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 RESHU IND (talk | contribs) at 08:08, 4 January 2021. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
June 2025
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


December 29

04:53:41, 29 December 2020 review of submission by ChrisMat2020

Mohamed Mrad is a Tunisian actor. He played important roles in many films and TV series . My article is translated from French Wikipedia. There are Arabic and French wikipedia and I cited several notable sources like Kapitalis, Mosaïque FM, Africultures, Tuniscope, Assabah News and others. You can consult administrators or users from Tunisia. ChrisMat2020 (talk) 04:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is also at The Teahouse. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:54:21, 29 December 2020 review of submission by Stardust8543

Not looking for a re-review. Would like this draft permanently deleted.

Stardust8543 (talk) 06:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:26:01, 29 December 2020 review of submission by MonaliB


I am writing in reference to the current rejection with the MR. IQBAL QAZI draft. Mr. IQBAL QAZI is one of the popular entrepreneur in NAVI MUMBAI, and richest among the Muslim community. Thousands of people know him because of his good will. Today, hundreds of people have jobs under his companies.

Here is list of companies websites where he is director/owner http://www.oceangate.in/index.html (CFS-container fright station. Near JNPT PORT) http://takecarelogisticpark.com/ (CFS-container fright station. Near JNPT PORT) https://www.takecareglobalservices.com/ (ISO TANK DEPOT) https://www.iqrasteelandtubespvtltd.com/ (STEEL TRADER) https://pesenglishschoolandjuniorcollege.com/ (He is president at Panvel Education Society(PES). under pes there is three education campus as following places- Panvel City, Taloje, Panvel and Barapada,Panvel )

He is involve in many charitable events unfortunately, I didn't find references on internet.

In year 2019 flood in Maharashtra(Kolhapur, Satara and Sangli) He was help flood victim by providing them emergency fund and supplies.

In April 2020. due to the covid19 lockdown people are suffering. He helps needy people by providing them fund and food.

He helps poor and needy students by providing them scholarships.

This are the number of reasons why I wrote this article. Previously when I summited this draft I thought Wikipedia accept this draft. unfortunately, I face rejection.

Respected Wikipedia reviewer, Can you please help me to improve this draft and I am also appreciate if you confirm that following draft(Iqbal Qazi) fit the criteria for Wikipedia.





MonaliB (talk) 07:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:18:09, 29 December 2020 review of submission by Writerforfuture14

Hello there,

I would like to ask for a re-view to this article. A friend of mine tried to creat a wikipedia article about VAVA Eyewear, but we didn't put any references to the text that we wrote.

I did some research and found some newspappers and magazines that verify the text that he wrote before.

I hope everything is in order right now.

All the best. Writerforfuture14 (talk) 10:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Writerforfuture14: Is you friend the same person that wrote https://www.eye-book.com/2020/10/a-chat-with-pedro-da-silva/? If he is, that article is unsiutable for Wikipedia. Interviews and other primary sources are of limited use. The given text is overly promotional. If your friend isn't the person that wrote that, we have a real problem. Either way, based on the source text, the (deleted) revisions are not acceptable for Wikipedia. That does not mean an article cannot be created, however, any new attempt will have to start from a blank page. There are steps for article attempts avaliable here, here or here. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:32:18, 29 December 2020 review of submission by Tech306

Block evasion by promotion-only editor ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I submitted the article below from a different page (which now is deleted since the name North Star Systems Inc. didn’t meet Wikipedia requirements) and it got declined due to these reasons:

"1. This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies. 2. Blatant advertising and copy-pasting of mission statements including trademark symbols"

Please provide any specific feedback you can to improve this article so it hopefully doesn't get declined again. 1. If I don't have to include trademarks, I won't. I just thought I had to since their product is trademarked. 2. I also tried to change a lot of words so its not copy-paste but there are some words I just can't change because it will change the whole sentence and might also misinterpret what this company believes in.. 3. I provided all possible references that exist about this company to back up the information I'd like to contribute to Wikipedia.

Your help is appreciated.

Sincerely, Tech306

[draft removed; as you were advised last time, please don't add any article text or references to this page]

Tech306 (talk) 14:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was located at Draft:North Star Systems Inc.. Any administrator can see it (I'm not one, but there are several admins who frequent this page). The best person to ask about a deleted page, if you don't get responses here, is the administrator who performed the deletion. You'll see who that is if you click on the red link to the deleted draft. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 14:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:45:54, 29 December 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Samirkhan.0


Samirkhan.0 (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Samirkhan.0: You didn't ask a question. The current draft is unferifyable, and doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. If this draft is about you, please have a look at WP:AUTOBIO. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:56:23, 29 December 2020 review of submission by Siriandstuffs

I want this page to be re reviewed ~ the page was last reviewed 11 months back ~ the topic has done more credible and notable work in the meantime ~ the article has been updated thoroughly Siriandstuffs (talk) 16:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae: You rejected in January. Do you have an opinion on the current draft? (changes since January 28th, 17:05). Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Siriandstuffs: No "please"? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:28:38, 29 December 2020 review of draft by MI Americas

I would like to save changes I've made to a draft page, but I do not get the option to save changes, I only get the option to publish changes, which I am not ready to do yet. MI Americas (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MI Americas "Publish changes" should be interpreted to simply mean "save changes", it does not mean "publish this to the encyclopedia ". It used to say save changes, but legal reasons necessitated a change. 331dot (talk) 22:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If "MI Americas" is the name of an organization, you will need to change your username and review conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 22:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

how do I change my username?

MI Americas You may visit either Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS to make a username change request. You will also need to read conflict of interest and paid editing and make the required disclosures. 331dot (talk) 08:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 30

00:26:55, 30 December 2020 review of draft by Mvb71

I'm having trouble identifying what I think must be NPV issues on my article for Burp Suite Draft:Burp Suite. This software was requested as being needed Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences due to the frequent use of this in Application Security teaching and professional use, and I believe I have established its notability per recommended methods for establishing through authoritative and peer-reviewed sources so I don't believe that is the issue. I've modeled my page after existing proprietary software such as Nessus Nessus (software) to ensure I'm approaching this in a community approved approach to creating an article for a commercial product; I wanted to make sure it wasn't interpreted as marketing and has gone through several revs to address this. The last reviewer declined the pages without comment after I had addressed issues called in prior critiques; those comments are critical to changing my perspective to address what I'm not accounting for. Without guidance from the reviewers, I can't fix what I don't see as needing fixing, either NPV or notability, or maybe something else I'm missing. I'm not a very experienced Wiki author, but I am a cybersecurity professional of over a decade of experience, so I'm confused as to where I'm not addressing concerns. Somewhere I'm not addressing the need for ensuring enough information to show notability and describe its use but not do so in a way that appears to be marketing. Please help me understand what needs changing to address concerns with the article. Mvb71 (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC) Mvb71 (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

00:32:37, 30 December 2020 review of submission by Zgover

Please clarify which sources you deem to not be notable? I have made all corrections requested by previous reviewer Theroadislong and they no longer had any recommendations. However the recent rejection is vague.

zgover (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zgover. It is irrelevant whether or not a publication is notable. What is important is whether a source demonstrates the subject's notability. That is done by sources that are independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of the topic. All of the sources in the draft fail that multi-part test. Throw away non-independent sources: Caringo, businesswire, AustinVentures, and trade journals (SearchStorage, CRN, and Enterprise Systems Journal). Throw away sources that are not reliable (Owler). Throw away sources that do not contain significant coverage (Bloomberg and The Austin-American Statesman). There's nothing left. That's pretty much what one would expect of a privately held startup; they're very rarely notable, and no amount of editing can fix that. That's why there's no option to resubmit the draft, and why volunteers do not intend to review it again. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

03:52:33, 30 December 2020 review of draft by Sandeep2136


Sandeep2136 (talk) 03:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 04:35:34, 30 December 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Moggo99

Hi there I am a first time page creator and i am trying to create a page for my brother who is a respected Australian Indigenous Scientist... He is an Associate Professor at Canberra University. Via Google Scholar his articles have been cited 180 times and has won a number of prestigious awards in Science... I am interested in your feedback.. Thank you Tim (brother of Brad).


Moggo99 (talk) 04:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moggo99 You currently have one uncited paragraph about your brother; that is a long way from being an acceptable Wikipedia article. Successfully writing a new article(not a mere "page") is the absolute hardest task to perform on Wikipedia. If you dive right in without any experience in editing existing articles, or any knowledge, your chances of success are low. It's even harder to write one with a conflict of interest. I would suggest using the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia, and reading Your First Article before continuing. I would also suggest spending time(months) editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. These things will give you experience and knowledge that will help you create a new article.
Wikipedia is not for merely telling about someone; it is for summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, in this case, a scientist- showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable academic or scientist. If you just want to tell the world about your brother, you should use social media or other outlet where that is permitted and may have less stringent requirements. 331dot (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:50:54, 30 December 2020 review of submission by Martymcflys

I feel like Sahara Marie is notable. I Think the page should be up and live for other fans and editors to make the necessary edits it needs. But this said to ask for advise so here I am. Martymcflys (talk) 06:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Martymcflys The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. If this person meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable model, you have not shown that with the sources you have offered- which are not independent reliable sources with significant coverage. 331dot (talk) 07:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:14:14, 30 December 2020 review of submission by Sudan Bhattarai Upadhaya

why is "Hamro Patro" another digital calendar which started later than us had got the place in wiki whereas being the first digital lunar calendar based on Bikram Sambat, our Nepali Patro is not getting its place in wiki. what is the document that is needed so that we also can appear in the wiki as them. if we look at alexa ranking also we have almost the same rating. plese do advise!!! dryair 09:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Sudan Bhattarai Upadhaya Alexa rankings are not a concern of Wikipedia. A subject merits a Wikipedia article if it receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to write about it, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. Because of this, not every subject merits an article, even within the same field. That your competitors merit an article does not automatically mean your app does as well, it depends on the sources. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:59:13, 30 December 2020 review of draft by Phualy28

I've created person profile at [[1]], would like to know what else can i do to improve the draft

Phualy28 (talk) 09:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:06:49, 30 December 2020 review of submission by Furnick.jonas

Furnick.jonas (talk) 10:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Furnick.jonas: As indicated, the subject of this draft does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. There are no reliable sources discussing it, and thus it is not an appropriate topic for an article. --Kinu t/c 10:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:55:18, 30 December 2020 review of submission by Not-mitch-or-toirn

i am asking why my review got denyed. i would understand the complaint if it was a historical piece of not having enough sorses but this is a podcast and the link is to their web sight with the podcast please elaborate on what i need to do more. you can find the artical https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tabletop_for_the_end_of_the_world

Not-mitch-or-toirn (talk) 14:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:19:26, 30 December 2020 review of submission by Kingdomofburdette

Why doesn't it meet Wikipedia's goals? Kingdomofburdette (talk) 16:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's obviously made-up. SL93 (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:46:59, 30 December 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Qasimali2416


Qasimali2416 (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Qasimali2416: Facebook is not considered a reliable source. From your username, if this is an article about yourself, please have a read of WP:AUTOBIO. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:47:25, 30 December 2020 review of submission by LightningComplexFire

Are you allowed to submit a draft for review, but then create the article itself without a reiewer? Not that I'm going to do that obviously. And also, a lot of sources are dead for this topic, but I did find a news article and a NOAA page about it, hopefully my stub will be created

🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 18:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At some point, you will have enough edits and your account will be old enough that you will have the technical ability to create articles and to move a draft into the main encyclopedia. That said, it is generally unwise to do so unless you already know your way around Wikipedia and are already a "seasoned editor" in all but name, such as an editor with months of active editing "as a non-logged in editor" before registering an account. However, the fact that you are asking the question suggests that is not the case here. Assuming you are new to Wikipedia, by the time you have enough experience to wisely decide if your draft is "ready to move" it will have been reviewed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 20:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi LightningComplexFire. The Articles for creation process is an optional one, you are allowed to move the draft into article space without having it accepted by a reviewer. If you do so, however, and a patroller feels it isn't ready for article space, they may bounce it back to draft space or nominate it for deletion. It would be a shame to see your effort go up in smoke. Articles for creation lets you get feedback from experienced Wikipedians and improve the draft at your leisure. I've added five potential sources to the draft's talk page. If you don't have access to them, WP:RX can help you obtain them. Use them to improve the draft, emphasizing the way(s) it meets WP:WILDFIRE-NOTE and the fire's long-term impacts. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Worldbruce Thank you so much for the ref ideas, it helped the article a lot! :) --🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 21:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:43:49, 30 December 2020 review of submission by CherokeeLen

Mr. Graziano was a witness to specific events which occurred on D-Day, the Battle Of The Bulge, and he witnessed the signing of the articles of surrender in the Little Red School house in Reims, France. His recounting of these events is valuable information for historians studying World War II. CherokeeLen (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There might be more appropriate forums to document this man's life; Wikipedia is not such a place. 331dot (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CherokeeLen: I'm straying way off-topic for "articles for creation" here, but if Mr. Graziano is still available to be interviewed, museums that specialize in World War II would probably love to record his story, in his own voice. Another option would be the history department at a university. Either type of organization would probably love to have custody of his war-related personal effects, journals, letters, and the like as well. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 23:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 31

07:31:44, 31 December 2020 review of submission by Povsocial

Povsocial (talk) 07:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 11:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:26:37, 31 December 2020 review of submission by 103.117.239.137

She secured 3rd Runner up in Miss Universe Nepal 2020 103.117.239.137 (talk) 11:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is insufficient to meet the notability criteria, sorry. 331dot (talk) 11:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:31:44, 31 December 2020 review of draft by Honda00

Hi, I am writing for help improving the references on this draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Brett_Becker. It was said that there are not reliable sources, but the sources on that page are all from universities, publishers, governmental groups, etc. I'm just a bit confused, and kinda new. Thanks! Honda00 (talk) 13:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:04:30, 31 December 2020 review of submission by Sooraj Sun1

Why my article submission dot declined? Sooraj Sun1 (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sooraj Sun1 The reason was given in the decline notice. Please understand that Wikipedia is not social media for people to tell the world about themselves; Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about(in this case) an actor, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable actor. Because of this, not every actor merits a Wikipedia article.
Please also review the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 17:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:44:17, 31 December 2020 review of submission by Content4All

Content4All (talk) 20:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC) I recently submitted an article that was denied Draft:Dutch Country General Store https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Dutch_Country_General_Store&action=edit&section=5, I would like some more information on what specifically to change in the article to help it get approved? Am I correct in thinking if I make changes and it is denied again then I may not be able to try again after that? I want to be sure to do all I can the first time in my revisions to get it approved. Thank you!Content4All (talk) 20:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Content4All. There is nothing you can change about the draft that will result in its approval and publication, because the topic is not notable. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is, unless more coverage of the topic is found. Zoozaz1 talk 03:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No such coverage exists, but of course the usual caveats apply. Walton's Five and Dime wasn't notable in 1945. Twenty-five years and several names later it became notable. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 1

05:45:35, 1 January 2021 review of submission by Sandeep Munda797

Sandeep Munda797 (talk) 05:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandeep Munda797: this draft contains zero reliable sources. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:40:00, 1 January 2021 review of submission by Elyptika

This new article for Bobbie Darbyshire has been rejected. Can you help and explain to me how I can get the page approved please? Thanks, Tony (username: Elyptika)

Elyptika (talk) 10:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elyptika The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. The person does not seem to meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable creative professional, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Elyptika I can't speak for Theroadislong but usually when a reviewer rejects a submission because "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia" it means two things:
  • The submission does not provide sufficient evidence that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability criteria, and
  • Either 1) The reviewer either knows enough about the subject to say flat-out "this is not notable," 2) the reviewer has attempted to find evidence that the person meets Wikipedia's notability criteria and failed to find it, OR 3) the topic is obviously of the type where reliable sources are almost certain to not exist.
Examples of the first would be if the submission were about an author that the reviewer was already familiar enough with to know that the author in question was not notable.
Examples of the second would be almost anything that post-dates the arrival of general access to the internet in that part of the world, where sources, if they existed at all, would be expected to turn up in an internet search. This would cover almost all 21st century English-language writers.
Examples of the third would be things that are almost never notable, such as an author who fails Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals and where there is no evidence in the submission that the person might be "notable" under some other criteria.
In RARE cases, the reviewer may have missed something and the rejection was an error. It's not common, but it happens. In cases like this, the submitter has to clearly demonstrate that the topic being written about does in fact meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Don't bother trying unless you are very familiar with Wikipedia's notability guidelines and this is a "clear-cut error" not merely a judgment call that you happen to disagree with. The burden will be on you to show that an error was made.
In RARE cases, the subject's notability will have changed after the rejection. For example, if the person won a major award such as the National Book Award tomorrow, there will almost certainly be enough significant coverage from reliable, independent sources that the person would be considered "notable" by Wikipedia terms. If this happens, PLEASE update the article, remove any thing that isn't written in a neutral point of view, and re-submit. This actually happened in the last year or two, where a Nobel Prize-winning scientist didn't have an article until the prize was announced, even though the scientist probably would have passed WP:NACADEMIC.
davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 17:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:52:44, 1 January 2021 review of submission by Avinashkiran50

Avinashkiran50 (talk) 11:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:14:30, 1 January 2021 review of draft by Missmeg01


Hello, I am trying to add a tag to a draft that I am waiting to be reviewed, but I have tried over and over and across several weeks and I keep receiving a message that an unexpected error has occurred. I have successfully added two other tags without issue, and it is only when I try to add the Children's literature tag that I experience this problem. I've included a picture below. Please help, as I think this tag would be most useful in order to speed up the review of this page. Thanks.

Screen Shot

Missmeg01 (talk) 19:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Missmeg01: Weird. I was yust able to add it. I have examined the source code of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Add_WikiProject_tags, and I can't say why this error should be shown. My best Idea would be a spontaneous failure in software? That being said, the error message could be more helpfull. All that I can tell after examizing is that something failed that shouldn't fail, but the software isn't telling me why. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:08:30, 1 January 2021 review of submission by Indianite

I am requesting a review since the subject of the submission is a different person (by the same name) from the one in the previous submission. The new subject happens to be a notable photojournalist and is a recipient of the Pulitzer Prize as well. Indianite (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Indianite: In cases as this, where the new draft is on a different person, its often better to create seperate draft with a disambiguated title, such as Draft:Danish Siddiqui (journalist), so that you don't have to worry about the foundations left behind by the editor before you. Either way, I am goign to invite @Celestina007: to this discussion. Victor Schmidt (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:25:59, 1 January 2021 review of submission by 2003:DE:D71C:F900:8D18:A1F8:E5B6:42D6

2003:DE:D71C:F900:8D18:A1F8:E5B6:42D6 (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't ask a question. This draft has been rejected, because there is no evidence of this subject meeting WP:NPERSON. This draft is unreferenced. Victor Schmidt (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:59:57, 1 January 2021 review of draft by Aslı Kırar


Aslı Kırar (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aslı Kırar: You didn't ask a question. That makes it difficult for anyone to help you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did I get it right for preview? Best regards Aslı Kırar (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2

01:13:27, 2 January 2021 review of submission by Stephen Truscott


Hello, Concerning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Stephen_Austin_Truscott I am fairly inexperienced in drafting pages and it seems I have not followed correct procedure regarding this draft entry. Would you please advise me what I need to do to correct this entry for it to be published or if that is not possible, how might I delete this draft entry?

Many thanks

Stephen

Stephen Truscott (talk) 01:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the autobiography policy; while not forbidden, it is strongly discouraged to write about yourself. To succeed at doing so, you need to set aside everything you know about yourself and only write based on what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about you, showing how you meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 01:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

02:11:47, 2 January 2021 review of submission by Lalisekhon

I have reviewed the Wikipedia policies on neutrality. I have editted accordingly and respectfully ask for re-review. Lalisekhon (talk) 02:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:33:52, 2 January 2021 review of submission by Bikiransimkhada

I've been trying to publish this article about the company but I can't get it right. Any help would be appreciated.

Draft:Mero Prasna

Bikiransimkhada (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bikiransimkhada Wikipedia is not for merely telling the world about the existence of a company. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. If you do not have at least three independent sources with significant coverage(not press releases, staff interviews, announcements of routine business transactions, etc.) this company would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. Not every company does, even within the same field. 331dot (talk) 10:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:40:52, 2 January 2021 review of submission by Bikiransimkhada

04:40:52, 2 January 2021 review of submission by Bikiransimkhada

Bikiransimkhada (talk) 04:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


08:44:09, 2 January 2021 review of submission by Ishaan 2460

Ishaan 2460 (talk) 08:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC) Why my articles are declined! I havent broken any rules and regulation of wikipedia. The information that i have entered all are correct about my self please publish it on google as a biography[reply]

Ishann 24600 Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. Autobiographical articles are strongly discouraged per the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is not concerned with helping enhance search results for you. If you want to tell the world about yourself, you should use social media or a personal website. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:54:46, 2 January 2021 review of draft by Silvia Dalle Montagne


I'm asking help to adjust my draft submission "Luca Formentini", on which I got the following comment: "This still reads more like a resume" I just wanted to make sure where the specific problem is. Is it in the list of the works I've compiled or in the form I'm using? I'm asking for your help so to be able of focusing on the real issue instead of working on parts that don't need any change. Many many thanks and excuse me for my weak knowledge on submitting articles.

Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 08:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:44:23, 2 January 2021 review of submission by Wasimkhanofficial

I have added the authentic references in the article. Kindly review now.

Wasimkhanofficial (talk) 09:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Washimkhanofficial Your draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further and it will only waste your time and that of others to pursue this further at this time. Wikipedia is not social media for you to tell the world about yourself. Please also see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:19:39, 2 January 2021 review of submission by Textor Alector

Draft has generated some debate, consensus seems to tilt toward recognizing notability + legitimacy but how do I get in touch with Wiki projects and editors interested in the issues involved? (STEM Women, African content etc)

Textor Alector (talk) 11:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Textor Alector: Draft talk:Medical Women's Association of Nigeria lists relevant WikiProjects. Each mustard-yellow box contains links to a project and to its talk page. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:29:37, 2 January 2021 review of submission by Mathematicalinstitutes

Mathematicalinstitutes (talk) 11:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematicalinstitutes You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:37:11, 2 January 2021 review of draft by Immersivearteditor


Hi, I've written a page about an artist and art director. It was declined at first, because of this message:

"This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia".

I understand it and now I've a question, about those references. What kind they have to be? Because the subject of my wiki page doesn't have so much coverage in the internet articles, he is mentioned several times when one of his work is published, but most of the interview he gave, in all of these years, are for magazine and papers, not online. Do you of Wikipedia need proof of that? Can I submit the papers in some way? And this is because in the message above it's specified "not just passing mentions" but if you research his name you'll find only those. And it's also a reason to have a wikipedia page, to have more coverage! I can submit proofs, if it's needed Thank you!

Immersivearteditor (talk) 14:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Immersivearteditor To merit a Wikipedia article, a artist must be shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable creative professional. To take that apart a bit, "Significant coverage" is that which goes beyond things like routine announcements or brief mentions. "Independent" means that the sources must not have originated from the subject, so no press releases, interviews, a personal website, or social media accounts. "Reliable" means that the source must have a reputation of fact checking and editorial control.
Sources do not need to be online, and do not need to be easy or free to access, but they must be publicly available(such as being in a library). Documents in private hands inaccessible to the public are not acceptable. 331dot (talk) 14:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:47:33, 2 January 2021 review of submission by SingerSairaPeter

I don't know why my article are not publishing, let me know if I am missing any information because all content provided by Saira Peter who is the singer. SingerSairaPeter (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SingerSairaPeter First, if you are not Saira Peter, you will need to change your username; please visit Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS to do that. If you represent her, you will need to read about conflict of interest and paid editing to learn how to make the required paid editing declaration(a Terms of Use requirement).
You say the information was provided by her; Wikipedia is not interested in what someone wants to say about themselves. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a singer, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable singer. 331dot (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:25:59, 2 January 2021 review of draft by Malcolm L. Mitchell

I recently submitted a draft article, Draft:The Catch II. After review, it was deemed "insufficient content to require an article of its own", I want to ask, could anyone suggest what to add to make it a better standalone article? I truly believe it has merit to be its own article instead of just part of the 1998-99 NFL playoffs page.

Malcolm L. Mitchell (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:27:57, 2 January 2021 review of submission by Page Representative

Page Representative (talk) 15:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page Representative You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 15:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen many such articles on wikipedia. Why this article is being rejected. Kindly provide space for it on Wikipedia Page Representative (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page Representative Please edit this existing section for any follow up comments, instead of creating new sections.
Please note that as this is a volunteer project, where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. We can only address what we know about. If you'd care to point out some of these other articles, we can address them if they are indeed inappropriate. Other inappropriate articles existing does not mean that yours can too. Please see other stuff exists.
As noted by reviewers, this topic does not seem to meet the special Wikipedia definition of notability. 331dot (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sir why my Draft:Kakkay Abbasi is not published while I have seen many such articles on Wikipedia Page Representative (talk) 06:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page Representative Please read the above. As I said, please edit this existing section to ask further questions, do not create additional sections. This is easier to do with the full version of Wikipedia in a browser on a computer or phone, you can click "edit" in the section header. 331dot (talk) 08:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:33:33, 2 January 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Daniela De Rentiis

I'm Daniela De Rentiis and I'm trying to put on english wikipedia the exaxt traslation of a wikipage in italian language: the biography of Santino Spinelli. This fact was pointed out 10 hours ago: This article was translated from the Italian Wikipedia article it:Santino Spinelli by Daniela De Rentiis. Subsequently, [1] is using the English translation without attribution, in violation of the terms of Wikipedia's license. If someone could bring that to the website manager's attention (it sounds like the translator is in contact with them?), that would be great. As Victor Schmidt pointed out here, material in Wikipedia is licensed in a way that it can be re-used with some conditions. See Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content for a guide on the topic. Thanks all for bringing this to WP:Copyright problems. Sorry for the slow response. Ajpolino (talk) 05:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC) My question is: how could I pubblisha simple translation of a biography from Italian to english? I'm hete to officially ask for help.


Daniela De Rentiis (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daniela De Rentiis It's important to understand when translating articles on other language versions of Wikipedia that each language version is its own project, with its own editors, policies, and standards. What is acceptable on one language version(say, the Italian one) is not necessarily acceptable here. As the English Wikipedia is one of the oldest, if not the oldest, it has more developed standards for inclusion than other versions. As noted by reviewers on the draft, you need to show with significant coverage in independent reliable sources that this musician meets the English Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. 331dot (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:59:52, 2 January 2021 review of draft by Csoconn


Csoconn (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hello! I am a college professor and this semester my students did a project researching influential academics and writing wiki pages about them (we did not use the Wiki Edu infrastructure, which was purely because I'm new to wikipedia and didn't realize we could - apologies). My student wrote a page on Dr. Jeanette Davis under Draft: Jeanette Davis (2), which was recently declined because Draft:Jeanette Davis exists. However, Draft:Jeanette Davis was declined in Summer 2020 for not having enough sources. Draft:Jeanette Davis (2) has many more citations than Draft:Jeanette Davis and I think is much more likely to be considered a biography of a notable scientist. Can you let me know what the best next steps are? Should we transfer the text from Draft:Jeanette Davis (2) over to Draft:Jeanette Davis? At that point could it be reconsidered? I also reached out to the editors who declined Draft:Jeanette Davis and Draft:Jeanette Davis (2) to ask for their preferred next steps. Thanks for any point in the right direction - I am new to wikipedia but excited to see Jeanette Davis represented in a biography. Thanks for your help! Csoconn (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Csoconn, I have copied the text as well as requested the history-merge on the AfC. MarioJump83! 00:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MarioJump83 Thank you for your help! Much appreciated and happy new year! Csoconn (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 3

11:15:33, 3 January 2021 review of submission by 46.205.199.23

The article is current and reliable. Please clarify why it is being rejected 46.205.199.23 (talk) 11:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes, YouTube, blogs and Vimeo are not reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 11:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:20:24, 3 January 2021 review of submission by 46.205.199.23

46.205.199.23 (talk) 11:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Answered above. MarioJump83! 14:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:57:25, 3 January 2021 review of draft by Footlessmouse

Hi, I got a request on my talk page from Fergyman about the draft article Draft:Nancy Thorndike Greenspan and wanted to raise the issue. Note: I previously created a draft that I never completed: User:Footlessmouse/Nancy Thorndike Greenspan. I just have no good experience with bio articles. I have created both Atomic Spy and The End of the Certain World, which are both authored by Greenspan. I had also previously had this conversation with User:David Eppstein here. I am under the impression that, per WP:AUTHOR criterea 3 and 4, Greenspan is notable and the draft should not have been rejected. If it was not an oversight, could I get more details on why it was rejected and what needs to change? Thanks.

  • (3): The person has created... a significant or well-known work... In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of... or multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. (plenty of reviews in both books)
  • (4): The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. (both books won "significant critical attention")

So I was just wondering where to go from here, and wasn't sure what else to do but ask for help. Thanks all! Footlessmouse (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Footlessmouse (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:58:12, 3 January 2021 review of submission by Doo271

My request for a page on this document was rejected citing a lack of reliable supporting sources. The problem is the document has never been published online so it is impossible to find it in an internet search. That is why I felt it was important to create a page on it so it would be preserved and searchable. Having said that, over the years since it was written, there are several newspaper articles citing it. In my article, I included one such article AND a photo of a poster of the pact that hangs in the office of the Connecticut Parks & Forests Association. I am new to this! Any suggestions are welcome! Doo271 (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doo271: offline sources, such as newspapers are accepted, as long as they are published, compare Wikipedia:Offline sources. When citing offline sources, please make sure to include enough offline information to find it. Primary templates that can help assiist you are {{cite news}} and {{cite book}}. When citing books or anything that is way longer than a couple dozen pages if I were to print it out, remember to give page numbers or an equalivent. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:05:06, 3 January 2021 review of draft by Medeopedia

Hi, I submitted the page SciLine to Wikipedia and it is waiting for review. If you search SciLine, it currently redirects to the AAAS Wiki page. Would anyone know how make sure that it now does not do that and goes to my page if it is accepted?

Medeopedia (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Medeopedia: the reviewer will take care of the redirect for you. Victor Schmidt (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:09:47, 3 January 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by DynaGuy00

I recently submitted a draft for Rod Dreher's book The Benedict Option for review and it was rejected. I am just looking for clarification on why that decision was made, since the justification given was "Needs Critical reception and acknowledgement from news sources, magazine reviews, journals, etc." It also stated that the subject was not noteworthy enough, and may have received passing mentions. This was despite the fact that I provided links to multiple articles in reputable news sources (though not academic journals) that were focused on the book, not just referencing it once. Additionally, the Rod Dreher page lists The Benedict Option with a link, despite no article being created. I took this is a sign that there was enough material for an article to be created on it, it just had not happened yet (though this may have been speculation on my part). I have not gotten an article through, so I am very new to this and am not looking to prove myself right, just looking for some more feedback on what the exact specifications are. Thanks! DynaGuy00 (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


DynaGuy00 (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DynaGuy00. The existence of a red link means that at least one person thinks maybe an article should be created on the topic, but doesn't necessarily mean anything more.
Reviewer AngusWOOF is correct that the page should describe how the book was received. Plenty of reviews of it exist, however, so I believe it is notable and would not be deleted if discussed at Articles for deletion. I don't see a major problem with inline citations, either, only the last quote is missing one. Therefore I've accepted the draft as is.
If it is not rapidly expanded, however, it will likely be merged/redirected to the biography of the author, Rod Dreher, which already contains several meaty paragraphs about the book. On Talk:The Benedict Option I've added 14 reviews that could be used to improve the article. You may also copy from the article about the author, so long as you follow the rules in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. The new article needs to be significantly longer/better than the section about the book in the author's biography to justify continued existence as a stand alone article. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:15:26, 3 January 2021 review of submission by KaimkhaniKamal

KaimkhaniKamal (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Could you tell some good reasons why Amir is not notable for Wikipedia. Amir is the FIRST Pakistani born wrestler, the FIRST, to be in World's 1st wrestling company WWE, he is a trainee of former famous wrestler Lance Storm, he took was one of the first wrestlers of WWE NXT UK, he took part in the 2018 NXT UK Tournament, the first tournament of NXT UK and see the sources, the citations, references on the page which include WWE's official website, wrestling's #1 website CageMatch, Wrestling Inc. If you compare this Amir Jordan page and Kenny Williams (wrestler)'s page, they both are literally the same, actually Amir's page is much bigger than Kenny's than why does Kenny's page get accepted while Amir's doesnt? And how is Amir not notable

Hi KaimkhaniKamal. He isn't notable because there aren't multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of him. The WWE webpage is neither independent (they have a vested interest in promoting him), nor significant coverage. Cagematch is an indiscriminate statistics database, so not significant coverage. Maintained by 30+ volunteers, it isn't clear how reliable it is either, since the degree of editorial oversight and reputation for fact checking and accuracy are unclear. WikiProject Professional wrestling classifies it as "marginally reliable." The Express Tribune is a primary source interview, so to the extent that it's Jordan talking about Jordan, it isn't independent. Wrestling Inc is tabloid gossip. WikiProject Professional wrestling warns that it is an unreliable source.
What makes you think Kenny Williams (wrestler) was accepted? Because it exists? It never went through the Articles for creation process. Anyone can write anything in Wikipedia, so there's an awful lot of crap out there. Ideally it gets noticed and removed quickly, but if no one notices it can linger for a long time. That doesn't mean it meets the encyclopedia's policies and guidelines, and it isn't a good reason to fill the encyclopedia with more unsuitable material. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 4

01:45:39, 4 January 2021 review of submission by Xander Wu

Hello!! This draft was first created in 2016 but was redirected in 2017. I undid the redirect and moved to the draft space for further development. 2016 version of that draft lacked citations for verifiability (ruled in October 2016), and another unspecified problem on being incomplete (ruled in November 2016). I'm asking for a re-review of the changes made to the draft.

Outside of this request, I want to ask a question. Because I removed the redirect for the draft article for improvement purposes, would there be any consequences to occur in violation of any of Wikipedia's regulations?

Hoping for a favorable response on this matter. Thank you!!

Xander Wu (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have a conflict of interest or the book was redirected after a formal discussion, I don't see the problem. If it was ever up at WP:AFD under any title or if it was the subject of a formal discussion elsewhere, then there could be a problem getting it back into the main encyclopedia.
The usual rules apply - if you can't convince yourself and readers that the book is notable, then you are going to be wasting your time and the page with its history should be put back, then it should be turned back into a redirect.
Now that I've updated the left-over redirect at Stupid is Forever, you'll need to go to WP:Requested moves when you move the page - either as a real article or as a redirect-with-history, back.
If you have a conflict of interest you will need to submit it for review through AFC. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 02:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

01:49:10, 4 January 2021 review of draft by MirachBeta

Is prabook.com considered a reliable source? I haven't seen a consensus

MirachBeta (talk) 01:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

01:59:27, 4 January 2021 review of draft by Xander Wu

Hello!! This draft was first created in 2018 but was deleted in 2019 for being under sourced. I asked that this draft be restored in 2020, and I made further improvements. For this purpose, I'm asking for a re-review of the changes made to the draft. Hoping for a favorable response on this matter. Thank you!!

Xander Wu (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

02:05:49, 4 January 2021 review of submission by RedstoneFox

Hello, the new Wikipedia page for TUF was just declined for not needing its own article. We are wondering why. TUF is a decently sized community and we were planning to put tons of edits and information into it. For a while now we have been wanting to make a Wikipedia page to put in all of our lore for new people to see and learn. RedstoneFox (talk) 02:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RedstoneFox: Wikipedia requires reliable sources to show notability. In this case, the notability of TUF would most clearly fall under the WP:GNG (the default if no other specific notability guideline applies), though WP:NORG and WP:NWEB may also apply. Regardless, it seems that TUF is not notable by any of these measures. Neither of the sources currently on the draft show notability, nor are they particularly reliable (See WP:PSTS for more on primary sources and reliability). I hope this helps, please either WP:PING me here or leave a message on my talk page if you have any further questions. AviationFreak💬 02:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

02:15:30, 4 January 2021 review of draft by Birdielea

Birdielea (talk) 02:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Snakes_and_Hawks_Card_Game Can someone please tell me what I should edit to make this article publishable?

@Birdielea: Wikipedia has a number of notability guidelines that are used for evaluating whether or not a subject is notable enough to qualify for an article. the WP:GNG, which is the applicable guideline in this case, relies on significant coverage in reliable sources to show notability. The only source on the draft at present which might show notability is the BGG page, though it's unlikely. "Directories" or "registries" of subjects (in this case, board/card games) do not show notability. Primary sources are also not useful for showing notability, as anyone can publish information about them. My advice to you would be to be patient and wait - This card game is quite new. If it picks up steam and is covered in multiple reliable sources (ideally something like game reviews or news articles of some kind), go ahead and add those to the draft. If and when the draft meets the WP:GNG, it will be accepted. WP:PING me here or leave a message on my talk page if you have any further questions. AviationFreak💬 02:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did some research and found that it's extremely unlikely that this topic is notable at this time so I rejected the draft. Please do not submit a new draft about this topic until such time as it's been covered in-depth by reliable, independent sources. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 02:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:49:44, 4 January 2021 review of submission by 2409:4050:2EC0:37FE:0:0:5FC8:C10

2409:4050:2EC0:37FE:0:0:5FC8:C10 (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


08:08:10, 4 January 2021 review of submission by RESHU IND

RESHU IND (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=998203034"