Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 August 20

= August 20 =

07:40, 20 August 2023 review of submission by Zia1985
Article creation Zia1985 (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Your draft has no content? Theroadislong (talk) 07:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

08:46, 20 August 2023 review of submission by Drmirror
Hey, I am working on a Wikipedia Page for Markus H.-P. Müller. He is a very influential person in the financial world with his focus on ESG and associated thought-leadership. This is the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Markus_H.-P._M%C3%BCller#Early_life_and_education Sadly it was declined twice. The help page told me I had too many sources. I now reduced to number of sources and focussed on summarizing the information from the sources like Reuters, Bloomberg and CNBC to form this article. Do you think this article may pass if I resubmit it now? Drmirror (talk) 08:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)


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

11:06, 20 August 2023 review of submission by Vojtik2009
i dont know how to accept it Vojtik2009 (talk) 11:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)


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

12:24, 20 August 2023 review of submission by Drmirror
It seems like I do not have enough secondary sources to publish this article just yet. I want to wait a while until more sources are published, and then contiue with this article.

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


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

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


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

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


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