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 Sudipmisraiitkgp (talk | contribs) at 06:28, 3 April 2025 (Requesting assistance regarding Draft:Sudip_Misra). 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 28

01:39, 28 March 2025 review of submission by Alexnewmon2623

Hello, Thank you for your feedback. I have a couple of questions regarding your comment. Firstly, when you refer to “notable,” are you using a subjective definition? Similarly, do you consider the term "small town" to be subjective? Hollywood, FL, where Josh Levy serves as mayor, is a significant city in Broward County. It would be helpful to clarify the basis for these assessments. Additionally, your comment about "formatting problems" is noted, but it would be more constructive if you could provide specific examples of the formatting issues so I can address them more effectively. As for the concern about the article being promotional, I’m not sure how to reduce that aspect without digging to find negative content or controversies on this individual. I would like to clarify that I am simply a resident of Hollywood trying to write about the leadership in our community, and my intent is not to promote anyone. If you have suggestions on how to make the article more neutral, I would be happy to hear them. Lastly, could you help me understand why someone like Stephanie Fielding, the Mohegan linguist [redacted] whos name is known by virtually no one, is considered more notable than Josh Levy, who has done extensive work for his community? Is it because of her prestigious education or her publication history? I’m just trying to better understand the notability standards and how they apply here. Alexnewmon2623 (talk) 01:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Josh Levy
@Alexnewmon2623:. I have reviewed, and declined, your draft. I have left my extensive reasoning on the draft, but the TL;DR is that the sources listed were not sufficient to show that the subject is notable for an article here on Wikipedia. I notice you appear to have a bit of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality about this drafts acceptance, and I want to be aware that all the editors here are volunteers and the declination of a draft is not personal, and I implore you to assume good faith. cyberdog958Talk 04:15, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyberdog958
Hello. Thank you for your time.
Good faith was assumed, but I found it quite interesting that I was right off the bat disciplined as a new writer. Constructive criticism is to be expected, and responding to my questions and to my submission in general in the tone that the other moderator gave is not constructive.
I asked simple, basic questions, which were answered in a defensive way as if I was trying to argue and break rules I had not known existed. I understand you are all volunteers, so am I at the end of the day.
Now, to the your response (which I appreciate being more constructive then my previous experiences,) I don’t think it’s logical to say that the sources are not reliable, and that the subject is not notable in an objective sense. What I was asking is if the definition of notable, reliable, and the size of jurisdictional location is subjective which it is, to Wikipedia.
I also asked if, to wikipedias subjective definition of notable, one’s academic pursuits and credentials matter more, which we now know to be true. Josh Levy is not an academic individual; he is a politician at the local government level. The reason I created this article is because I have seen articles of many people that are far, far less prominent, important, and known then mayor Levy(at an objective level), so I thought it would be a good idea.
You mentioned many times how my sources are not suitable for Wikipedia. Could you give examples of sources that would be acceptable as it pertains to this individual? What steps could we take, and what changes can be made to make this article acceptable for publication. Is, because Josh Levy is not an academic figure and a political figure above the local level, this article not able to be published at all on Wikipedia?
Thank you again! I look forward to your response. Alexnewmon2623 (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexnewmon2623: You're getting the wrong impression here. On Wikipedia, we have two different ways of establishing notability: The general guideline (GNG), which measures how much reliable sources with strong editorial oversight and no connexion to the subject have written about it, and specific guidelines (SNG), which are developed for specific topics and are more selective when it comes to sources. To merit inclusion, a subject has to meet either the general guideline or one of the specific ones. Note that these specific guidelines are sometimes developed to address situations where the GNG cannot realistically grant notability due to its own flaws; one of these is WP:NACADEMIC, which instead specifically measures academic impact rather than the usual array of sources. This is because under most circumstances, someone who would meet NACADEMIC would have a very difficult time meeting the GNG.
I do not think NACADEMIC applies here, as we're discussing a holy man and not necessarily a scholar. (Merely being an alumnus of a notable college/university isn't a claim for NACADEMIC.) Instead, it looks to me like the more relevant SNG is WP:NPERSON, which is far broader in its scope and much closer to the GNG in most circumstances. To that end, I will point you to my Decode subpage and assess your sources.
You don't have much in terms of third-party reliable sources actually discussing Levy, and as a result, you don't have much of anything to base an article off of at present. Are there any newspaper articles or religious magazine articles that discuss Levy (and aren't just interviews)? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:18, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this is a lot better of a response! Thank you so much. However, I believe you looked at the wrong article. I’m working on Draft:Josh Levy Alexnewmon2623 (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano Alexnewmon2623 (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That I did. However, we do have a SNG for politicians. I won't attempt a source assessment here as this implicates a contentious topic. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:40, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano thanks for this. Is there anything that can be done to make the article suitable for publication? Alexnewmon2623 (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexnewmon2623: I already went through every source and stated why they were not enough in my declination statement on the draft. Unless you can present new sources that have significant coverage of the subject in question by a reliable source that is independent of the subject, then nothing can be done to satisfy the notability requirement for politicians. Please read the pages I linked to understand what is needed for the subject to be notable and the draft to be published. cyberdog958Talk 17:54, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyberdog958
I am still struggling with understanding how the sources I provided are not sufficient. I would greatly appreciate you to give me contextual examples (meaning you tell me what you, as a reviewer, would need to see in order to consider the sources acceptable). Alexnewmon2623 (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think that if the person reviewing Josh Levy could find a reason to publish it, I think a reason can be found within mine. That is what I mean when I say subjective. Alexnewmon2623 (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexnewmon2623: See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because you believe that another article on Wikipedia does not meet the criteria for notability does not mean that this one would get published. I’m not sure how much clearer on what would be required. I described exactly what reviewers look for when assessing sources and I stated exactly why the sources in the draft are not sufficient. cyberdog958Talk 18:40, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I don’t believe that the article in question does not meet requirements for publication, I know. A reviewer confirmed it. I wasn’t even asking and they did. Again I’m not trying to argue.
Also, the “guidelines” are not particularly clear; they are lengthy yet vague.
You did kind of answer some of my questions. As for the city of Hollywood government website, is that not a reputable source? I don’t know if it matters much who it was written by, in this context, as the information regarding the mayor would have to come from somewhere. I’ll go ahead and add more articles I’ve found (that seem to be more “significant” from the considerably vague information I’ve been provided) in the sources/references section and resubmit. Thank you again. @Cyberdog958 Alexnewmon2623 (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Alexnewmon2623. Official sources (such as government websites) are almost always primary sources, and cannot contribute to establishing notability. ColinFine (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, then where else is the information supposed to come from? I think anything posted on a government website, secondary or not, is probably accrete though I could be wrong. Alexnewmon2623 (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:32, 28 March 2025 review of submission by 진국

My draft about Wadiz got declined again. May I know which part of the article I need to improve on? It was previously declined for the same reason but I have made many edits and removed sentences that sounded like an advertisement. I tried to write sentences as neutral as i can and added sources from the news articles but it got rejected. Could you help me to make this draft an article? 진국 (talk) 06:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @진국. I haven't looked at the sources, but reading your draft, it reads very much as "This is what Wadiz wants people to know about itself". That is why it reads as an advert.
Wikipedia has basically no interest in what Wadiz says or wants to say, or in what its associates or customers want to say about it. The article should be a summary of what people who have no connection with Wadiz, and have not been commissioned or fed information on behalf of the company, have chosen to publish about it in reliable sources.
The list of companies and products who have used the platform is pure advertising, unless independent sources have written about their use of it. Looking at the source cited for the first one (Labnosh), the article is mostly based on an interview with the CEO of the company behind Labnosh (so is not independent), and only mentioned Wadiz in passing - so it does not contribute to notability, and there doesn't seem to be a strong case for mentioning it at all in the article. (That is just the first example). ColinFine (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:01, 28 March 2025 review of submission by Preetladhar76

what references should I submit? Preetladhar76 (talk) 09:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Preetladhar76 It's inadvisable for you to be writing about yourself at all, though it is not absolutely forbidden. Please read the autobiography policy.
Did you personally take the image of yourself? It appears to be a professionally taken image, which usually means it's the work of the photographer and that the photographer owns the copyright, not you.
You need sources that you can summarize that establish that you are a notable creative professional. The sentence about your next book being published soon should just be removed. 331dot (talk) 09:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:23, 28 March 2025 review of submission by Judithglyde

First of all, a few thoughts. It was noted by your reviewer that I was writing this article about myself. I felt no need to further confirm. Because of a writer being 'discouraged' to write about herself, but was told the article would not necessarily be 'refused', gave me encouragement to write a very neutral article about my own life. As I feel that this is indeed a notable life, I have written significant coverage and not just 'passing or fleeting' mentions. I have experience in writing neutral bios, and this submission is not only neutral but shows a certain notability in this life. I feel that Significant Coverage in Reliable Sources seems to have been shown by in-depth citations, in as much as the career has consisted of significant academic, professional and creative work, as well as independent writing. This requirement that you state, "Significant coverage has be the subject in published, reliable sources that are "independent of the subject" needs to be explained." I have tried to include independent sources when appropriate to ensure the coverage is objective and not promotional. It seems as though adding citations to as many biographical sources as possible is not the answer, although you ask for "additional references". I have added news media, academic journals and others; I have not added self-published sources or personal blogs or social media posts - the sources I have used — all have fact-checking reputations. (I could add one theory book I co-authored that I keep forgetting to add.) I don't understand the comment, "NONE of these sources provide significant coverage of her, some of them have reliability that is debatable at best" (all the sources I provided are not debatable - they exist even if just a mention to prove the source/citation exists - such as news/organizations), "and the rest are just obituaries of other people that don't go into depth about her."(Well, obituaries are about the person who died, and do not GO INTO DEPTH about those who have not.) Again, I may not have said that I AM HER, but the reviewer had made that case - I felt that it was not necessary to further clarify. As you have said, you want neutrality in the article. If neutrality is written along with sources, there is no conflict of interest. There could be a conflict of interest if someone with a conflict writes this article; however, no one knows a person better than the person herself/himself. Finally, you can tell my specific need for assistance: I feel that I have written a very neutral biographical article with good reliable citations for the sources for significant points in my life. Please let me know what else I can do. There seems to be no point to carry on if Wikipedia will definitely refuse an article written by and about the same person; or if my citations are just not good enough. Thank you for your assistance. Judith Glyde Judithglyde (talk) 10:23, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't already, please read the autobiography policy as to why it's highly discouraged for people to write about themselves. Wikipedia is primarily interested in what others say about a topic, not what it says about itself(like a person or business). In my many years here I've never seen someone succeed in writing about themselves, though it's probably happened. The point is that it's very rare. Are you the rare person who can do it? Possibly, but the odds are against it.
You have done a nice job summarizing your work, but you have not summarized what sources say makes you a notable musician. 331dot (talk) 10:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, did you personally take, and personally own the copyright to the professional-looking image of you? It's uncommon for the subject of the image to own the copyright to it. 331dot (talk) 10:33, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I checked four random sources, none of them supported the content? Theroadislong (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:40, 28 March 2025 review of submission by Fizzandlil

Hi. My name is Graham. I'm helping Philip try to get his page accepted as an article. It's been rejected (twice). We don't know what we need to do to get it accepted. We don't know who or how to contact anyone to discuss the problems with the draft page or what we need to do to overcome them. We're not experienced or seasoned contributors and we're stuck. Can someone help please ? Fizzandlil (talk) 11:40, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fizzandlil: Hello Graham, one problem I can see at once when I look at the draft is that the majority of the sources are to publications by him. To show notability, there must be reliable sources, wholly unconnected to himself, writing about him. Independent reviews of his plays in major newspapers would be one kind of source that would serve for this purpose – have a look at the notability criteria for creative professionals (such as authors and playwrights) to get an idea of what is required. There may be other issues as well, but the lack of independent sourcing is something that would have to be addressed. --bonadea contributions talk 11:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bonadea Thank you for taking the time to reply. That's a big help and a first step to overcome. Thanks. Fizzandlil (talk) 13:17, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Fizzandlil. Please be aware that if you are help your friend get a Wikipedia article about himself, then you have a conflict of interest. That does not forbid you from working on it, but you need to be aware of the restrictions that follow.
Secondly, Anybody who wants there to be an article about them needs to be aware of an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing.
Thirdly, please note that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:18, 28 March 2025 review of submission by Minecraft11226

What website is reliable for finding graves of dead people? Biography. Minecraft11226 (talk) 12:18, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obituaries thaf document the location of burial. The family tree really should only include people with articles. I'm also not sure what the claim to notability is; being related to a notable person is insufficient(WP:NOTINHERITED). If " not much is known" about them, they would not merit a Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 13:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:30, 28 March 2025 review of submission by FateHum

Hello! I recently made a page, which has been tagged as possibly including some issues. I would like to refine and work on it, if anyone here has experience, feel free to comment below and give me some suggestions and advices. Please be specific, wherever possible, rather than talking in broader terms. Which parts are unnecesary? Which parts need to be rewriten, and what are some examples of better ways to rewrite those parts? Christina Wendall FateHum (talk) 12:30, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FateHum You had the word "advice" where the title of the draft or article should go. You also don't need the whole url when linking. I fixed this. This page is to ask about drafts in the draft process. To ask about articles, please use the more general Help Desk. 331dot (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Welp, it says i cant post there FateHum (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FateHum Ah, you should be able to tomorrow, once a full four days has passed from when your account was created. 331dot (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha and thanks FateHum (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:00, 28 March 2025 review of submission by Blink184

Hello community

This is my third attempt to add an article for this album. I can't find when and where this album appeared on the charts. All of the band's albums are on Wikipedia, and I don't quite understand why this one shouldn't be there. I ask for help in preparing the article for publication.

Thank you. Blink184 (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nkt every album of a group merits an article just because. You need sources to support your claims. 331dot (talk) 13:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Blink184: the WP:NALBUM guideline has seven criteria, chart performance being just one of them. If you can't find information on whether this has charted, go for one of the other criteria.
We don't publish an article on an albums because articles exist on the other albums by the same artist/band. We publish one if the album can be shown to be notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:27, 28 March 2025 review of submission by Johnsmackenzie

I started the page as I wanted to add to this list - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Yacht_clubs_in_Scotland

I looked at the pages listed there and some eg East Lothian Yacht Club have no citations only internal links to Wikipedia pages.

I have sources for lots of the statements made, but given the nature of the topic there are not likely to be multiple sources.

The page is not a promotional "brochure" as I am trying to create a history, for example the list of major events hosted.

Can someone give me an indication of where I am going wrong? Johnsmackenzie (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see other stuff exists. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and just not yet addressed by a volunteer. There are many ways inappropriate content can exist, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. The article you pointed out has no sources and I've marked it as problematic. While understandable, it is a poor idea to use any random article as a model or example; you should use those that are classified as good articles, which have received community vetting.
You have described the activities of the club; Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK - that's really helpful. I will think again. Johnsmackenzie (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you are associated with this club, that must be disclosed, please see the information I placed on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have put a disclosure on the page - but will review the information. Johnsmackenzie (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:46, 28 March 2025 review of submission by OldFeather90

He is very important, I don’t know why the admin says he is not sufficiently noatable OldFeather90 (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, but it was I who rejected the draft. Being important is not a notability criterion in Wikipedia; please take the time to read the notices placed on your user talk page when the draft was declined and rejected, to find out how Wikipedia defines "notability". There's nothing in the draft that indicates that Rutledge meets any of the notability criteria for people. When the draft had been declined twice for inadequate sourcing, a single new source was added – and that didn't even mention Rutledge, so it's pretty clear that he isn't notable as it is defined here. --bonadea contributions talk 14:52, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @OldFeather90. The thing to understand is that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
The "notability" criteria are mostly saying "is there enough suitable material available to base an article on?". Some subjects that are famous, or popular, or important, or influential, just haven't (so far) had enough independent material published about them to base an article on, and those are not notable, as Wikipedia uses the word. ColinFine (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:24, 28 March 2025 review of submission by 102.0.2.86

Am eager to know why this draft is being rejected 102.0.2.86 (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clear reasons have been given. 331dot (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand 102.0.2.86 (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the messages at the top of the draft. You disclosed a conflict of interest, what is the general nature of it? 331dot (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:20, 28 March 2025 review of submission by Swensonia

I have submitted an article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Regina_Joseph which has been rejected. I've been advised by the editor to focus on NPOV tenets but would like some additional feedback, perhaps in the form of 1 or 2 examples of where the NPOV tenets are not met in order to help guide my efforts to edit the piece which, as you can see, is rich with citations, etc. Any specific feedback would be appreciated. Thanks in advance for your time and help. Swensonia (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly disregard; I failed to see earlier response last night. I didn't mean to ask the same question twice for different feedback. Please accept my apology. I'll respond to the earlier feedback from last night. Swensonia (talk) 16:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:03, 28 March 2025 review of submission by JacA12

Good evening, I would like to ask why the sources are considered not to be on par with the Wikipedia standard. Thank you. JacA12 (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some new sources, would these be considered as useful? JacA12 (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 29

00:36, 29 March 2025 review of submission by NewMediaColin

Hi, I just wanted to confirm I have re-submitted correctly. Thank you! Colin NewMediaColin (talk) 00:36, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to click the "resubmit" button on the screen, in the review box on the draft. 331dot (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:07, 29 March 2025 review of submission by 2405:201:681B:A019:DD21:EE7A:D30E:2931

why that page reject what happend 2405:201:681B:A019:DD21:EE7A:D30E:2931 (talk) 06:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This draft was rejected as it is insufficiently referenced with no evidence that the subject is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:49, 29 March 2025 review of submission by Bhaskar sunsari

sir/mam plesae accept it it is for the kuswaha people of nepal not india please Bhaskar sunsari (talk) 08:49, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not uncommon for a group of people to cross international borders(Kurds, for example). I suggest that you do as suggested and expand the existing article- once you do, you can then make a case for splitting it off and see if other editors agree. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:01, 29 March 2025 review of submission by 102.89.68.230

i want to have it to make my panel standard 102.89.68.230 (talk) 13:01, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was zero indication that Draft:Steve The Producer was in any way notable so it was rejected. I have no idea what your "panel standard" is I'm afraid, but Wikipedia cannot help you with this. Theroadislong (talk) 13:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:12, 29 March 2025 review of submission by Dipeshflorence

why my artical is rejected Dipeshflorence (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia is not the place for you to post your résumé, curriculum vitae, or similar material. Theroadislong (talk) 13:14, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:35, 29 March 2025 review of submission by 105.112.179.240

Please I will like this my artist biography to be on Wikipedia, truth be told, he has a good talent and needs your help in making sure people also recognizes him. 105.112.179.240 (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user. Wikipedia is not a platform where talented new artists can become more well-known. Unless a singer meets these criteria and/or these criteria, there can't be an article about them. It looks like there are no reliable, independent, secondary sources talking about Big Whale at this point. --bonadea contributions talk 14:21, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We also have no interest in helping people to recognize him. Wikipedia is the last place to write about something, not the first. 331dot (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:26, 29 March 2025 review of submission by CSharpStudentToo

How can I amend the article and re-submit it? CSharpStudentToo (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CSharpStudentToo: you cannot, because this draft has been rejected; that is the end of the road. If you have evidence of notability which wasn't previously considered, you may appeal directly to the last (rejecting) reviewer. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:04, 29 March 2025 review of submission by 105.112.192.237

My artist biography I wrote was rejected, please help me write it well so it can pass Wikipedia guideline. 105.112.192.237 (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication that the subject is notable. The draft has therefore been rejected, and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I see this was the second time you're asking the same question. Please don't open a new thread each time, just add to the existing one (assuming you actually need to ask a question; repeating what you've already asked seems pointless). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:43, 29 March 2025 review of submission by Catmantwo

I am curious as to why Harry Fair is not worthy of Wikipedia. He is responsible for the merger of Holt and Best into what we now call Caterpillar. One hundred years later, his idea still stands as the industry leader. As an employee, I appreciate his contribution and want to share his story. Note I received no compensation for this. Catmantwo (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You stated your source is "Content secured through Caterpillar annual reports and other company literature. Content verified by Caterpillar Corporate Archives." This is unacceptable. The purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize what independent reliable sources say about a topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. He may be notable, but the company archives is not an acceptable source.
If you are a company employee, you are a paid editor, it does not require specific payment for contributing. 331dot (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Catmantwo. 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) 19:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:50, 29 March 2025 review of submission by JacA12

Good evening, I would like to ask why the sources are considered not to be on par with the Wikipedia standard. Since the rejection I have added some new sources, would these be considered as useful? It seems to me that the subject satisfies the criteria for a Wikipedia article, he is even cited in an already existing page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_contract_(economics)). Thank you in advance for your help. JacA12 (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:59, 29 March 2025 review of submission by 23.240.101.98

I am sorry but I do not understand why Justice Moorthy does not qualify. By virtue of his position alone he would seem to meet notability guidelines, but he is also mentioned significantly, not just in passing, in several primary and secondary sources. These are mostly offline, would appreciate any help in making them available. Randor Guy book and Madras High Court documents accessible by database only are examples. 23.240.101.98 (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not need to be online, as long as they are publicly available(like in a library) and you can provide enough information for someone to locate the information you are citing(publication date, author, page numbers, etc.) I believe Referencing for Beginners provides some information on this. 331dot (talk) 08:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


March 30

00:05, 30 March 2025 review of submission by The Global Music Historian

Hello! I've been editing the draft & cannot seem to figure out what exactly seems as a non-neutral tone, as everything is factual & backed up with multiple citations regarding The World Album - International Artists Project. What specifically needs to be changed or added? Thank you! The Global Music Historian (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Phrases like "ensuring a genuine representation of each nation’s culture," and "adding even more variety and creativity to the album" are quite non-neutral. The citations are also quite a mess in the current state, with them just thrown in a pile at the end rather than in-line to support specific factual claims. ToffeeThumbs (talk) 04:02, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much! I have removed the phrases you mentioned, as well as cleaned up the references! Just resubmitted! Much appreciated!! The Global Music Historian (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:40, 30 March 2025 review of submission by Alexnewmon2623

Hello! I was Checking if I could receive any feedback on this page. Thank you! Alexnewmon2623 (talk) 04:40, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s Draft:Mohegan Congregational Church. Apologies. Alexnewmon2623 (talk) 04:42, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've just removed the red link outright. 331dot (talk) 08:11, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:18, 30 March 2025 review of submission by Bmpwoan58

Thank you for the feedback. From my understanding the Guardian and Nation (among others) are indeed notable sources, and these articles were not written by Andrew but rather about him. Bmpwoan58 (talk) 06:18, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Awards do not contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award or Pulitzer Prize). 331dot (talk) 08:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:39, 30 March 2025 review of submission by Jitheshcr7

I have added relevant source which are mainstream and independent news media. However seems my efforts are not recognized. I could see many wikipedia articles about colleges nearby without any citations and references. Could you please let me know how they got approved without mainstream and independent references ? Jitheshcr7 (talk) 07:39, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jitheshcr7 Please see other stuff exists. Each article or draft is judged on their own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and just not yet addressed by a volunteer.
That another article exists does not mean that it was "approved" by anyone. This process has not existed the entire time Wikipedia has existed, and it is usually voluntary and not required of all users- so there are many ways inappropriate content can exist; we cannot only address what we know about. If you would like to help us, please identify these other articles you have seen so action can be taken and others don't do what you did and use them as a model. We need the help, and we are only as good as the people who choose to help us.
Though understandable, it is a poor idea to use any random article as a model, for these reasons. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles, which have received community vetting. Your draft has been rejected, however, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 08:07, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:18, 30 March 2025 review of submission by Sfrago79

rejection article (Integrative Agriculture) I wrote a wiki article on Integrative Agriculture and it was rejected because "the subject exists". However, searching at this topic i did not find anything about it or about the term. Sfrago79 (talk) 08:18, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sfrago79 I fixed your header- you had other text where only the title of the draft should go.
You have two separate drafts, perhaps inadvertently from your comment; Draft:Integrative agriculture and Draft:Agriculture. You seem to be talking about the Agriculture draft (which was declined) and not the integrative agriculture draft, which has not been submitted. 331dot (talk) 08:22, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thank you! what should i do now ? should i resubmit ? Sfrago79 (talk) 08:39, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You could submit the draft you intended to submit, but it's not referenced very well; references need to be in line next to the text they support, see Referencing for beginners. It also reads like an essay and not an encyclopedia article- more prose, fewer bullet point lists. 331dot (talk) 08:47, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:41, 30 March 2025 review of submission by JacA12

Good evening, I would like to ask why the sources are considered not to be on par with the Wikipedia standard. Since the rejection I have added some new sources, would these be considered as useful? It seems to me that the subject satisfies the criteria for a Wikipedia article, he is even cited in an already existing page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_contract_(economics) , source refernce 12). Thank you in advance for your help. JacA12 (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JacA12: Being cited in a Wikipedia article does not impact whether or not a subject is notable (and such an argument would fly in the face of WP:CIRCULAR). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:48, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i understand that, and that is why it is not included in the sources section. the subject has though published also articles on newspapers and has been cited by newspapers, which are the new sources that i have added JacA12 (talk) 17:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:03, 30 March 2025 review of submission by Iadmc

I am much more a classical music editor. This tech stuff is new to me. I see it has been rejected previously for lack of sources. I have removed everything unsourced and cleaned up the language. Are the sources acceptable? It is now very short also! Thank you very much! — Iadmc♫talk  16:03, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Last part sounds kinda advertisement like Thehistorianisaac (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll check — Iadmc♫talk  19:23, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the last part but left the sources in. Might be useful. In future. — Iadmc♫talk  22:56, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:29, 30 March 2025 review of submission by JohnJonesSOP

2 Editor's comments re: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources...." and "This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article."

Information references about these comments is akin to drinking from a fire hose. I don't understand. JohnJonesSOP (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have no independent reliable sources in the draft. 331dot (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @JohnJonesSOP. 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) 09:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:52, 30 March 2025 review of submission by Manvi1820

Hello, i published a draft Dresden Liepzig Railway station without edit summary. What can i do to add the edit summary as its a translation of german wikipedia. Manvi1820 (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can make a dummy edit with an edit summary saying something along the lines of Content in the previous edit was translated from the existing article in German at [[de:Original article name]], see its history for attribution. Sophisticatedevening🍷(talk) 21:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 31

06:39, 31 March 2025 review of submission by Gautams742

My submission got rejected, I have now, fixed links, please talk to me if you are rejecting, as now I have done my best and it shouldn't get rejected. Someone please help in getting my page accepted Gautams742 (talk) 06:39, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have submitted again with right links, please approve it. I would ready grateful for the help. Gautams742 (talk) 06:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You must answer the questions on your user talk page about your connection to the company. The draft still has no independent, secondary, reliable sources. --bonadea contributions talk 07:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have replied, I am not aware of UI, hence took me time but I have replied to 2 comments and have clarified I am not getting paid, I have changed links and content also. Now it should get accepted. Pease help me with that. Gautams742 (talk) 10:37, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gautams742: this draft has been rejected, which means the end of the road. And as Bonadea says, the sources still don't come even close to establishing notability, so there is no way this could be accepted.
Please don't mess with the AfC templates in the draft, they must remain there, as clearly noted in the source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the draft and added back the "AfC templates" in the draft. Please let me know what else is required. All new sources have made it more credible, have removed few links which either not from recognised platform or there was URl mistake. Gautams742 (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the templates have been added back, although not by you.
Once more: the sources cited do not establish notability, therefore this is the end of the line. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:12, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whats next? What do I do now with this rejected article? I have 6-7 articles from notable sources, which are national & internationally used.
Please dont say that its the end of the line, there must be something that can be done to make it possible to publish. Gautams742 (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's the end of the line, sorry. Please use this as a learning experience and move on to something else. 331dot (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gautams742, 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) 09:55, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I relaised my mistaken and have fixed it, should be fine now please help in getting it approved. Gautams742 (talk) 10:38, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AI generated garbage is unlikely to be accepted ever. Theroadislong (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not AI generated, thanks for not reading and just replying whatever you feel like. Gautams742 (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As below I used GPTZero to inform my reply. Theroadislong (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I guess you and GPTZero will just have to agree to differ. ("We are highly confident this text was AI generated. Probability breakdown: 100% AI generated") -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well AI cant be trusted, as you guys are hellbent on as per previous reply. When I used AI, to show what I have written it also said it will 100% not. get rejected.
But none of you editors - can say that links are not notable- open links to verify them, otherwise its just an lie.
I have said this in above messages also that link are all genuine and correct, still you guys are not ready to accept it, I have checked guideline of reliable notability sources and it is within guideline.
You all are rejecting basis old reviews, not what I have submitted today. There is no partiality nor false links. Gautams742 (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please drop the stick already. Since you say you have no special interest in this subject, and have been told by multiple reviewers that it isn't notable, just forget it and move on to something else. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have very specific & special interest in rejection of article, while meeting the notable criteria met, while not advertising the topic.
Also none of questions are being answered. All links are verified sources.
Adding all here again-
Rebranding Announcement
https://bestmediainfo.com/2020/01/online-fitness-company-squats-rebrands-itself-as-fittr/
Details FITTR's rebrand from SQUATS (2020)
Growth & Revenue
https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/how-fittr-cracked-fitness-code-and-grew-rs-100-crore-business-118686
Covers user growth to 3M and ₹100 crore revenue
Community Model
https://startuptalky.com/fittr-success-story/
Explains FITTR's community-driven approach
Coaching Services
https://www.entrepreneur.com/en-in/entrepreneurs/this-online-fitness-startup-is-community-first/388766
Describes FITTR's coaching features
Series A Funding
https://inc42.com/buzz/fitness-startup-fittr-raises-11-5-mn-in-series-a-to-fuel-international-expansion/
Confirms $11.5M investment (2021)
Seed Funding
https://www.techcircle.in/2020/04/28/sequoia-surge-leads-2-million-funding-round-in-fittr
Documents $2M raise (2020)
Wearable Launch
https://zeenews.india.com/technology/fittr-hart-smart-ring-launched-in-india-at-rs-18999-after-samsungs-galaxy-ring-checkfeatures-2725728.html
Announces FITTR Hart Smart Ring (2024)
Rainmatter Investment
https://inc42.com/buzz/fittr-raises-3-5-mn-from-zerodhas-rainmatter-to-scale-up-its-fitness-playbook/
Details $3.5M funding (2024)
Tell me which one of these is fake? try googling too. All claims are supported by multiple independent secondary sources.
My only problem is that why wikipedia is not accepting notable sources and no one has clear answer. I want to move on to new topic but cant because of this problem. Gautams742 (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hope my last reply is upto the standard & answers your question. Gautams742 (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gautams742 A brief skim of your putative sources reveals churnalism of PR pieces, announcement by the organisation, etc. etc. These are not acceptable except in very limited circumstances. You appear to be unable to hear the advice you have been given, or are, perhaps unwilling to listen.
Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 22:00, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You all are rejecting basis old reviews, not what I have submitted today. Incorrect, I have checked all the sources you added to the draft today. Sources must be reliable and independent and secondary and (collectively) provide significant coverage of the company in order to show notability. As I said above none of the sources meets all those requirements – they are all non-independent and most or all are primary.
It is also relevant to note that Fittr (app) was deleted a couple of years ago after this community discussion which concluded that the sources in that article were not reliable and independent and secondary and (collectively) providing significant coverage of the company. --bonadea contributions talk 17:14, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:48, 31 March 2025 review of submission by Bhaskar sunsari

edit request for kushwaha community is not accepted yet and you guys are declining my article accepting my article wont harm any one in wikipidea Bhaskar sunsari (talk) 06:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bhaskar sunsari: you need to stop tendentiously submitting drafts, and creating new ones under different titles.
Your edit request at Talk:Kushwaha wasn't an edit request, it was yet another copy of your draft content, a massive 30k byte addition. This has been reverted.
You need to slow down, and calm down, or you'll get yourself into trouble. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:17, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing They have achieved a two week block for this behaviour. This surprises me after their statement that they were leaving Wikipedia. I find the behaviour very disappointing. They seem yo have a bad case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU, unfortunately. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 21:51, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:50, 31 March 2025 review of submission by TuisVV

Hi please help. What can i fix on my article to get it approaved TuisVV (talk) 08:50, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TuisVV You need the "Draft:" portion of the title when linking, I've fixed this.
If you work for this company, that must be disclosed, see paid editing and conflicy of interest.
Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about a company and its offerings. 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. You haven't done that- and will basically need to blank the draft and start fresh, only summarizing independent sources with signifcant coverage- coverage beyond brief mentions, interviews, company materials, or the mere annoucements of activites- coverage that goes into detail as to what the sources sees as important/significant/influential about the company(not what the company sees as important about itself). 331dot (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback. I understand that Wikipedia articles must rely on significant coverage from independent, reliable sources to establish notability, and that any affiliation or paid editing must be transparently disclosed. Given that my previous draft leaned too heavily on company materials and didn’t adequately incorporate independent analysis, I will revise the entry.
To comply with Wikipedia's guidelines, the new version will focus on summarizing what independent reliable sources say about Sunbet. I appreciate the guidance and will work to develop a revised draft that meets Wikipedia’s standards for neutrality and notability based on independent coverage. TuisVV (talk) 09:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, @TuisVV. Please do not use AI again to generate either your draft or your replies here. We want to see what you say, not what some AI says. ColinFine (talk) 10:01, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TuisVV: this is you telling the world about your employer. We have no interest in that. We want to see what completely unrelated third parties, specifically independent and reliable secondary sources, have said about this business and what makes it worthy of note. Your job is merely to summarise their coverage. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:37, 31 March 2025 review of submission by Stefanstartme

This article has been declined again because of the quality of sources. However, since my last submission, I've added several new sources including links to an acadamic journal and the New York Times.

- https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/31/technology/personaltech/finding-a-personal-web-portal.html - Block, Ludo (2021). OPEN SOURCE INTELLIGENCE NAVIGATOR FOR INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISTS (PDF). pp. 17–18. - Penfold, Rob (April 2023). "Browser Extensions For The Stretched Health Librarian". Journal of Health Information and Libraries Australasia. 4 (1). Australian Library and Information Association: 32. doi:10.55999/johila.v4i1.143.

What to do next? Any help would be very much appreciated! Stefanstartme (talk) 09:37, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is less interested in the features of your company's program and more interested in what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about it. The Features section is unsourced and really should just be removed unless independent sources discuss the features. The reviews section is very brief and only gives a little detail. You say it's "widely used" but don't tell anything about the significance of this. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:58, 31 March 2025 review of submission by Viljowf

I'd like to understand better what the remaining issues are in terms of promotional content and tone, so that I can make the necessary adjustments. However, the editor did not leave any specific comments for me to address. Would appreciate help and advice. Viljowf (talk) 10:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a connection with this company?
You have summarized the routine activities and offerings of the company; this does not establish that the company is a notable company. 331dot (talk) 12:19, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:58, 31 March 2025 review of submission by Gautams742

Please refer to the section above where any discussion will continue. Do not open multiple threads here, please 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 07:23, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

my DRAFT:FITTR is rejected, please help me get the approvals by gyiding me with changes, I have ready to change content. Gautams742 (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You linked to your user page instead of your draft, but rejection means that no improvement is possible, so you need to move on from this topic, at least for now. 331dot (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft was 100% AI generated and was rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@Gautams742: please stop posting the same request over and over. Several experienced editors have explained that the draft will not be approved. The sourceS you have added since the rejection do not show any notability for the company, and the draft is still written like an advertisement (and at least part of it was almost certainly written by an AI). The arguments brought up in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fittr (app) which led to that article's deletion a couple of years ago are still entirely relevant. --bonadea contributions talk 15:12, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All you guys are doing is self- contradicting yourselves. What is the purpose of wikipedia? If valid existing company/people who are publicly re-owned cant have a article here?
Also whats wrong in taking help of AI to write few lines for code text & refine language. Rejecting valid data is absolutely against wikipedia prime objective.
No-offense to you, thanks for replying. Appreciate that :) Gautams742 (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a database of things that exist. There are criteria for inclusion, which we call notability- such as a notable company.
Wikipedia is a human-edited project- we want humans to write the content here, not chatbots. There are many problems with chatbot generated content, see WP:LLM for an explanation.
You seem strongly personally invested in this topic. Are you associated with this company? 331dot (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. I agree wikipedia is not a database but I read notability criteria and links manually, try opening any one of them, you will see its truth. 1 accept there was problem earlier but now.
2. It is written by human not BOT, only to form better sentence & remove grammatical mistake, I have used it for code.
3. I am not associated with company, wanted to start with this, no point in writing multiple rejected articles. Reason to be strongly keep trying is because I dont like falling and want to improve in everything that I do. Gautams742 (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

16:20, 31 March 2025 review of submission by 2003:CD:E72A:8400:64B0:AB3E:6E8C:E2D

Kommentar: Gemäß der Wikipedia -Richtlinie zu Interessenkonflikten gebe ich bekannt, dass ich in Bezug auf das Thema dieses Artikels einen Interessenkonflikt habe. ActiveEnergymanager ( Diskussion ) 18:24, 27. März 2025 (UTC) Worin besteht der im Kommentar genannte "Interessenkonflikt" Im Artikel wird ein 20 Jahre altes Verfahren zur katalytischen Umwandlung von Bio- und Kunststoffabfällen beschrieben und mit Einzelnachweisen belegt. Bitte um Erläuterung. Vielen Dank! 2003:CD:E72A:8400:64B0:AB3E:6E8C:E2D (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Auf englisch, bitte. Your draft is in German, for which reason I have declined it. This is the English-language Wikipedia. If you wish to submit content in German, you should head to https://de.wikipedia.org instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:00, 31 March 2025 review of submission by 184.190.130.104

My submission is an article about my own theory about the fabric of space, using known cited theories as a baseline. Are my ideas not credible because they are contrary to standard beliefs? 184.190.130.104 (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't it. The problem is that it's an original theory, and as we are an encyclopaedia we have absolutely no use for such. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:02, 31 March 2025 review of submission by Ratychop77

this article written on APSWDP has used more than 15 sources where neutral information has been written by third party author or writer then why this is not considered as neutral toned rather an advertisement Ratychop77 (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ratychop77: Because "This reads like an advertizement" has practically nothing to do with the cited sources. It's a criticism of how the article proper is written. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay the only thing that I re write my article in neutral tone keeping my sources intact and mentioning citations as it it is
Please suggest Ratychop77 (talk) 03:18, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you would need to rewrite it - and please write it yourself: don't use AI again.
Remember that citations aren't just a nice-to-have: they are in every sense the basis of the article. There should be no information whatever in an article, that cannot be found in a reliable published sources - and almost all of the information should be in sources wholly unconnected with the subject.
To take one example: you have a paragraph about what APSWDP did for Kashmiri migrants. But the source you cite says only that the convener of APSWDP was one of those who collaborated with ALSA on that project. All the detail about what APSWDP did in that activity is unsourced, and should not be in the article (unless you can find an independent source for it). I'm not saying that it is untrue; but without a source it should not be in the article, and reads as promotional puff.
The way to do this is to start again, forget every single thing you know about APSWDP, and write a summary of what the reliable independent sources say about it - nothing more. ColinFine (talk) 12:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:30, 31 March 2025 review of submission by Broadwaybaby1

My draft page was not accepted, but stage adaptations of notable films with similar information and sources provided have been accepted, for instance, Summer Stock (musical). How can I improve my submission so it is accepted and clearly falls within notability guidelines? Broadwaybaby1 (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Broadwaybaby1 Please see other stuff exists. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate, and just not yet addressed by a volunteer. There are many ways inappropriate content can exist, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. While understandable, it is a poor idea to use any random article as a model or example. If you would like to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles.
You have done little more than document performances of the musical. To demonstrate notability, you need to summarize independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject, such as sources that describe the development of it, or professional reviews of it. 331dot (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article you mention is indeed problematic, and I've marked it as such. 331dot (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the recommendation, I will add more independent sources describing the development and reviews. Broadwaybaby1 (talk) 23:13, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:11, 31 March 2025 review of submission by Ohmch

Keeps getting declined, all information is presented from a neutral point of view and is stuck to the facts as represented publicly. The latest comment i received was "constant socking" which gives zero information as to why this page has been declined. Assistance is appreciated, thank you. Ohmch (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Most unreleased films generally do not merit articles, see WP:NFF. Socking refers to the inappropriate use of multiple accounts. See sock puppetry. If more than one person is doing the same thing, it's called meat puppetry. 331dot (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many unreleased films have been given their own articles, for example, Raid 2, Housefull 5, Kuberaa, these are just to list a few. Ohmch (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ohmch Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 07:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:17, 31 March 2025 review of submission by Nbdy 010111

its a biography about myself Nbdy 010111 (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves. Please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 23:19, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want to have a biography like The Weeknd. Nbdy 010111 (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you edit and publish it according to your own rules? Help edit it? Nbdy 010111 (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nbdy 010111 No. Just no. No.
I want to have a biography - then become notable in other people's eyes. Until that day, no. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 07:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 1

00:15, 1 April 2025 review of submission by 2025sapphire

Hi, I've recently submitted an article, and it has been flagged as "too promotional and advertisemen,t" and I would just like clarification on what exactly needs to be changed or if I've set it up wrong on my end. It's the first time I am writing an article, so any assistance would be great! 2025sapphire (talk) 00:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note it was declined within 2 minutes of submitting it, so I'm not even sure if that was enough time to read it? Have I set it all up wrong? 2025sapphire (talk) 00:16, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"with stated commitments to ethical sourcing and craftsmanship" is kind of a giveaway, 2025sapphire. Plus we'd need to see some decent published sources, not overly friendly websites. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 03:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @2025sapphire. 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) 13:00, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:09, 1 April 2025 review of submission by FieryAzra11

I don't know why or how it even got declined. It was perfect and spotless man. FieryAzra11 (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • FieryAzra11, the title doesn't even meet our guidelines, let alone that awful blatantly promotional content without a single secondary source. Also, it contains the word "journey", which is always a red flag. And he's 14. Really, you should know better. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:19, 1 April 2025 review of submission by Queeribbean

Hello,

I'm requesting support for the article for Mohamed Q. Amin. Can you provide feedback on what needs to be changed? Queeribbean (talk) 01:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Queeribbean, start by removing all those inline URLs and replacing them with proper footnotes; see WP:CITE. Until that happens it just looks like a resume. Besides that, I'd try to write some neutral prose, leaving out the word "journey" and taking a cue from other biographical articles. As the reviewer, Sophisticatedevening, said, "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." Good luck, Drmies (talk) 03:51, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:55, 1 April 2025 review of submission by 210.50.85.201

Rejection is the opinion of one person, to be respected, but cannot be final. For 'Zeneisho' is an integral part of the large Japanese annual 'Mainichi Shodo ( Calligraphy ) Exhibition and the 7th division entitled Zeneisho/Avant Garde Calligraphy. It's history can be traced back to the work of Hidai Tenrai ( 1872-1939 ) and is currently detailed in the extensive Wikipedia article 'Bokujinkai' ( Collective ) which refers to 'Keiseikai' and the works of Sosai Inada. Equally important is the very nature of Zeneisho, for it is part of the shifting boundary of all contemporary art worldwide. Art is not just different. Without words it explores and expresses the nature of our very existence, the world of the heart and soul. There were 5 particularly relevant quotes that were omitted from the submission for the sake of brevity:

'Shatter the paper with the brush...' 'Hagakure' ( Samurai classic )

'Hirayama Shiryu would let out a terrific shout just before picking up the brush and spraying the room with ink...' 1789 - 1828

'Years of experience and training are consumed in each stroke of the brush' means that the artist writes each line as if he or she is facing the last moments of life - one's spirit is etched into the paper. Most modern calligraphy lacks that quality and tells nothing about human existence.' Anon

'Calligraphy has never been valued purely for technical beauty or artistic composition in the Far East. None of the most famous calligraphers in China, Korea and Japan were professionals - they were philosophers, priests, monks, nuns, scholars, statesmen, poets, warriors and the like. What is the reason for this? Someone who is primarily concerned with making a beautiful thing for money or reputation is not projecting his spirit into the work and it will be lifeless.' Anon 

210.50.85.201 (talk) 01:55, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK--from another person then: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. It doesn't even look like an encyclopedic article. Please click "Random article", in the left column, to see what an actual Wikipedia article, good or bad, looks like. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, IP user. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what several independent, reliably published sources have said about a subject, and very little else. Original research is never acceptable. ColinFine (talk) 13:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To pile on to what everyone is saying, this is a topic that, by its very nature, wouldn't be eligible for a Wikipedia article if we take this draft at face value. If nothing is documented, then there is nothing that can be summarised, and thus there would be no way for an encyclopaedia to write about it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:30, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:05, 1 April 2025 review of submission by Bonatech

Blatant advertising 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 07:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shandong Bonatech Technology Biological Group Co., Ltd., referred to as BONATECH, is a high-tech enterprise in China that focuses on material extraction, material separation, and material purification. The headquarters is located in Yuepu Science and Technology Innovation Center, High-tech Zone, Jinan City, Shandong Province. The group's current business areas cover the production of various organic membranes, ceramic membranes, hollow fiber membranes and related membrane filtration and separation equipment, the provision of chromatography, separation, and purification related technical services, and the implementation of comprehensive solutions in the field of separation and purification. The products are widely used in synthetic biology, medicine, cosmetics, medical devices, biological products, blood products, food, health products and other fields. Bonatech (talk) 05:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

05:07, 1 April 2025 review of submission by Madhav Immigration

What changes are required in my article Madhav Immigration (talk) 05:07, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Madhav Immigration: to be completely honest, I don't think this will be an acceptable draft, it's not written as an encyclopaedia article. I'm also not convinced that we should have an article comparing and contrasting Indian vs. int'l hotel management education. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, we don't accept text written by an LLM. ColinFine (talk) 13:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:56, 1 April 2025 review of submission by Ishan.dahal.735

Hi, the submission for the creation of the page (Sunsaan Raatma) has been declined with the reason (references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage). I am in need of assistance to get this article published in Wikipedia and what further steps can I take for that. Here are some details about the rejection and significance of this article.


The problem with finding more source of information are: -

- Nepali music does not have charts dating back to 1985, to prove its success or significance.

- The Nepali music of those times often went undocumented in any forms other than the album or the music itself.

- The album existed in cassette form and was extremely rare to find for more than 2 decades, as Nepal begun to digitalize, and was recovered by public only in 2023, when it was uploaded on Youtube and Spotify.

- Generally, the music of Nepal are still not written about, or even when they are seldom written about, the newspapers or magazines often do not have accessible archives to find these articles.

Why is this album significant to exist in Wikipedia : -

- This is an historic album in Nepali music history as it was the first album to feature original and distinctively Nepali music that defined the sound of Nepali music to be released after 1985.

- The album in itself is very rare, iconic, and historically significant so that it needs to be documented for the people who want to find information on this album.

- The references include the source for all the information in article except for track list, which can be found on Spotify or you tube, which I was informed are not reliable citations.

- It is the root of Nepali pop genre, with contribution of notable Nepali artists Sunil Parajuli, Kishor Gurung, Vijaya Lama.

- A single article with as much detail as this page does not exist elsewhere, as the information are scattered.

- With the resurfacing of this album digitally after decades, it is necessary to document it this time.

- Hopefully, further edits will be done to this page with even more information by the people who have them, as this article will act as a foundation that did not exist before.

I am open to any suggestion on the improvement of this article and will tirelessly edit it , respecting and following Wikipedia's policy. But I really hope that this article gets published as it is a rare and an important piece of Nepali art and music history which needs to be conserved. Ishan.dahal.735 (talk) 05:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ishan.dahal.735: fundamentally, Wikipedia articles summarise what reliable sources have previously published. From this it follows that if such sources don't exist, they cannot be summarised, and no Wikipedia article can be based on them.
Additionally, this draft reads, at least in part, like original research. If you cited the few sources that there are against the information each has provided, that would go some way towards remedying this problem. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion, will make change accordingly and resubmit. Ishan.dahal.735 (talk) 06:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:04, 1 April 2025 review of submission by FrasalvaGmg

I submitted the article for pubblication following the request of SuperSpritz in english. I don't understand why the article has been declined FrasalvaGmg (talk) 06:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FrasalvaGmg: the draft is completely unreferenced, with nothing to indicate that the subject is notable.
Can you please elaborate on "I submitted the article for pubblication following the request of SuperSpritz in english", I don't understand what that means? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:16, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
hI SuperSpritz
This is the user sandbox of FrasalvaGmg. A user sandbox is a subpage of the user's user page. It serves as a testing spot and page development space for the user and is not an encyclopedia article. Create or edit your own sandbox here.
Other sandboxes: Main sandbox | Template sandbox
This draft has been submitted and is currently awaiting review.
if it doesn't contain the reference it is because I didn't see how to do it. I try again if I can change the draft FrasalvaGmg (talk) 06:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:16, 1 April 2025 review of submission by 49.43.129.232

why my article is deleted? 

49.43.129.232 (talk) 06:16, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unambiguous advertising or promotion 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 07:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:32, 1 April 2025 review of submission by FrasalvaGmg

my draft has beeen declines because unreferenced as SuperSpritz said; I don't understand. I tried to follow every request of title, website, etc. please help me, I'm not expert. thanks FrasalvaGmg (talk) 06:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FrasalvaGmg: please don't open a new thread with each comment.
And who or what is SuperSpritz?? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
sorry SuperSpritz was sending me a message to the italian version : it.wikipedia.org
I was wrong, Paul Gascoigne is the tutor at the italian version not SuperSpritz.
I didn't know about new threads, sorry FrasalvaGmg (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:23, 1 April 2025 review of submission by 77.85.10.127

I recently tried to created a new wikipedia page regarding a criminal case in Bulgaria but was rejected https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gabriela_Sashova_and_Krasimir_Georgiev_case

This is a very famous case in the country with national media coverage, followed by massive protests.

Can you give me some info as to why the draft was rejected and what can I do in order to fix it?

Kind regards, 77.85.10.127 (talk) 10:23, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting.
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.
You have documented the case, but not described what reliable sources say is important/significant/influential about this criminal case. 331dot (talk) 10:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:12, 1 April 2025 review of submission by Odin1974

I just spent 2 weeks writing my first article, reading everything I could so I would comply to all WP guidelines on notability, reliable secondary sources, and then it just gets blocked because it's "clear UPE". I mean how do I disprove that? I'm a pilot in South Africa, I don't know the subject, but his story is compelling as the first South African circumnavigator and I researched him quite a bit to write this. Seems I just wasted two weeks of my life. Odin1974 (talk) 11:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Odin1974: if you wish to appeal the rejection, you should do so in the first instance by approaching the rejecting reviewer directly.
You say you don't know this person, yet you've obtained the photograph from him? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:27, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks, I'm learning here. (He's a public figure - his email is available on his website, as is this photo - so I merely did the right thing and asked over email if I could use it, to which he agreed. And I just this week read an article about how amateur photographers are fixing the poor profile photos on Wikipedia precisely because copyright prevents good ones so often). It just seems super unwelcoming if someone spends so much time trying to learn and to things precisely as required - and then apparently its "too good a job". Odin1974 (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So I don't understand and need advice - if you do a terrible job writing a poor article and ignoring all WP guidelines, obviously it shouldn't be allowed on Wikipedia. If you do too good a job - it looks like "its paid for / UPE", and it gets rejected. So is the answer to be just the right level of mediocre then? Sorry, I really am perplexed here. Odin1974 (talk) 13:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand we see many good attempts to get paid editing past us. If all you did was ask him for a photo, there's no issue there.
Note that you may need to go to Commons and provide the release from him, or show that where the image is visible that the copyright was released. It may not be his to release, depending on the circumstances. 331dot (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:02, 1 April 2025 review of submission by Yerotsydnew

I am sure this artist is notable enough for a page. Can anyone give me any advice on improving it ? The submission was declined recently with this notice:

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

I'm wondering if I should remove the all content that doesn't have secondary sources? Would appreciate any advice Yerotsydnew (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yerotsydnew: you need to either cite sources that satisfy the general WP:GNG or the special WP:NARTIST notability guideline.
For verification purposes, not everything needs to be supported by secondary sources, but everything does need to be clearly and comprehensively supported, and specifically supported by reliable ones. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:04, 1 April 2025 review of submission by Samuel E. Underscore

So, my article draft has been rejected. The reason for this seems to primarily be that- well, I'll just paste in what Mr. Bobby Cohn said:

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). 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.

Quite simply I was wondering what I could do to make this page possible, as it's a pretty obscure album by a quite important artist, and I think proper documentation for it here would be a great thing. After all, the artist has a long discography and moving through releases via the chronology on their albums can be incredibly confusing and frustrating due to the amount of black text where ideally there would be links leading to the next album. 

Samuel E. Underscore (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Samuel E. Underscore: you need to either cite sources that satisfy the general WP:GNG or the special WP:NALBUM notability guideline. And you need to support the draft with reliable sources, which neither Discogs nor Bandcamp is. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:12, 1 April 2025 review of submission by Gregoryjlee

Hello, my article for Aviteur has been declined for reasons I don't fully understand. The sources are in-depth, reliable, independent, and secondary (FT, New York Times, Daily Telegraph, Marie Claire, Square Mile, etc...) Could you please assist with advice on how to comply for approval? Thank you, Gregory 

Gregoryjlee (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Gregoryjlee. They are not secondary - at least the ones I've looked at aren't. They are based on interviews, and so are not independent.
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) 16:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:22, 1 April 2025 review of submission by 1967user

The draft article on Akira Sawa has been repeatedly rejected due to notability concerns, and in March, a "Stop" decision was issued with the reason: "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia."

I understand that a "Stop" decision typically means that further edits cannot be made. However, I still believe that Akira Sawa meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria and would like to explore ways to improve the article in the future. He is a highly esteemed psychiatrist and neuroscientist with an h-index close to 100 and is a fellow of organizations such as AAAS. Additionally, several researchers he has mentored have Wikipedia pages, suggesting his significant influence in the field.

One possible reason for the notability concerns may be that Dr. Sawa follows a policy of not disclosing certain academic metrics, such as citation counts on Google Scholar, due to external factors unrelated to academia. This has been confirmed by individuals who have interviewed him.

I would appreciate guidance on whether there are ways to revisit this topic in the future and what specific aspects of notability are currently considered insufficient. Understanding these points would help in gathering appropriate sources and improving the draft if an opportunity arises. 1967user (talk) 16:22, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@1967user: His habit of not disclosing certain academic metrics makes it that much harder to have an article on him, since WP:NACADEMIC largely relies on those (and those who would meet NACADEMIC generally can't meet general eligibility requirements for want of sourcing). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@1967user: there may be sufficient claims of notability, but they are not properly evidenced. Eg. the 2nd para of the 'Biography' section says that Sawa has all sorts of fellowships, but most of the claims are unreferenced, and the few citations there are only point to website home pages and similar, not to actual URLs which would corroborate these statements. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:38, 1 April 2025 review of submission by Zabeer & Zawad

Pls assist to edit biography. Not sure the reason for declining this article. Zabeer & Zawad (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zabeer & Zawad: Few things:
  1. We don't allow usernames which imply shared use. Please rename at your earliest convenience.
  2. You cannot just slap all your sources at the end of the article; they need to be cited in-line.
  3. Anything a subject writes doesn't help for eligibility for an article due to being written by the subject.
—Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:37, 1 April 2025 review of submission by Sanabriap

How do I switch this page to Spanish Sanabriap (talk) 20:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can head to the Spanish Wikipedia and type in Usuario:Sanabriap/Contrataciones abiertas, incluyentes y sustentables and click on the red link to create a userspace draft, or create it directly in the mainspace by typing Contrataciones abiertas, incluyentes y sustentables and clicking on the red link. Sophisticatedevening🍷(talk) 20:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:54, 1 April 2025 review of submission by Sa2840

I am requesting assistance in reviewing this article for publication on Wikipedia. Recently, I received notice that, “This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article.” However, I believe that this subject does qualify for a Wikipedia article. Brianna Wiest (the subject of the article) is a notable topic and has “gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time.” Wiest is a global bestseller, appearing on the Today Show, an Amazon #1 best seller, has sold over a million copies of her books, and her books are translated in over 40+ languages across the world. In the Wikipedia article I submitted for publication, I included and linked to evidence from reliable and independent sources. These sources show that Brianna Wiest qualifies for a stand-alone article as she has received significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent. Sa2840 (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear on how she meets the definition of a notable creative professional. Being a best selller on Amazon isn't part of the criteria, partially because anyone can sell pretty much anything on Amazon. Interviews do not contribute to notability as by definition an interview is not an independent source. 331dot (talk) 21:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:20, 1 April 2025 review of submission by Johnny Square one

Hello, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JlwoodwaI appreciate the time taken to review my draft article on Square One Insurance Services (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Square_One_Insurance_Services). I understand that it was declined due to concerns about the references not demonstrating notability.

I want to ensure the article meets Wikipedia’s standards, so I’d like to clarify a few points: Could you specify which references were considered insufficient, and what kind of sources would be more appropriate?

Given that I have disclosed my affiliation with Square One on my user page, are there any additional conflict-of-interest guidelines I should follow when improving the draft?

I want to ensure the article is neutral, verifiable, and meets Wikipedia’s guidelines before resubmitting. Any guidance on how to strengthen the references and improve the article would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your time and feedback! Johnny Square one (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have done little more than state your company exists and tell where it offers its services. A Wikipedia article must do more, it 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. "Significant coverage" is that which goes in depth and in detail about what the source sees as important/significant/influential about the company, not what it sees as important about itself. Appropriate sources cannot include brief mentions, announcements of routine business activities, interviews, press releases, etc. 331dot (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:15, 1 April 2025 review of submission by 210.50.85.201

For me, the first contact, Wikipedia is a maze. But somehow I was able to submit a brief article on the subject of Zeneisho, a form of calligraphy which began in Japan and continues. The article was rejected to which I replied at greater length, my second submission which I cannot find and don't know what happened to it. Can you help? Graham James 210.50.85.201 (talk) 23:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will point you to what I said above. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 2

02:29, 2 April 2025 review of submission by Rotchai zarnee

Is it possible to resubmit my draft here? Rotchai zarnee (talk) 02:29, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. This forum is not for submitting drafts. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:18, 2 April 2025 review of submission by 103.152.75.1

Because I wanted to know, but there was nothing to get the info from. 103.152.75.1 (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We do not accept "how-to" guides. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 04:28, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nor do we accept hoaxes. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:54, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:49, 2 April 2025 review of submission by Roysarajit

Shukbr ROY SARAJIT (talk) 05:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Roysarajit: No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 05:55, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:01, 2 April 2025 review of submission by Viljowf

I've declared a COI, and there was an issue with an LLM-formatted source list (affecting the reference list only, the content is not AI-generated) - all corrected now. The editor is still rejecting my submission, although no specific issues are highlighted. The editor gave this feedback: 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. The comment the reviewer left was: Declining due to WP:NPOV until the source list can be given greater scrunity, and asking the editor to respond to the concerns via the talk page to identify next steps for WP:FCOI.

When asking for clarification, I received the following reply: I am not claiming that the article is wrong in a specific way, my statement is that the article will need increased scrutiny for accuracy of content + references; I believe this recommendation to be in line with WP:LLM. Due to the FCOI this scrunity should probably should not come from you. Thanks! Caleb Stanford (talk) 01:23, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've read WP:LLM and it offers no clear guidelines on AfC submissions. All of the editors' prior concerns have been addressed and fixed. Please could you advise on next steps? Viljowf (talk) 10:01, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:23, 2 April 2025 review of submission by Inclusionwriter

Hello, my draft submission was rejected due to it appearing more like an advertisement. Please could I have some clarification. Is the language itself too promotional? Does it need more third-party sources? Are there particular sections I need to remove in order for this to be approved? Thanks very much. Inclusionwriter (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusionwriter I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" portion of the title.
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.
You have just told about the activities of your company and its personnel. Wikipedia articles must do more, they 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. I would suggest that you read WP:BOSS, amd have your superiors read it, too. 331dot (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:06, 2 April 2025 review of submission by CheeseACake

because on wikipedia, the building already exists as a tallest building in metropolitan bxl CheeseACake (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft deleted as a hoax. Knitsey (talk) 16:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:22, 2 April 2025 review of submission by Bdzizzo

Is there a necessity for everything to be coded properly before publishing? Bdzizzo (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bdzizzo You need the "Draft:" portion of the title when linking to your draft, I've fixed this for you.
I would worry less about the formatting and more about the fact that you have not established that this company is a notable company. You should also review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matrix Fitness to learn why past attempts to write about this company have not worked. 331dot (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:23, 2 April 2025 review of submission by Navig2002

Hi team, thank you for your reviewing my question here. I know a little bit about the stock music and royalty-free music industry and wanted to add more industry companies to the site. I saw that one company - Epidemic Sound - Epidemic Sound already had a page. So I decided to create a similar but richer profile for a competitor and I am planning to add more industry sites. Unfortunately, my first page is not accepted whatever I do - I rewrote several times, did more research, found more authentic information, but to no avail. I hope you can help me with more specific tips. Thank you! Navig2002 (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Navig2002 The whole url is not needed when linking; I've fixed this for you.
Companies do not "have pages" here that they own and control. Wikipedia has articles about topics including companies that meet the definition of a notable company. An article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about the company. You've done a nice job of summarizing what the company does, but not what sources say is important/significant/influential about the company. Notability is not inherited by association- that they possess music from notable performers or created a film about a notable topic does not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for fixing my question and giving me more details about notability. This is appreciated! Navig2002 (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:23:15, 2 April 2025 review of submission by Tarantulagirl

My first draft was rejected for not having enough references to justify it as a wikipedia article. I added some more but I'm not sure if it's enough or what else i can do to improve the article before re-submitting it. I was also thinking maybe it should just be a section on her (more notable) sister's page at Rebecca Sophia Clarke? not sure! any help is appreciated :) Tarantulagirl (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarantulagirl: Refs 1 and 2 appear to be the same source, and it seems to just be a brief mention of the subject. Ref 3 appears to be a self-published source, not a reliable one. Per WP:BIO we require subjects to have significant coverage in reliable, published sources. Please try to find sources that satisfy those criteria. Best, ~Liancetalk 22:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
that makes sense, thank you. if i'm having difficulty finding enough reliable, significant coverage of her, would it make sense to add her to the sister's page instead since their careers are connected? and just abandon trying to give her her own page? Sorry, I'm a very new editor Tarantulagirl (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:42, 2 April 2025 review of submission by Ogbajiekev

I need help to make the article better Ogbajiekev (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide us with a link to the draft? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ogbajiekev: @Thehistorianisaac: The draft was deleted as pure promotion. Ogbajiekev, since you are being paid to create this draft, the expectation is that you will make sure that you are familiar with basic policies and guidelines before you submit drafts for unpaid volunteers to review. Please read the information on your user talk page carefully, and follow the links in the notices. --bonadea contributions talk 05:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understood; thanks for telling me Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 3

03:02, 3 April 2025 review of submission by Elijah.Penunuri

No fair! Elijah.Penunuri (talk) 03:02, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  1. It got rejected and will not be considered any further
  2. No sources at all. the rejection was, very frankly, justified. You can't make an article on something you can't even prove exists. Additionally, even if it exists, you have failed to show that it is notable.
Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:49, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:28, 3 April 2025 review of submission by Sudipmisraiitkgp

I need help with the draft as to why it is rejected since there are independent sources mentioned also. Sudipmisraiitkgp (talk) 06:28, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1283717716"