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 CSSr2999 (talk | contribs) at 02:16, 9 March 2025 (Requesting assistance regarding Granny (video game)). 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


March 3

02:10, 3 March 2025 review of submission by 2001:8003:64E1:5500:841E:C78E:157B:F3DA

I cannot submit my draft article as I cannot find the following buttons: Save as Draft, Publish Page and Submit for Review. 2001:8003:64E1:5500:841E:C78E:157B:F3DA (talk) 02:10, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is empty, i would suggest you add something to the draft first; As for the button, there is a really huge resubmit button in blue. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:23, 3 March 2025 review of submission by 2A01:CB06:B841:8570:1487:EAEC:AD33:D9AA

I want to creat a page about McSport. Is a international leader football and futsal for organization of matches for FIFA. Who can you help us ? 2A01:CB06:B841:8570:1487:EAEC:AD33:D9AA (talk) 02:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give us the link to the draft? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:52, 3 March 2025 review of submission by 2600:1700:7C20:8920:1C35:F42E:7418:6B54

I have waited three months for the review and made numerous revisions by adding more information and secondary references. However, the reviewer rejected it for the same reasons as the first draft. This does not make sense to me. I don't think the reviewer spent any time reading it and simply wanted to remove it from the database by rejecting it. 2600:1700:7C20:8920:1C35:F42E:7418:6B54 (talk) 07:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor, none of the references used in the draft are reliable sources about the subject. They are either unrelated links (the first three references), schedules for when the workshops happened, or photos from the events itself. None of those are appropriate references to establish notability. Also, when you use phrases such as ...reflecting the workshop's growing global reach and influence., it makes the draft sound very promotional and is not appropriate wording for an article. cyberdog958Talk 09:01, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:10, 3 March 2025 review of submission by Jeromeanthonystephen

Hi! I would like to create a New English Page for "Johan Shevanesh" which is already created in ta-wiki, Since i don't know how to typeset in Tamil Language, I would like to Create English page and do the editing for the same.

Guide me Jeromeanthonystephen Jeromeanthonystephen (talk) 08:10, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jeromeanthonystephen I'll fix your link, you need the "Draft:" portion.
Please know that the Tamil Wikipedia is a separate project from the English Wikipedia. Each has its own editors and policies; what is acceptable on one version is not necessarily acceptable on another. It's up to the translator to determine if an article meets the criteria of the Wikipedia they are translating for. You have only provided a single source; a Wikipedia article here must summarize multiple independent reliable sources. The sources themselves do not need to be in English as long as they meet all other criteria for being a reliable source. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You will need to show that this composer meets the definition of a notable creative professional that we have here. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:23, 3 March 2025 review of submission by Kinsonlocc

Could you tell me why the artcle is being rejected, thnka you Kinsonlocc (talk) 08:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kinsonlocc: A link to your academic paper and a list of its authors is not an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a place to post your papers or any other links as a repository or as a means to promote yourself or your research. Judging by your username, you have a conflict-of-interest about the paper, so it is not recommended you write about it anyways. Your draft has thus been rejected and will not be considered any further. cyberdog958Talk 08:51, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:23, 3 March 2025 review of submission by Frans van Zandvoort

Hi! I'm looking to get my article on Dutch ship insurer NNPC shipshape for publication. It's been twice rejected, most recently by SafariScribe with the below reasoning:

"This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject."

I believe I've used objective and neutral wording and tone in the article, but if you see any instances where it might be biased or too informal, I'd love to hear where.

Secondly, I've done my utmost to whittle the list of citations down to only quality cases: online trade magazines discussing NNPC, historical documents, archives, etc. Nevertheless, I'm aware these are mostly in Dutch as it is a Dutch company (albeit one working worldwide). If you have any practical ideas to strengthen this area, I'd be very grateful too!

All in all, thanks in advance for helping me work out the kinks in this article! It's much appreciated! Frans van Zandvoort (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. 331dot (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have some unsourced sections, and the tone could be made more neutral("membership bounced back", for example) 331dot (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind and swift reply! I've reworked the entry and resubmitted it. Frans van Zandvoort (talk) 09:43, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:51, 3 March 2025 review of submission by Abcsomwiz

How can I make this not a coatrack article?

Do I just need to change the name or do I have to remove a number of things? Abcsomwiz (talk) 15:51, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abcsomwiz The best suggestion I have is the suggestion I have given you already, which is to write the articles for the elements within it. You might then choose to look them together with a navigation template (something you may need assistance with) 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok it's just I saw similar pages like this List of Thai inventions and discoveries have the same categories.
Is there anything that can stay on there so I can just remove what is currently not acceptable and write about them elsewhere in other articles? Abcsomwiz (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abcsomwiz the primary difference is that each line of the linked page you "based" yours off leads to another English Wikipedia article, which is a requirement of list articles. Hence the reason the decline message suggests writing the articles first. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:09, 3 March 2025 review of submission by Qatus

I worked on the article again. Are there still points to work on? 

Qatus (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Qatus, Please read WP: RELIABLE,WP:NPOV,WP:GNG,WP:V and WP:CITE for more information. — 🦅White-tailed eagleTalk to the eagleStalking eagle 18:16, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:WhiteTailedEagle the sources are added to the article anyway. I don't understand what the objection is to this article. Qatus (talk)

19:36, 3 March 2025 review of submission by 134.197.117.102

How do I delete the page? I am the creator and the only person who has edited it. However, the admin did not approve my deletion request. Should I just leave the page, and will it be deleted over time? 134.197.117.102 (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Several IP addresses have edited it, though the draft was started by an account. If that's your account, you need to log in. Are you saying you made all the edits from the varying IPs? In any event, drafts are deleted after six months of inactivity. 331dot (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. If I log in to the account, does it mean that I can delete the page? If not, I will just leave the page inactive and wait for six months. Thank you! 134.197.117.102 (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you log in now and confirm here that I've been talking to you? 331dot (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, right here. So can you delete it now or just let it to be deleted after 6 month inactive? Ps lau (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted it. 331dot (talk) 01:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much and wish you have a good rest of your day. 2600:1700:7C20:8920:45F1:8753:51CE:C0C (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:49, 3 March 2025 review of submission by S Ragul

I submitted my article for that I have give several references which are secondary and independently from news articles.other then that I don't know how to give reference if anybody experienced person knows means it will be very helpful for me to finish this article(Yuva cinematographer) S Ragul (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@S Ragul: The purpose of sources in Wikipedia articles is to verify the information. There are currently three sources in the draft (plus two external links which are probably intended as sources) : this source and this source do not verify anything in the article since they don't mention S Yuva, and this source only mentions his name in passing in a review of a film he worked on. As for the two external links, nettv4u has been determined to be "generally unreliable" (see this list of sources), while the Times of India source is another trivial mention of his name in a film review. --bonadea contributions talk 20:07, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
hi sir,that 1st 2 links are which school & college he studied.that was not mentioned in any platform,he said to me personally so how can I put that information even though he given only one interview (in Nettv4u) that interview also in Tamil language,other then in movie announcements may some news channel mention his name,also for all movies I given wikipedia page but that are not reliable,is it ok to put movie trailer so in that description his name mentioned(youtube) or else what can I do because I already given his imdb page also. S Ragul (talk) 08:41, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@S Ragul: In the decline notices on your user talk page, your question is answered, and I will quote that answer here:

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.

If you have not already done so, please follow the blue links in the text and read the policies and guidelines there. --bonadea contributions talk 08:53, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding that 1st 2 links are which school & college he studied – I understand that, but the reason the sources are not useful is that they do not verify the claim that he studied there. No information you get straight from him can be added to Wikipedia unless it has also been published in reliable sources, as explained above. Has he hired you to create a Wikipedia article about him? --bonadea contributions talk 08:57, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
no he didn't hired for me to creat that,he asked for a help to create that and gave me the informations for creating.is it ok to put movies trailer for refernece because that is also a form of secondary souce or alse is it ok to put movie reviews for references where his name is mentioned also i remove his studies because he gave only interview to the nette4u channel but that cannot be considered as reliable source S Ragul (talk) 10:15, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:35, 3 March 2025 review of submission by 45.183.151.222

Como posso fazer o artigo ser aceito na Wikipédia? 45.183.151.222 (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please use English. The draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. If Portuguese is your main language, you should edit the Portuguese Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:08, 3 March 2025 review of submission by 114.129.4.203

draft:kapu 114.129.4.203 (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor, your draft has been rejected twice now and will not be evaluated any further. It is not based on reliable sources and is not anywhere close to being an acceptable article. If you are interested in writing about Pokemon in the style you did in your draft, I suggest writing it over at Fandom or other wikis dedicated to Pokemon. cyberdog958Talk 23:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:15, 3 March 2025 review of submission by 114.129.4.199

い 114.129.4.199 (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See your request that I answered above. cyberdog958Talk 23:22, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 4

02:37, 4 March 2025 review of submission by KiwiTheGamer

What are the "unreliable" sources, All of them? Look... I can't find a lot of sources for Neverball. The only "reliable" sources that I see is the Github for Neverball, the official Neverball website, the cheesetalks with RLK (the dev of Neverball), and the IndieDB (kinda of). Please help. Is there a way to disclaimer on the article to say um, dunno, multiple problems? -KiwiTheGamer KiwiTheGamer (talk) 02:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To establish notability, the sources need to be reliable, independent of the subject, and provide significant coverage about the subject. The first two listed here are WP:PRIMARY, an interview is not independent either, and a simple database listing with discussion is not coverage of the game. A small amount of information from primary sources can be used, once notability is well established, so long as they're basic statements of uncontroversial facts, but articles can't be written from primary sources. You can keep working on the article, but if there are no sources, there's no article. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:28, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hello how long

hello, how long is the wait-time for my page, Draft:De Anza Boulevard Leonardo da vin :D (talk|contrib.) 05:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Leonardo da vin: As it states at the top of the submission box on your draft, it can take 3 months or more for an evaluation. Drafts are evaluated in a random order so there is no way to know when it will be reviewed. cyberdog958Talk 05:43, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, @Cyberdog958, I see. Last time i submitted it only took a day Leonardo da vin :D (talk|contrib.) 05:45, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:42, 4 March 2025 review of submission by Alexohusslemusic

How do I write bio articles Alexohusslemusic (talk) 07:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexohusslemusic: you write biographical articles in pretty much the same way as any other, with the exception that you must support every statement with inline citations to reliable published sources.
As for autobiographical articles, you shouldn't be writing those at all; see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Everything you wrote about yourself has been deleted because you were trying to promote yourself. You've been blocked so you won't be able to do this again. Deb (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:18, 4 March 2025 review of submission by Ccoasia

Can I know what I should edit or how I can improve my chances of having my submission approved? I don't have many other references to use for the info I have. Hope to get some advice or feedback, thank you! Ccoasia (talk) 08:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ccoasia: you need to find sources that meet the WP:NCORP notability standard, then summarise what they have said about this business. If you can't find sufficient such sources, then the business is unlikely to be notable, and an article on it cannot be published. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ccoasia If these are the only references then it is time to give up, I'm afraid. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:23, 4 March 2025 review of submission by Gajendheran

Hi there, I have cited my draft based on the feedback but it got declined again. Can you kindly assist on this? Gajendheran (talk) 08:23, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gajendheran: that's an odd way of putting it. You submitted a completely unreferenced draft, which I declined (a week or so ago). You have since added citations, but haven't resubmitted the draft, so I'm not sure what "got declined again" means?
If you feel you've sufficiently addressed the decline reasons, you can resubmit the draft for another review.
If you're writing about yourself, please see WP:AUTOBIO for some of the reasons why that's not a good idea. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:34, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gajendheran I see only a single decline, both on the sandbox and on your user talk page. Please explain 'again'?
A common decision by someone is to write an article advertising themselves. This is a poor decision, the more so when one fails to show notability. Wikipedia is not a place for you to advertise yourself. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:06:35, 4 March 2025 for assistance on AfC submission by Redstarwiki

Hello
Please, how do I go about publishing an article that has been flagged for copyright even though I have paraphrased the words and written them in my own way and also cited the article as a source? My article has been rejected twice on this ground and I do not want a third rejection.

Redstarwiki (talk) 09:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Redstarwiki: close paraphrasing is a derivative work, and therefore an inherent copyright violation. You're not meant to recreate third-party content, even synonymically, you're meant to summarise the salient points of such content, entirely in your own words, expressions and structures. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:12, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Alright.
Thank you. Let me work on it. Redstarwiki (talk) 09:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also responded on #wikipedia-en-help, and I have removed the copyright violations from the draft and marked the revisions for deletion. qcne (talk) 09:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your help @Qcne Redstarwiki (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:59, 4 March 2025 review of submission by Tressbo59

Hello, Thank you for reviewing this article. I have added all the adequate sources: 21 references (for a very short article), of these 8 are published and respected newspaper (ex. Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Revue et collection d'architecture et d'art...), 10 are reliable and independent online sources, and only 3 refer to the website of the Association. Please let me know how I can improve this article from here. Best regards Tressbo59 (talk) 12:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tressbo59 If you feel you have done enough please resubmit for review. That is the way to discover how you can improve it from here. After submission please continue to work on the draft. Submitting does not lock it against improvement. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:34, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:57, 4 March 2025 review of submission by Akachukwu Vitalis

Please could you give me guidelines on making the tone of my article "encyclopedic" and from a neutral point of view? Akachukwu Vitalis (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Akachukwu Vitalis, Please see WP:NPOV and WP:MOS for more information. — 🦅White-tailed eagleTalk to the eagleStalking eagle 18:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:16, 4 March 2025 review of submission by Charlie bruh guy lover

I'm just confused about how its not noticeable sir as it is clearly stated that kids all over the world know about it Charlie bruh guy lover (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Charlie bruh guy lover: No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:35, 4 March 2025 review of submission by IrfanAYK

I need to crete an article about Aeroservices IrfanAYK (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IrfanAYK: The news sources you link are all routine coverage that doesn't help for notability as Wikipedia defines it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you "need" to do this? Is is your job?
Your draft is exclusively sourced to routine coverage. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 5

00:44, 5 March 2025 review of submission by MacyLaDuke

Hello! I received a rejection for a page I am building out, with the reasoning being "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."

Just to ensure I understand what updates I should be making before I resubmit again, can you help me to understand what this means? I am seeing that some of the sources I cited in the article may not match up exactly to what is being said, do I need to add additional sources that point more clearly to the info in the Wiki article? MacyLaDuke (talk) 00:44, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MacyLaDuke The draft was declined, not rejected. "Rejected" has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmimtted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
What is your relationship with Mr. Barr? You had access to his home where he posed for you to take his picture.
You have done a nice job of summarizing his work, but you need to show how he meets the definition of a notable creative professional. 331dot (talk) 10:28, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:39, 5 March 2025 review of submission by 103.217.111.125

I need this page because i one to publishe my article 103.217.111.125 (talk) 05:39, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page is at Draft:Ishtiag Arif Joy. However the message at the top of that page indicates that it is not suitable for Wikipedia because only notable topics are covered. Johnuniq (talk) 05:44, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This draft would be an easy A3 in mainspace. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 05:45, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:42, 5 March 2025 review of submission by Waqar9119

I need some actionable help in addressing the references related feedback I have received from wikipedia editors about this draft submission. Please guide me clearly about what sort of reference citations do I need to add/improve for this draft to get published? Waqar9119 (talk) 06:42, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:11, 5 March 2025 review of submission by BasBud

Hi there, may I ask, how can I get my article approved on Wikipedia? BasBud (talk) 07:11, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BasBud: No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:37, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have updated the information in my article, please review whether it is worthy of approval or still needs revision, thank you. BasBud (talk) 07:48, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BasBud: there is nothing to review, you still haven't provided a single source, therefore this rejected draft shall remain just that, rejected. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:59, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @BasBud. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what reliable independent sources have said about the subject, and very little else. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject says, or what his associates say about him. Unless you cite some reliable independent sources which have significant coverage of the subject, there can be no article. ColinFine (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:30, 5 March 2025 review of submission by Madhan4723

To add the page on Wikipedia Madhan4723 (talk) 13:30, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Madhan4723 I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" portion.
Your draft is completely unreferenced with no indication of notability, either as a politician or a notable person more broadly. That's why it was rejected and will not be considered further. If you can fundamentally change the draft to rectify these issues, you should first appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 13:32, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:02, 5 March 2025 review of submission by Riyazsher

Hey, I noticed that BMC Cancer has only one independent source, and it's still them. Meanwhile, Veterinary World has citations directly from Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed Central, and other indexing platforms. These are standard references for journal indexing—so why is there an issue here?

If these sources aren’t considered independent, what exactly qualifies? Just trying to understand the criteria because this seems inconsistent.

Let me know how we can clarify this. Riyazsher (talk) 14:02, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Riyazsher: this draft was declined for not meeting the general notability guideline WP:GNG; please study that, to see what sort of sources are required. There is also a more specific one for academic journals, WP:NJOURNALS, which may be useful here, although note that it's an informal essay and not a binding policy. That said, being indexed by SCOPUS does suggest that this title might be notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the effort to maintain quality. However, I would like clarification on the bibliometric study conducted on Veterinary World by a university-affiliated research group. Since bibliometric analyses assess the journal’s impact and research trends, can this be considered an independent source under WP:NJOURNALS?
Additionally, Veterinary World is indexed in Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed Central, which suggests a level of credibility. While I acknowledge that indexing alone isn't enough, wouldn't the combination of these factors contribute to notability?
I’m open to suggestions on how to strengthen the article within Wikipedia’s guidelines. Let me know how we can address any concerns.
Riyazsher (talk) 14:53, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 content to get past us, we can only address what we know about. This is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can. I've marked the MBC article as problematic. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that other articles may not justify inclusion, and I appreciate the effort to maintain quality. However, I would like clarification on the bibliometric study conducted on Veterinary World by a university-affiliated research group. Since bibliometric analyses assess the journal’s impact and research trends, can this be considered an independent source under WP:NJOURNALS?
Additionally, Veterinary World is indexed in Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed Central, which suggests a level of credibility. While I acknowledge that indexing alone isn't enough, wouldn't the combination of these factors contribute to notability?
I’m open to suggestions on how to strengthen the article within Wikipedia’s guidelines. Let me know how we can address any concerns. Riyazsher (talk) 14:19, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeking clarification on how WP:GNG is applied to academic journals, specifically why Veterinary World was declined while many BMC journals remain despite having similar sourcing.

Currently, these BMC journals have articles on Wikipedia despite primarily citing internal sources, publisher pages, and indexing databases:

BMC Bioinformatics BMC Biology BMC Biomedical Engineering BMC Cancer BMC Endocrine Disorders BMC Ecology and Evolution BMC Genomics BMC Health Services Research BMC Medicine BMC Microbiology BMC Plant Biology BMC Public Health BMC Systems Biology BMC Veterinary Research Most of these articles do not have independent secondary sources (e.g., news coverage, critical reviews) and rely almost exclusively on Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and publisher websites.

If Veterinary World is being rejected under WP:GNG, then why are these BMC journals accepted under the same circumstances? Either:

All these articles fail WP:GNG and should be reevaluated for deletion, or Veterinary World should be reconsidered as it meets the same standard of notability. Additionally, an admin flagged Veterinary World for COI, but there is no connection between the article’s contributors and the journal’s editorial board. The content is neutral, factual, and based on publicly verifiable data. Can someone clarify why this tag was added?

If Veterinary World needs additional sources, could you specify what kind of coverage is required? Since academic journals are typically covered in indexing databases and bibliometric studies rather than general media, what standard is being applied here?

I appreciate guidance on resolving this inconsistency. Riyazsher (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Riyazsher Please do not make a new thread with every comment, just edit this existing thread. 331dot (talk) 17:15, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Riyazsher: I looked at the titles you gave (Bioinformatics, Biology, Biomedical Engineering, Cancer, Endocrine Disorders, Ecology and Evolution, Genomics) before the network bot killed you off the network for your multi-line message. All of them either were expanded from a redirect and/or predate the Articles for Creation process. I imagine it's the same for the rest as well. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:16, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, each article is judged on its own merits, not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may not be appropriate. If you wish to pursue action against other articles that you feel are similarly inappropriate to yours, that's your option.
Journals have a more specific criteria than GNG, WP:NJOURNAL. 331dot (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot, @Jéské Couriano, @DoubleGrazing I understand that older articles may have been created before stricter review processes, but that doesn’t justify maintaining inconsistent standards. If Veterinary World is being rejected under WP:NJOURNAL, could you clarify which specific criteria it fails? The journal is indexed in major databases (Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed), has a legitimate impact factor, and is widely cited in veterinary research. If there are gaps, I’d appreciate specific guidance on what’s missing rather than just being told ‘each case is different.’ Since academic journals are typically covered in indexing databases and bibliometric studies rather than general media, what standard is being applied here? Riyazsher (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Riyazsher: Divide 6,962,433 by 666. The answer you get should tell you the logistical hell Wikipedia is presently in. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:28, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is better than what I wrote. :) 331dot (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And this is without discussing how the first number will only ever go up steadily while the second number will, at best, remain flat and more likely gradually fall. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:34, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Riyazsher This is a volunteer project, where people do what they can, when they can. We have nearly 7 million articles, and maybe hundreds of regular editors to maintain them, people who choose what they wish to work on based on their interests. We're only as good as our manpower and as the time people have to invest in helping out. Again, if you wish to help us address other articles that themselves do not meet current guidelines, please do. We need the help. 331dot (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument seems to be "if you have all these other inappropriate articles, you need to let me have mine too since you haven't eliminated them yet". What we are telling you is that isn't a valid argument, as it would justify never removing anything from Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot @Jéské Couriano: I appreciate that Wikipedia is run by volunteers, and I’m not questioning the workload or effort involved. I’m not saying Veterinary World should be accepted just because other articles exist. I’m asking why similar journals were accepted while this one was rejected. If the rules have changed, what exact criteria does Veterinary World fail under WP:NJOURNAL? I have reviewed multiple journals from BMC, Nature, and Springer, and they also primarily cite indexing databases and publisher pages rather than independent secondary sources. If Veterinary World is being rejected under WP:NJOURNAL, then why do these journals meet the criteria? What specific independent sources are required for acceptance? I just want to understand the standard so I can ensure consistency. What kind of independent sources would be sufficient? I just want a clear, objective standard so I can address the concerns properly. Since academic journals are typically covered in indexing databases and bibliometric studies rather than general media, what standard is being applied here? Riyazsher (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't necessarily the case that these other articles were "accepted" by anyone. As noted, this process has not existed the entire time Wikipedia has existed. Most of those other articles were created before this process, and just haven't been dealt with yet. 331dot (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Riyazher: I invite you to re-read my reply above, especially the "predate the Articles for Creation process" link. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:41, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Riyazsher: re-signing for proper ping. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:42, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot@Jéské Couriano: So does that mean these articles don’t actually meet WP:NJOURNAL today? If they don’t, will they be reevaluated? If they do, what exactly is Veterinary World missing that they have? I understand that they predate AFC, but that doesn't justify keeping them if they don't meet WP:NJOURNAL today. Are these articles going to be reevaluated for deletion, or is there a different standard being applied? AND academic journals are not typically covered in news outlets. Instead, they are recognized through indexing in major databases like Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed. They are also part of university libraries and institutional repositories. If these are not considered valid sources, what exactly qualifies as 'significant independent coverage' for journals? Riyazsher (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, one more time- this is a volunteer project, so they will only be reevaluated when a volunteer chooses to take the time to do so. That can certainly be you, if you want to help us. 331dot (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: I understand this is a volunteer project, but that does not justify inconsistent standards. If Veterinary World is being rejected under WP:NJOURNAL, then logically, similar BMC, Springer, and Nature journals that rely on the same types of sources should also be reevaluated. You keep saying ‘each case is different,’ but without explaining what exactly Veterinary World lacks. Please specify what independent sources are required for journals if indexing in Scopus, Web of Science, University repository and bibliometric analyses are not enough. Riyazsher (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if you feel an article should be reevaluated to see if it still meets current standards, you need to be the one to do so. WP:SOFIXIT. Our standards are only as consistent as the people who choose to help out. So, I will close my participation in this discussion by saying, either please help us in examining the millions of articles that we have to see if they meet current standards, or focus on your own draft and set the other articles aside. 331dot (talk) 17:57, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And please respond to the inquiry on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Riyazsher: Let's flip the script. What criteria of NJOURNAL does Veterinary World meet, and how does it meet it? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:53, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot@Jéské Couriano: Sure. Here’s how Veterinary World meets WP:NJOURNAL criteria:
  1. Indexing in Major Databases:
    • Indexed in Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed, which are all considered reliable and selective databases for scholarly content.
    • Presence in these databases indicates significant recognition within the academic community.
  2. Reputation in the Field:
    • The journal has an impact factor, which demonstrates it is cited in peer-reviewed literature.
    • Cited across multiple bibliometric studies that analyze veterinary research trends.
  3. Independent Reliable Sources:
    • Veterinary World is referenced in university library catalogs and institutional repositories.
    • It has been included in systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in external peer-reviewed journals.
  4. Editorial Standards:
    • It follows rigorous peer-review processes as required by indexing databases like Scopus and Web of Science.
    • It adheres to ethical publishing guidelines, further validating its credibility.
Since Veterinary World meets the core criteria of WP:NJOURNAL, I’d like to know—specifically—what part of the guideline it supposedly fails? If none, then there’s no reason for rejection. Riyazsher (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In order:
  1. I see the Scopus, NIH, and Web of Science indexes, as you cite them.
  2. Per NJOURNAL, having an impact factor assigned by Journal Citation Reports usually qualifies (except for journals indexed in the non-selective Emerging Sources Citation Index). Web of Science lists the core citation index as.... the Emerging Sources Citation Index. This doesn't help for NJOURNAL.
  3. You cite a UNL bibliometry (though I will concede I am incompetent to assess this).
  4. This is irrelevant other than as an argument that NJOURNAL should apply. (Fraudulent, fringe, or predatory journals can still be notable per the GNG, but not NJOURNAL as such.)
As to your sources, disregarding those already discussed...
—Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:31, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano: Thank you for taking the time to review the sources and provide detailed feedback. I appreciate the thorough analysis, and I hope we can clarify any remaining concerns regarding WP:NJOURNAL criteria. Looking forward to your thoughts on the updated references.
  1. Web of Science Inclusion & Impact Factor
    • WP:NJOURNAL explicitly states that a JIF from JCR is a key indicator of notability.
    • The fact that Veterinary World is in Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI) does not disqualify it—many notable journals start in ESCI before transitioning to other Web of Science indexes.
    • While Web of Science restricts sharing screenshots, the impact factor is publicly available through trusted sources such as ResearchGate, Research.com, and university databases.
    • The 2023 impact factor is 1.7, which meets notability standards for an academic journal.
  2. Bibliometric Study from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL)
    • The UNL bibliometric study (https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/2400/) is an independent, peer-reviewed analysis that evaluates the journal’s influence, citation trends, and authorship patterns.
    • This third-party academic evaluation demonstrates the journal's scholarly impact and meets WP:NJOURNAL’s requirement for independent sources discussing the journal at length.
  3. Independent Coverage in Research.com
    • Veterinary World is included in Research.com, a recognized academic ranking and evaluation platform for journals.
    • The journal profile (https://research.com/journal/veterinary-world) provides a detailed overview of citations, h-index, and ranking within veterinary medicine.
    • This meets WP:NJOURNAL’s requirement for significant independent sources covering the journal's scholarly impact.
  4. Clarifying the Removed Sources
    • DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals): While non-selective, DOAJ is used in the "About" section to describe the journal’s accessibility model, not to establish notability.
    • SJR (Scimago Journal Rank): Removed to avoid redundancy with Scopus but still demonstrates scholarly recognition in veterinary medicine.
  5. Final Clarification on Notability Criteria
    • The journal is indexed in Scopus, Web of Science (JIF-assigned), PubMed, and EMBASE, which are widely accepted databases for reputable journals.
    • It has multiple independent sources discussing its impact (UNL study, Research.com, citation analyses).
    • It follows rigorous peer-review processes, and its inclusion in systematic reviews/meta-analyses proves it contributes to scholarly discourse.
Riyazsher (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Riyazsher: In order...
  1. You clearly missed the part of NJOURNAL where it says impact factors for journals in ESCI are irrelevant to notability, despite me quoting it directly above. I invite you to re-read that.
  2. Explaining things in this manner does not make me any less incompetent to actually assess this. I legitimately lack the necessary background knowledge/understanding here.
  3. This I will not contest.
  4. in re DOAJ, there should be other ways to cover their accessibility model other than citing a non-exclusive index; at least one of the more exclusive indeces should contain something to the same effect that you can point to to support it. In re SJR, how would this do better on that front than Scopus, the NIH, and WoS?
  5. I will not contest this, and instead invite members of WP:WikiProject Academic Journals to chime in on this discussion; I acknowledge I am out of my depth here and that if it's being declined in spite of all of this, there is something I'm missing, either due to changing consensus or rank incompetence in this topic area.
—Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:57, 5 March 2025 review of submission by Sachikosky

Hi! I am writing this since my wikipedia page was rejected on the ground: "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). " However, there are two independent noteworthy magazines that have taken up the subject (one about the subject and her impact on the virtual world Second Life art; the other about a video work by the subject). There is another book publication by an independent researcher of which the subject is part. Furthermore there are two DVD publications by independent sources that have taken up the work by the subject, one of which is a renowned institution. So how is this regarded as "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)."? Sachikosky (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sachikosky I fixed your link, you had put the hypothetical title to your draft and not its actual title. Your draft 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.
You have an external links section, and external links in the body of the draft, but I see no references in your draft; if you intend the links as references, you need to see Referencing for Beginners to learn more about how to write references(they need to be provided in-line next to the text they are supporting, especially with an article about a living person). 331dot (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:50, 5 March 2025 review of submission by HYN2025

Why was my submssion declined make it long to read cuz i need big info HYN2025 (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to Draft:Messi or Ronaldo, as suggested by the reviewer, you should edit the existing articles. 331dot (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HYN2025: This draft isn't anywhere close to being properly cited, irrespective of the cut-n-paste copyvio. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:24, 5 March 2025 review of submission by TEDDYGAG2

unclear as to whether or not I should continue making edits or adding links. I have had far too many "editors" weigh in. 

TEDDYGAG2 (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TEDDYGAG2 The issue is not whether you should add what I presume you mean to be 'more references', but whether the references you choose for the next submission verify that you pass the relevant notability criteria.
While autobiographies are discouraged, primarily because they often lead to disappointment and bad feelings, they are not forbidden. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:56, 5 March 2025 review of submission by Indugeita

I've been told that this submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources and that 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 music-related topics).

However most of my references are major newspapers like the Guardian, Toronto Star , Globe and Mail, Exclaim Magazine. I am confused what would be more reliable. Can someone help me? Indugeita (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at a couple of sources and they were all interviews.
Do you have three (and only three) sources that are each reliable, independent (not an interview or press release), and provide significant coverage? qcne (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Indugeita. The boilerplate message above refers primarily to reliable sources, and so (like many inexperienced editors) you tell use that they are to major newspapers, and so are reliable. That is probably true; but nearly as important as reliable is independent (later in the sentence above).
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) 21:54, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok, I see! I haven't had this problem with other artists pages that I've made before. Thanks for your clarification. Indugeita (talk) 12:55, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:33, 5 March 2025 review of submission by AsphyciteWojolord

I need to wait until I can put citations in my Wkipedia draft. But it is declined too quick. Can I edit first? AsphyciteWojolord (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AsphyciteWojolord: don't submit the draft for review if you're not ready; you can keep working on it as long as you want, just remember to save ('publish') your edits. Only submit when you're done editing and want the draft to be reviewed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 6

00:42, 6 March 2025 review of submission by 66.27.127.233

Page rejected! I am very disappointed that the months of work and travel I spent on researching and writing and editing this draft to be told this man is not deemed worthy of Wikipedia. The reasons given in the boiler plate notice are nonsensical. If official government documents and numerous paragraphs from books and newspapers don't count as references, I cannot fathom what sources could. There are several Wiki links in the draft to other famous men who have similar bios. Do I need to write and title a book about this man first, and then reference the book? Will that be enough "coverage?"

"... they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject" 66.27.127.233 (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting. The whole url is unnecessary when linking(and in this case breaks the formatting). I've fixed this..
The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means it may be resubmitted.
Have you summarized what independent reliable sources say about the topic? Or is this a summary of your personal original research? The former is what we are looking for, not the latter. 331dot (talk) 01:39, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:09, 6 March 2025 review of submission by Crownedmurderix

I would love for somebody to define what more "reliable" resources are. I believe I've fixed the problem, but I'd like confirmation. Crownedmurderix (talk) 06:09, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crownedmurderix. What is required are references to reliable sources that are fully independent of Ferrell and that also devote significant coverage to Ferrell. The Bravo Instagram post is not independent and is not significant coverage. It's a trivial passing mention. Simply Buckhead is a gossipy local lifestyle magazine and not a reliable, independent source. The In Touch gossip coverage of a bitter divorce is not reliable and not significant coverage of Ferrell. The Bravo TV coverage is not independent because she works for them. Her own book is not independent of her. IMDb is not reliable per community consensus at WP:IMDB. Cullen328 (talk) 08:34, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Crownedmurderix: much of the content is unreferenced, and some of the references are using unreliable and/or primary sources. In any case, this draft has been rejected for lack of evidence of notability. Rejection means the end of the road. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:14, 6 March 2025 review of submission by Suppposedly

My draft was rejected on the grounds of "NPROF", but the subject is a Member of Academia Europaea which is "highly selective and prestigious scholarly society" and so I believe meets WP:NPROF criterion 3. Proof: https://www.ae-info.org/ae/Member/D%C4%85browska_Ewa

There is an example of another academic passing NPROF based on that criteria here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academics)/Archive_13#Draft:Jaap_Mansfeld.

She also has around 6,000 citations according to Google scholar (which I believe is a lot for cognitive linguistics) https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=cFbRgWYAAAAJ&hl=en 

Suppposedly (talk) 08:14, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Suppposedly: presumably you're referring to  Courtesy link: Draft:Ewa Dąbrowska?
This draft has been declined, not rejected. Rejection means the draft will not be considered any further. Decline simply means it has some issues which need addressing, and then the draft can be resubmitted for another review.
You mention this person's membership of AE, but that is not supported by a reliable source, therefore it is only an indication of possible notability, not evidence thereof. You also bring up their citations count, but you only do that here, I don't see that mentioned anywhere in the draft? FWIW, I think this may well qualify per NPROF, but that must be clearly demonstrated within the draft, the reviewers will not go hunting for external evidence. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:31, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is the correct draft, I'm not sure why the link didn't work. I have lots to learn!
Thank you for the clarification re rejected v declined, and for the advice about adding the proof of AE membership and citation count to the article, I have now added a link to Dąbrowska's AE profile and her Google Scholar page. I was surprised to have it declined under notability rather than poor quality citations/unreliable sources or similar when the (lack of) citation was the problem, though, as when I was reading about notability, I came across the section "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article" at Wikipedia:Notability. But perhaps I misunderstood it? I'll have another read.
Is there anything else I should change before I resubmit, if you happen to have the time? As I'm sure you can tell, I am very new to Wikipedia!
Thanks again for your help. Suppposedly (talk) 09:07, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Suppposedly: you are correct in saying that notability either exists, or doesn't, in the 'real world', not just in a Wikipedia article. That means one cannot judge a subject to be non-notable simply based on insufficient evidence of notability in its Wikipedia article. Therefore, if you want to eg. propose than an article be deleted for lack of notability, you must first carry out a search for additional sources, to satisfy yourself that there aren't any. However, in the case of drafts, the burden of proof is reversed: it isn't the reviewer's job to show that the subject isn't notable, only that the draft doesn't provide sufficient evidence of notability; the onus is therefore on the draft author and/or proponent to present such evidence within the draft.
As for any other issues with this draft, I think you should add more citations to support the contents better. Articles on living people (WP:BLP) have particularly strict referencing requirements, with pretty much every statement made, and especially anything contentious or of private nature, needing to be clearly supported by inline citations right next to the statement. For example, which source gives this person's year of birth? I know at least one of the sources does, but it isn't the source first cited after that statement, which means the reader has to go looking for it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, thank you for clarifying! I'll know what it means for next time. And thank you for the tips re citations, especially when it comes to living people - I've added a lot more citations and put statements closer to their supporting citations. Appreciate your help. Suppposedly (talk) 11:08, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:18, 6 March 2025 review of submission by Aruntom1947

My submission was not reviewed for 3 months and it was rejected on the basis that it was not important to be featured in a wikipedia page and that there were not enough sources. The web series Soul Stories stars Suhasini Maniratnam who is an accomplished actress and has won multiple national and state awards. This is the first Malayalam language web series that she has acted. It also stars popular Malayalam film actors Renji Panicker, Anarkali Marikar and Dayana Hameed. They have starred in multiple hit Malayalam films. There were eight references added to the wikipedia submission including articles from Indian Express, The Economic Times, Jagran (English), Onmanorama and ManoramaOnline. It is unfair to dismiss the submission. Aruntom1947 (talk) 08:18, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aruntom1947: do you have a question, or do you just wish to put it on record that you don't like your draft being declined (which is what it was; not 'rejected')?
Nothing in what you say there makes this series notable; no matter how many awards someone appearing in it has won, notability is not inherited or transferred by association.
The quantity of sources is not what matters, but rather quality. Primary sources, publicity materials, and unreliable sources such as Filmibeat do not establish notability.
Although it wasn't a reason for declining, I would also add that there is barely any content in this draft, which would tell the reader what makes this series worthy of inclusion in a global encyclopaedia.
You're welcome to resubmit the draft once you've addressed these points. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:39, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aruntom1947, your draft was not rejected which means that it would not be considered again. Instead, it was declined, which is an invitation to improve and resubmit. Nobody said that the topic was "not important". Please try your best to be accurate. You say that it is unfair to dismiss your submission. But it was not dismissed. You were asked to improve it. Cullen328 (talk) 08:43, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:34, 6 March 2025 review of submission by Jatin223

I have made all the changes in the content as per the wikipedia guidelines Jatin223 (talk) 11:34, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first step is for you to appeal to the last reviewer directly.
What is the general nature of your conflict of interest? 331dot (talk) 11:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:05, 6 March 2025 review of submission by Lordmichaelspinler

An editor keeps rejecting an article that has no similar articles about it, and is a topic that many people Would have an interest in. The honorary title pack of hougun manor is a legitimate article and would have many lords listed who should be acknowledged. They keep saying this is conflict of interest when the entire article is designed to be expanded upon by lords of hougun. Raising awareness and increasing knowledge on the subject of lordship titles and the holders. Lordmichaelspinler (talk) 14:05, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lordmichaelspinler: please stop now, you're already much closer than you realise to being blocked. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:10, 6 March 2025 review of submission by Mohshinhm

Please help me to published his wikipedia page. About Md Kamrul Hasan Tarafder Md Kamrul Hasan Tarafder is an influential figure, known for his service and technical guidance in uplifting the lives of marginalized people in the Philippines. asa philippines,ensuring their financial inclusion. His works have opened the doors of financial independence for millions of Filipinos and have elevated their livelihoods. His determination to work towards poverty alleviation and his unwavering commitment towards creating the social change have positively transformed the lives of millions across the country. Mohshinhm (talk) 14:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are places that are designed to do what it is that you want to do; this isn't one of them. This isn't the place to honor someone's work or to tell the world about good works or good people. 331dot (talk) 14:43, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:32, 6 March 2025 review of submission by Rulepencil

HOW I NEED TO REWRITE THE CONTNETS Rulepencil (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't yell at us(turn your caps lock off). 331dot (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rulepencil: You have far too many uncited claims. They need to get sourced or get out of the article entirely. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:42, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:02, 6 March 2025 review of submission by Mateo MD

I'm not very familiar with the english Wikipedia, I've mainly worked in the spanish Wikipedia and translated a couple of articles from there to english. And I don't quite understand why the article has been declined arguing that is not supported by reliable sources. First, acording to WP:NONENG, sources that are not in english are allowed as long as there aren't other sources in english, and in the case of the Semana Santa of Segovia, I couldn't find any reliable sources in english, so that should not be a problem.

The next source "Semana Santa en Segovia" by María Mercedes Sanz has been published by an independent library, while the writer is a teacher of Art History in the University of Valladolid and was a councillor of the Segovia City Council in the areas of Culture, Cultural Heritage and Tourism, so she should also be a veriable source.

And finally, I use the website https://www.semanasantasegovia.com/ as a source for the information regarding the brotherhoods and information about them such as their year of fundation or the author of the sculptures they own. The website is supported and backed up by the Regional Goverment of Castile and León, as well as the city council of Segovia and the provincial deputation, as seen at the bottom of the website. This should make it a verifiable source, as it is backed up by the official goverment of the region and is cited to talk about data that could not be manipulated or distorted in order to favour the brotherhoods.

Could someone explain to me why the article has been declined? Am I missing something?

Thank you. Mateo MD (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Large portions of the draft are unsourced. If the existing sources support that information, you may need to apply those sources to other portions of the article; see Referencing for Beginners.
Please be aware that each Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own editors and policies; what is acceptable on one is not necessarily acceptable on another. The English project seems to be stricter than others. 331dot (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much about your anwser, I will try to fix the article as soon as posible. Two more questions: Do you think the sources I provided could count as verifiable? Should I try to talk with the user that reviewed the draft and explain the point I mentioned?. Also, I had to wait quite a while to access the book I used as a source and some of the paragraphs of the draft would need citations from that book. Should I try to get it again and add the citations individually or add the book in a Bibliography section?
Again, thank you very much Mateo MD (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are certainly welcome to discuss the review with the reviewer, as they might be able to clarify certain things.
My ability to evaluate the sources is limited as I do not speak Spanish, but there may be others here who do. 331dot (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the advice, I'll se what I can do Mateo MD (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:09, 6 March 2025 review of submission by Janjza

What is considered a reliable source? I’m writing a new article about a player called Nicolas Kurej. However it got rejected because there was no reliable source in the references. Could you please give me an idea of what is considered a source that is reliable enough. Eg; official club website, transfermarkt, sportnet etc.

Thank you, Janjza. Janjza (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Janjza I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft as intended(you had "What is considered a reliable source?" linked as your draft). The draft 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(and you have).
Please read WP:RS to learn more about what a reliable source is, but I think the main issue is that you have very little content in the article. It needs to do more than just say he's a player. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Janjza: well, yes and no. This draft was declined (not 'rejected') because it doesn't show that the subject is notable. That requires sources to be not just reliable, but also independent and secondary, and to provide significant coverage of the subject. For example, Soccerway is probably reliable, but it provides no coverage at all, let alone significant; just stats. Transfermarkt is even worse. And the club website is obviously not independent or secondary. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding. I’ll do what you said. :)
Janjza. Janjza (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:25, 6 March 2025 review of submission by AnimeshHimself

please dont delete my action this is my first edit AnimeshHimself (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe anyone has said it should be deleted, but you do need to review the information left by the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the Autobiography policy; Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves. 331dot (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AnimeshHimself: nobody has requested deletion (yet). If someone does, you need to contest that on the draft talk page, not here.
Please see WP:AUTOBIO for some of the reasons why you should not be writing about yourself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
as for my submistion was which that my Wikipedia Draft was DECLINED can that be removed from my account.? AnimeshHimself (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asking for it to be deleted? 331dot (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:03, 6 March 2025 review of submission by Totoshka2020

I submitted this draft for publication as an article, but it was rejected because the sources I provided were not reliable. My question is, why are these sources not reliable? Totoshka2020 (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Totoshka2020: because cites 3 and 5 just point to a parked domain, and 4 and 6 to Amazon, which is not a source but a retailer. Also, much of the draft is not supported by any sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have added that the other two sources (or rather, one source cited twice) are to a primary source that also contributes nothing towards notability, which was the other, and arguably bigger, reason for declining this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm understand. I found tournaments on ChessBase in which Stanislav Ilin participated, so I can add a link to these tournaments. I also know that this coach had students such as Olga Babiy, and Anna Ushenina consulted with him, as well as Oleksandr Zubov and Pavel Eljanov. There are also signed documents confirming this (printed documents).
Additionally, he had a meeting with the first President of Ukraine, Leonid Kravchuk, where they discussed the coach’s significant contribution to Ukrainian chess and how he is reviving chess in Ukraine.
To confirm the significance of creating this article on Wikipedia, Stanislav Ilin is one of the first representatives of the young generation who represented Ukraine after independence. This can be traced at the 1997 World U18 Championship in Yerevan, where only three players represented Ukraine: Ruslan Ponomariov, Alexander Zubarev, and Stanislav Ilin.
If I add this information and attach the documentation about his students, will the article be published, or is this still not enough? If it is not enough, could you please advise me on what specific sources or additional information I need to include to ensure its publication? Totoshka2020 (talk) 15:05, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Totoshka2020: per WP:NCHESS, chess players need to satisfy the general notability guideline WP:GNG. That requires significant coverage in multiple (3+) secondary sources that are both reliable and independent.
It is also important that everything is properly supported by reliable published sources; unreferenced statements are not proof of anything.
The draft says that this person is ranked at Master level, whereas NCHESS states that to be considered reliable a player should be at Grandmaster level (and even then, GNG needs to be met). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:27, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:26, 6 March 2025 review of submission by StewyOnIsle

Worthy of a Wiki bio? This from Wiki instructions or who is notable: 

   "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor"
   Howells was awarded the Military Cross - Australia's 2nd highest medal at the time.
   "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field"
   Howells was Mentioned in Dispatch by Winston Churchill, has the largest display in the Australian War Memorial Museum, lauded in Official Histories of WWI, Australian Engineers publications, and personal letters from knighted authors and general officers.
   OR
   "The person has an entry in a country's standard national ... "
   Howells is listed in "Who's Who in Australia" numerous years.

   So, is he "notable?" StewyOnIsle (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
StewyOnIsle I fixed your post, using the whole url breaks the formatting of the header. 331dot (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks! Maybe someday, I will know all the rules. Now if someone could tell me why this draft was rejected in spite of the rules for biography notable persons being more than obeyed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Edward_John_Howells
Wikipedia:Notability (people) StewyOnIsle (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thank you sir/mam AnimeshHimself (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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. I would be happy to accept if re-submitted. Theroadislong (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:05, 6 March 2025 review of submission by OA17151104

I decided to rework and improve this article: Ellsworth Hunt Augustus

Since it was going to be a long process, I copied the article to my sandbox and worked on it there. Draft:Ellsworth Hunt "Gus" Augustus

I submitted it for review and it was declined because there is already an article. I know that there is already an article. What I don’t know is what I should have done instead. It seemed that working in the original article space made no sense for a massive reworking. What I am supposed to do to move this process forward? Thanks! OA17151104 (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OA17151104 I fixed your links, the whole url is not needed. Simply place the title of the target page in double brackets, as I've done here.
Now that you have your reworking, you can simply copy it and replace the existing text, although I might first post on the article talk page to get some other opinions on the merits of your proposed changes.
For future reference, there is an Under Construction tag you can put on an existing article to indicate that you are spending a lot of time reworking an article. ({{under construction}}). 331dot (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 7

03:26, 7 March 2025 review of submission by BoolaBulldog

Hello - I am hoping to understand why my page for Laurie Mifflin got denied and what things I need to provide in order for it to be approved. BoolaBulldog (talk) 03:26, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BoolaBulldog: I fixed the link to your draft above. There's a detailed explanation both on the draft page and your user talk page – could you be more specific about what it is you don't understand, so we don't just repeat the same advice you have already been given? --bonadea contributions talk 07:11, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:35, 7 March 2025 review of submission by AnimeshHimself

my submission is rejected please help me to remove the red banner. and the speedy deletion also. AnimeshHimself (talk) 03:35, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


The user AnimeshHimself has been both renamed and globally locked; the draft is tagged for speedy deletion as a sockpuppet creation. Nothing to do here. --bonadea contributions talk 06:50, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This post and this post by the user on their previous user talk page are profoundly depressing. "A chatbot told me I can have a Wikipedia celebrity page." Makes me wonder why we even bother anymore. --bonadea contributions talk 07:25, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:24, 7 March 2025 review of submission by Taras Zherebetskyi

Dear Wikipedia Administrators,

I am the author of the article "Ukrainian Studies Fund", which was declined due to an insufficient number of independent secondary sources. I understand the importance of this criterion and would like to clarify how many and what types of sources should be added to meet the notability requirements.

The Ukrainian Studies Fund has been supporting academic initiatives related to Ukrainian studies in U.S. universities for over 60 years. However, since the fund primarily focuses on financing educational programs rather than public outreach, there are limited references in independent sources.

Could you please specify:

- How many additional independent secondary sources would be required to meet the notability standards?

- What types of sources (news articles, academic publications, books, etc.) would be most relevant? I would greatly appreciate your guidance on how to improve the article and make it eligible for publication.

Best regards, Taras Zherebetskyi Taras Zherebetskyi (talk) 09:24, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taras Zherebetskyi If you are the founder of this organization, that must be disclosed on your user page, please see conflict of interest.
There is not a specific number of sources that is being looked for, but most reviewers want at least three independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the organization- coverage beyond merely describing its activities, that goes into detail as to what is important/significant/influential about the organization- how it is a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 10:36, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:58, 7 March 2025 review of submission by JOSEPHCB!

I would like to publish it please. Ive added relevant information JOSEPHCB! (talk) 09:58, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It has no independent reliable sources provided. You list some references, but don't provide actual citations(like where an interview is published in a public independent reliable source that can be verified). It reads like an essay about yourself, which is wholly inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you want to tell the world about yourself, that's what social media is for. Please see the autobiography policy, as well as the reasons why an article about yourself is not a good thing. 331dot (talk) 10:32, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @JOSEPHCB!. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what reliable independent sources say about the subject, and very little else. What the subject himself wants the world to know is not of any interest to Wikipedia, unless it has been discussed by independent commentators. ColinFine (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:36, 7 March 2025 review of submission by Toblerone101

Would You think about accepting this? TobyB (talk) 11:36, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Toblerone101: if I'm not mistaken, this is at least the third time you're here asking about this draft (as well as Draft:Joyride sweets – BTW, please don't create multiple versions). Once a draft is rejected, that's the end of the road. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:44, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:37, 7 March 2025 review of submission by Hominid23

Hi, I've submitted edits following the guidelines regarding sources of the information. I'm not sure if I have properly submitted these changes. I made two updates today, just not sure if I've let Wikipedia know that the article is ready for review. Thanks for your help, Hominid23 (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have successfully resubmitted the draft. 331dot (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hominid23: yes, when you see that large mustard yellow field which says "Review waiting, please be patient", that tells you it's in the system. And just to clarify, you resubmitted this yesterday and then made further edits today, but as long as you don't tamper with the submission template the draft will remain in the review pool even when you're editing it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying. Hominid23 (talk) 14:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:16, 7 March 2025 review of submission by HoodedBeast09

I just added the official YouTube channel. Would that help with notability? Thanks! HoodedBeast09 (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HoodedBeast09 No, being on YouTube does nothing for notability, because anyone can put pretty much anything on YouTube. Only significant coverage in independent reliable sources can establish notability. There doesn't seem to be any, which is why the draft was rejected and will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, shoot. Alright. Thanks for getting back to me. HoodedBeast09 (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:52, 7 March 2025 review of submission by 2600:1700:3FB0:10AF:E450:4E91:F746:34E9

I believe we've have fixed the inline reference issues and request a review. 2600:1700:3FB0:10AF:E450:4E91:F746:34E9 (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to click the "resubmit" button in the decline message to formally resubmit it. 331dot (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:04, 7 March 2025 review of submission by 190.22.196.174

please i want to see 

190.22.196.174 (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is severely lacking in context and sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:09, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:10, 7 March 2025 review of submission by 2605:B100:748:88E3:2C22:D143:D55D:743B

I submitted an article, but it rejected. Could you please update me the reason behind the rejection? 2605:B100:748:88E3:2C22:D143:D55D:743B (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link to the draft, please? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:14, 7 March 2025 review of submission by Noslopy

I would like to create a page for my tech company called Birdhouse. I'm not sure what type of content should I add to make it a viable Wikipedia page. Birdhouse is *special* in regards its one of the first companies who provide a process of creating software via Kanban Tickets only. We are not startup in a sense that we grow organically so we cannot post of a successful investment or such publishable content. Noslopy (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noslopy You declared a conflict of interest, but if you work for this company, you must make the stricter paid editing disclosure, a Terms of Use requirement.
Every company thinks that what it does is special or important; Wikipedia articles (not "pages", which has a broader meaning) summarize what independent reliable sources say about companies that meet our definition of a notable company. Wikipedia is not a database where existence merits inclusion. 331dot (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:34, 7 March 2025 review of submission by JRubinFilm

Hi this is not meant to be an advertisement. I would greatly appreciate advice as to how to successfully resubmit. Thank you JRubinFilm (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The ability to resubmit has been restored, but you should follow the advice you've been given by Qcne at the top of the draft(and in a chat, I gather). 331dot (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @JRubinFilm. "Considered a landmark in AI-driven filmmaking" - who exactly considers it as such? If it is a reliable published source, wholly unconnected with you, then say so, and cite the source. Otherwise remove it.
This sort of evaluative statement should never appear in any article in Wikipedia's voice: this is an example of what makes your draft read like an ad.
A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what reliable independent sources have said about the film, and very little else. Essentially nothing that you or your associates say or want to say about it is relevant, except where independent sources have commented on what you said. ColinFine (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:09, 7 March 2025 review of submission by Honeypigeon34

Hello, I'm not sure what I need to cite within this article. The information is straight from the source via email, not published. One of the founders of Mayhem Marketplace saw that they were discouraged from making the article themselves, since they are too close to the subject, so they asked for volunteers.

This was my first attempt at a wikipedia article, but I believe in the project so I volunteered to help. What can I do to cite sources for this when it is a new project, not yet published about? 

Honeypigeon34 (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Honeypigeon34: I'm afraid this is not the answer you want, but if there are no published, reliable and fully independent sources talking about a topic in depth, there cannot be a Wikipedia article about it. --bonadea contributions talk 21:12, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Honeypigeon34 (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And please note, @Honeypigeon34, that if you volunteered to write the article for the founders, then you have nearly the same conflict of interest that they would. This does not prevent you working on such an article, but it does impose some restrictions. ColinFine (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:14, 7 March 2025 review of submission by Clark Kimberling

My submission of this Draft was declined 7 March 2025 for being "not adequately supported by reliable sources." Am I right that this refers to reference #5 because it is not verifiable? If so, how can I make this reference (an email from A. Philippou to me) verifiable? If the reason for the declining of the submission is something else, please advise. Clark Kimberling (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot make a personal email "verifiable" as it is not publicly available; even if it were, it is a primary source and cannot establish notability.
In general, you have just documented the occurrences of the event, and not summarized what independent sources say is notable about this event. 331dot (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:37, 7 March 2025 review of submission by Mugumbate

I have this important article that has been rejected 3 times because of references but I do not seem to find the required references. In my view, lack of the required references should not disadvantage this article because the lack of references reflects the challenges of organisations that were formed and functioned under colonialism, like in this case, there was inadequate documentation of the work of the ASWEA in secondary sources because its work was considered anti-imperialist. I have tried hard to get the sources but can't find more than what I have put. If the ASWEA if finally denied entry into Wikipedia, that seems unjust because there are other organisations formed the same time as it outside Africa that easily gained entry. I do think Wikipedia should work to dismantle this barrier. Mugumbate (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mugumbate The draft 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.
Please see other stuff exists. It is possible that these other articles you have seen are also inappropriate and are just not yet addressed by a volunteer, doing what they can, when they can. There are many ways for inappropriate content to exist on Wikipedia, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content.
If there are no independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of this organization, or at least ones that you can find, it cannot have an article on Wikipedia. Unfortunately we can't give a pass to Wikipedia guidelines just because a topic comes from an underserved part of the world, or a part of the world where colonialism may have restricted coverage of a topic. (this is not the forum to right the great wrong of colonialism) If you think you might find the sources later, you can add them and resubmit later. Drafts are only deleted if inactive for six months, just edit it once every six months to keep it active.
You claim that you personally created and personally own the copyright to the logo of the organization. It's a defunct organization, but you didn't personally create the logo, I assume. 331dot (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 8

01:42, 8 March 2025 review of submission by 69fbbfan

I am unsure how I can site a reference or source for this article when all of the info is either on her Herbiceps page/profile, her Instagram or I obtained by chatting with her directly thru her OF page. Please advise. Thanks 69fbbfan (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are acceptable sources. If that's all you have, she would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. An article must summarize what independent reliable sources say abiut the topic, not what it says about itself. 331dot (talk) 01:46, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:49, 8 March 2025 review of submission by 103.114.97.102

Why was my article declined? Hello, my article "Wikipedia Company" was declined in the Articles for Creation process. I would like to understand the exact reason for the decline and how I can improve it for resubmission. Here is the submission link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HimuSEOPro?markasread=334899939&markasreadwiki=enwiki. Thanks in advance for your guidance! 103.114.97.102 (talk) 13:49, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please log in when posting. I've fixed your header to provide a link to your draft as intended. You linked to your user talk page in your post. 331dot (talk) 13:54, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IP editor. Please remember to login to your account when posting. Your draft article, titled Draft:Acrylic_Aquarium, was declined due to only having a single source to NatSCA. Your draft also reads like an essay. Wikipedia articles are summaries of reliable, published, mostly secondary sources. What you have written isn't a viable article in it's current state.
Maybe you would like to improve the existing Horniman Museum article instead?
Please have a close read of Help:Your first article which gives some tips on writing for Wikipedia. qcne (talk) 13:55, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you are HimuSEOPro, you should declare as a paid editor, see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 13:56, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:49, 8 March 2025 review of submission by BlooBind

Hi Team, I have updated the "Server Sundaram (Unreleased film)" movie page, but I need to change the title. The instructions suggest going to the "More" section and selecting "Move," but I can't find that option. Can someone guide me on how to proceed? 

BlooBind (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draft names are provisional and should not be considered definitive. If and when it is accepted, the reviewer will move it to an appropriate title. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:54, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a draft, @Jéské Couriano.
@BlooBind - Tools are in different places depending on the skin and the options. For me, it used to be directly there, under "More", but now it's under "Tools", or in the "Tools" sidebar. It's possible tha the documentation hasn't caught up with newer skins. ColinFine (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:55, 8 March 2025 review of submission by Blixiarmastaja

Why did my article get declined? Blixiarmastaja (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Blixiarmastaja: do you mean Draft:Jinsoul? Because it is completely unreferenced. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ohh, i apologise. Im new and this is my first article, what do i need to do more? :) Blixiarmastaja (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Blixiarmastaja, have you checked our criteria for musical artists at WP:NMUSIC? qcne (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Blixiarmastaja. 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. ColinFine (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:48, 8 March 2025 review of submission by Glammazon2

Where can I find good sources I can credit for my Jacob Asch page? Glammazon2 (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They simply don't seem to exist which is why the draft was rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Glammazon2. Did you read Your first article, and notability before creating your draft? Creating a draft without first finding the required sources is like building a house without first surveying the plot to make sure it is fit to build on. ColinFine (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:38, 8 March 2025 review of submission by Glammazon2

Where can I find more information on the mystery writer Arthur Lyons? Glammazon2 (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, @Glammazon2. We expect editors to find sources themselves. Have you checked literary reviews in newspapers and magazines either online or in your local library? qcne (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:55, 8 March 2025 review of submission by Javed Ali khan shekh

Regarding to this article: if it's not a musician and youtuber who become accidentally did a musical work but not know as musician. Javed Ali khan shekh (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever they are, the draft has been thrice rejected. It's the end of the line. 331dot (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:32, 8 March 2025 review of submission by Windy City Steve

The References to this article are verifiable references, can you point out any that are not verifiable on the internet. The Citations also even though there were only 3 citations linked directly to the source materials. Windy City Steve (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 9

00:45, 9 March 2025 review of submission by 143.44.196.46

how to make my article not rejected 143.44.196.46 (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can't, its a collection of information that seems to be original research. 331dot (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:16, 9 March 2025 review of submission by CSSr2999

I had this draft but was declined. can someone tell me how to fix it in depth? thanks CSSr2999 (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1279525607"