see significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources, such as newspapers or magazines, TV, radio, etc. (And this expressly excludes press release regurgitations, routine business reporting, most interviews, etc., which are not truly independent even if they might superficially look so.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, Thank you!!! Alicia.Lizzo97 (talk) 07:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Alicia.Lizzo97: I did a Google search and don't see any media coverage of the label. I'm afraid your efforts are not going to be successful without coverage. TechnoTalk (talk) 06:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

08:34:23, 11 August 2022 review of submission by Roberto25664546825[edit]

Hello,

I have been declined the submission of the page - Can I have assistance and concrete correction in order to get my page published?

Best,

R.


Roberto25664546825 (talk) 08:34, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Roberto25664546825 — sure thing:
  1. Dial down the promo language. It should read like an encyclopaedia entry, not something issued by the company's marketing department.
  2. Cite several secondary sources that are reliable and truly independent of the subject, to demonstrate notability per GNG.
  3. Ensure that every material statement is supported by citation to a reliable source.
  4. Remove all passages copied from the company's website.
  5. Declare any connection you may have with the business. (I've posted a message on your talk page with instructions.)
Resubmit, when done. HTH -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Roberto25664546825 (ec) If you work for this company, please read about conflict of interest and paid editing(which is not limited to being specifically paid to edit, but includes general employment) for information on required formal disclosures. Please review the comments left by the last reviewer. Language like "Secondary Capital is aligned to a fundamental shift that companies are staying private longer" is just blatant advertising. Any article about this company must not merely tell about the company, what it does, and its strategy, it must tell us what others wholly unconnected with the company have chosen on their own, with significant coverage, to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia defintion of a notable company. It appears that several of the sources don't even mention the company, and that the article is more about their business strategy than the company itself. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your draft is just blatant advertising eg. "Secondary Capital invests in the best late stage companies globally backed by the best investor in the world" Theroadislong (talk) 08:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abdul Aziz Bin Thani Al Thani[edit]

Abdul Aziz Bin Thani Al Thani is a member of royal family of Qatar, who is currently CEO of Qatar Media Corporation.he is serving for Qatar since last 21 years in various roles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reshnas (talkcontribs) 08:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reshnas Thanks. Is there a particular reason you are telling us this? This page is for seeking assistance with writing AFC submissions. 331dot (talk) 08:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for sharing, @Reshnas. Do you have a question?
If you're referring to Draft:Abdul Aziz Bin Thani Al Thani, that draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

11:03:58, 11 August 2022 review of submission by Pritesh D Patel[edit]

Hi, This is not a biography but this page is being written and curated by one of his student. Pritesh Patel is a mentor for his students. Pritesh D Patel (talk) 11:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pritesh D Patel: the first question I have to ask is, why is your username Pritesh D Patel, if you're not in fact Pritesh D Patel? You can see why it would be an obvious assumption to make that this is indeed an autobiography. I would suggest you change your username ASAP.
Secondly, based on what you say, you must formally declare a conflict of interest (COI); I will post a note on your user page with instructions. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

12:41:25, 11 August 2022 review of submission by Hcdmdigital[edit]


Hi,

Thanks for reviewing this page. It would be helpful if you could provide some more information about why this submission was rejected - is it that the organisation needs more references in media articles? Or perhaps that I work with them and was the one who created the page.

We were hoping to be added to this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hedge_fund_firms_in_the_United_Kingdom

I have read the linked guidance but am unsure if there is anything I can do to amend the submission before re-submitting. Some guidance would be helpful - thanks very much. Hcdmdigital (talk) 12:41, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is zero evidence that the company passes the criteria at WP:NCORP. Theroadislong (talk) 12:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hcdmdigital: when you say you "created the page", could you elaborate? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Courtesy update for other reviewers: draft has been rejected. TechnoTalk (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

12:55:50, 11 August 2022 review of draft by Vortex3427[edit]

Is the sourcing adequate enough for this draft to survive AfC? I have two sources listed as reliable on WP:RSP, but have no idea on the others as there isn't any Indian-specific RS page. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 12:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:Sruthy Sithara (presumably?) DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vortex3427: that is precisely what the purpose of the AfC review is, to ascertain whether the draft will 'survive' (a hypothetical AfD, rather, but still). The draft is now in the pool, and will be reviewed in due course. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vortex3427: A few other sources that show media coverage that could help with notability: [[1]], [[2]], [[3]] TechnoTalk (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request on 15:30:04, 11 August 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by TravelingFollower[edit]


I have done my best to make sure I "refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed" I haven't included any citations from Talisen's official channels besides one Twitter post mentioning the attendance of a conference. A majority of the sources are coming from the St. Louis Business Journal, clients and partners of the company, and official government records.

I have disclosed on my talk page that I have been working closely with Talisen Technologies. Is there any change I need to make on my talk page to get the warning of an undisclosed paid editor removed?

I did realize some numbers that were included in sources I had that I added made the article seem like an advertisement and I have since removed them. Any other advice that I can make changes with? Thank you in advance.

TravelingFollower (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TravelingFollower (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TravelingFollower: clients and partners of the company, as well as most types of gov't records, are primary sources, and do not contribute to notability. Bizjournals.com looks like a secondary source, but trade press of this kind are notorious for accepting press releases, marketing materials, etc. without much scrutiny.
In any case, to save the reviewers having to plough through 40+ sources, could you please point out (eg. on the draft talk page) the 3-5 strongest ones in terms of being independent and reliable, secondary (genuinely), and providing significant coverage, per WP:GNG? Thanks.
I've changed the undisclosed paid tag to disclosed paid, based on your user page. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Didn't realize that primary sources didn't contribute to notability. Added the top sources on the talk page. St. Louis Business Journal articles are all written by separate staff reporters over a 20 year long period without the hallmarks of similar press releases, I have reason to think they aren't PR. Thank you so much for your help and changing the tag to disclosed paid! TravelingFollower (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) @TravelingFollower: Except for Twitter, LinkedIn and a press release, the sources seem independent (edit - with the caveats pointed out by DoubleGrazing). The problem is that the news is routine, and to a lesser degree, somewhat regional. There's nothing that suggests this company has done anything except but be a fairly successful medium sized company. The standards for notability are higher than ever. Even I just had an article deleted for a multinational software company covered in the Wall Street Journal that's valued at $5.6 billion. I think you should go back to your team and tell them there's just not enough non-routine coverage to get an article approved. TechnoTalk (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

16:00:41, 11 August 2022 review of draft by Laurier[edit]


I stumbled onto this page, with the draft and review templates, and have worked to improve it. I think the subject is relevant and the page is well written and documented, could it be published please? I can publish it myself, but have never dealt with the AfC process before, so I'm not sure I'm supposed to... Laurier (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, I just read this on the page Wikipedia:Articles for creation: "Established users in good standing, however, are encouraged to not clutter up the AfC queue with pages that do not need support or guidance from AfC reviewers. If you are not required to use the AfC process but still need time to work on a new article before it's ready for mainspace, please do not submit it for review." So I'll just go ahead and publish the page, you can ignore my messages. Laurier (talk) 06:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

16:07:16, 11 August 2022 review of submission by Loisopokupr[edit]


Hi there! I was updated Langston Uibels Wikipedia Page with recent information and pictures with sources that prove Langston Uibels notability. He has starred in various prominent Netflix shows including How to Sell Drugs Online (Fast) and Unorthodox. Many of his colleagues in these production have pages and he his mentioned on plenty show pages without link. I think the sources also show the notability.

Loisopokupr (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Loisopokupr: Get some coffee or tea and refer to User:Jéské_Couriano/Decode:
In summary, the lot of your sources are completely unusable, with over half of them being an interview of some stripe. Given your username as well, I have to ask: What is your connexion to Uibel?Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 16:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Loisopokupr (ec) Please see other stuff exists as to why the existence of other poor articles(not "pages") does not justify adding more poor articles. The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. If you work for or represent this person, the Terms of Use require you to make a formal paid editing disclosure. 331dot (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. First of all, I don't mean to cause any harm with my suggestion. I just simply believed it would be relevant to have a Wikipedia Article for the British/German actor. Articles exist in German and French and I believed an English on would be of interest. Given his English work. I don't not work for him nor do I represent him. I am just a film and series enthusiast. I am dazzled because I did not expect such a response but I obviously respect your guidelines.

Also, the interviews that seemed to be a problem include a paragraph which is third party speaking on his performance.I have added another article from the glamour magazine that is third party only. It might help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loisopokupr (talkcontribs) 20:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 12[edit]

03:01:44, 12 August 2022 review of submission by Inthetechworld[edit]


Inthetechworld (talk) 03:01, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Team,

I'm not sure why the page is being rejected. not sure how to write it without sounding like advertising. They're the facts about the company and I don't even have any affiliation with them, I just know about them from my previous employment with a tech company, they wore using their services and since i edited similar companies I've noticed they're not liste.

I need to understand how to do this without it being declined. I mean I've read many other wiki pages about other companies and I used a similar language.

I will probably be writing about more tech companies and projects, they will be corporations and some non-profit research and projects.

Please help with some bullet point guide lines and directions.

Thank You.

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:Pax8 (Tech Company)
@Inthetechworld: Your sources are, in order, the company website, two dog-bites-man business reports, and a website which seems to lack an editorial policy or editor-in-chief responsible for fact-checking. The lot of them are completely useless. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 07:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Inthetechworld: Rather than go into a lot of detail, suffice to say that writing an article is very hard. You should read WP:YFA to understand the process. Don't give up, but just know that writing a successful article is something few new editors can do correctly. TechnoTalk (talk) 08:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

06:52:33, 12 August 2022 review of draft by Neophytte[edit]


I'm not clear why, after updating references, my submission was again immediately declined.

Neophytte (talk) 06:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Neophytte: I looked at the difference between the previous decline and the more recent one, and you didn't really add anything new. Apple and Amazon links are not signs of notability, and the other three sources are just passing mentions. Scanning the other sources that were there already, it appears to be a large number of music web sites, showing him as a participant in a band or album, but not much about him specifically. Without profiles focused on him, it's hard to show that he's notable, at least as far as Wikipedia defines it. Take a look at WP:NMUSICIAN for more about the notability requirements for musicians. TechnoTalk (talk) 08:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to look through; I believe when he performed on national (Australian) TV and having a performance played as a backing music for a TV show in both Australia (Simon Townsend Wonder World) and United States (MTV video - Kiss and make up) meet criteria number 10 - is this a valid assumption? Neophytte (talk) 02:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

10:06:47, 12 August 2022 review of submission by Loisopokupr[edit]


I have added some third party cites as well as interviews that in course third party bylines.


Loisopokupr (talk) 10:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Loisopokupr The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Interviews do not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 10:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Loisopokupr: Did you bother to read any of my analysis above? I was pretty explicit that interviews are useless for notability, and dismissed both the credited and uncredited ones. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

14:59:03, 12 August 2022 review of draft by 157.97.20.215[edit]


Hello! I have submitted three drafts of an entry on the "dot big bang" video game. Each was declined. With each draft, I addressed the feedback with improvements – the first was a notability issue, which I believe has now been supported with the inclusion of substantial press coverage; the second had a tone issue, which I have carefully improved to adhere to the available guidelines; the third issue was a lack of "reliable sources", which I believe has now been addressed with official web pages, and coverage from market-leading games industry outlets. The third draft seems to me to have fully addressed all the feedback given, but was rejected again – I am now at a loss on how to continue improving the article, and would value additional feedback from an experienced mod/editor. The draft article is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dot_big_bang Thank you in advance for your help and feedback! I hope I can improve the article further and get the piece approved! :)

157.97.20.215 (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
In summary, this is a situation where the usable sources are being choked out by the bad ones. Get rid of pretty much all the bad sources I spelt out above and that will go a long way towards helping this draft. (That being said, if you have some sort of connexion to Control Zee, you need to register an account and disclose before you go any further.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 17:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

21:43:20, 12 August 2022 review of submission by Pcwstallion[edit]


Thank you, I very much appreciate the feedback. The issue I have is that in wrestling, especially British wrestling, the commentary team will not have as much press about them as the wrestlers themselves, even though they add so much to the wrestling product. We are the people that make the connection between the wrestlers in an arena and the audience at home. We won't have "and starring..." in the credits as in wrestling we don't have credits because it would ruin the suspension of disbelief, however I have 20 years of experience, the last 10 have had a TV presence in one way or another having had or a hundred episodes/shows broadcast with me in them. Without wanting to sound like a diva with an enlarged ego, I think I am worthy of a page, especially with me branching out into other areas of entertainment. Not only that, but for the historical moments I have been a part of which may seem insignificant with regards to feats such as discovering a new species or curing a disease but within our sphere it isn't. Being the commentator for the first Pride wrestling event in the UK for example is massive within our circles but it is the wrestlers who, quite rightly, deserve the main headlines however this does does diminish my role within proceedings. I can certainly add in pages where I have my profile on their website but for the reasons I have listed, I cannot really add a lot more. Think of us as being a bit like weather presenters. We are part of the news team, but we wont get any glory or interviews (and there are weather presenters who have their own pages). I absolutely implore you to review my page again with all of this in mind. Thank you for your consideration.


Pcwstallion (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pcwstallion: The above doesn't help your case a whit, especially given that professional wrestling as a topic is under sanctions. Trying to big up yourself to the reviewers and helpers that man this page is a good way to get ignored, as it gives the impression you don't give a shit other than to promote yourself. People aren't going to risk being sanctioned for the sake of the professional wrestling iteration of Ted Baxter. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 00:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry, I don't understand the reference or the anger at me. I've been nothing but polite and professional in my response and explanation of the circumstances. Your hostility has really caught me by surprise. I have re-read my response and I have no idea what has caused you offence but I apologize for whatever it was. 2A00:23C7:8700:C01:555C:4464:20E7:6412 (talk) 03:02, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here's a hint: You're not in a stadium cutting a promo for fans; you're trying to convince sceptical editors to act in a topic area where the standards for sanctions are lowered and partisanship is heightened. Writing what amounts to self-promotion only serves to torque off or worry those editors. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 03:18, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

21:45:45, 12 August 2022 review of draft by Capttanviraina[edit]


I need to get it published in a day or two. Can someone help me with it please? Capttanviraina (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Capttanviraina, why do you need it published so quickly? Slywriter (talk) 00:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I m getting paid for it and I need to submit n get it published ASAP. I need money for my bills. Capttanviraina (talk) 04:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Capttanviraina: Tough. You're getting a Bastard Helper From Hell instead.
This wouldn't be accepted under any circumstances. All the sources are junk, it reads like some PR flack shot all over the page, and given these I have to assume you're a mercenary editor. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 00:22, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
so if I remove these links n request it again will it be posted? I will edit the language too if required. Kindly do advise , your help is deeply appreciated. :) Capttanviraina (talk) 04:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, because that would leave you with zero sources for a biography of a living person and no way to prove notability as Wikipedia defines it. What is your connexion to Parmar? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 04:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jéské Couriano For the connexions, she said she was getting paid when the article gets published, and she needs the money. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 08:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't actually see that responce, thank you.
@Capttanviraina: You are obligated to DISCLOSE as per the Terms of Use of Wikipedia. Failing to do so is grounds for a block, so disclose before you do anything else.Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 09:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
disclose what? and I have everything ready but a little guidance would be appreciated. :) Capttanviraina (talk) 10:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am an entertainment journalist and I am writing on upcoming musicians in India. I don't know him personally neither have I met him, I have heard his music and he is becoming famous in India. Before anyone else made it on him, I wanted to. Capttanviraina (talk) 10:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have said above "I'm getting paid for it" you need to disclose on your talk page who is paying per the terms andconditions of editing here. Theroadislong (talk) 11:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Given the numerous non-responses by the OP to queries about paid editing, I have blocked them for WP:UPE. This has wasted enough of the community's time. --Kinu t/c 17:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 13[edit]

01:45:12, 13 August 2022 review of draft by SchinLBL[edit]


I made a draft for the upcoming Twice single “Talk that Talk” but I am unclear whether I should’ve created it into an article directly, waited until the single released or kept it as a draft. I checked other upcoming K-pop songs and they had their articles created without needing a draft. What should I do?


SchinLBL (talk) 01:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @SchinLBL: whether one should go through AfC when creating an article depends more on the creator than the article subject. If you don't have the necessary user rights, you cannot publish directly. If you have a conflict of interest, you also should go through AfC. And even if neither of these applies, you may still prefer to use AfC, especially if you're not yet very experienced, so that you can have your draft checked, to reduce the risk of being deleted soon after publication.
In the case of an upcoming recording like this, there will almost certainly be a much wider choice, both in terms of quality and quantity, after it is released. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

02:44:51, 13 August 2022 review of submission by Kannaphaneendra[edit]


Kannaphaneendra (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kannaphaneendra: The lot of your sources are either stuff he says or quotables. None of it actually discusses him in any depth. If you are the subject themselves, identify to VRT via info-en-o[at]wikimedia.org as soon as possible to avoid being blocked for impersonation.Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 03:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jéské Couriano Generally we don't block for impersonation unless the person has an existing Wikipedia article about them. 331dot (talk) 07:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

18:07:44, 13 August 2022 review of submission by Taskin Ahmed Kayum Artist[edit]


Taskin Ahmed Kayum is a Bangladeshi musical artist and composer. He was born 20 March 2000 in Dhaka. He has already verified as (OAC) YouTube official Artist channel and largest music platform on Spotify. His official Facebook Profile name "Taskin Ahmed Kayum" . He started his music career in 2020 with his own Mobile phone . He makes many instrumental music. But In 2022 he released his first tracks name "Crazyness Music truck and Relaxing Time ". He said that It's time to work on my own YouTube channel and international music platform like Spotify, Dezeer, Amazon music, iTunes, Soundcloud etc." Last of all he is proud to be a Bangladeshi verified musician."

Taskin Ahmed Kayum Artist (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Taskin Ahmed Kayum Artist: that's not a question, that's just a (slightly edited) re-posting of your (rejected) autobio draft. Do you have a question you want to ask us? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is nothing in the draft to even suggest that you pass WP:NMUSICIAN so your draft has been rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OP has been blocked for continuing their self-promotion at their now-deleted user page. The draft has been deleted as well. --Kinu t/c 18:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

19:56:30, 13 August 2022 review of submission by EddymiltonEdm2k[edit]


EddymiltonEdm2k (talk) 19:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles are based on reliable independent sources, your draft doesn't have any. Theroadislong (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EddymiltonEdm2k: Theroadislong is spot-on. Literally all your sources are unusable - IMDb is a wiki, Medium has no editorial oversight, Infofamouspeople cites a murderer's row of completely worthless sources (Wikipedia included), and Mdundo is a download website I'm not even sure should be linked to, full stop. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 22:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

23:32:53, 13 August 2022 review of draft by Leonaardog[edit]


Leonaardog (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Leonaardog: There's literally no article here; this is at best a barebones template. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 23:52, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 14[edit]

Four months (or more) for an AFC review? WTH?[edit]

I created an article last month on John E. Havelock, former Attorney General for Alaska and the author of the state's privacy amendment which protects (amongst other things) those seeking to terminate a pregnancy. He's been dead for almost a year. He was quite prominent in that state for many decades, running for the U.S. House in 1974 (finished second in primary) and U.S. Senate (finished second in general). It's a good article, well sourced, with a public domain photo, contributed to by another AK Wikiproject stalwart. For the first time ever I was diverted to AFC which contemplated a 4 month (or longer) delay in review. What's up? I contributed to another article, the attack on Salman Rushdie, which probably shouldn't even be an article, but I doubt it if was delayed by four seconds. P.S. That other AK Wiki editor suggested I drop the middle initial, with which I concur. Activist (talk) 14:50, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:John E. Havelock -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Activist: there are a few things I'm tempted to say in response to your rather adversarial message, but I'll try to keep this constructive — what is your question? I get the feeling that you're unhappy about having waited for two weeks for a review, but that isn't a question, nor does it otherwise tell me what help you might want (other than a fast track review, but that isn't the way this thing works). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was concerned because somehow I was diverted to AFC when I had created that article. Only after reading your note to me did I find out that AFC is not mandatory, but rather a voluntary process. I don't know how that diversion occurred in my case. I've probably been creating articles on diverse subjects for a decade, and it had never happened before. I'll see if I can't simply replicate my article and remove the one I did last month, with the new (no middle initial or name) and that should resolve the problem. Activist (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request on 22:54:18, 14 August 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Hzt0208042508415531 tw[edit]


@Dan arndtI request a detailed explanation of why the draft was rejected: how to violate the "five pillars"? I am just translating articles in Chinese, and the whole process remains neutral.As the person in charge of the audit, you need to explain why to the original author.


Hzt0208042508415531 tw (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hzt0208042508415531 tw: I am not a reviewer, but please ask your question in the space between the draft name and your signature. Thanks! weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 22:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hzt0208042508415531 tw: Draftspace really isn't intended to be used to draft project-space pages. If this is intended to alert the community to the situation at zh.wp, you're better served writing about this at Meta. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 23:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a draft, and now it has been reviewed and rejected. Hzt0208042508415531 tw (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hzt0208042508415531 tw if this was intended to be an article published in mainspace it certainly does meet any of the standards. For example, there are no sources to support any of the claims made (note Wikis are not a reliable source so should not be used) and the way it is written is not suitable so the rejection is correct. Please see Your first article for guidance about how to create an article. However, if it can be sourced appropriately, the content likely belongs in the existing Criticism of Wikipedia article rather than a stand-alone article and certainly would not name individual editors, unless reliable sources published those names. S0091 (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 15[edit]