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 Burgelis (talk | contribs) at 18:47, 17 August 2022 (→14:19:18, 17 August 2022 review of submission by 39.48.102.63). 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, Feed		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


August 11

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


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]

@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]
Okay, Thank you!!! Alicia.Lizzo97 (talk) 07:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[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]

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

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]

@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]
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]
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]

Abdul Aziz Bin Thani Al Thani

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 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[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]
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]

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

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]

@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]

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


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]

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

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

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]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Sruthy Sithara (presumably?) DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[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]
@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]

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


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]

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

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


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]

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]

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


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]

@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]
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]

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 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Loisopokupr Once the draft has been rejected, new references won't help. Rejection means the draft won't be considered further. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 06:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 12

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


Inthetechworld (talk) 03:01, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[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.

 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]
@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]

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


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

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

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


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]

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]
@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]

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


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]

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]

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


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]

@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]
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]
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]
@Pcwstallion Experienced editor @Jéské Couriano is right about what he said, and yes, he can be straightforward (and blunt) in the way he says it. Below, he calls himself a "bastard helper from hell".71.228.112.175 (talk) 06:44, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response.71.228.112.175. There is nothing in my post that is "cutting a promo for fans" and whilst I am sure he is experienced and perhaps even right about denying my article, he hasn't really explained anything in a straightforward manner at all, only added unwarranted vitriol at a perfectly polite new user. Using obscure references and seeing promos that aren't there before coming back with such furious anger as if I had personally done something to aggrieve him comes across as unhelpful, rude and could be construed as "cutting his own promo".
I am a new user, I do not deal with Wikipedia every day like your good selves who I am positive know all the ins and outs and all the intricacies and this should be appreciated. In fact the rules at the top of my page were:
Whilst I have no idea whether Jeske has assumed good faith, he has pointedly not taken on board the second and third rules. I get that you all must have to pore over a lot of articles and your patience may get strained once you've gone through a lot of them, I really do. I can take rejection but the level of abuse levelled at me was absolutely uncalled for and whilst I might have to wait for a page to be published somewhere down the line, I do feel that his unprofessionalism and rudeness must be highlighted to whomever oversees the moderators. "A bastard helper from hell" isn't helpful.
TLDR: I didn't come here for a fight, I came for help and advice. Pcwstallion (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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


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]

Capttanviraina, why do you need it published so quickly? Slywriter (talk) 00:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[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]
@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]
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]
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]
@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]
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]
disclose what? and I have everything ready but a little guidance would be appreciated. :) Capttanviraina (talk) 10:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your detailed ref-reply was before her admission, so you couldn't have seen it. We need that time machine. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 07:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[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]
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]

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]

August 13

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


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]

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]

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


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

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


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]

@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]
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]
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]

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


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

Articles are based on reliable independent sources, your draft doesn't have any. Theroadislong (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[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]

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


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

August 14

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

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]

 Courtesy link: Draft:John E. Havelock -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[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]
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]
Activist In the future, let us know you are experienced. It can be moved without losing the history while a Draft.Naraht (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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


@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]

@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]
@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]
This is a draft, and now it has been reviewed and rejected. Hzt0208042508415531 tw (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[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]
@S0091 I think you meant "does not meet" in the first sentence. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 07:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 15

Request on 12:46:10, 15 August 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by 66.189.122.210


Hi. I'm unsure why my article was declined for "reading like an advertisement." I made sure all my sources were from news sites and business journals independent of the actual institution. The only thing I thought of that might sound like an advertisement was that I listed the services they offer, but I based that section off of what I saw in another Credit Union's approved wikipedia page (Digital Federal Credit Union has their services listed on the page). So if someone could explain why my article reads like an advertisement in more detail, that would be helpful. I referenced another credit union's approved page while making this as well, workers credit union. That page also has similar things to what I listed, including a section for their history, mergers, and awards. Everything that I wrote I based off of what was included in these other credit union pages that have been approved, so I am not understanding the reason for the denial. It is feeling kind of unfair.

66.189.122.210 (talk) 12:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See other crap exists, I have removed the content from that article as blatant advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 13:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IP, that another article exists does not mean that it was approved by anyone. There are numerous ways an inappropriate article can get by us. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 13:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your help. I read your comment about the branch listings and location, removed that section, and resubmitted for review. If there are any other problem areas that need to be removed or reviewed, please let me know. Talbot2222 (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Talbot2222 Why would a credit union be notable? There are thousands of them. Is this one special somehow? 71.228.112.175 (talk) 07:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:30:47, 15 August 2022 review of submission by Larry432

I want to know why my page was deleted I checked and I saw nothing wrong with my article.

Larry432 (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Larry432 If you have to ask why an article that states "He loved to eat bricks and loved to lick lemons" was deleted, you should not be editing Wikipedia until you mature more as a person and editor. 331dot (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:13:48, 15 August 2022 review of submission by Fellafromukraine

Hey, nice to finally get the page reviewed!

Can I please get a more detailed response -- what parts of page need referencing, and what of the sources cited needs to be reevaluated and removed with the content that is referencing to the source Fellafromukraine (talk) 17:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fellafromukraine: every material statement, and anything potentially contentious, needs to be supported by a reliable source. This draft has several paragraphs, entire sections even, without any referencing. This is how the reader can verify the information given, and ensure that there is no original research included. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:36:33, 15 August 2022 review of submission by KDuke58

Hello, Myslef and my team have seen that many amateur football teams have a Wikipedia page and so set about making one for our own side however our references (predominantly the FA full time site that lists and stores all club results for our side) were not seen as a suitable.. Could I ask what references would be suitable so that we may set this up like other teams have. Thank you!

KDuke58 (talk) 18:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@KDuke58: We're looking for in-depth, non-routine, independent news/scholarly sources written by identifiable authors and subjected to rigourous fact-checking in order for us to have an article. If those sources don't exist at this time, we can't have an article yet. Also note that we do not accept notability-by-osmosis as a valid argument. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:26, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, thanks so much! KDuke58 (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@KDuke58: Teams don't have Wikipedia pages here- Wikipedia has articles about teams. This is an important distinction. It could be that these other articles you have seen are also inappropriate and simply not addressed yet. We can only address what we know about. If you would like to help us out, you can identify these other similar articles you have seen for possible action. 331dot (talk) 06:50, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 16

07:03:46, 16 August 2022 review of submission by 122.160.153.168


Already included notability of the topic in various articles including newspapers, magazines, Please refer to the list below covering the topic under review for notability, I need advice about missing points here, 

1. "PERICENT company disrupted itself from a mere IT service company to high-end enterprise software product company". jantv.in. 2021-12-03. Retrieved 2022-03-07. (Online Newspaper)
2. "Most of Legal Proceedings and Practices are Completely Paper Based Operations, the Legal Industry Still Consume Largest Volume of Physical Paper". India Legal. 2022-02-25. Retrieved 2022-03-03. (Online Newspaper for the legal industry)
3. "Pericent Technologies: Streamlining Roles, Processes, Documents & Policies through BPM/DMS via End-to-End Handholding". enterprise-services.siliconindia.com. Retrieved 2022-03-03. (Online and Printed Media Magzine)
4." Pericent Technologies: Simplifying Business Experience with Enterprise Solutions". InsightsSuccess. 2017-09-26. Retrieved 2022-03-03.
"PERICENT". www.zaubacorp.com. (Online and Printed Media Magzine)
5. "Do Physical Paper-based Operations are still a Reality in Government Departments". APN News. 2022-02-21. Retrieved 2022-03-07. (Online News)
6. "docEdge DMS Reviews - Software Features 2022". Financesonline.com. 
"10 Best Performing BPM Solutions Providers". (Online Third Party Publishing)

It has been a very long time since I am trying to set up the topic, looking for kind help to finally add it Wikipedia 122.160.153.168 (talk) 07:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. It depends on the coverage in independent reliable sources. An article about a company should not merely document the existence of the company and tell us what it does. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 07:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:07:53, 16 August 2022 review of draft by MirajkarShahina1


MirajkarShahina1 (talk) 12:07, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hi I am Shahina, Nabeel's mother who made and submiited this draft, this is authentic, please accept it and publish it, the previous draft was made by Nabeel himself, please reject that, Nabeel is a well known actor, please verify online and publish my draft.

Thanks

@NirajkarShahinal: Setting aside the cites being in the completely wrong spots and the obvious WP:BROTHER argument, refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
None of these sources help for notability or for biographical claims. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:57, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:31:58, 16 August 2022 review of submission by Bob Dubery

I don't understand why this is regarded as unsatisfactory. I have provided sources - or a source. The source is the liner notes for the album that the article deals with. The notes include a multi-page essay with the author clearly identified. I have noted all this in the article.

I'm not looking for an argument. I am genuinely puzzled as to why this article is deemed inadequate. If I don't know what the shortcoming is here, I will likely repeat it. Bob Dubery (talk) 13:31, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has a single primary source which does not help with any notability, see WP:NALBUM for the criteria. Theroadislong (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An article must summarize multiple independent reliable sources(for this process we look for at least three, generally), showing how the topic meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability, in this case, of a notable album(as noted by Theroadislong). 331dot (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bob Dubery It's the independent (click here) part that is not met by using the liner notes as a source -- that material is not independent of the album. Sources need to consist of what other people have said (and published) about the artist or album. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 10:59, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:10:32, 16 August 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Bathroominfo


Hi Articles For Creation Help Desk,

I tried setting up a Wikipedia page for my employer Durovin Bathrooms. When doing so, I disclosed that I was an employee being paid to do so and then filled out some information on the page. I mentioned the company's founding date, the kind of items they sold and as they are an ecommerce shop, the platforms they sold on. I also filled out some of the information on the company info box. The draft was marked for deletion because it was seen as "just blatant advertising". However, I felt I had just factually described the company and what they do in accordance with the guidelines and similar to how other company pages are written. Because of this, could I please have some advice on how to improve the next submission? For example, next time should I not mention the platforms they sell on and instead simply say that they are an ecommerce site? Also, I currently don't have a detailed account of the history and founding but am working on it, would the incorporation of this improve the likelihood of it being approved?

Kind Regards,

Matt

Bathroominfo (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is significant coverage in independent secondary sources, then there is not much chance he company would be notable enough for an article. Also, stop trying to add links to their site as sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bathroominfo Like many people in your position, you have a fundamental misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is for. When you say that you "had just factually described the company and what they do", this is exactly what Wikipedia is not for. Wikipedia does not have "company pages", not a single one. It has articles about companies. This is a subtle but important distinction. Mere existence is insufficient; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion, called notability. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Such sources should not include the company website, staff interviews, press releases, announcements of routine business activities, or other primary sources.
If you are using other articles as a model, you should use those classified as good articles. Otherwise, you run the risk of using one as an example that is problematic. As this is a volunteer effort where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us(in many ways that I won't list here). We can only address what we know about. If you would like to help us out, you can identify these other articles you have seen for possible action. 331dot (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 331dot,
Thank you for the comprehensive reply, I see my mistake now. I'll report back to my bosses and I'll try again at a later date when we have the relevant sources.
I looked at the Wickes page and Victorian Plumbing page initially as they are similar (but obviously much larger) shops to us.
Kind Regards,
Matt Bathroominfo (talk) 07:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ScottishFinnishRadish,
Thank you for the reply, I see the issue now.
Sorry for the second question, but you said to stop using links to their site as sources, I did this when contributing two paragraphs about different types of sinks to the Sink article by linking some articles on their site that included explanations of those specific fixtures.
Just so I fully understand my mistake and don't make similar ones in the future, could you please elaborate?
Is the issue that the site is not seen as a reliable source because it also sells sinks, or that the articles were not comprehensive enough?
Kind Regards,
Matt Bathroominfo (talk) 08:13, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bathroominfo Articles about companies are not meant to list or describe all of their products. I can't see the deleted draft, but that might have been an issue. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 11:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:05:19, 16 August 2022 review of draft by Geraldo Geraldo Saal


Geraldo Geraldo Saal (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What can i change to get my article into the Wikipedia space?

You could suggest how they pass the criteria at WP:NSINGER. Theroadislong (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Draft deleted, user blocked.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:18, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:10:13, 16 August 2022 review of draft by AyrtonHolloway


  • Hello! Please take a look at this article here for review. It has since been updated but would love to hear your feedback for approval. There are many independent sources here and with this author being a best seller and on the notable Storylines Children's Literature Foundation of New Zealand Notable Books List for 2014, I believe this subject is notable. He has also been published by Random House/Penguin and Allen & Unwin (Please see the sources) Thank you --AyrtonHolloway (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AyrtonHolloway (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AyrtonHolloway: this draft will get reviewed in due course, no need to flag up here.
That said, having taken a very quick look at it just now, I must say you're not doing the draft any favours by REFBOMBING it so heavily; this just makes the reviewer's job that much more arduous, and raises the risk that a reviewer will just give it a miss and move on to something else instead. I'm not saying you should leave out references that are needed, of course, I just don't see how eg. the mere fact that this person published something in 2018 requires eight sources to support it? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:44, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 17

05:07:48, 17 August 2022 review of submission by Tinku9550


Tinku9550 (talk) 05:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tinku9550: what is your question? The draft has been rejected and won't be considered again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:44, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:20:40, 17 August 2022 review of submission by Lucynder

Hello, I have been declined once again for the submission of draft. I'm not sure why it's been rejected, I have read other wiki pages on notability and referencing of movies and I used a similar approach. Can I have assistance, correction and a detailed guideline in order to get the page published?

It would be helpful if you could provide more information as to why it is been rejected. Please help with guide and directions.

Thank you Lucynder (talk) 07:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lucynder When referring to the content of the encyclopedia(not policies/guidelines), Wikipedia has articles, not pages. Beware in using other articles a model- that won't help you if those other articles you use are themselves problematic(which you wouldn't necessarily know unless you have experience here). As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, there are many ways inappropriate articles can get by us. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those classified as good articles.
To pass this process, article drafts generally need at least three independent reliable sources with significant coverage. You have two. If you found one or two more reviews to add, that would help. 331dot (talk) 07:25, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NFILM for the criteria it needs to pass. Theroadislong (talk) 07:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:40:02, 17 August 2022 review of draft by Brysais


Brysais (talk) 07:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I didn't capitalize the surname of the subject of the article (Yossi Maurey, not maurey), but I can't find a way to alter the title. How do I do that? Thanks!

Brysais The exact title is not relevant to the review process. If and when your draft is accepted, the reviewer will place it at the proper title. Changing the title requires a page move anyway, so it saves a step to wait until it is accepted before moving it. 331dot (talk) 07:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! I figured out how to move the page before I saw your response. Thanks! Brysais (talk) 08:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:18:18, 17 August 2022 review of draft by Prettyneededchill


The page was rejected for not showing significant coverage but I'm unclear as to what qualifies for significant coverage. We have over 1000 pieces of media coverage from the past 3 years so choosing the right one is tricky. Most pieces cover report and investigation findings in more than just passing mentions, rather than the organisation itself, for example here, here and here. Does this count as published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject matter?

Prettyneededchill (talk) 10:18, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Prettyneededchill: significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) must be of the subject itself directly, not of any indirectly related matters. So in your case, the sources should expressly cover the CMF as an organisation, not one of its reports, or its people, or what a CMF representative may have said about something. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at similar organisations, such as Plastic Soup Foundation and their references are similar in nature to what is available for Changing Markets Foundation, i.e. it references the organisation but is actually about its research findings and campaigning. If the coverage is significant but of a campaign wholly run by the foundation, is that not enough, as seems to be the case for Plastic Soup? Thanks for your help :) Prettyneededchill (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Prettyneededchill: don't look at other articles, look at the relevant guidelines (namely WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT). There will inevitably be articles out there which don't comply, either, but that doesn't mean we should create more of them. Rather, we should ensure that your article is up to the required standards, and also bring those other articles up to scratch. (Actually, in the case of the Plastic Soup Foundation article, the sources were flagged up as not meeting ORGCRIT, but somehow it seems to have slipped through.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I'll do some more research! Prettyneededchill (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:21:46, 17 August 2022 review of draft by BarI2021


Hi, This is a draft on an acting proffesor who published articels, head of a dep', wrote a few books, has a radio station and won grants and awards. How come it gets declined over and over again? is it because he is in Israel? would love help, thank you, --BarI2021 (talk) 10:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BarI2021 (talk) 10:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BarI2021: have you actually read any of the decline notices and comments? This has been declined each time for lack of notability. Whether or not "he is in Israel" has nothing whatsoever to do with this; Wikipedia has plenty of articles on Israel-related topics. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BarI2021 Large sections of the draft have no inline citations. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 11:11, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:53:12, 17 August 2022 review of submission by Zachariah Junior-Eurovision

I had my article declined not I'm not sure why. I wrote it about myself and stated that and it was not bias. Zachariah Junior-Eurovision (talk) 13:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zachariah Junior-Eurovision It most certainly is biased to write about ourselves, as we naturally write favorably about ourselves. While not forbidden, it's strongly discouraged to write about yourself. Please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Zachariah Junior-Eurovision — that's because this is an encyclopaedia, not a social media or blogging site. This means that you shouldn't just write about yourself, you should summarise what independent and reliable secondary sources (such as newspapers and magazines, TV and radio, etc.) have said about you. And even then, it shouldn't be you who does that, you should leave it for someone else who is not connected to you to do the writing. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:42:35, 17 August 2022 review of submission by Burgelis

I see that local electeds dont necessarily qualify for a Wikipedia article unless they are notable- my first election win was historic- as the first out member of the Milwaukee County Board (legislative body). Though I've only provided 10+ sources ranging from CNN to local affiliates and, there are dozens more including USA Today and business journals I could provide for additional press coverage- would that be preferred? For the self promotion question, would it be acceptable for me to hire someone else to make this same submission? That seems counter productive to me. Thanks for helping me better understand placement and internal policies. -

Burgelis (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Burgelis (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1104953379"