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 2001:569:7604:a100:20fa:7f4c:3064:566b (talk) at 22:20, 7 April 2025 (Requesting assistance regarding Draft:Shit_Harper_Did). 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
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


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]
@331dot:, it was a good attempt except the user may have forgotten we have records of previous attempts which clearly indicate (based on my experience dealing with UPE, Socks, and Meat) undisclosed paid editing. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
fascinating. No idea what the previous removal is about? I DID just read Wikipedia:Death of undisclosed paid editing and my draft might embarrassingly look like this. I was copying a lot of Robert DeLaurentis (aviator) - also a solo circumnavigator and entrepreneur as a template and trying to improve with better style, but now yes, it does look like UPE. Damn. I may have taken style queues from the wrong people. Odin1974 (talk) 17:30, 3 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]

07:49, 3 April 2025 review of submission by Krista Grace

What kind of reliable sources I can add for verification, can i get any information particularly like newsletter or publication, Google Map location or any other sources.

Instead word of Reliable source suggest me with exact name Krista Grace (talk) 07:49, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Krista Grace: The decline notices on your user talk page explain what is necessary, and they contain links to relevant and important policies including the reliable sources guideline as well as other equally important guidelines for sources. You are a (declared) paid editor, which means that there is an expectation that you will read up on what Wikipedia editing involves and what is required in an article, before you submit a draft for review by volunteers. That you ask questions is fine, of course, but if you take a bit of time to read the information that has already been provided to you, you will see why newsletters and Google maps are not reliable, independent, secondary sources (which, again, is what is required). --bonadea contributions talk 09:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:54, 3 April 2025 review of submission by Imperialrajputra

i work in this project but its not completed yet may be i Imperialrajputra (talk) 07:54, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:52, 3 April 2025 review of submission by 49.43.129.232

Why my article is getting declined again and again? 49.43.129.232 (talk) 09:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting. The reviewers have left you reasons; do you have more specific questions about them? 331dot (talk) 09:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:08, 3 April 2025 review of submission by Saasupdate

I am working on rewriting the draft we originally submitted. We now have a better understanding of the preferred use of external sources and the requirements for full disclosure. It would be very helpful to review the original draft text so we can assess the tone for neutrality and make necessary improvements. It appears the original submission was deleted, so I’m hoping it may still be recoverable or accessible. Thank you in advance for any assistance. Saasupdate (talk) 12:08, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Saasupdate: the deleted draft was purely promotional, and would be of no use to you. We are not interested in what you want to tell the world about your business. We are almost exclusively interested in what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about your business and what makes it worthy of note. You first job is to find such sources, and to summarise their coverage, citing each source against the information it has provided. If you do what you appear to have done, namely write what you want, and then try to find sources (or not) to corroborate that, that's what we call writing WP:BACKWARD, which is an approach virtually guaranteed to fail.
Please make a paid-editing disclosure, by placing the {{paid}} template, appropriately filled-in, on your userpage. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:46, 3 April 2025 review of submission by CheeseACake

This building already exists, if you go to Esseghem District in Jette, Brussels, you might see the Blix Tower in your location CheeseACake (talk) 12:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has been deleted as a hoax. Stop requesting hoax articles as you did yesterday. Knitsey (talk) 12:54, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User now blocked. Knitsey (talk) 12:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:50, 3 April 2025 review of submission by DandelionDan

Hi, I've created an article and it's been disapproved. I am trying to find out what I need to do to make it better!

Thanks


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Families_(Magazine) DandelionDan (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DandelionDan: None of your sources are any good. The first is the magazine's website (connexion to subject), the second is a content-free profile (too sparse), and the third is a franchisee recruitment page (connexion to subject, and I will note I find it odd a magazine is seeking franchisees). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:58, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Got it! I'll have another look and try to find better sources. Thanks for the help! 2.102.106.3 (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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) 20:47, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:09, 3 April 2025 review of submission by Tmcfarlandpr

I am interested to know if you can offer any kind of progress report on approval of this page - understanding that the process could take 3 months to approve. Thank you. 

Tmcfarlandpr (talk) 16:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tmcfarlandpr: Drafts are reviewed in a random order, so there is no way to know when the draft will be reviewed, other than it may take 3 months or more. cyberdog958Talk 16:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:14, 3 April 2025 review of submission by SallywongRobot

Hope you are doing well! I have received the review and comments from Sophisticatedevening. After addressing their feedback, I've edited the article and resolved the issues mentioned. Could you please let me know how I should inform the reviewer, and confirm if my article is now correct? SallywongRobot (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SallywongRobot: Once you make the changes to the draft, and you feel it is ready, you can just press the “resubmit” button in the template at the top of the page and it will be put back in the queue to be reviewed again. It may be reviewed by the same reviewer, but more than likely someone else will re-review it. cyberdog958Talk 16:20, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:16, 3 April 2025 review of submission by Josh2R

Can I get someone who is more experienced and neutral in this matter to edit the article? Where can I find someone to do this? Josh2R (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Josh2R: no, we don't get involved in co-editing here at the help desk. Besides, your draft has been deleted as purely promotional. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:18, 3 April 2025 review of submission by Thesmartiest1

Hi - I've recently been working on my first ever article. Some while ago it was declined for a lack of sources, which I understand. I've now added a lot of what I believe are pretty reliable references, and also some of most relevant to the topic of the article, but today it was declined again - this time due to a lack of sources. I'm not sure I understand what is wrong with the sources I've used, and the page on 'Reliable Sources' does not seem to go against what I've written

Any help is much appreciated! Thesmartiest1 (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thesmartiest1: there is too much unreferenced information in this draft, and some information is referenced with sources that don't appear to verify it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:39, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi thanks for your reply - do I need a reference for every sentence, even if one reference covers more than one statement? Thanks! Thesmartiest1 (talk) 10:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thesmartiest1: "do I need a reference for every sentence, even if one reference covers more than one statement?" No, you don't necessarily need a citation for absolutely every sentence, as long as it's clear to the reader where the information comes from. It isn't enough to just tag a citation at the end of a lengthy paragraph, even if that source genuinely supports all the information in it, because that doesn't make it clear that everything is supported by that source.
The requirement (in articles on living people) is that anything potentially contentious, all private personal and family details, and any direct quotations must be clearly supported with an inline citation following the statement. "Potentially contentious" is not very clearly defined, but it's basically anything where the reader might wonder where the information comes from, or how we know it is true. The more extraordinary the statement, the more clearly it needs to be supported. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:11, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:59, 3 April 2025 review of submission by Duacky

why did i get rejected? jinko is one of the best games on earth? Duacky (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Duacky, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Unfortunately, even if Jinko is "one of the best games on earth" it still needs to be sourced properly. If you can find sources (Web articles, news, etc) that talk about Jinko, it will be accepted. Please see WP:GNG which might help clarify what is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Happy Editing, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 01:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 4

05:28, 4 April 2025 review of submission by Madhav Immigration

WHAT NEED TO BE CHANGED IN MY ARTICLE? Madhav Immigration (talk) 05:28, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Madhav Immigration: please don't shout.
Like your other draft, Draft:Hotel Management Education, of which this is essentially a duplicate, this one gives the impression that you have just written what you know about this subject, and then tagged some alleged references at the end, regardless of whether they actually support the contents. That isn't how Wikipedia articles are written. You need to find some reliable sources that discuss the subject, summarise what they have said, and cite each source against the information it has provided. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:17, 4 April 2025 review of submission by Trdta4

submission declined: translated article about a book Hello, I recently submitted my draft of Draft:Our Holocaust (book). The draft is a translation of the same article from the Hebrew Wikipedia.
It was declined and I was given the following reasons.
1. Reliable sources - the original article references one source - an interview with the author. I brought this reference as is.
2. qualification for a Wikipedia article, esp. regarding the "notability of books".
The article clearly states the award received by the book, and the fact that the novel is the first for a prominent author. The author's article in Wikipedia (Amir Gutfreund) mentions this book and its translations.

I would appreciate your help in improving this article so that it may be resubmitted. Thank you. Trdta4 (talk) 07:17, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Trdta4: a single source, once cited, is nowhere near enough to verify the information.
And if you're relying on the award to satisfy WP:NBOOK #2, then we would normally require the award itself to be notable, which in Wikipedia terms means having its own article, which this one doesn't.
Whether an article on this book exists in he.wiki, or whether this book is mentioned in other en.wiki articles, is neither here nor there.
BTW, if you've translated this from he.wiki, you need to attribute that as the original; see WP:HOWTRANS for advice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:26, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the red link out of the header and replaced it with the draft title, as intended. 331dot (talk) 08:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:16, 4 April 2025 review of submission by RobertPottsAGB

We want to create an article for our tour series very similar to what exists for World Archery on herehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archery_World_Cup so its starting as a base page and then we will add for each year, and have an overall hall of fame as well. I don't understand what else we can reference other than our national tour website and material that exists, i also don't understand how it can be independant, as its reporting factual information such as locations and then will go on to report the winners of the tour finals in each year as a hall of fame record. 

RobertPottsAGB (talk) 09:16, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RobertPottsAGB: Wikipedia articles mainly summarise what independent and reliable third parties (especially secondary sources) have said about a subject. This is what we call notability, and is a core requirement for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. If sufficient (in quality and quantity) sources do not exist, then they cannot be summarised, and an article therefore cannot be created. Your draft only cites close primary source, which cannot establish notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @RobertPottsAGB. 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) 17:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:23, 4 April 2025 review of submission by Eido95

I’ve submitted a draft at Draft:Swords of Iron and would appreciate any feedback or a review.

I’ve disclosed a potential COI on the talk page due to living in Israel. Thank you! Eido95 (talk) 11:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Eido95: we don't do on-demand fast-track reviews here at the help desk; you'll get a review when a reviewer gets around to assessing the draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:17, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While, as DoubleGrazing notes, AFC isn't an alternate source for a pre-evaluation, there are some serious issues with the article. First, it reads as if it were AI-created, and GPTZero give it a 100% AI probability, with it estimating that everything after the lede sentence is AI-generated.
Second, while it gives the initial appearance of being well-sourced, 11 of the 14 sources linked are dead links. For a draft that is less than a day old, that is a shocking number of dead links, and the two most likely possibilities are either that AI tried to generate the cites -- which AI is notoriously incompetent at doing -- or extreme sloppiness.
In addition, you are not an extended confirmed editor, which means the only thing you should be doing on any subject related to the Israel-Palestine conflict is making constructive edit requests on Talk pages. This area is a notorious source of battlegrounds and sockpuppeting within Wikipedia, so there is a restriction on new users being able to edit in this topic. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent points, @CoffeeCrumbs. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a conflict of interest to merely live in Israel. However, you are not yet extended-confirmed, so you can't make edits related to the conflict until you have 500 edits(you only have 12). You can submit a draft(though you couldn't edit it once accepted except via edit requests) but there is already an article about the war. 331dot (talk) 12:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:13, 4 April 2025 review of submission by UmutYilmaz1

Dear Wikipedia Editorial Team,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to kindly seek clarification and guidance regarding the recent rejection of a draft Wikipedia article we submitted about Onder Albayram, Ph.D., a distinguished researcher and educator currently serving as a faculty member at a U.S. medical school.

Our intention in creating this page was to reflect the global impact of Dr. Albayram’s contributions to Neuroscience, which include multiple internationally recognized discoveries and educational innovations. Based on our understanding of Wikipedia’s notability standards for academics, we believe Dr. Albayram meets several of the listed criteria, including but not limited to:

- Significant original contributions that have received substantial coverage in independent, secondary sources. - Service on editorial boards and leadership within professional scientific organizations. - Recognition through national and international awards or media coverage. - A sustained and high-impact publication record in reputable journals.

However, we received feedback noting that the draft lacks sufficient references that demonstrate the subject’s notability under the academic-specific criteria, and that it does not cite multiple reliable, independent secondary sources that cover the subject in depth.

We would greatly appreciate your expert advice on how to bring this article into full compliance with Wikipedia’s expectations. Specifically:

- Could you kindly clarify whether academic notability must be demonstrated solely through third-party media coverage, or if citations in scholarly meta-analyses, systematic reviews, or scientific award announcements also qualify? - Are there specific types of independent sources (e.g., interviews, profiles in scientific publications, government or institutional press releases) that are particularly encouraged for satisfying the "secondary sources" requirement? - Would it be possible for you to review the current draft and highlight areas where improvements are needed, such as phrasing, structure, or types of citations?

Our aim is to create a fact-based, neutral, and verifiable biography that upholds Wikipedia’s high editorial standards and serves as a valuable resource to the global community. We are committed to making the necessary revisions and to working collaboratively with your team to ensure the draft meets Wikipedia’s notability and sourcing guidelines.

Thank you very much for your time and attention to this matter. We truly appreciate the work you do in maintaining the integrity of the platform and look forward to your guidance.

Warm regards, Umut UmutYilmaz1 (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Best way to start is not sending us an AI written question.
Additionally, if the subject works at your school you need to disclose this on your user page. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:39, 4 April 2025 review of submission by MikePlums

Hey team, I have had this article rejected. When I look to brand wiki's for inspo, too many are have issues flagged by wikipedia moderators (example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homes.com) so I am not sure if there is a good example out there of a brand wiki that is suitable and something I can replicate. If there is, I would love to see it so I can alter this article so it is more inline with Wikipedia's requirements. Any help would be exceedingly useful, thanks!! MikePlums (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MikePlums The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in this process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
If you work for this company, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID as well as WP:COI.
Beware in using other articles as a model- these too could be inappropriate and you would be unaware of this. As you see, the article about Homes.com is indeed problematic and not a good model to use. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles, which have received community vetting.
You have summarized the routine activities of the company, this does not establish that the company is a notable company as Wikipedia defines one. To do that, you must summarize what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about this company. 331dot (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Dot. I do not work for this company however I do work through 3rd party means. I can go back and flag this on the page as well as rewrite the issues. Thank you for taking the time to summarize the issues, it is very helpful.
Can I ask, do you think it matters if I have reliable 3rd party websites/articles about the company that are in Chinese as this is a Chinese company.
Mike MikePlums (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MikePlums You are required by the Terms of Use to make a formal paid editing disclosure; I'll post instructions on your user talk page. It doesn't matter if you work directly for the company or a third party.
Sources do not need to be in English, as long as they meet all other requirements of being reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this is great and thank you so much for the assistance! I have followed your instructions and replied in to your message on said page. MikePlums (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MikePlums: non-English sources are perfectly acceptable, as long as they otherwise meet our standards for reliability etc. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:29, 4 April 2025 review of submission by FehrScaper

I accidentally submitted by sandbox page for review instead of the draft page that was the up to date version of the page. How can I remove it from the waiting list? (I have now submitted the correct draft page) FehrScaper (talk) 17:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FehrScaper: Simply remove the AfC Submission template on the sandbox page; that will remove it from the queue. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:39, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for being dumb - but how do I do that? FehrScaper (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted. I think. FehrScaper (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:30, 4 April 2025 review of submission by Wadsdas

Man why did this get rejected I swear nothing I make ever gets accepted its actually starting to make me upset. I don't understand what I'm doing wrong Wadsdas (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wadsdas I would suggest you stop trying to create new articles and work on other things until you better understand the requirements of Wikipedia. If you are intent on trying to continue with the most difficult task on Wikipedia then read through the following links WP:YFA, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:33, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case then you lack the skills and knowledge needed to write new articles. Your draft is completely unsourced and says "little is known", meaning that the subject does not merit an article. 25 listeners hardly makes someone notable enough for inclusion in a global encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot@Mcmatter I apologize for my lack of skills and knowledge but please try and be respectful and encouraging because I feel incredibly discouraged from continuing. Wadsdas (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I woukd suggest that you use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia. Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia, and it isn't the only or even best way to contribute. 331dot (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:52, 4 April 2025 review of submission by W Chesam

Need help improving declined draft for Warshim Chesam” Hi! My name is W Chesam. I created a draft about Warshim Chesam, a professional bodybuilder, but it was declined. Can someone please help me improve it so it can be accepted? W Chesam (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

W Chesam I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft as intended. You are speaking about Chesam as if you are not him, but his name is your username. Please clarify. 331dot (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am Warshim Chesam. I understand that writing about yourself can lead to conflicts of interest, and I will follow Wikipedia’s guidelines carefully. I’m only seeking help to make sure the article is neutral, verifiable, and meets the notability standards. I really appreciate your guidance. 2405:201:AC02:B36F:51CB:F2AD:AA24:3ECA (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was confused- you put your name as an account name. You edited a user page, which is not article space. New accounts and IP users cannot directly create articles, and need to use the Article Wizard. Writing about yourself is highly discouraged, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you got confused on where your draft is located. It looks like you have a draft that has not yet been reviewed at User:W Chesam/sandbox, but then somehow posted a decline notice yourself on a blank page outside you userspace at User:W chesam/sandbox (notice the lowercase name). Your draft is still at the initial page unreviewed and I tagged the other page for deletion. cyberdog958Talk 21:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was confused too, it seems. 331dot (talk) 22:03, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 5

02:22, 5 April 2025 review of submission by Folsom WikiDude

More sources ig? idk I'm new and bad. Folsom WikiDude (talk) 02:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't addressed the comments made about the draft. WP:NSCHOOL is key here; it's rare that a middle school would be notable enough for our purposes. Secondary sourcing would have to be substantial. Much of the article is unsourced, and the two sources are quite thin in information about the school beyond the events discussed. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:10, 5 April 2025 review of submission by Fastfacts1

I am not sure what happed here, perhaps I need to delete a duplicate article. 

I attempted to edit my article submission (Lucky Otis) that was removed earlier today. I edited it and cited better sources based on the feedback I received. I resubmitted it this evening and received this response from a different editor:

"Submission declined on 5 April 2025 by Sophisticatedevening (talk). This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, Lucky Otis, which is also waiting to be reviewed. To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one."

Please let me know if I need to take any action to remove the duplicate and how to avoid duplicating in the future. Thanks. Fastfacts1 (talk) 04:10, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fastfacts1 You may just remove the content of your sandbox and use it to write something else, or you may request its deletion by placing {{Db-u1}} on the draft. You can avoid duplicating a draft by using only one method to create one- the Article Wizard is best for drafts. 331dot (talk) 08:03, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:49, 5 April 2025 review of submission by Letsrighttoday

Hi! What seems to be the problem? There are news links along the article. :( I renamed it into numbers. Letsrighttoday (talk) 04:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have resubmitted the draft and it is pending, the reviewer will leave you feedback. Prior reviews must remain on the draft until it is accepted. You talk about praise and what she is known for, but don't say who says that or why. You say she is known for her LGBTQ activism but cite no sources to show that or what specifically she has done. 331dot (talk) 08:00, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Letsrighttoday. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what independent reliable sources say about the subject, and very little else. What the subject or her associates say or want to say about her is almost irrelevant, and what you know about her is also not relevant except where it is verified by a reliable published source. ColinFine (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:34, 5 April 2025 review of submission by 102.89.83.169

how can i make this acceptable by wikipedia? 102.89.83.169 (talk) 06:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting. Improvement would seem to not be possible, which is why the draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 07:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Chansinyin. Please see my reply to the previous item, #04:49, 5 April 2025 review of submission by Letsrighttoday, most of which applies to your draft as well. ColinFine (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:13, 5 April 2025 review of submission by Sehgalc

Why was this page rejected? Sehgalc (talk) 08:13, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sehgalc You need the "Draft:" portion of the title when linking, I've fixed this for you. Your draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in this process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted. Please see the message left on the draft by the reviewer, as well as the pages linked to therein. 331dot (talk) 08:29, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You will need to disclose your connection to this actor, please see WP:COI and WP:PAID. You took a very professional image of him where he posed for you. 331dot (talk) 08:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:38, 5 April 2025 review of submission by Ali Alam Qamar (AAQ)

I am requesting assistance to improve and resubmit my draft article on Ali Alam Qamar. The original submission was rejected due to concerns over notability and insufficient independent sourcing.

Since then, I have significantly revised the draft by:

Removing non-notable affiliations

Including independent, reliable secondary sources such as Business Recorder, The News, Nation, and others

Adding details about Mr. Qamar’s verified public role as the founder/CEO of Zarea Limited and his appointment by the Punjab Government as a focal person on an industrial reform committee

I believe the updated draft now meets the notability criteria, and I would greatly appreciate feedback or guidance before formally resubmitting. Thank you. Ali Alam Qamar (AAQ) (talk) 09:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Alam Qamar (AAQ) If you have fundamentally changed the draft to address the concerns of the reviewer, you should first appeal to the reviewer directly and ask them to reconsider.
Are you Ali Alam Qamar? You are speaking as if you are not him, but your username is his name. Please clarify. 331dot (talk) 09:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. Yes, I am Ali Alam Qamar and I created this account to draft an article about myself transparently. I understand Wikipedia’s COI guidelines, which is why I’m requesting independent feedback before resubmission.
I have now fundamentally revised the draft, including:
Removal of promotional tone and non-notable content
Addition of multiple reliable, independent sources (Business Recorder, The News, Nation, etc.)
Clear coverage of verifiable public roles, such as my appointment by the Punjab Government
Based on your guidance, I will now reach out to the original reviewer for reconsideration. I appreciate your help. Ali Alam Qamar (AAQ) (talk) 09:45, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the autobiography policy; while not absolutely forbidden, it is highly discouraged for people to write about themselves. It is rare for someone to succeed at what you are attempting to do. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Ali Alam Qamar (AAQ). A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what reliable independent sources say about the subject, and very little else. ONe of the reasons that it is so hard to write an article about yourself is that absolutely nothing that you know about yourself should go in the article, unless it has been reported in a reliable source, and (in nearly all cases) in a source wholly unconnected with you. ColinFine (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the problems still remain. Just looking at the sources, I still don't see anything reliable, independent, and significant. It has sources like the Dawn link, which is explicitly a paid advertisement, information from interviews with you, at least one thing you personally wrote, and a few that are just your name listed on a company's web page. If this is a fundamentally revised improvement, then I think that this is further evidence that the rejection was correct. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:46, 5 April 2025 review of submission by JoFesArkology1

hey wikipedia. i wanna ask if you can create my artist wikipedia. beacuse im famous in sweden JoFesArkology1 (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not we have articles on notable people only. Theroadislong (talk) 14:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:20, 5 April 2025 review of submission by Harajaru345tyu

no use of chat gpt Harajaru345tyu (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Harajaru345tyu: Regardless of whether it's chatbot-generated, your sources are not cited in-line and all of them are missing required bibliographical information (Page numbers, ISBN/OCLC #). Your sixth source links to the Google Books for the fifth. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:47, 5 April 2025 review of submission by SEZluxury

Hi please help, what part is not notable enough? SEZluxury (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @SEZluxury. The answer is, "your sourcing". Only one of your five sources - the Vocedimeche review - looks as if it might be independent of McCarthy, and that one is probably not reliable in Wikipedia's sense, and appears to contain only nine words about McCarthy, which is not significant coverage.
Please see WP:42 for the minimum standard required from sources in order to contribute to establishing that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. ColinFine (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:14, 5 April 2025 review of submission by Dalifemme

Hello,

This item was just found so there are not long articles written about it yet, how can I add more information so it will be approved. Thank you! Dalifemme (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Dalifemme. If there are not yet any articles written about it that are published by a publisher with a reputation for editorial control and fact checking, wholly independent of anybody involved in Buckazoids, and containing significant coverage of the subject, then by definition, the subject is not (yet) notable in Wikipedia's sense, and no article is possible.
You should also be aware of the restrictions on editing about cryptocurrency. These do not prevent you creating an article in this area, but they make it even more difficult to succeed.
I see that your account has been around for a few years, but in editing terms you are a new editor. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the advice. Dalifemme (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:27, 5 April 2025 review of submission by Charles FF

There are no reliable resources on the video game I'm doing my page on. Charles FF (talk) 17:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Charles FF. If there are no reliable sources on the subject, then by definition, it is not notable in Wikipedia's sense, and no article is possible. ColinFine (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 6

00:35, 6 April 2025 review of submission by Botband78

I need assistance with editing this Bio page for Paul Rantao. Is there anyone willing to help me with getting citations correct, and basic review and edit of the draft? Botband78 (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't really do co-editing here at this Help Desk. Please see Referencing for beginners for help with citations. You also seem to have a conflict of interest, this will need to be disclosed. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:25, 6 April 2025 review of submission by Henihhi28

I need assistance using reliable sources. I added another Wikipedia article which included Kotsya’s entire story. (Loyalty (monument)) But it still got declined and I don’t know why. Since the sources behind Kotsya’s story can easily be verified. I didn’t do original research either and I think this can be easily proven, the article is also in depth about Kotsya’s story aswell, which I think everything about the section “Backround” on the article mentioned in parentheses contradicts the reason I got banned. I’m so confused. Henihhi28 (talk) 03:25, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Check WP:CIRCULAR - Other wikipedia articles are not reliable sources(I could easily edit the article and claim the statue was of a cat named avocado right now)
Considering a statue of the subject already has a wikipedia article, you could esaily find any source other than wikipedia. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:43, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks! I will Henihhi28 (talk) 06:55, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • did
Henihhi28 (talk) 06:56, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:53, 6 April 2025 review of submission by TheLocomotiveEngineer

How To Improve This Draft To Turn Into Artcle TheLocomotiveEngineer (talk) 03:53, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prove that it is notable enough for a wikipedia article by finding more reliable sources Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:41, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:54, 6 April 2025 review of submission by Henihhi28

Is their anyway I could appeal the submission block regarding this draft? The reason why it got blocked is because their where 2 others regarding the subject, and these titles where misspelled and i don’t think you can change the title of the drafts, and they didn’t have notable sources. All though this one finished yet, it has more notable sources and isn’t misspelled. You can see the accurate spelling of Kostya on the monument dedicated to them. Loyalty (monument) Henihhi28 (talk) 06:54, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And no, this doesn’t intend to seem like the monument is being listed as a source Henihhi28 (talk) 06:57, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say why I submitted this article unfinished, but it seems like a cheap & generic excuse. Henihhi28 (talk) 06:59, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. As I see it, you have 3 drafts of the same subject:
It is absolutely possible to change the title of an article, including drafts. See WP:MOVE for some help with that. Draft renaming is most often non-controversial and easy to get done. However, are you sure that this subject warrants its own article? I see a lot of ways you could WP:MERGE this with the existing Loyalty (monument) article that you linked. The draft was rejected because the subject is not notable enough to have its own article, but that does not preclude it from being included as part of another article. Of course, this also depends on there being actual reliable sources on this dog. If you can find a moderate number of reliable sources, then you should merge that into the Loyalty article. I hope this helps. WhoAteMyButter (🌷talk│🌻contribs) 08:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Henihhi28 (talk) 09:12, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tried changing the names but I can’t change the name of the misspelt one because the spelled one is already renamed, but still says the misspelled one can’t be renamed because it still has the same name even though I changed it Henihhi28 (talk) 10:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nvm I found a way around it Henihhi28 (talk) 10:21, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:36, 6 April 2025 review of submission by 26March2025

I have submitted a stub request for Stuart Fraser, Senate candidate in the Australian Federal Election. I understand the reason for it not being accepted is due to 'reliable sources'. I have tried to find out how to remove citations I have added but have been unsuccessful. Would you kindly assist in explaining to me how I can do this? Also, if the citation to the Australian newspaper 'The Guardian' is the sole citation remaining, would this stub then be accepted? Thanks. 26March2025 (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:24, 6 April 2025 review of submission by Iva Hu69

Hi, There are no online reviews for this film as it was a low budget and Internet was not that accessible in 2005. How can I publish this article then? Iva Hu69 (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Iva Hu69: We accept offline sources, if properly cited. (Since we'd be talking newspapers or film review magazines, we'd need, at minimum: publication name, publication edition (i.e. 1 Jan 1923), article name, article byline, and the page(s) the article is on.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:27, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
What if they are not online? Iva Hu69 (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Iva Hu69: That's what is meant by "offline sources" in the reply above. Just follow the advice given in that post. --bonadea contributions talk 18:49, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:02, 6 April 2025 review of submission by Yagunzo1

trying to figure out what's wrong Yagunzo1 (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yagunzo1: There are no inline citations (see the decline notice for information on what's required), and the draft is written in a promotional tone. --bonadea contributions talk 18:41, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:20, 6 April 2025 review of submission by Mateo MD

An editor reviewed my draft 1 month ago and declined it arguing that the sources weren't reliable, I wrote an explanation on the editor's talk on why I thought that the sources were reliable. The editor hasn't responded in a month. Should I keep waiting or just search for another editor willing to review the draft? Mateo MD (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mateo MD: You don't need to do anything else; the draft is waiting for review, and either the same reviewer or another one will review it in due time. --bonadea contributions talk 18:45, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that, because the editor hasn't answered my question, I don't know if my explanation about the sources was valid, I'm worried about waiting 3 more months just to be told again that the sources aren't reliable. Mateo MD (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:21, 6 April 2025 review of submission by Palestine999

There are not really any specifics given.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Expo_(software) Palestine999 (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Palestine999: The declines are pretty specific – they both explain (with links to explanations of important keywords):

In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary

independent of the subject

Since the draft doesn't have that, it stands to reason it can't be an article at this point. --bonadea contributions talk 18:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how the sources don't meet the criteria. Which sources are not meeting which criteria? Palestine999 (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Palestine999, none of your sources are good to demonstrate why this software is notable by Wikipedia standards. They are not independent of the subject or from a source that is trusted as reliable with the editorial requirements. This one sentence draft doesn't even explain why it's even remotely important or significant in any way. Click through the links and read the pages they take you to, in the decline messages to help you through this process more. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:56, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I use the first source as an example:
  1. The source is in-depth regarding what Expo is and how it is used.
  2. The source is published by Meta, who are the creators of React Native. They have a reputation of posting accurate technical documentation regarding React Native.
  3. The source is secondary.
  4. The source is independent of Expo.
I have read the articles in the decline messages, but they have not been helpful in my situation to understand what's going on here.
I have also pressed the button to navigate to a random article, which brought me to Threneta. That article does not appear to have an explanation for why this genus of moth is important or significant. This is my first article, so I am very confused on what is supposed to be the correct way to make an article. Palestine999 (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Palestine999 none of the sources you cite meet all four criteria linked to in the decline. Github for example is user-generated so not a reliable source and React Native is at least a primary source but also might be user-generated. S0091 (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:30, 6 April 2025 review of submission by Circuited

Hi Folks!

The CareEdge Page has been thoroughly edited. I wanted your input on if there is any other changes you would recommend to the submission. Would be happy to look into them! Thanks! Circuited (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Circuited: The draft is submitted for review, and when it is reviewed you will get feedback on it! --bonadea contributions talk 18:39, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, thank you @Bonadea! Circuited (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:37, 6 April 2025 review of submission by Shakeel Ivery

I hope you’re doing well. I recently submitted a draft for the Wikipedia page of Polo Shak (Shakeel Ivery), a rising hip hop artist and actor from Queens, New York. Unfortunately, my submission was not accepted due to concerns about demonstrating notability.

I’ve provided references to reliable sources that cover his music career, public appearances, collaborations, and industry recognition, including features in notable publications such as The Source, HipHopSince1987, and 24 Hip Hop. I’ve also included significant milestones like his performances at major events, media exposure, and his co-signature by well-known figures like Havoc from Mobb Deep.

Could you kindly provide feedback or guidance on how I can improve the draft to meet Wikipedia’s notability standards? Specifically, I would appreciate advice on? Shakeel Ivery (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Shakeel Ivery, I think the key word is in your question words like upcoming is indication that they are not yet notable. You have only included 1 source and it's not reliable as there is no author attached to it, just a corporate entity which leads me to believe this is probably some sort of SEO. The other "sources" are just external links to the likes of Instagram which are not good as sources for much of anything. You claim he was featured in several publications but didn't provide any details on when or how to verify this information. If he has been featured and had coverage in this manner then you should be citing those sources and basing the article off what they say about him, however at this point the draft has been rejected and is not able to be submitted again. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 19:07, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:43, 6 April 2025 review of submission by IBenjZz

I have a problem with my referencesname IBenjZz (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IBenjZz the refname error doesn't matter especially given all the references were to social media which is useless here and also why it's now rejected so will not be considered. S0091 (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, the draft consists of LLM generated text which could never be acceptable in a Wikipedia article. --bonadea contributions talk 07:36, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:26, 6 April 2025 review of submission by Stockinvesting

It seems like my submissions keep getting declined.

I am a public figure, could you please assist me?

Would love to schedule a phone call or something?

Greatly appreciate your help. Stockinvesting (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft contains zero reliable independent sources so zero evidence of notability. Theroadislong (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:45, 6 April 2025 review of submission by Shakeel Ivery

Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I hope you’re doing well. I recently submitted a draft for Polo Shak (Shakeel Ivery), a rising hip hop artist and actor from Queens, New York. Unfortunately, my submission was marked as not eligible due to concerns about notability.

I’ve provided references from notable publications, such as The Source, HipHopSince1987, and 24 Hip Hop, as well as details on significant milestones like performances, industry collaborations, and media exposure. However, I’m still not sure where I can improve the submission to meet Wikipedia’s notability standards.

I would greatly appreciate your feedback and advice on the following: • Are there additional sources or references I should include to better demonstrate notability? • Are there specific areas of the draft that need more detailed or reliable sources? • Is there anything in the draft that doesn’t align with Wikipedia’s guidelines?

Thank you for your time and assistance. I look forward to your advice on how to strengthen the submission.

Best regards, Polo Shak Shakeel Ivery (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't create additional threads; just edit your pre-existing thread above. 331dot (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 7

01:18:02, 7 April 2025 review of submission by ByteSpecter


Hello! I’m a disclosed team member involved with the Currency.Wiki project and have written a draft article that I believe meets Wikipedia’s guidelines on notability and neutrality.

Because I have a conflict of interest, I’d prefer not to submit the draft myself and would appreciate if a neutral editor could review it and consider submitting on my behalf.

Here is the draft: Draft:Currency.Wiki

The draft includes multiple independent and reliable sources. Any feedback or assistance would be greatly appreciated!

ByteSpecter (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ByteSpecter, the AFC process is generally what is expected for people with a conflict of interest to submit drafts, however I would not submit this as none of the sources are independent, reliable and significant. The first source is their own site, the next 3 are site listing for downloading the various version of the extension, reference 5 is a wiki not considered reliable per WP:USERGENERATED and the last reference is a press release. None of your source are suitable to demonstrate that this extension is notable. See WP:RS and WP:GNG. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 03:15, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha, appreciate the detailed explanation and your time @McMatter. I understand now why those sources don't meet the reliability and independence criteria. I’ll look into finding better third-party coverage from independent tech sites or news outlets that discuss the extension in more depth. Thanks again for the guidance. ByteSpecter (talk) 05:08, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:02, 7 April 2025 review of submission by TEO-2027

Is there a way to check the progress of a review? I would be grateful if you could let me know. Teo-2027 (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Teo-2027: The draft is waiting for review, and I'm afraid there is no way of knowing when the review will happen. The reviewers pick whichever drafts they wish, and all that is known that the draft will be reviewed at some point. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 09:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @TEO-2027: again. Your signature above shows your user name incorrectly – the software here makes a difference between capital and small letters. --bonadea contributions talk 09:35, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply.　Sorry for displaying the wrong user name. TEO-2027 (talk) 09:49, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TEO-2027 You will need to disclose your connection with this person, if you have one, see WP:COI. I see that you took their picture. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:37, 7 April 2025 review of submission by Justjourney

I added the information from this draft onto French fries as requested by reviewer @Sophisticatedevening (see Special:Diff/1284297478). I am wondering if I can still expand on the article and publish it, as it was declined for "lack of content". Justjourney (talk | contribs) 02:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can resubmit declined drafts for a re-review after you've added/improved on the draft. However, if you don't address the reviewer's notes in your re-submission, it will be quickly declined again. WhoAteMyButter (🌷talk│🌻contribs) 04:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:58, 7 April 2025 review of submission by Myraa Khattar

Hello... This Myraa, I'm (redacted) and published an article, can someone please review it?? It would be an honor to get it published or if someone could make the changes and upload it for me :) thanks Myraa Khattar (talk) 04:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Myraa Khattar I've moved your draft to Draft space, it is now at Draft:Myraa Khattar. Please do not post personal information about yourself in this very public place; please read this page with your parent/guardian or teacher.
I placed the appropriate information on your draft to allow you to submit it. Be aware that writing about yourself is highly discouraged, please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would also note that no information about the draft process should be given in the draft itself. The draft's edit history does that. 331dot (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:02, 7 April 2025 review of submission by Nivetha Preethi

I recently submitted an article draft about Rasta Rita Margarita and Beverage Truck , a company with over 20 years of presence in Catering truck industry. It has been rejected as “contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. I understand that Wikipedia is not for promotion, and I would like to learn how to present this topic in an encyclopedic way Could someone please advise whether this meets notability standards, and if so, how I should properly format and cite the information to meet Wikipedia’s guidelines? Nivetha Preethi (talk) 09:02, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nivetha Preethi First, if you are associated with this business, that must be disclosed, see conflict of interest and paid editing(which includes employment).
The main purpose of a Wikipedia article is tno neutrally summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability; such as a notable business. Press releases, interviews, brief mentions, annoucements of routine business activities, or other primary sources do not establish notability. There must be significant coverage- coverage that goes beyond just telling what the topic does and involves analysis/commentary about the subject.
I'm skeptical that a food truck business merits an article(the vast majority of businesses do not), but I can't say that definitively as it depends on the coverage in sources. I can say that the sources you provided do not show it, which is why the draft was rejected. That typically means it will not be considered further but if you have sources that you can neutrally summarize(i.e. not language like "the go to option") and show that the business is notable, I suggest that you rewrite the existing draft from scratch(while leaving the rejection notice), then appeal to the rejecting reviewer and ask them to reconsider, 331dot (talk) 09:14, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:09, 7 April 2025 review of submission by 46.193.160.178

Dear Sir/Madam, Apparently my submission of an article for Ricardo García Herrera has been rejected. I would like to know why to, if possible, solve the necessary issues and get it published. Many thanks 

46.193.160.178 (talk) 10:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IP editor, the draft has been declined, not rejected, which means it may still be resubmitted if improved on. The draft is written in Spanish, and as this is the English Wikipedia, we only accept articles in English. It is also completely unsourced. Articles have to be based on reliable sources. You are welcome to try to publish the page on the Spanish Wikipedia, but you should add sources to the draft first. cyberdog958Talk 11:06, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:10, 7 April 2025 review of submission by ThuoMwangi

From the listed sources, which one meets the basic criteria? I am quite confused as there are newspaper articles and a paper done by the subject. ThuoMwangi (talk) 11:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ThuoMwangi You need the "Draft:" portion of the title when linking, I've fixed this for you. 331dot (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:24, 7 April 2025 review of submission by 72.22.169.9

I request assistance because I am having trouble publishing my Wikipedia Page for a small rural fire district in southern New York. The page was declined due to lack of citations, despite me getting all facts from years of studying the district. Should I Site where I learned it from? 72.22.169.9 (talk) 12:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you need to provide the sources you are using. Please see Referencing for beginners. You need to show that this district is a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remember to log in when posting. 331dot (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:38, 7 April 2025 review of submission by Dmikni

I don't understand which parts of the notability policy this article fails to meet. Would it be removing references to John's political website and his LinkedIn that would make it pass? All other sources are from reputable sources e.g. government websites, reputable business organisations. Dmikni (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dmikni Holding local office is insufficient in terms of WP:NPOLITICIAN, nor is merely running for a national legislature(he would need to have won). This means you would need to show that he meets the broader notable person definition.
You took his picture and he posed for you, do you have an association with him? 331dot (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:49, 7 April 2025 review of submission by Mohammad Naim Dahee

Why was the draft page I create for the biography of Mohammad Eshaq Faiez was rejected?

Disclosure I am personally acquainted with Mohammad Eshaq Faiez and have written a draft about his biography based on publicly available sources. I have no promotional intent. Mohammad Naim Dahee (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Naim Dahee You need the "Draft:" portion of the title when linking, I fixed this.
The good news is that the draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that the draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted. Please see the reason left by the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:50, 7 April 2025 review of submission by RSAStudent25

What else I have to do? RSAStudent25 (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RSAStudent25 show with sources how he meets either WP:PROF or WP:NBIO. Being a professor or holding non-legislative position does not confer nobility. In addition tone down the promotional language (see WP:PEACOCK). S0091 (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:02, 7 April 2025 review of submission by TamaraChCL

Hello, I submitted a draft article about the academic journal Phasis. Greek and Roman Studies and received the message that the draft does not show notability because the references are not sufficient.

Could someone kindly help me understand exactly what is missing? I would be grateful for any guidance about what kind of sources I should add to meet the notability criteria. I have included links to Scopus and the official university page — are these not enough? If not, what kind of independent secondary sources would be acceptable?

Thank you in advance! TamaraChCL (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:47, 7 April 2025 review of submission by Carly raecyrus

I need help distinguishing what is a reliable and independent source. All the information found about the organization has been from blogs, magazines, etc. Are those okay? Carly raecyrus (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Read through the links in the decline as they provide most of the answers to your questions. You might also find Your first article helpful. After reading those, come back if you still have questions. S0091 (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs are usually not acceptable as they lack editorial control and fact checking- they just post content without anyone checking it for accuracy. Please see reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:52, 7 April 2025 review of submission by TS Megel

i need help about editing i have trouble TS Megel (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TS Megel see WP:Your first article. S0091 (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:01, 7 April 2025 review of submission by Sukhi vale

Why not mahroos Siddiquee Nadim accepted in wikipedia? Sukhi vale (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the messages left by reviewers on the draft. 331dot (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:48, 7 April 2025 review of submission by Nvujanic

I recently submitted an article for review and understand that the process can take up to three months. I was wondering if there is any way to request an expedited review or if there are any steps I can take to help move the process along Nvujanic (talk) 21:48, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:20, 7 April 2025 review of submission by 2001:569:7604:A100:20FA:7F4C:3064:566B

The draft was declined by someone who says it's a word "definition" and therefore does not belong on wikipedia. However, I really don't understand why they would say that. It is not a word definition it is an encyclopedic account of 4 years of history and work done by a national group all backed up by more than 20 national news stories. So as much as I would like to address this note, I don't know where to begin because I don't understand why this is considered a dictionary entry. Can you offer any advice? 2001:569:7604:A100:20FA:7F4C:3064:566B (talk) 22:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1284489865"