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 Createuserss (talk | contribs) at 01:48, 13 January 2025 (Requesting assistance regarding Draft:Sarthak Santosh Darade). 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
Skip to top
Skip to bottom


January 7

01:17, 7 January 2025 review of submission by Jeanmari1

Hello! Could you please provide guidance as to how I can rewrite this in a way that would fit Wiki guidelines? Jeanmari1 (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that, due to restrictions on editing about the Arab-Israeli conflict(see your user talk page) if ever accepted, you could not directly edit the draft until you have 500 edits.
If you are associated with this organization, that needs to be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID.
The draft reads as if it were on the organization website, just telling what they do and about their personnel. An article about this organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. Consequently, "rewriting" this draft would involve discarding what is there and starting again, from independent reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 10:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:50, 7 January 2025 review of submission by BPxwz

Hi, can I get more guidance on how to improve the drafting so that it will be accepted by wikipedia for publishing? In the current draft, we have cited and made reference to several independent and reliable sources like news sites. It would be great if you can provide more detailed feedback for us. Thank you. BPxwz (talk) 03:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BPxwz Looks your draft failed on notability because your sources don't demonstrate it. I would read WP:42 it's a good intro to what we look for in sources in order for drafts to demonstrate notability. Hope this helps! TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:28, 7 January 2025 review of submission by MexFin

Hello team!

I am writing to understand more about the decision to reject the draft of disinformation research. I am writing this here because the template used to reject the submission is a bit unclear, and I would like to have more clarity on the precise issue so I can correct it. The template emphasizes three problems with the draft: Informal writing, neutral point of view, and reliable sources.

- Informal writing. Could you please help me understand what exactly you see as informal writing? I would like to know how to correct it.

- Neutral point of view. I even included a section on criticism of this line of research precisely to make it neutral.

- Reliable sources. Could you help me understand which sources are not reliable? I included 38 academic references, all of them from peer-reviewed scholarly sources.

Thank you so much for your help. 

MexFin (talk) 07:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @MexFin: the decline templates don't always provide a perfect fit, for instance in this case it could be that not all three issues apply to this draft; for that reason, I'm pinging the reviewer @TheTechie: for any comments they may be able to share.
Part of the problem could be (and I'm mostly guessing here) that, thanks to the subject matter, the terminology is quite 'buzzy', with fake news and filter bubbles and echo chambers etc. This is also perhaps written in the manner of an exposition, discussing recent research, suggesting 'alternative perspectives', etc., rather than as a purely descriptive encyclopaedia article.
Anyway, I won't speculate further; let's wait to hear what TheTechie has to say. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for taking the time to answer! I agree that the nature of the article is really about all these buzzy words, but this is precisely what the research field is all about. I would like to hear the recommendations so that i can fix it! :) MexFin (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing @MexFin Yeah the buzzword-type language and some informal text was why I declined. Though I don't remember saying anything about reliable sources though (see this for context). TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 02:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot @TheTechie and @DoubleGrazing for taking the time. I really appreciate it. I will do my best to make the article use less buzzwords. However, the reason why I am using these words is precisely because they represent the phenomenon that "disinformation research" is studying (See table 2 of this research article). You can see in this publication how researchers are trying to make sense of all these partially overlapping terms, for example in Caroline Jack's Lexicon of Lies. The concepts look like peacock terms because these are the words used to discuss them in policymaking circles, academic research, and news media. We read these terms in the news all the time, and academic researchers study the phenomenon using precisely these terms.
I will make the article more neutral, but I kindly ask you to consider that these terms are the part and parcel of the nature of the article.
On a separate note, thank you for your gatekeeping efforts. I truly value the unpaid work of editors just upholding the values of the old Internet. Just be aware that the disinformation field may be closer to Wikipedia than it has ever been when now even individual Wikipedia editors are targeted by trying to make them/us look like agents spreading disinformation. This technique has been used against journalists but never before against Wikipedia editors. MexFin (talk) 06:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MexFin: thanks for your kind words, and for the note of caution. Yes, when billionaires turn their guns on the likes of Wikipedia, and sack entire fact-checking departments, it makes for unsettling mood music.
RE this draft, I don't think there's any reason not to use terminology that comes with the territory, so to speak, as long as it is done to label and discuss the concepts, and not just for 'buzzword bingo' purposes. Which I'm sure was the case here anyway. :) DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @TheTechie and @DoubleGrazing for your kind comments. I revised the article over the last few days according to your comments to make it much less buzzwordy. Although some of these neologisms come with the nature of the article, I think that the current approach make it more encyclopedic. MexFin (talk) 07:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:55, 7 January 2025 review of submission by Cibra100

Hello, I recently submitted a draft article titled Draft:Oleg Ibrahimoff, which was declined for not meeting the notability criteria. The reviewer mentioned that the references do not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. This article is a translation of an accepted French Wikipedia article, and I have included references in French. Could you please review my draft and provide suggestions for improving it so it aligns with the English Wikipedia guidelines? Thank you for your help. Cibra100 (talk) 08:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cibra100: you're asking us to review this draft, but it was reviewed already, and declined. Are you saying that the reviewer got it wrong... or you just didn't like the outcome? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:05, 7 January 2025 review of submission by Lawrence Chen

I am seeking assistance with the Wikipedia page of Lawrence Chen because the submission was rejected due to concerns over not meeting Wikipedia's notability criteria. I would like guidance on how to better demonstrate his notability by citing reliable, third-party sources and providing more verifiable information to support his inclusion in the encyclopedia. Lawrence Chen (talk) 10:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Chen You say "I am seeking assistance with the Wikipedia page of Lawrence Chen" as if you are not him, but your username is his name. If you are not him, you need to change your username immediately via Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS.
THe draft was rejected, typically meaning that it will not be considered further. The article(the preferred term, not "page") should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about him, showing how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. It should not merely be a summary of his activities, accomplishments, and qualifications. What do sources say is important about him/you? 331dot (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also note that you claim to have personally created and own the copyright to the very professional looking image of Mr. Chen. Please clarify. 331dot (talk) 10:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback. I understand the concern about my username and will take the necessary steps to change it as per your instructions.
Regarding the article draft, I have already provided independent, reliable sources from reputable news outlets such as Lianhe Zaobao, The Straits Times, and Business Insider, which cover my career and achievements. These sources offer significant coverage and highlight key aspects of my professional journey. I will ensure the article focuses on what these third-party sources have emphasized as important to meet Wikipedia's notability standards.
As for the image, I would like to clarify that I do own the copyright to the image, but I will ensure it is properly sourced and complies with Wikipedia’s guidelines for image usage.
Thank you for your help, and I will make the appropriate adjustments moving forward. 118.189.41.27 (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback Request for Draft on Ludmila Yamalova

Moved from Draft talk:Ludmila Yamalova

Hi everyone,

I’m working on a draft for a Wikipedia article about Ludmila Yamalova, a US-qualified lawyer and businesswoman based in Dubai. She is the founder and managing partner of a law firm and has been featured in various media outlets for her legal insights.

I have tried to ensure the article meets Wikipedia’s neutrality and notability guidelines, but I’d like some feedback to confirm whether the draft is ready for resubmission. The article includes:

  • Her early life, education, and career highlights.
  • Media contributions and recognition (e.g., features in The New York Times and Financial Times).
  • Specific achievements, like founding one of the first legal podcasts in the MENA region.

Here’s a link to my draft: Draft:Ludmila Yamalova

It would be great help someone could heladdresse following in the context of the draft:

  1. Does the article establish notability based on the sources cited?
  2. Are there sections that might still come across as promotional or lacking neutrality?
  3. Are the references sufficient, or do I need stronger independent coverage? (I have exhausted all the references)

I would greatly appreciate your insights or suggestions to improve the draft before resubmission. Thank you so much for your time! 😊 ~~~~ Aishanijoon (talk) 10:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aishanijoon: you would get feedback if you submitted this for another review. That's what the AfC process is there for. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I wrote this here because I was suggested to get feedback from editors through Teahouse. But as a new editor, I am unable to post there, and this was the recommended method. I was hoping to get feedback before I resubmit for the third time. :( Aishanijoon (talk) 10:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Poorly sourced, promotional, non neutral and not notable. Theroadislong (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aishanijoon: my point was, in order for someone to give you feedback, they will have to effectively review the draft. So by asking for feedback, you're asking us to review, but to do so out of process and bypassing the pool of c. 1,800 other pending drafts.
Anyway, now you have feedback, above.
And in terms of feedback to your boss who set you this very challenging task, you may want to show them this: WP:BOSS. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aishanijoon: Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
What I can assess isn't any good for notability save for The Finance World. However, given there's five sources that I can't touch, I can't say authoritatively that you haven't met the burden of notability as we define it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:39, 7 January 2025 review of submission by Mwalimuwakwanza

i need assistance to upload images and certificates as extra resources. also how to separate the content. thanks Mwalimuwakwanza (talk) 14:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: User:Mwalimuwakwanza/sandbox
@Mwalimuwakwanza: you can request files be uploaded at Wikipedia:Files for upload or follow very closely the instructions at Wikipedia:File upload wizard. However, please keep in mind that certificates and images won't be considered independent, reliable sources sufficient to demonstrating WP:Notability and the first focus of the draft should be establishing this for your topic. Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Mwalimuwakwanza. I'm afraid you're in a very common situation for editors who try the challenging task of creating an article before they have spent much time learning how Wikipedia works. Would you enter a tournament the first time you ever picked up a tennis racket?
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia.
To address your specific concerns: Bobby has answered you about how to upload images, but I want to point out that images are 100% irrelevant to getting a draft accepted. Furthermore, I can think of almost no circumstances where uploading an image of a certificate would be appropriate for a Wikipedia article.
A Wikipedia article about Mdundo should be a summary of what people who have no connection whatever with him have chosen to publish about him in reliable places - major newspapers, books from reputable publishers etc. That's all. What he says, what his associates say or want to say, what you know about him, are all irrelevant, unless they have been reported on by independent sources.
To write an article about him, your job begins with finding such published sources. Every source should meet all the criteria in WP:42. If you cannot find several such sources, then I'm afraid he does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and you are wasting your time trying to write an article about him. ColinFine (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:00, 7 January 2025 review of submission by CarriageFilms

Hello! I am trying to create a new page for a film producer who has produced a number of films, been nominated for the top American independent film award, and has been quoted a number of times discussing his projects in independent trade publications like The Hollywood Reporter, Deadline, and Variety, but for some reason the page keeps getting rejected for not being a significant enough figure to warrant a Wikipedia page. How can I improve the article to get it approved? I've been looking at other producers' pages of a similar caliber and cannot figure out what I'm missing. CarriageFilms (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CarriageFilms: the relevant notability guideline is given at WP:FILMMAKER. Which of the criteria does this person meet, and what evidence supports that?
Alternatively, you can establish notability per WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the subject. Note that Pirro "discussing his projects" does not qualify as independent or secondary.
It is pointless comparing this draft to existing articles (the so-called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument). Drafts are assessed by reference to current policies and guidelines, which all new articles must meet. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:50, 7 January 2025 review of submission by Nadeem7044

Hi, I submitted a draft about VoiceofAfghan.com, a news website providing content in Pashto and Dari. It was rejected .

Can someone guide me on:

Improving notability with better references. Writing in a neutral tone. Meeting Wikipedia’s requirements for such topics.

Thank you! Nadeem7044 (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nadeem7044: The lack of sources is the most fatal issue. Without sources, you don't have an article. (The subject themselves does not count.) A Wikipedia article should be based solely on what third-party reliable sources have written/said about the subject, with citations to those sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nadeem7044 I'll note that it was "declined", not "rejected". The word "rejected" has a specific meaning in the draft process, it means that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means it may be resubmitted. 331dot (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:46, 7 January 2025 review of submission by VelvetEcho 21

Help me publish this article VelvetEcho 21 (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @VelvetEcho 21, start by reviewing Help:Your first article. Then, conduct research on the topic and collect sources that are independent, secondary and reliable. Once you have those sources, cite to them inline. See the instructions Help:Referencing for beginners. Presently, your draft is void of inline citations, so it appears that you have written the article backwards and thus will have a difficult time improving it. See the guidance at WP:BACKWARDS. Best of luck, Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@VelvetEcho 21: This is so blatantly promotional that I will be tagging it for deletion under G11. Other than that, you don't properly cite your sources, and your sources are all useless (most are profiles, one is an interview). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:07, 7 January 2025 review of submission by Ivinlivin

Can someone check the sources used in this article? I just got notified that it's not properly sourced. Can someone double-check this? Ivinlivin (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hwllo, @Ivinlivin.
Which three of your sources are the best, i.e. the ones that are all three of reliable, independent, and containing significant coverage of the subject? - see WP:42 for more explanation. ColinFine (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say all of the newspaper sources are good sources; however, most Norwegian newspapers don't have open access. Besides the newspaper ones, I would say:
https://issuu.com/distancerunning/docs/distance_running_2021_edition_3 (see page 20 in this magazine)
https://3sjoers.no/en/ (the home page is pretty good coverage, even though its a primary source)
https://worldsmarathons.com/marathon/3-sj-ersl-pet#about (race information)
https://www.kondis.no/3-sjoerslopet-med-sterke-vinnertider-og-solid-deltakerrekord.6694596-127676.html (one of the newspaper ones, however as mentioned, most of these are not open access) Ivinlivin (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Distance Running piece might be OK, but I have a couple of concerns. 1) it's not clear how independent it is, and 2) it has no byline, which is often a red flag for reliability. Is it a reporter's own research, or just reproducing information from the organisers? How can one tell?
The second and third links above, no matter how good may be their coverage, are not independent, and therefore cannot contribute in the slightest to establishing notability.
So it comes down to the newspaper sources - as you say, they may be good (meet all three criteria of WP:42), but they are behind paywalls, so I haven't looked at them.
I suggest you ask @SafariScribe, who was the reviewer who declined the draft. ColinFine (talk) 12:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for replying @ColinFine. Then I ask @safariscribe to look through these sources more closely? Ivinlivin (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:44, 7 January 2025 review of submission by Slapback79070

Which of my sources are not reliable so i can change them Slapback79070 (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Slapback79070: just to clarify, this draft was declined for lack of evidence of notability. Notability requires sources to be reliable, among many other things, but this was not declined specifically for unreliable sources.
But since you ask, user-generated sources are generally not considered reliable. In this case that includes YouTube, Wix-based websites, as well as onlineworldofwrestling.com and thesportster.com. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 8

02:14, 8 January 2025 review of submission by Smdelj

Dear editors, would appreciate your assistance as I work to get an article approved. It was declined becaue I need to add footnotes. The article already has a significant amount of inline citations to reliable sources. What is the difference between inline citations and footnotes? This may be a fairly straightforward edit -I want to get it right and get this article launched! Thanks for your guidance. Smdelj (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Smdelj: The issue is you have claims that are unsourced, mainly most of your bulleted lists. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 05:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:54, 8 January 2025 review of submission by Harshit Singh Rajput King

Why my draft rejected Harshit Singh Rajput King (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Harshit Singh Rajput King: because it was purely promotional, which is also why it was deleted. Not to mention that it was entirely unreferenced, and barely legible. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:25, 8 January 2025 review of submission by Melodydove

Hi, I submitted a draft that was rejected on the basis of sourcing issues, I'm unsure of the reasoning. My article is a collation of translations from other wikimedia projects which I was going to note on the edit summary or talk page. The sources included were a Ukrainian encyclopedia on folklore and mythology and another 2 books on slavic mythology, all of which were written by academics. The only problem I can see is that the sources might not be in-depth enough on this specific slavic god (or maybe too indiscriminate?) but 1 page - multiple pages of these books give information on the topic. Please advise on what kind of source I would need to use to make this article valid. Melodydove (talk) 09:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Melodydove Note that it was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
Each language Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own editors and policies. What is acceptable on one is not necessarily acceptable on another. It's up to the translator to make sure that the content they are translating meets the requirements of the Wikipedia they are translating for. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than other versions. I don't think it's the sources themselves that are the issue, but that you don't have the sources need to establish notability. It may be notable, but you haven't established that yet. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Melodydove: note that offline sources must be cited with sufficient bibliographical detail to enable the sources to be reliably identified for verification purposes; see WP:OFFLINE for more on this.
Another point, now that you say this is "a collation of translations from other wikimedia projects": be careful that you don't stray into synthesis territory. I know that's not quite what you said, but I thought I'd mention this nevertheless. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:18, 8 January 2025 review of submission by HeiLouSimp

At this stage, my draft article has been rejected due to a lack of cited resources and tone. Do you have any suggestions on how I should proceed with this project? Is there someone who can collaborate with me or who has knowledge of the real Simpson family? There is a significant amount of information available online and official records that have not yet been published through Wikipedia. If you have any tips about the subject and how to improve the article I would greatly appreciate it. HeiLouSimp (talk) 11:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HeiLouSimp: To start with, you do have to base the draft on reliable, secondary and independent sources that discuss the topic in some detail. Currently, there is only one reliable source, and that doesn't mention the topic at all so it is no help to us. Don't start by writing a long draft based on what you know and then look for sources that support it – that's going about it backwards. Secondly, it is very unclear what the topic of the draft really is, for instance what it has to do with sovreignty. It consists of a number of separate sections where some but not all describe historical persons called Simpson – and you have copied several sections from other Wikipedia articles (which is not actually allowed unless you attribute it correctly). Since the text is also written in a non-neutral tone, there is very little of it that could be used in Wikipedia, even if there were sources. It looks like your aim with this draft and your other edits is to tell the world about the Simpson family and its marvellous history – but that is not what Wikipedia is for. --bonadea contributions talk 11:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback, I'm interested to hear that the information and topic is not detailed enough and only one source is quoted. The article is a look into history to reveal a few real Simpsons who are not well documented. Library aside what sources would you suggest I rely on? I have two books and a official records. Question: Is there anyone out there who has documents, newspaper clippings, records or photos about any historical person called Simpson. HeiLouSimp (talk) 11:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:20, 8 January 2025 review of submission by AntonTok

Dear all, I was trying to add article regarding newly invented concept of cybersexuality - newly emerged sexual orientation actually syntethized by myself based on investigation of users of my AI Dating project. There is was no such definition previously. Nevertheless my article was turned down because of lack of reliable source - however, there cannot be any sources describing this emerged concept except current article itself AntonTok (talk) 11:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AntonTok: if there aren't sources, then you cannot summarise what they say, and therefore you cannot create a Wikipedia article at this time. Synthesis is not allowed on Wikipedia, and "newly invented" pretty much is alternative spelling for WP:TOOSOON. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AntonTok Wikipedia is the last place to write about something, not the first, because Wikipedia summarizes what others say about a topic. You'll have to get sources to notice this topic and write about it first, so there are sources to summarize in an article. It's far too soon. 331dot (talk) 13:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:33, 8 January 2025 review of submission by Haydar Lassoued

Could you help me understand why I got declined as I have made an article before on Wiki, but it also got declined, For times, may you please explain? Haydar Lassoued (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have no sources; an article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Your draft just tells about the game and its gameplay. Most articles about games discuss reviews of the game that are written by professional reviewers. I think it unlikely that this game within Roblox is notable; if you just want to tell the world about it, a website with less stringent requirements would be better suited. 331dot (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Haydar Lassoued: on the bottom of the draft it says "Written By: Haydar Lassoued and Demir Zayifoğlu"; the former name is the same as your username. I interpreted "written by" as referring to the game, and rejected this on that basis, but perhaps it only referred to this draft? If so, then I'm happy to revert my rejection and only decline this draft, which would allow you to continue editing it (as in, rewriting it so that it is based on reliable and independent published sources, which are cited as references). Whereas if this is indeed a game you've developed yourself, then I think I will stand by my rejection. Let me know? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Haydar Lassoued it was rejected because this isn't the place to first write about research you have or are performing. Unless others have written about this concept in independent, reliable sources it is not ready for an article on Wikipedia. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:36, 8 January 2025 review of submission by 114.143.124.218

what is lacking in my article, exactly and what should I edit? 

114.143.124.218 (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The decline reason is given in the decline notice on top of the draft page, and in the accompanying comment below it.
Please remember to log into your account whenever editing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:57, 8 January 2025 review of submission by 95.70.145.198

I tried to create a Wikipedia page for a university rector in Turkey. However, it says there are not enough references. I provided an official document from the Turkish Republic Official Gazette as a reference. I also included the link to the rector information on the university's official website. Additionally, the fact that he is the rector is mentioned under the "Işık University" section on Wikipedia's English page. The information about him being the rector is certain and accurate. Why is it not being approved? What is the issue?

Rector's Name: Hasan Bülent Kahraman Evidence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%C5%9F%C4%B1k_University Draft page I want to create: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hasan_B%C3%BClent_Kahraman

Please help me. 95.70.145.198 (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft cites two sources (of which one doesn't seem to even mention Kahraman) in the short lead paragraph, the rest of it is entirely ureferenced – where does all that information come from, and how do we know it's true? It may be "certain and accurate" that he is the rector, but we also need to be able to verify all the rest of this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot use the presence, absence, or condition of other articles to argue for your own; you need to provide sources that show he meets either our general or specific notability guidelines. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, IP user. Please note that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. If the only sources that are available are from Kahraman or his associates, then he does not currently meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article is possible. ColinFine (talk) 10:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:57, 8 January 2025 review of submission by Overwatch one one zero

I need assistance with submitting 2 Wikipedia pages. The first submission was unsuccessful. How can you help me expediate publishing of these two pages. Thank you. Overwatch one one zero (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Overwatch one one zero: We can see  Courtesy link: Draft:Joanitt Montano in your contributions. What is the other page? Do you have multiple accounts, or are you coordinating with others with different accounts?
The declination reason from the aforementioned draft says that there isn't significant coverage demonstrating Wikipedia:Notability, and the feedback from the review said that it read like a resume. Review Help:Your first article and Help:Referencing for beginners, these would be good starting places. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:31, 8 January 2025 review of submission by 72.182.9.163

This draft of the page was rejected for " - Topic is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia " Are you kidding me ? I've been using wiki since wikis became a thing . This is information regarding a missing persons case that people are going to be searching for and needs to be approved. 72.182.9.163 (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is for articles about notable subjects - it is not a site where you can post whatever you would like. Wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopedia. Your draft has multiple issues:
1. It reads like a story .
2. No notability whatsoever.
3. No significance. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 02:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:02, 8 January 2025 review of submission by Aleksandra6617

Hi, I recently received feedback regarding my article submission, which was unfortunately rejected. I would greatly appreciate your assistance in understanding how to revise the text to meet Wikipedia's standards. The reviewer mentioned that the submission contained excessive promotional language (WP:Peacock) and did not meet the required notability guidelines (WP:NPROF).

I genuinely want to improve the article and ensure it aligns with Wikipedia’s guidelines, but I am concerned that my previous edits may have unintentionally made things worse. Would you be able to help me identify which parts of the article should be removed or rewritten? I am open to significantly reducing the content if necessary.

Thank you for your time and any guidance you can provide. I value your expertise and look forward to hearing from you. Aleksandra6617 (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aleksandra6617 if it is rejected that means you cannot resubmit. Also, please write your own comments instead of using AI. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 02:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:16, 8 January 2025 review of submission by 41.116.93.19

Please tell me, WHY DID YOU DECLINED THIS ARTICLE 😡😡😡😡😡 41.116.93.19 (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The decline was pretty clear, but to go into it again, the article is completely unsourced, and as such, nothing has been provided to indicate that the subject is notable under either artist-specific notability (WP:NARTIST) or under the more general WP:GNG. Notability has to be demonstrated using reliable sources that are independent of the subject and provide significant coverage. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:36:55, 8 January 2025 for assistance on AfC submission by Jonatanirvin


Rewridet taked out unecesary aded citations Jonatanirvin (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User is now blocked. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 02:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 9

05:59, 9 January 2025 review of submission by Smarter Than90

Because it is kinda hard to Do Things like this Slow. I would like if some body help me. Smarter Than90 (talk) 05:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Smarter Than90: we don't get involved in co-editing here at the help desk. If you have specific questions, you may ask those. Otherwise, you should find anything you need for article creation at WP:YFA. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Smarter Than90 It's hard to do it slow- are you on a deadline? 331dot (talk) 08:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have reomoved the photograph as it looks like a copyright violation, all that is left is an info box, there is no content to review? Theroadislong (talk) 08:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dude. That is LITERALLY A PICTURE FROM MY TABLET. Smarter Than90 (talk) 04:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not fair to do that. Smarter Than90 (talk) 04:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It may have been on your tablet, but unless you took that 1964 picture, it's not your picture. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. But can u At least help make a Project Smarter Than90 (talk) 04:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like Make the Page on Kirk Culberson? Because Hes is A Victim of of The KKK. He is Litteraly my Great grandpa. Smarter Than90 (talk) 04:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:28, 9 January 2025 review of submission by WeTransfer Pakistan

WeTransfer Pakistan is a cloud-based application designed for seamless file transfer & sharing, launched in February 2023. why my page and article delete ?

WeTransfer Pakistan is a cloud-based application designed for seamless file transfer & sharing, launched in February 2023. WeTransfer Pakistan (talk) 09:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WeTransfer Pakistan I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft as intended, but your draft was blatant advertising and has been deleted. Wikipedia does not allow advertising, and is not a place for businesses to tell about themselves, their offerings, and what they do. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about businesses that meet our criteria. The vast majority of businesses do not merit Wikipedia articles. 331dot (talk) 09:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:15, 9 January 2025 review of submission by HanskrithaSinghU

I am not able to figure out my mistakes.Can you please help me for the same? HanskrithaSinghU (talk) 10:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, please answer the inquiry I just posted to your user talk page. The reviewers have left you replies on the draft, do you have more specific questions about them? 331dot (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They've already disclosed paid editing, but it's a bit hidden at the bottom of the user page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:19, 9 January 2025 review of submission by Mobile Knowledge

I many time fail to publish my article Mobile Knowledge (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mobile Knowledge: that's because the draft is virtually unreferenced, and there is zero evidence that the subject is notable.
What is your relationship with this organisation? I have posted a conflict-of-interest query on your talk page, please read and respond to it. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Mobile Knowledge. Your statement is the equivalent of "I built a house without surveying the land or building any foundations, and I keep trying to get a certificate for it, but the authorities keep refusing".
An acceptable Wikipedia article is a summary of what reliable indepedent sources have said about a subject - nothing less, and very little more. A draft without citations to independent sources is nearly worthless, as a reader has no way to tell whether it is reliable or not. ColinFine (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:42, 9 January 2025 review of submission by Ammu Mohan

HOW TO ADD THE LINKS AND REFERENCE AND CITATION AND FOOTNOTE 

Ammu Mohan (talk) 11:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ammu Mohan: please don't SHOUT.
You add citations the same way as you have already added one. See WP:REFB for more advice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SORRY,PROBLEM WITH MY KEYBOARD.MY INTENTION WAS NOT SHOUT AT YOU.JUST SOME DYSFUNCTIONAL KEYS 2409:40F3:1012:A966:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:42, 9 January 2025 review of submission by Ródhiske

This article is not fake but lacks sources, if you don't believe it you can search for yourself in the media about this incident Ródhiske (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No one has said it is "fake", that is not the issue. Please see the messages left by reviewers, as well as the policies linked to therein. 331dot (talk) 13:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:19, 9 January 2025 review of submission by AlfredCampenaerts

Hi, I previously received feedback that the page read too much like an advertisement, so I revised it to adopt a more neutral perspective. However, I've received the same feedback again, and it's unclear what specific changes are needed for approval at this point. When I review and compare it to similar pages on other sporting applications, it seems consistent.

Could you provide more detailed guidance on what adjustments are required?

Thanks in advance! AlfredCampenaerts (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AlfredCampenaerts: much of the information is unreferenced, and the few sources there are, are clearly based on press releases or similar publicity materials. Therefore this is essentially you telling the world about your app, which makes it inherently promotional (see WP:YESPROMO). We are almost exclusively interested in what independent and reliable third parties (especially secondary sources) have said about your app. You should find 3-5 sources that meet the WP:GNG standard for notability, and summarise what they say. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AlfredCampenaerts As the app charges for services, I assume you created it at least in part to earn a living. As such, you must declare as a paid editor per the Terms of Use. 331dot (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:49, 9 January 2025 review of submission by BobLebanon

I need assistance on refrencing the location of this town. Like the little red dots that show where the location of it is. BobLebanon (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BobLebanon: I'm assuming you mean the map etc. that appear in the 'infobox' in articles on human settlements (see eg. Thame, the box in the top-right)? In which case, the relevant template is {{Infobox settlement}}. Just beware, this isn't the easiest infobox to use, there's a fair bit to learn.
If it were me, I'd focus first on the things that actually matter in terms of getting this draft accepted, namely reliable sources to verify the information and to show that the subject is notable (either per WP:GNG or WP:NPLACE). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, alright thanks for your help mate, but how do i learn how to do such things? I wanna get into making and editing wiki pages. BobLebanon (talk) 10:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:38, 9 January 2025 review of submission by 79.125.234.84

Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I am writing to express my concerns regarding the rejection or blocking of a biography I have been working on. I have made every effort to ensure that the content is accurate, well-researched, and supported by reliable references. While I understand Wikipedia has strict guidelines, I believe my work aligns with these standards and deserves a fair review.

The biography is realistic and based on thorough study. I have provided sufficient references, and while more details and contributions can be added over time by others, I firmly believe the article provides a solid foundation. Unfortunately, some editors appear to be dismissing my efforts without valid reasoning, which has been disappointing and discouraging.

I kindly ask for a reconsideration of the edits and for specific feedback if there are any issues that need to be addressed. My goal is to contribute constructively to Wikipedia and to ensure the platform remains a reliable and inclusive source of knowledge.

Thank you for your understanding and for taking the time to review my concerns. I look forward to working collaboratively to resolve any issues.

Best regards, 79.125.234.84 (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please write yourself, don't use an AI(100% certain per gptzero. We want to hear from you directly.
If you feel the reviewer got it wrong, the first step is to ask them to reconsider. If that does not satisfy you, you may then describe here what policies or procedures were violated by the reviewer. That you did not get the result you want does not mean that policy was violated. 331dot (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We do not entertain requests or content created via chatbot. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 08:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:06, 9 January 2025 review of submission by LogoFanYT

This was made for entertainment purposes and not to create drama, this was made for a purpouse. LogoFanYT (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So? You were directed to read Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes. There isn't any circumstance in which creating a hoax article here is going to be allowed, regardless of your "entertainment purpose". --Hammersoft (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:42, 9 January 2025 review of submission by 185.91.120.15

I need to understand why the sources I mentioned are unreliable. The Hypogean Crypt Is The Place Where It Is Buried Don Antonio Seghezzi In Links There Are Photos, The Renault Twizy Limited Edition Is Documented By Links Of Italian Newspapers. What else should I provide to complete the page? 185.91.120.15 (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is hardly even a draft article, not even a stub. The prose lacks facts. You have written this WP:BACKWARDS. Instead of thinking what you want to say, find references and say in your own words' what they say. Unable to find references? Then stop. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:43, 9 January 2025 review of submission by Ironzombie39

I just simply need someone to help me find more sources for this, that's all. Ironzombie39 (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place to solicit co-editors or researchers; we just answer questions aboutnl the draft process. 331dot (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 10

05:33, 10 January 2025 review of submission by 2.50.185.237

Why was rejected 2.50.185.237 (talk) 05:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons are stated in the decline and rejection notices. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:39, 10 January 2025 review of submission by Al Gattany

Why block my account Al Gattany (talk) 10:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Al Gattany: which account would that be? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If your account were blocked, you would not be able to post here. In any case, this is about like calling a burger restaurant to report that your car was stolen; this page is to assist people with AFC questions. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:23, 10 January 2025 review of submission by 2001:D08:1A84:DCED:1:0:F5DD:1A4A

Governor Young

I suspect that this governor born in Scotland was made Governor in Australia in 1820-1870 approximately. He travelled between London and Sydney often. Do you have an interest in this topic? HeiLouSimp (talk) 12:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HeiLouSimp: we don't get involved in co-editing, if that's what you mean by do we "have an interest". You may try some of the WikiProjects out there, maybe you'll find someone with an interest in such topics. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:53, 10 January 2025 review of submission by Abukhawla

I want to include the biography of a prominent figure in Bangladesh's Islamic community, as learning about his life and contributions could be beneficial for many. However, no book has been written about him so far, nor has his biography been published on any website. I have personal knowledge about him, and he also has a Facebook account. How can I add references, and what kind of references would be appropriate in this case? Abukhawla (talk) 12:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abukhawla Note that this is the English Wikipedia, if you want to submit this to the Arabic Wikipedia(a separate project with its own policies), you need to go there and use their processes. Assuming you want to translate it for here- Personal knowledge is unacceptable here as it cannot be independently verified. A Facebook page is only useful for certain basic information(see WP:PRIMARY) and does not establish notability. If that's all you have, this individual would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. 331dot (talk) 13:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:58, 10 January 2025 review of submission by 2603:3005:A7A:4000:B18C:340E:D20B:2920

Hi, new to this process, never edited a wikipedia page before. I'm trying to create a page for my company. I understand the tone has to be neutral, and that's perfectly fine. My question is in regard to references. What if there aren't any because no one in my position (marketing) previously did the work to earn them? I've seen company pages with no references, what kind of information would I need to add to make up for a lack of references? Thank you. 2603:3005:A7A:4000:B18C:340E:D20B:2920 (talk) 13:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're Hlevatreformpt? Please log into your account whenever editing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
sorry about that, figured it auto logged me in. Hlevatreformpt (talk) 14:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles should be composed mainly by summarising what independent and reliable secondary sources have previously published about a subject. You then cite those sources against the information they have provided. That is what we mean by 'references'.
You have clearly written this draft from the point of view of your business, saying whatever it is you want to say about it. This is considered promotion (see WP:YESPROMO), which is not allowed on Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok understood. That makes it difficult but I get why it's necessary. Hlevatreformpt (talk) 14:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You also clearly have a financial steak in this subject, which gives rise to a conflict of interest (COI). You need to formally disclose that before you edit further; I've posted a message on your talk page with instructions. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hlevatreformpt Please see other stuff exists; the existence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate, and just not dealt with yet by volunteers, has no bearing on your draft. There are many ways inappropriate articles can exist, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate articles. If you want to help us, please identify these other articles that lack sources you have seen so we can take action. We're only as good as the people who choose to help us. 331dot (talk) 14:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:29, 10 January 2025 review of submission by Donald Nyandoro

Good day may you please help me on how to draft a submission that goes in hand with th rules of Wikipedia my recent submission was denied by wikipedia Donald Nyandoro (talk) 14:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Nyandoro It was deleted as blatant advertising as well as a copyright violation. Promotion is not permitted on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. My advice is that you go on about your work, and if you are truly notable as we define it, someone will eventually write about you- though that's not always a good thing. 331dot (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:30, 10 January 2025 review of submission by Theorileyuk

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia and a huge wrestling fan and trying to submiit my first article. I have include citations which was the reason it was declined but it has been declined again despite these being added on the basis that its an autobiography which is incorrect. When I wrote the draft I searched to make sure there wasnt one on him and it came up as a draft from I assume Jensen himself and then someone else 4 month ago. It is a bit fustrating that it continues to be declined despite the numerous pages on wikipedia of a similar nature. Theorileyuk (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Theorileyuk Please see other stuff exists. The existence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate cannot justify adding more inappropriate articles. There are many ways for inappropriate articles to exist(this submission process has not existed the entire time Wikipedia has existed, and is usually voluntary). If you want to help us, please identify these other articles you have seen for possible action- we need the help, we are only as good as the people who choose to help. 331dot (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think the article inappropriate and props to you all giving your time to help. Much appreciated and I agree it does need to be vetted. I really just want help with the article I have already written so that I can start to create more. But it seems hugely difficult. The one I did is factual, it has references in it now and its from a biography point of view so im not sure what else I can do. Perhaps we can message to sort this out. Theorileyuk (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to discuss the draft, you may do so right here, or on the draft talk page.
Most of the draft is completely unsourced. Anything without a source needs to be removed. He may be notable as Wikipedia defines a notable person(there are no specific criteria for professional wrestlers) but it's hard to parse in between the unsourced information. 331dot (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have completely sorted out the links and references so should now be ok. Theorileyuk (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:43, 10 January 2025 review of submission by Larriepedia

Hi! I recently submitted a new article for creation and it was swiftly denied. The reviewer said this: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." Could you point me in the right direction in terms of specifics I should fix or focus on in my next edit? I would love to know which sentences needs support sources or if whole paragraphs feel unsupported? Thank you so much for any help you can give. xxxxxx

Link to my article: Draft:Jayne Bentzen Larriepedia (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Larriepedia I fixed your link, the whole url is not needed. You can ask SafariScribe directly but it looks like parts are unsourced. 331dot (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:09:53, 10 January 2025 review of submission by Pauliesnug

hiya-- this is my first BLP AfC, so I'm sort of confused as to what i should do next. there are only one or two more sources i managed to find that aren't already included. there isn't really a severe shortage of sources though, i think it mostly comes down to notability/reliability, does this mean the page isn't fit for wikipedia until a more main article is authored? pauliesnug (message / contribs) 18:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the template is broken, the article is Draft:Freya_Holmér pauliesnug (message / contribs) 18:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that there is a severe shortage of sources. Most of the sources given are interviews, which aren't useful to establish notability, and the few that aren't only mention Holmér in passing. For example, the VentureBeat article is about Shader Forge and says nothing about Holmér other than stating she cofounded the studio and the Roadtovr article is about Budget Cuts. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:40, 10 January 2025 review of submission by 2A02:C7C:DAAE:A400:DC03:34E6:FCB1:53B7

Is there anything else I need to add to get moved to the main article 2A02:C7C:DAAE:A400:DC03:34E6:FCB1:53B7 (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have submitted it for review and it is pending; the reviewer will leave you feedback if it is not accepted. It may be some time before it is reviewed, please be patient. 331dot (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anything I need to accept it 2A02:C7C:DAAE:A400:DC03:34E6:FCB1:53B7 (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. The draft has been rejected, because Wikipedia is not a platform for publishing fiction or creating alternative realities. --bonadea contributions talk 20:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rangeblock now in place; the OP is socking.-- Ponyobons mots 20:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:54, 10 January 2025 review of submission by Davidwtaylor1

I originally created this wiki page sourcing from the Japanese Wiki page that is published (using the English conversion feature). My first to attempts at publishing were returned stating need more verifiable sources. I have spent much time going through each section, and adding sources for every fact that I can find a source statement for. Before I submit it a third time, is there any type of review-tool that can pre-examine and provide suggestions for success, or is this going to be another submission and hope it suffices this time? All help to get this to successful submission is appreviated. Davidwtaylor1 (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:09, 10 January 2025 review of submission by Cinefilm

Request for Review of the Salvatore Ruocco Wikipedia Page

Dear Wikipedia Team,

I am writing to request clarification regarding the rejection of the page I recently submitted about actor Salvatore Ruocco. I want to emphasize that I strongly support Wikipedia and regularly contribute donations to help sustain the platform.

I am unable to understand the reasons behind the refusal of the page, especially considering that Salvatore Ruocco has a noteworthy career, including significant work on an international level. I believe his achievements and contributions to the world of cinema deserve recognition on Wikipedia, providing users with accurate and comprehensive information.

I kindly ask you to reconsider the proposed page or, if possible, guide me on how to improve the content to fully comply with your publication criteria. I am more than willing to provide additional sources and details to support the validity of the information.

Thank you for your attention and for the essential work you do every day in promoting knowledge.

Looking forward to your kind response, CineFilm Cinefilm (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cinefilm Thanks for donating to the Foundation, but that gives you no special status with the rest of us Wikipedia editors. Donations are collected by the Foundation to operate the computers Wikipedia is on, as well as other Foundation activities, and have no impact on day to day matters like this.
Note that other stuff exists; the existence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate has no bearing on yours. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits. There are many ways to get inappropriate articles past us, we can only address what we know about. If you'd like to help us, please identify other articles you have seen that do not meet guidelines. We need the help.
You have not shown that he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable actor. This may be a different policy than the Italian Wikipedia, as each Wikipedia is a separate project with their own editors and policies. If this draft is deemed acceptable on the Italian Wikipedia, I suggest you concentrate your efforts there. 331dot (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:56, 10 January 2025 review of submission by 2001:D08:1A84:DCED:1:0:F5DD:1A4A

Mortal Kombat 2 (2025) runtime is reportedly 128 minutes (2 hours, 8 minutes) per AMC Theatres. Without post-credits. Copy Terminator: Dark Fate & Deadpool & Wolverine. 2001:D08:1A84:DCED:1:0:F5DD:1A4A (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in #11:23, 10 January 2025 review of submission by 2001:D08:1A84:DCED:1:0:F5DD:1A4A yesterday, please STOP wasting your and our time with these non-articles. ColinFine (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:16, 10 January 2025 review of submission by 2001:D08:1A84:DCED:1:0:F5DD:1A4A

Sheriff Country is coming to CBS in 2025. 2001:D08:1A84:DCED:1:0:F5DD:1A4A (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What's your question? 331dot (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikipedia article is a summary of what independent reliable sources have already published about a subject: nothing less, and bery little more. Future films and programmes hardly ever have enough written about the to make it possible to write anything at all in an article. Please see WP:NOTCRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. ColinFine (talk) 14:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:55, 10 January 2025 review of submission by CyberDave9000

I'm a newbie editor and I was asked by Rick to create this page for him. The page that we created (Draft:Rick_Sanjek ) was ultimately rejected for notability. I have looked at the Wikipedia:Notability page and I'm at a loss as to why it lacked notability. I'm looking for some assistance/guidance as to why. Thanks in advance. CyberDave9000 (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CyberDave9000 I fixed your header to properly provide a link to your draft as intended, and fixed the other link, the whole url is not needed. Since you are here at Rick's behest, you have a conflict of interest to disclose(click for instructions). If you are employed by Rick or he compensates you in any manner, the Terms of Use require you to make a formal paid editing disclosure.
You have documented his work and accomplishments, but not summarized what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about him, showing how he is a notable person as Wikipedia defines one. Wikipedia doesn't just want to know his work, they want to know what others unaffiliated with him choose to say is important about him or his work. The reviewer must have felt the prospect of that was low, so they rejected the draft. 331dot (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 14:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


January 11

05:01, 11 January 2025 review of submission by 2400:3740:20D:1A00:F0C6:B223:8AA0:24D2

Requiring assistance on citing each part of the document to have a speedy approval. 2400:3740:20D:1A00:F0C6:B223:8AA0:24D2 (talk) 05:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can find advice on referencing at WP:REFB. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:13, 11 January 2025 review of submission by Dr James Dover

I need to cite sources for the history of Ardmore University Stevenson School of Psychology. These are : 1.Athensville Pa was established in 1853 2. The name was changed to Ardmore in 1873 3. In 1875 Ardmore University was founded. 4. In 1923 John R Stevenson initiated the teaching of psychology to students in Gladwyne. 5. The formal establishment of the Gladwyne School of Psychology occurred in 1926. 6. Gladwyne School of Psychology was later renamed in honor of Professor Stevenson in 1931, becoming the "Stevenson School of Psychology." 7. in 1933, the Stevenson School of Psychology merged with Ardmore University, leading to the creation of "Ardmore Stevenson." 

8. by 1937, it had become an integral component of Ardmore University.

9. the university transformed in 1973, transitioning into a correspondence school. 10. Ardmore University Stevenson School of Psychology closed its doors in 2003 Dr James Dover (talk) 07:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr James Dover: I wouldn't call those sources, I'd call that a timeline. You need to tell us where the information in your draft came from.
On a separate but related point, your sources also need to demonstrate that the subject is a notable organisation, as we define it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:45, 11 January 2025 review of submission by Suryapakrashy

The page is complete ok, and true. still its not getting accepted. i want it to be on the Article's section. Previously it was declined. And later i changed the whole content. not i think its acceptable. All the Details in the Article are true as i am the person who is writing about myself Debanjan Pakrashy. Its my kind request to make it visible on the Articles Page. Later ill work more on that Article to expand that. The Name Debanjan Pakrashy can be searched on google and all details will be visible for verification. Verified YouTube Channel, Google Knowledge Pannel, etc.... Thank You Suryapakrashy (talk) 10:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is unsourced with no indication of any notability - See WP:MUSICBIO KylieTastic (talk) 11:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:47, 11 January 2025 review of submission by Niikwabena

Wikipedia is meant for everyone to edit, but it is good for a new wikipedian to be assisted. Niikwabena (talk) 11:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Niikwabena Please tell what assistance you are seeking. You were provided an explanation on your draft by the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Writing a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia; you wouldn't give a violin recital at Carnegie Hall as your first attempt at playing the violin. You would practice and gain experience and knowledge first- that's what you should do now; first edit existing articles to gain experience and knowledge as to what is being looked for. 331dot (talk) 12:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:18, 11 January 2025 review of submission by Salman317

Why are you doing like this Salman317 (talk) 13:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think Wikipedia is a place to promote your new business? Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia of notable subjects not a place for promotion. KylieTastic (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:36, 11 January 2025 review of submission by JOSHBLY

Hi everyone,

I currently have a draft at Draft:Profound (company) that was declined on 11 January 2025 due to concerns about notability and references. The company is an AI startup focused on AI search optimization, and I’ve cited coverage from TechCrunch, Adweek, Digiday, Search Engine Land, and The New York Times. The reviewer mentioned that the sources may not be sufficiently in-depth to meet WP:NCORP guidelines.

I’d love guidance on the following points: (1.) Are these sources considered suitably in-depth, independent, and reliable for establishing notability? (2.) Is the overall tone or structure of my draft too promotional or lacking neutrality? (3.) Are there any specific improvements in referencing, formatting, or content that I should address before resubmitting?

I also want to publicly disclose that I am an early employee of Profound, so I understand I have a conflict of interest and must adhere to Wikipedia’s COI and neutral-point-of-view guidelines. My goal is to ensure the draft meets Wikipedia’s standards, if indeed the subject is notable enough. If you feel the company isn’t yet notable, I’m okay with that outcome—just looking for clarity.

Any feedback or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thank you so much for your time!

Best regards, Josh JOSHBLY (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for disclosing a conflict of interest; as an employee, however, you will need to make the stricter paid editing disclosure instead.
"Startups" very rarely merit articles; a company must be established and recognized by independent reliable sources that then write about the company in order to merit an article. Just summarizing what the company does and its offerings does not establish that the definition of a notable company is met. 331dot (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:40, 11 January 2025 review of submission by The noun wit no name

how to rename this draft The noun wit no name (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The specific title of a draft is not particularly relevant. If accepted, the reviewer will place it at the proper title. You can leave guidance about the title on the draft talk page. 331dot (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:44, 11 January 2025 review of submission by 91.125.98.193

I'm trying to find reasonable sources. Looking at similar athletes from US Rowing in that time period, they don't seem to have better references though. See-- 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Swan_(rower)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Smith_(rower) And basically everyone in the US M8+ category linked from this wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_World_Rowing_Championships

How did existing bios get published but not this one? 91.125.98.193 (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor. Wikipedia has many millions of articles, tens of thousands of which are poor quality and should be improved or deleted. As we're a volunteer project no one has gotten around to doing that yet. It's very possible those existing articles are poor quality with poor sources, were written when our standards were more lax, or didn't go through the articles for creation process.
If you want to base your draft on a good article, choose one that has been rated Good by the community. qcne (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Swan (rower) was never drafted. In fact, it predates WP:ACPERM by almost a year (first edit 2017/03/16). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:11, 11 January 2025 review of submission by 76.190.40.3

This article has not been thoroughly reviewed, it seems that it was rejected without a concrete basis. The article has utilized several independent sources. 76.190.40.3 (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were given a clear reason for the decline. What error in process are you alleging? 331dot (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't said that no sources are independent, but not enough of them are. 331dot (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How many independent sources are being expected? The independent sources do inform most of the article's content. What is the expectation? 76.190.40.3 (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Every single one attached to a claim a reasonable person could challenge. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 12

01:54, 12 January 2025 review of submission by NTG2024

Unclear comment. The reviewer for the page I submitted for review said "fill out citation neededs please". Could someone please provide more clarity? NTG2024 (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NTG2024: Every single claim tagged with [citation needed] needs to get a source that corroborates it or get out. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:11, 12 January 2025 review of submission by Kaotao

My draft, a split from an existing article, was declined on the basis that it should be merged into the article it was split from because I failed to explicitly mark it as a split. What should I do to rectify this? I already did the WP:RIA thing. Kaotao (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:02, 12 January 2025 review of submission by AstrooKai

This draft was 99.4% copied from this wiki fandom as shown in this copyvios report. Generally speaking, are drafts copied from Fandom a WP:COPYRIGHT violation? AstrooKai (Talk) 06:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AstrooKai: Assuming the licence is complied with, no. Fandom is under CC-By-SA, so for it to be in compliance there needs to be a backlink to the page's history or some other credit for the author(s) of the original. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
However, while the draft may not be a copyright violation, it is utterly unacceptable as a Wikipedia article.
A Wikipedia article should be a neutrally written summary of what reliable indepedent sources say about a subject: nothing less, and very little more.
The draft is entirely unfreferenced, and full of WP:peacock words.
Very quick guide to writing a successful Wikipedia article:
  1. . Find several places where people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to write about the subject and been published in reliable places. (See WP:42) for more detail.
  2. . If you can't find at least three such, give up and do something else.
  3. . If you can, then forget everything you know about the subject, and write a summary of what those sources say.
Trying to do it in any other way is a recipe for frustration and disappointment. ColinFine (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:50, 12 January 2025 review of submission by Akileee1

I want to know how to improve this draft, I already added all the possible info. There are many less notable waterpolo players who have their wikipedia pages Akileee1 (talk) 11:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your post, the whole url is not needed, just the full title in the header. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Akileee1 Please see other stuff exists. The existence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate cannot justify the addition of more inappropriate articles. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits. There are many ways for inappropriate articles to get past us and exist, even for years; we can only address what we know about. If you would like to help us, please identify these other articles you have seen that are about non-notable people so we can take action. We need the help, we are only as good as the people who choose to help us. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles, which have been checked for compliance with guidelines by the community(which isn't necessarily the case with any random article).
Note that people do not "have Wikipedia pages" here that they own and control. Wikipedia has articles about topics.
The main issue here is your sourcing- the sources seem to not be reliable sources with a history of fact checking and editorial control. You have resubmitted and it is pending, the reviewer will leave feedback. 331dot (talk) 12:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:11, 12 January 2025 review of submission by Beka7800

correct the citation because i have tried many times to correct it. Beka7800 (talk) 12:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Beka7800 Have you followed the referencing tutorial at WP:INTREFVE? It is up to you to learn how to reference correctly. qcne (talk) 12:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ASSIST Beka7800 (talk) 12:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beka7800 Yelling at us for assistance isn't likely to work. (don't use all caps) What assistance are you seeking? Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Please see the comments left by reviewers. 331dot (talk) 12:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't start multiple threads, just edit this existing thread. 331dot (talk) 12:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:42, 12 January 2025 review of submission by ZayKitty Wiki

This is my first "created" article, which was declined for the following reason: "not adequately supported by reliable sources." I think it needs more reliable sources. Can an experienced editor help me with polishing this article with more reliable sources (Although there is a references list)? Thanks. ZayKitty Wiki (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ZayKitty Wiki: we don't get involved in co-editing or source research here at the help desk, that onus is squarely on you (although you may wish to ask at the relevant WikiProjects if anyone is interested in helping you).
This is a common problem when translating from other language versions of Wikipedia. Our requirements in terms of referencing and proof of notability here at the English-language version are stricter than in other language versions, and often what is acceptable elsewhere cannot be accepted here.
If you cannot support the contents with sufficient referencing, you need to remove the sections without appropriate support.
Note that as this person died only three months ago, they almost certainly still come under our policy on articles on living people (WP:BLP), with particularly strict referencing requirements. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you. Can you give me the relevant WikiProjects please? ZayKitty Wiki (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ZayKitty Wiki: I would start with the ones you tagged on the draft talk page? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. ZayKitty Wiki (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:49, 12 January 2025 review of submission by WWBM

Hello. My submission on the article about American voice actress Alex Cazares was declined because it "appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia." Is there a way how to make this entry, rephrase the submission to not look like an advertisement? WWBM (talk) 16:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have just documented her work, not summarized what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about her, showing how she is a notable actress or more broadly a notable person. 331dot (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:33, 12 January 2025 review of submission by Niasoh

Any suggestions for improve for publishing this article? Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 17:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. 331dot (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:44:34, 12 January 2025 review of submission by Yachtahead

Hello Afc Helpers, requesting a review please or help for review and/or approval for my first draft submission: Draft:Gerry Cardinale It's been two months waiting in review, I don't think it's being seen by any reviewers. Appreciate your help or any direction to another option. Thank you again! Yachtahead (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yachtahead Your draft is pending review, and visible to reviewers. Drafts are reviewed in no particular order by volunteers. Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you@331dot, apologies for the eagerness. Yachtahead (talk) 01:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:07, 12 January 2025 review of submission by Ethanandersen

Hi, this submission was declined without comment; only indicating that it doesn't qualify for an article due to not showing significant coverage in published, reliable, secondary, independent sources; but it certainly seems like the sources in the draft meet that criteria. Please share additional context on why this is not deemed notable. Ethanandersen (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ethanandersen I agree this person meets our WP:NACADEMIC notability criteria. However there is a few sections without sources: Personal Life and Education, as well as a few other unsourced sentences sprinkled throughout. If you find sources for those, or remove, then it would be acceptable. qcne (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's helpful, thank you. I'll do that. Ethanandersen (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 13

00:30, 13 January 2025 review of submission by Turps222

Hi Everyone, I am trying to add a new bio page about a current scientist that is doing exciting work (Professor Greg Neely, University of Sydney), but it has been knocked back by editors. Their feedback was that it "didn't show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". I'm a little surprised about this, since his work has been published in prestigious scientific journals and is regularly featured in reputable international media outlets (eg. BBC, CNN, The Guardian, etc). Does anyone have any advice/suggestions on what can be done to improve the draft and satisfy the editors? I'd appreciate your advice. Thanks. Turps222 (talk) 00:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:48, 13 January 2025 review of submission by Createuserss

Why My Draft Article was rejected. Createuserss (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1269103279"