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 Jaycob river moody (talk | contribs) at 09:36, 12 April 2025 (Requesting assistance regarding Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giancomo Manera). 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 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]

Hi @26March2025 sorry, your question was overlooked. No, one source is not enough and usually candidates do not meet the notability criteria. If he wins though, he will meet it so you are welcome to continue to work on the draft. Also, no need to remove any of the sources. S0091 (talk) 16:30, 10 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]
Can you assist me comprehend the referencing aspect? From my understanding, I only needed three secondary sources. ThuoMwangi (talk) 09:37, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Three is not a hard and fast rule, although most reviewers look for at least three to pass this process. Your sources are
  1. an interview, which is not an independent source as it is the person speaking about themselves
  2. a piece written by the subject
  3. the website of an organization which Mr. Karuita serves on the board of that just documents that fact
  4. the website of a different organization that Mr. Karuita serves on
  5. documentation that Mr. Karuita received an award from Queen Elizabeth
  6. his bio on another organization he is associated with
None of these sources are sufficient to establish notability. He may be notable as he received an award from Queen Elizabeth, but you need independent reliable sources that on their own, and not based on materials from him or his associates like an interview, discuss his work that led to the award. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 8 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]

@TamaraChCL journals are tough because the notability guideline they must meet is WP:GNG which requires in-depth coverage about the journal in multiple secondary independent reliable sources. The University is a primary source and not independent and being indexed is not enough as that is not in-depth coverage. The WP:NJOURNAL page linked to in the decline is not an official guideline; it's only an essay so does not hold as much weight. If you are real bored, you can read the arguments by editors at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academic journals) where some editors were trying get consensus to make WP:NJOURNAL an official guideline but were unable to do so. S0091 (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! TamaraChCL (talk) 16:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TamaraChCL Using the whole url in the header breaks the formatting that creates the link; I've fixed this for you. Using the whole url is unnecessary in most cases. 331dot (talk) 17:51, 8 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]

I see it was just declined. If you submit it again, it needs a lot of work as it's currently in a very poor state. The tone of the text is blatantly promotions and the article as a whole is extremely poorly sourced. Sources must be reliable, independent of the subject, and provide significant coverage of the subject. The company's website, Linkedin, and Instagram are not appropriate sources of information, nor are press releases. The only two sources that are even independent link to pages that don't mention JET365, let alone provide independent sourcing of reliable facts. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:31, 8 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]

No advice needed - the draft was declined by a blocked user as an act of vandalism. It's been reverted. Sorry about that. -- asilvering (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 8

03:13, 8 April 2025 review of submission by Bayou Tapestry

Hi - Googled JJ McCullough and was surprised to see he did not have a Wikipedia page. Given he has one of the larger YouTube followings for a Canadian and has been a well-known reporter / TV pundit / commentator for a long time this is pretty surprising. I ended up stumbling on the AfD page here and (apparently) lots of history with his page getting created -> deleted -> salted -> etc. Also seems to be some drama here I'd like to sidestep.

There are at least two relatively recent print interviews with him that clearly classify as reliable sourcing - https://macleans.ca/politics/why-youtubers-like-me-oppose-bill-c-11/ and https://www.vanmag.com/style/home-decor/whats-in-the-background-of-vancouver-youtuber-j-j-mcculloughs-videos/ along with his bio on the Washington Post. I can't really speak to how the draft of the page is written now (I would slim it down considerably) but I am willing to rewrite the page with a focus on what can be sourced from reliable sources (i.e. his WaPo writing and activism against Bill C-11, with a short mention of his YouTube career). I would like to know it won't be deleted when I submit it however, hence the help desk question. Thank you! Bayou Tapestry (talk) 03:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bayou Tapestry: Interviews actually don't help for eligibility, regardless of where the interview is published and who does it (connexion to subject). They can be used once eligibility has been established with other sources for direct quotes or claims no reasonable person could challenge. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 03:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but that's not true. Agreed interviews can't necessarily be assessed for accuracy (unless they can be verified in some other source), but they are used as reliable sources all over the place on Wikipedia. There's a whole write-up about it Wikipedia:Interviews! The page has been salted due to issues around notability, not accuracy of the citations though. I believe the print interviews + the WaPo bio clearly meet notability requirements here. Bayou Tapestry (talk) 03:34, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not in the way you're thinking. The only time I've seen them used as a source for determining eligibility is if the source had a significant amount of non-interview content in it. On that note:
—Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 05:47, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:16, 8 April 2025 review of submission by TuisVV

Hi Everyone can you please check this page for me. This is my second time submitting a Wikipedia entry TuisVV (talk) 08:16, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TuisVV You need the "Draft:" portion of the title when linking, I've fixed this for you. I have added the appropriate information to your draft to allow you to submit it for review so you can get feedback. 331dot (talk) 08:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that it it not likely to be accepted, as you have just summarized the activities and offerings of the company. 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. "Significant coverage" is that which goes into detail and analyzes what the source sees as important/significant/influential about the company, not its mere activities and offerings. 331dot (talk) 08:22, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:16, 8 April 2025 review of submission by UNSTOPABLEKRISHNA

please tell us why 

UNSTOPABLEKRISHNA (talk) 14:16, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because not a single fact is sourced, and the writing is so blatantly promotional that if there were a good reason to think the subject was notable under Wikipedia's definition, the entire article would have to be rewritten. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:35, 8 April 2025 review of submission by VasMis12

i would like to know why you rejected my page VasMis12 (talk) 14:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@VasMis12 because this is a global encyclopedia on notable topics, demonstrated through significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. It is not a place to write about make believe things. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:42, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You didn’t add any reliable sources. That’s the most common mistake I see in drafts. To add a reliable source, you need to add <ref> on both sides of the source, and put the source besides the pharse/paragraph/sentence. Henihhi28 (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is how you add a footnote, but it does not automatically mean that the source is reliable. --bonadea contributions talk 07:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:57, 8 April 2025 review of submission by Kaki4w

i need help for making my article Kaki4w (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to add reliable sources, to add a source properly beside the sentence/pharse/paragraph, you need to add <ref> on both sides of the source. Henihhi28 (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:02, 8 April 2025 review of submission by Unknowndutchuser

Page has been declined because "IMDB is not a reliable source", so what is? I've linked two official sites that also mention the project that the subject of this page is known for. What can I do? Unknowndutchuser (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Unknowndutchuser: We're looking for reviews of his performances; official sites for the projects he's been on won't work. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you. Unknowndutchuser (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:10, 8 April 2025 review of submission by Talesman15

The artickle i try to submit is written by me, independent refferences are provided, and contains absolutely true and neutral information. I vrealy don't understand the reason to decline it.Talesman15 (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talesman15 No one has said it is not true; the company does not seem to meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You’re supposed to add the references beside the sentence or phrase regarding it. If you don’t know how, just put <ref> beside them I think on both sides. Henihhi28 (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Henihhi28 Please don't offer incorrect advice here, it clearly isn't helpful Talesman15 please read WP:REB for the correct help. Theroadislong (talk) 06:56, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:52, 8 April 2025 review of submission by Henihhi28

How do I add an info box? I checked out the Wiki help article regarding this, and I clicked the list of infoboxes and then I stumbled upon a book infobox (I forget what it was called), the example image confused me into thinking you where supposed to upload the file to add the infobox until I realized it was a image uploader. I just looked up on how to add a infobox to wiki, it said to add in the Wikicode, but I couldn’t find it. I found this so frustrating and confusing. Henihhi28 (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added it in for you, you need to add {{Infobox book}}, and you can fill in all the information with parameters or just by clicking on it with the visual editor. Template:Infobox book will tell all the different things you can do with it and fix any problems. Sophisticatedevening🍷(talk) 22:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Henihhi28 (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:05, 8 April 2025 review of submission by Henihhi28

The parameters are showing outside the infobox, is that normal? Henihhi28 (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I fixed it. Henihhi28 (talk) 23:09, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:24, 8 April 2025 review of submission by Henihhi28

The image won’t show, is that normal? Henihhi28 (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You had nowiki tags in place to suppress the coding, I've removed this. Note that images are an enhancement to an article, not a requirement. 331dot (talk) 23:29, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Henihhi28 your focus should be on meeting the notability criteria. Things link images and infoboxes are useless as far as that is concerned and can be handled once the article is accepted. S0091 (talk) 23:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Henihhi28 (talk) 23:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 9

04:30, 9 April 2025 review of submission by Harajaru345tyu

nhi ChatGpt se nhi bnaya hai bhai Harajaru345tyu (talk) 04:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harajaru345tyu, this is the English language Wikipedia and all communication should be in English. Why are you writing in Hindi? Cullen328 (talk) 06:51, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:11, 9 April 2025 review of submission by Saluation97

Thank you for reviewing my article submission so quickly. I'm sad to read you've declined it at this time. However, I would like to work with Wikipedia's editors to ensure New Blood Pop receives the recognition he deserves as a public figure and artist of note in New Zealand.

Could you please explain to me how to re-phrase the first ref block to not "read like an advert ... to sell his work". I used these two currently published similar Wikipedia articles on other artists to base my phrasing on (Karl Maughan and Andy Warhol)). I tried to be as objective as possible, basing this on facts.

I used shop front websites because they contain Biographical information about the Artist, not because they "sell his work". Are shop fronts illegal to use as Third-party reference material on Wikipedia? Reference 4 is a verified 3rd party source, the New Zealand Medical Council.

References 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 20, 23 are all verifiable secondary sources written by News media journalists in New Zealand, so you did not look very closely at the reference list. I suggest you inspect them closer before brushing off this article under an assumption is page was made to "sell his art", which I find quite an insulting accusation as this took me probably about 40+ hours of research to assemble and compile as I am a great admirer of his art and medical career, as are many people in Aotearoa New Zealand who are proud of New Blood Pop and his community work.

How can I amend the New Blood Pop article to meet the submission standards? My article has much more citations than pages that currently exist on this site, so I really don't see the problem. Saluation97 (talk) 09:11, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Salutation97 You need the "Draft:" portion of the title when linking, I've fixed this for you.
Please see other stuff exists; each article or draft is judged on its own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and just not yet addressed by a volunteer. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles.
It's not the volume of sources, it's the quality of sources that is important. There is such a thing as having too many sources. I would suggest focusing on your best sources, likely the ones written by news media, that go into detail about what they see as important/significant/influential about this man and his work, either broadly as a notable person or more narrowly as a notable artist. 331dot (talk) 09:31, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:56, 9 April 2025 review of submission by Kenjide024

Can I add his spotify account or the news is not enough? Kenjide024 (talk) 10:56, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

His social media is meaningless towards establishing notability. The only source you have provided is a glowing piece celebrating his birthday, written by an employee of his company. 331dot (talk) 10:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you are an employee of his company, that must be disclosed according to our Terms of Use, see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 10:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:07, 9 April 2025 review of submission by 2.50.141.30

Hi, I’d like to ask for some advice on how to get this article approved. Could you please let me know what improvements or changes are needed? 2.50.141.30 (talk) 12:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting. The reviewer left you a message as to what is being looked for. Do you have more specific questions about it? 331dot (talk) 12:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:28, 9 April 2025 review of submission by Pkakumba

hello 

Pkakumba (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asking a question? If it's about your draft, it contains no sources, and no indication that the subject is notable. I'm not even sure who the article is about since the subject seems to shift from someone with a one-word name Kakumba to a one-word name Wavamunno and back. This article was correctly rejected as being unsuitable for Wikipedia. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:29, 9 April 2025 review of submission by Dayyousnbashid

Hi, I recently wrote a counter-draft and submitted it for publication but it was rejected. I think the references seem complete. I was told that there are experienced editors here who can help me. What should I do? Is there anyone who can help? Dayyousnbashid (talk) 13:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dayyousnbashid: We don't cite Instagram or any other form of social media (no editorial oversight), we can't cite website homepages (too sparse and possibly wrong subject), and we don't cite Wikipedia itself (circular reference). No comment on the IranTV source as I can't assess it (language barrier). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What documents are required?
Is a blog listing the biographies of players from Iran's lower leagues sufficient? Dayyousnbashid (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs are not considered reliable sources, also we looking for significant coverage not mere listings. Theroadislong (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What should be sent? Dayyousnbashid (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We need reliable sources, sources with a reputation of fact checking and editorial control. This may be different from other versions of Wikipedia like the Farsi Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:29, 9 April 2025 review of submission by Gbrigman

Hi, I'm confused about the needing verifiable references. We have citations for everything listed. Thanks Gbrigman (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The references you provided all seem to be associated with the band or are the mere reporting of its activities, not significant coverage of the band in independent reliable sources that shows how the band meets at least one aspect of WP:BAND. 331dot (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gbrigman: Not all sources are created equal. Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
The good sources you do have are drowned by an ocean of chaff. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thanks..Super helpful..appreciate it. Gbrigman (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:07, 9 April 2025 review of submission by Sejal Hota

jst to get some idea about how to edit the mistake Sejal Hota (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sejal Hota if you are asking about the error message, I fixed that for you and I also removed unreliable sources that should be used like github, social media, linkedin, etc. I also removed the list of awards in the infobox because none are notable. S0091 (talk) 19:22, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:43, 9 April 2025 review of submission by PhilippPhi

I am not sure how I would find for a niche technical death metal band "published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself" - would reviews on review sites count? Or music related podcasts?

I compared to the article for Spawn of Possession, which is the precursor band to Retromorphosis and is one of the genre defining bands of technical death metal (I guess thereby fulfilling criterion 7 for notability), but also doesn't seem to show any proof of that. IMO an article on Retromorphosis has relevance for the same reason, being the re-founding of a genre defining band - I just don't know what evidence to present.

Thanks, PhilippPhi (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews of the bands' music would help, if the reviews are written by professional reviewers. Podcasts are not often considered reliable sources, it depends mostly on if the podcast has a reputation of fact checking and editorial control. 331dot (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PhilippPhi Spawn of Possession is a really bad article with most of the content unsourced, the few sources used are unreliable (it uses MySpace as source for example) and created by someone with a clear conflict of interest. You'll find many articles here with similar issues. Standards have changed which is why it is bad idea to use an existing article as basis for another. Not that you are expected to know this, but just explaining why. If the band is niche as you say, it may not be possible to meet Wikipedia's current notability criteria for bands (WP:NBAND). S0091 (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks for the insight. That article being not a good example actually helps me understand the issue. I'll have a see what I can find in terms of proper sources.
PhilippPhi (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 10

00:46, 10 April 2025 review of submission by Nuvirtualis


Feedback on recent article? (newbie questions) Hi all, I'm a bit of a Wikipedia newbie and recently took a stab at writing my first article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Aviv_Elor_(Researcher)). It seems the article was rejected by the editor for not meeting any of the academic notability criteria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)), but I thought #2 would be met given their international awards, or are these too outside of Academia? Reviewing the notability criteria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)), is a different category more appropriate? Any suggestions for revision or should I not even pursue a revision? Thank you for your time and feedback Nuvirtualis (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your header to provide a link to your draft as intended(you had other text there, creating a link as if the text was a draft title). The whole url is not needed when linking; just place the title of the target page in double brackets. ([[Draft:Aviv Elor (Researcher)]], for example).
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. I would tend to agree with the reviewer, though, that it's probably too soon for an article about this researcher. 331dot (talk) 01:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:31, 10 April 2025 review of submission by 24.86.211.12

There is significant media coverage, what more is needed? 24.86.211.12 (talk) 05:31, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources need to be cited inline at the spot of the claim(s) they support. Anything less will lead to a summary decline. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:03, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:23, 10 April 2025 review of submission by Kschuber98

This is the second draft of my article. In the second draft, I included reliable, secondary sources - (newspapers, magazines, independent websites, etc.) and I listed the citations as per the guidelines given. And yes, some of the cited articles are “short, passing mentions,” but other cited articles are very long. Is each citation supposed to be “very long”? (ie, Mansfield won two NEA Jazz Awards, so I just cited his mention in their catalog.) I have additional sources I could include, except for various reasons, I narrowed it down to sixteen in this draft. That really seemed like enough - compared to other similar Wikipedia pages. PS- I have noted that the wording of my first sentence was challenged, and I will change that. But it would be very helpful to know - before re-submitting - if there are other suggestions editors may have in regards to the article and citations. PPS- I also wrote back to the editor “Flat Out” but have not received an answer from him. Thank you for any help you can offer! Kschuber98 (talk) 06:23, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kschuber98 Though understandable, beware in using other articles as a model or example- these too could be inappropriate and you would be unaware of that as a new user. See other stuff exists. There are many ways inappropriate content can exist, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. That another article exists does not mean that it meets current standards(if it ever did). If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles, which have received community vetting.
Please tell which of the notability criteria for musicians Mr. Mansfield meets; alternatively, he could be a notable creative professional(as a composer) 331dot (talk) 09:25, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:31, 10 April 2025 review of submission by Mamadkoli

I have made this article, and its my first article making. I had read every policy and rules about article making, and have submitted it 2 times but it has been rejected two times. Now, Im asking for any administrator or admin or experienced editor to help me in finding the problems. Mostly the main problem being notability. I would appreciate and be thankful for any support on this case. Mamadkoli (talk) 07:31, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
You have basically just posted his resume. You need to summarize what independent reliable sources choose to say about him and what makes him a notable person.
You took a picture of this man in his office and he posed for you. What's your connection to him? 331dot (talk) 09:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:07, 10 April 2025 review of submission by Maxxw71

not entirely sure why this submission keeps getting rejected. Sources are secondary, independent, and in-depth. It's a semi-pro team that plays in the NPSL. Multiple teams in the same league have wikipedia articles of them with barely any sources. Maxxw71 (talk) 08:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maxxw71 It's been 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.
I don't think the issue is that there is something wrong with the sources, but the sources that you have provided do not establish that this club is a notable organization as Wikipedia defines one. You have just summarized the activities of the club, not significant coverage of the club, coverage that goes into detail about the club. There is also promotional or at least non-neutral language in the draft("winning momentum"; "secured its first two trophies").
What is your connection to the club? You (under your original username) claim to have personally created and personally own the copyright to its logo. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see I've talked to you before, apologies. But please speak to the logo. 331dot (talk) 12:03, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:02, 10 April 2025 review of submission by Galaxy Accelerator

I copied biography of Hendrik van Dam from wikitree and my draft was declined. What should I do for acception of this new article? Galaxy Accelerator (talk) 14:02, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed to be copied verbatim from a copyrighted source, even you got it from elsewhere(I don't know what "wikitree" means or is). 331dot (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: WikiTree is a genealogy wiki. I should note it doesn't use a copyleft licence, so anything taken from there verbatim should be nuked as copyvio. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:10, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:09, 10 April 2025 review of submission by Sami ALG4

Any way to deal with this? Sami ALG4 (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sami ALG4: Get sources that actually discuss Boudjeltia at length rather than just name-drop him, quote him, or otherwise don't discuss him at length. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:11, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:35, 10 April 2025 review of submission by Carmouche69

hello I want to know if citing direct quotes is permissible. and if the current format of my text (which is very basic and doesn't contain any copyright issues) is good to go for the moment? - mostly i am waiting to see if i need to start all over again. or if this basic format can be published. with revisions + original words later on to add on. Carmouche69 (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Carmouche69: You certainly shouldn't be editing this in the first place, so any question on that front is moot. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
what do you mean? Carmouche69 (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the submission per WP:ARBECR. S0091 (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:24, 10 April 2025 review of submission by Swensonia

Hi. I've submitted an edited version of this page in hopes of meeting the necessary criteria for publication. Thank you for your previous feedback. Could I please get some feedback on my updated work and be notified regarding acceptance or direction for additional editing? Thank you. Swensonia (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have resubmitted the draft for review, the reviewer will leave feedback if not accepted. We don't really do pre-review reviews here. 331dot (talk) 23:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:16, 10 April 2025 review of submission by ScienceOcean

Hello! I submitted a draft for my page and was rejected due to lacking "secondary sources". I was wondering if anyone could review my sandbox and explain to me why my sources are not sufficient? Thank you! Sandbox URL: https://w.wiki/BYpH ScienceOcean (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceOcean You need the "Draft:" portion of the title when linking. I've fixed this.
The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
Your sources are just announcements of this event, not significant coverage that shows how it is a notable event. 331dot (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:48:35, 10 April 2025 review of submission by 103.14.72.158


103.14.72.158 (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

103.14.72.158, Sadly, I can't help you, because you have not specified a draft. — 🦅White-tailed eagleTalk to the eagleStalking eagle 13:52, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 11

00:08, 11 April 2025 review of submission by Chaibiscuitpodcast

Kindly advise me why my article is getting rejected. what are the major issues and how can I resolve them? I have written the biography from my own ad it hasn't been copied from any source still it won't get accepeted. Chaibiscuitpodcast (talk) 00:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaibiscuitpodcast, you are not submitting an article. This is my new sandbox is not an article. If you are trying to use your sandbox, you don't need to submit it to AfC. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask at the Teahouse. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 00:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So where should I submit it? Chaibiscuitpodcast (talk) 00:48, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chaibiscuitpodcast, You don't need to submit it. There is nothing to submit. If you write a draft and want it published, that is what AfC can help you with. Only pages that are meant for the mainspace (what people read) are reviwed by AfC reviewers. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 00:51, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
can you guide me where should I write a draft? Chaibiscuitpodcast (talk) 00:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chaibiscuitpodcast, I will respond on you talk page. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 00:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:27, 11 April 2025 review of submission by Enigmainkwell

No response from reviewer - Request new review for Draft:Configa I submitted a draft article about British hip-hop producer Configa (Draft: Configa), which was rejected with a generic LLM-generation notice. I responded to the reviewer's talk page on April 8, 2025, requesting clarification and addressing their concerns but have not received any response.

I believe my draft meets Wikipedia's standards for neutrality, reliable sourcing, and notability. Every claim is supported by verifiable citations to music publications, official releases, and academic repositories. The subject has collaborated with notable artists like Arrested Development and Chuck D and has published academic work.

Since my request for clarification has gone unanswered for 2 days, I'm requesting a new reviewer who might be more familiar with music articles and hip-hop culture. The current situation is preventing progress on a legitimate article about a notable subject.

Thank you for your assistance. Enigmainkwell (talk) 02:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Enigmainkwell You had a sentence where just the title of the draft should go in the header, I fixed this.
You have resubmitted the draft, the next reviewer will leave you feedback if it is not accepted. Posting here does not speed up the process. 331dot (talk) 08:43, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
```
Noted- regarding the header formatting correction. Noted that resubmissions follow standard queue procedures and additional posts don't accelerate review. My concern stemmed from receiving a generic AI-generation rejection without specific feedback identifying problematic sections, despite providing verifiable citations for each claim about this established music producer. I will await the next reviewer's assessment.
~~~~
``` Enigmainkwell (talk) 09:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting the comment was not generated by AI- it was a pre-written message. 331dot (talk) 09:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noted Enigmainkwell (talk) 10:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Enigmainkwell: What is your connection to the person this draft is about? --bonadea contributions talk 14:24, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:02, 11 April 2025 review of submission by SkibidiToiletRiler

Please accept it SkibidiToiletRiler (talk) 06:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no draft entitled "German Community"(even a properly linked one like Draft:German Community); the only draft you have written is Draft:V.M, which is a mess of jumbled text. You haven't submitted it yet, but it would be declined- possibly rejected- quickly.
There is already an article on Germans. 331dot (talk) 08:41, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm taking that draft to AN/I; it looks like an attempt at computer code. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:45, 11 April 2025 review of submission by Marcos Martín Crespo

I am trying to submit a translation from Spanish of the article about Pablo Méndez (poet). I've realized that Wikipedia works differently depending on the language you publish in so I might have done it wrong. When I published the article they told me I lacked reliable sources but there are none in the original. What do I do? Thanks. Marcos Martín Crespo (talk) 08:45, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marcos Martín Crespo I fixed your header to provide a link to your draft(the "Draft:" portion is needed).
A Wikipedia article- at least here on the English Wikipedia- must summarize what independent reliable sources say about the topic. This is an absolute requirement if the topic is a living person, please see the Biographies of Living Persons policy. If you have no sources, there cannot be an article here about the topic. Where are you getting your information if you have no sources? 331dot (talk) 08:52, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:04, 11 April 2025 review of submission by Aone Scientific

i want to publish my company send me any suggestion Aone Scientific (talk) 11:04, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for promotion. 331dot (talk) 11:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:18, 11 April 2025 review of submission by Wfhtosixfigures

I’ve provided resources and edits Wfhtosixfigures (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wfhtosixfigures, that was an overtly promotional and poorly referenced draft that had no resemblance to an encyclopedia article. The draft has been deleted. Cullen328 (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:37, 11 April 2025 review of submission by Lrtanny

Why was the Wikipedia article I created on Rebecca Bau declined?

How can I get help making the needed corrections? Lrtanny (talk) 15:37, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lrtanny: What is your connexion to Bau's estate or the Joseph Bau House Museum? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:46, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am a communications consultant working with Clila and Hadasa Bau, the daughters of Rebecca and Joseph Bau. Clila has asked me to create a Wikipedia page for Rebecca and has provided information and photos.. Lrtanny (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lrtanny: Are you aware you are obligated to DISCLOSE this information per our ToU and (in some jurisdictions) covert-advertizing laws? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:18, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:51, 11 April 2025 review of submission by 102.0.2.86

The page was deleted from Wikipedia please explain to me how i can rewrite it Thank you. 102.0.2.86 (talk) 17:51, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it's the end of the line for this topic; it has not been shown that he is notable as Wikipedia uses the word. 331dot (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:44, 11 April 2025 review of submission by 2001:D08:102A:BB1E:1:1:9941:C36A

!!!Hello Mr. Waxworker Welcome to ☠️☠️Death Wikipedia☠️☠️!!!. 2001:D08:102A:BB1E:1:1:9941:C36A (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked by Daniel Case [1]. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 19:29, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:27, 11 April 2025 review of submission by Mr.Fact10151

Please give me an example of what a formal submission looks like. This article/bio was written with 100% facts, sources, and was not written in any other format other than a neutral standard. Can someone please help me with the writing format? Mr.Fact10151 (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr.Fact10151 @Gheus who most recently declined the draft might be able to offer more but to me, it reads more like a resume (i.e. "experience") than an encyclopedia article. As for as meeting the notability criteria, at a brief look, the sources appear to be brief mentions or his comments/interviews which is not enough. What we are looking for is in-depth coverage about him by independent reliable sources, not what he says about himself and also a bit broader than local coverage. I'll leave you a message a your talk page providing more information about creating an article that might be helpful. S0091 (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, don't cite unreliable sources such as [2], [3], [4]. Gheus (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 12

05:45, 12 April 2025 review of submission by PhantasmalCats

I would like to rename the article as “Fossilized Wonders.” I had created this article as “Touhou 20” in preparation of any release of the 20th official Touhou Project game; however, only approximately after four hours, news had come out about Touhou 20 out of all odds. As I did not know four hours prior, the game is called “Fossilized Wonders” just as the other Touhou Project game articles are called “Perfect Cherry Blossom” or “Imperishable Night.” Nevertheless, thank you. PhantasmalCats (talk) 05:45, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PhantasmalCats: I see that an article by that name was created by another editor (after your question here) and that you've also edited it, so it looks like the situation is resolved :-) I have declined your draft as a duplicate of an existing article. --bonadea contributions talk 08:12, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:35, 12 April 2025 review of submission by Jaycob river moody

I need help I'm making this page for an important person, and it says speedy deletion please fix this... as I'm new Jaycob river moody (talk) 09:35, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:36, 12 April 2025 review of submission by Jaycob river moody

help me please! I'm making an important page it says speedy deletion as I'm new pls help Jaycob river moody (talk) 09:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1285208863"