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 HelpfulEditorPerson (talk | contribs) at 20:05, 30 April 2025 (→18:58, 30 April 2025 review of submission by HelpfulEditorPerson: Reply). 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 24

00:49, 24 April 2025 review of submission by 2001:1970:49DE:8C00:431:B5B8:9FD9:3D2E

Historically speaking, Srpski Odjek did exist as a 'bona fide' ethnic community paper in Colorado back in 1902. To substantiate more than what is written is impossible after such a long time.... 2001:1970:49DE:8C00:431:B5B8:9FD9:3D2E (talk) 00:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's an argument against notability, then. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:13, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Existence is not enough for the subject of a Wikipedia article. An article should be a summary of what people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish in reliable publications, and little else. Such sources might exist for this paper, but unless you can locate them, no article is possible. Sorry. ColinFine (talk) 10:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:50, 24 April 2025 review of submission by Shivi042022

my Draft is rejected and i don't know how to fix it Shivi042022 (talk) 06:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was declined not rejected, (though it probably should be rejected), it requires significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources, you have none at all and the tone is totally inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. Theroadislong (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Shivi042022. A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish in reliable publications; and little else.
You have no reliable sources at all (Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and may not be cited). See WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 10:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:35, 24 April 2025 review of submission by Sinkla95

Hello, I was wondering if there is maybe a more specific reason as to why this article is percieved as an ad? I used as many third-party references as possible and wrote neutraly about the company. What else can I do to make this a published article? Sinkla95 (talk) 07:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sinkla95: this draft is basically a brochure, telling the world what the company does, and how excellent it is. Much of it is sourced to the company's own materials or other primary sources. We have no interest in what the company wants to say about itself. We are almost exclusively interested in see what others, esp. reliable and independent secondary sources, have said about this business and what makes it worthy of note. Your job is merely to summarise their coverage, which would result in an altogether different draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:38, 24 April 2025 review of submission by Dopolnila Sen

Hi, can I delite this arcticle so I can post it in Slovenian Wikipedia? Dopolnila Sen (talk) 08:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is deleted or not has no impact on if you post it in the Slovenian Wikipedia; but if you want it deleted, we can do so. Drafts are deleted after six months of inactivity, or can be done at the author's request. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:12, 24 April 2025 review of submission by Started 1959

Hello - I have an edit tag/suggestion which says Orphans. Can you tell me what this means? I think it must mean where words split at the ends of line. If so, is there an article on how to fix this issue? Thanks! Kate Started 1959 (talk) 09:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This help desk is to ask about drafts in the draft process, to ask about articles, please use the more general help desk. That said, the orphan tag has been removed. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Started 1959, I'm going to teach you my favourite Wikipedia trick - if you type WP: followed by the term you're unsure about in the search box, it almost always takes you to a page explaining that term or demonstrating how to perform maintenance relating to it. For example: WP:ORPHAN. Happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 10:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much @StartGrammarTime, that's going to be extremely useful! Started 1959 (talk) 07:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, from the explainer, I can immediately see the issue, and actually it's already been fixed by the community as people have linked to my article since I got the Orphan tag. As a copy-editor, I thought it was those split words, but not at all, it's that my article only linked outwards. Now others have linked in, I think the tag is dealt with, but will see if I can do more. Thanks again @StartGrammarTime, it had really been bugging me! Started 1959 (talk) 07:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome @Started 1959! Since the tag has been removed there isn't anything else you need to do, but of course you are welcome to make more links if you want to - just keep in mind MOS:OVERLINK. We love Wikilinks, but there can still be too much of a good thing! Not that I think you're going to do that, but it's always good to get some more info about this wild and wonderful wiki for your future endeavours. :) StartGrammarTime (talk) 07:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes good point @StartGrammarTime I just had a look. Reminds me of when a book has so many footnotes you can't make any progress through the main text. Today's version is too many tabs open, too many rabbit holes! Thanks again :) Started 1959 (talk) 10:22, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:53, 24 April 2025 review of submission by Balsam Cottonwood

The draft was declined on April 24, 2025. I'm sure the reasons are valid, but I would like help improving this draft before I resubmit it. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ♰ 09:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Balsam Cottonwood! Do you have specific questions we can help with? StartGrammarTime (talk) 10:04, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this isn't all, but there is no up-close image of Queste on Wikimedia Commons. There are images of Magyk, Flyte, Physik, and Syren, and one image of all seven covers in the series, but none only of the cover of Queste, which is needed for the infobox. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ♰ 10:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Balsam Cottonwood: an infobox isn't required for the draft to be accepted, nor is a cover image a requirement for the infobox to be there. I wouldn't worry about that, at least not at this stage. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:54, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Balsam Cottonwood: WP:BOOKCRIT #1 requires two or more non-trivial reviews. The Kirkus one is pretty superficial, and reads like a back-cover blurb. The New Book Recommendation piece is more extensive, but still essentially just a description of the book. I can't access the Booklist one, but in any case it alone wouldn't be enough. I think you need at least one more solid review (assuming none of the other criteria of BOOKCRIT is met).
Fandom is user-generated and therefore not considered reliable source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, I can't find anything else. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ♰ 10:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Balsam Cottonwood: then it's perfectly possible, likely even, that this book isn't notable. Most books aren't. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But most of the other books in the Septimus Heap series do have their own articles — specifically Magyk, Flyte, Physik, and Syren. Wouldn't it be kind of strange to leave out the other three forever? 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ♰ 11:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe strange, @Balsam Cottonwood, but if it happens that the others have been written about and this not, then this is the expected outcome. There are many examples of bands where some of the members are individually notable, but others not.
The other thing to think about is whether the other articles you mention are themselves adequately sourced. Flyte, for example, has just four sources, the two of which that I can see are short, not substantial reviews, so I have tagged it as needing more citations, and possibly failing notability ColinFine (talk) 12:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ♰ 00:40, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:17, 24 April 2025 review of submission by Mowabhaibro

not about myself but i just want to create a page to establish my film here officially and i need help in creating a article as i dont know really how to and i have all the proofs links to show the film and the members who are involved 

Mowabhaibro (talk) 10:17, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mowabhaibro: I'm going to start by advising against this. It sounds like you're wanting to promote your film, and promotion of any sort is not allowed on Wikipedia. In any case, you have a conflict of interest in this subject, which must be disclosed before you do anything else; I will post instructions on your talk page. And to have any chance of being accepted, your film must be notable, by either the general WP:GNG or the special WP:NFILM guideline; either bar is high, and most films would not pass.
If you still want to proceed, despite all that and against my advice, you can find pretty much all the advice you need at WP:YFA. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Mowabhaibro. "to establish my film here officially" is a purpose which is contrary to the purposes of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is only interested in subjects which have already been written about, in some depth, by people wholly unconnected with the subject. ColinFine (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:24, 24 April 2025 review of submission by Lenawagner

Hello!

My article about William Garfield Walker was declined but I have since revised the content, incorporated reliable sources, and corrected the text accordingly. I am ready to work on my article further based on any feedback provided! I am happy to learn and to publish my article! Lenawagner (talk) 10:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lenawagner: if you feel that you've sufficiently addressed the reason(s) for the previous decline, then you can resubmit your draft for another review. That said, I noticed that all your sources are primary, and cannot therefore establish notability (that being the reason why this was declined earlier) per the WP:GNG guideline. You may be able to show that the special WP:MUSICBIO guideline is satisfied instead, but note that this requires significant career achievements. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thank you! I will check out the musicbio guideline! I believe I used a lot of secondary sources already, if I am correct! Thank you for your feedback, I will work on it again!
Best,
Lena Lenawagner (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Lenawagner. Sources which are written, published, or based on the words of, Walker or his associates or associated institutions, are necessarily primary. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:01, 24 April 2025 review of submission by 120.159.88.216

My recent article submission was declined; "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article..." and I would like to find out what I need to add to the article.

I used the German National Mountain Bike Championships as a template, it was published in 2021 and only has one reference to a page of race results. The United States National Mountain Bike Championships, Dutch National Mountain Bike Championships and French National Mountain Bike Championships articles also appear to be carbon copies.

Please halp :) 120.159.88.216 (talk) 13:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting. You need the full title, including the "Draft:" portion, when linking. I fixed this. 331dot (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, Thank you Reephill (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see other stuff exists. It could be that these other articles shouldn't exist either and we just haven't gotten around to removing them yet. There are many ways to get inappropriate content past us, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles, which have been checked by the community. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information about why it doesn't matter if other pages already exist and that I should use an article classified as good. Reephill (talk) 01:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:59, 24 April 2025 review of submission by Mahamudracollective

Hello AfC volunteers,

Draft:Rahat Mahajan was resubmitted on 31 March. I have addressed the previous feedback by rewriting the draft in neutral language, removing promotional wording, and adding citations from independent, reliable sources for every substantive claim.

The two reviewers who initially commented—Flat Out and CNMall41—were each pinged (most recently on 18 April), but I have not received a response. Could another reviewer please take a look or advise on next steps?

I have disclosed my COI and paid editing status on my user page. Thank you for your time and assistance.

— Mahamudracollective (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Mahamudracollective. Reviewers are volunteers. There is no way to predict when a reviewer will decide to look at your draft. Attempts to get a faster review are not likely to be successful, and may annoy reviewers. Please be patient. ColinFine (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reminder, ColinFine. I’m new to the Articles for Creation process and still learning, so I appreciate your guidance and the reviewers’ time. I’ll wait patiently for the next review.
— Mahamudracollective (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mahamudracollective I fixed your header so it links to your draft as intended, it should only contain the full title of the draft and no other text. 331dot (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mahamudracollective Thank you for making your paid editor declaration. That was essential to any future acceptance of your draft. By pure serendipity you second review took place, and it was no Declined again 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mahamudracollective:, you resubmitted it after it was declined; however, you made no improvements. Why?--CNMall41 (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear CNMall41,
I did it completely by mistake, as I thought I would be able to start editing after clicking on "Resubmit." The previous edit warring issue was also for the exact same reason—I wasn't aware of the policy and was simply cleaning up the draft for resubmission, with no wrong or misconstrued intention.
I'm so incredibly sorry. I'm completely new to this and doing my best to follow all the guidelines and advice given and immediately making amends as you may have noticed, but I’m making these mistakes due to my lack of experience using Wikipedia.
I would be really grateful if you gave me another opportunity to edit the draft, as I've done a lot of research on the subject and it would be sad to let it all go to naught. Thank you for your time and understanding.
--Mahamudracollective (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. You are free to submit the draft again once you have finished improving it based on the feedback received from reviewers. Please do not resubmit prior to that time as it will simply be declined. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear CNMall41, thank you so much for your prompt response and for giving me the opportunity to resubmit. I greatly appreciate your guidance and patience. I will carefully review the draft and address all the feedback before submitting again. --Mahamudracollective (talk) 04:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:21, 24 April 2025 review of submission by Muchclag

I have all but finished this article ready for review, however I would like to add a photograph from the National Portrait Gallery (https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/person/mp54893/montagu-grant-wilkinson) if possible, but cannot seem to find the correct licence to use. Any assistance would be appreciated! Muchclag (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Images are not relevant to the draft process, which only considers the text and sources. Images can wait until the draft is accepted. 331dot (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks for the prompt response Muchclag (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, looking at the National Portrait Gallery, they don't seem to offer any licenses that are compatible with Wikipedia (unless I've missed something). A Wikipedia-compliant license must allow all uses of the image by any party, so long as it is properly attributed. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:35, 24 April 2025 review of submission by Compphilus

I have 3 entries that I am trying to upload and 2 of them are not being uploaded. Are you able to help me get them uploaded. Thank you, Stephen Compphilus (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see two drafts, you have not submitted Draft:Stephen Diacrussi. The draft in your sandbox has been declined but may be resubmitted. 331dot (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
However, both drafts are completely unacceptable as articles in their present state. 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.
Start with the independent reliable sources, then forget everything that you personally know about the subject, and write a summary of what those sources say (only), citing them as you go.
Do you have a connection with Diacrussi and ATT? If you have, you should declare your conflict of interest on your user page. If you are in any way employed or remunerated by or on behalf of ATT, then you must make a formal declaration of your status as a paid editor ColinFine (talk) 21:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:55, 24 April 2025 review of submission by Mahamudracollective

I resubmitted the same document by mistake and was going to work on the document. I thought I would be able to start working on it after I clicked resubmit. Sincere apologies, I am completely new to this so making lots of mistakes but have done my best to adhere to all the guidelines and advice given. Mahamudracollective (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mahamudracollective, You can still work on it. Once you are sure that it is good, place subst:Submit in the source code. Do not get rid of the rejection and declines. Best, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 01:10, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understood CF-501 Falcon, thanks a ton for the advice. Really appreciate it. Mahamudracollective (talk) 01:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 25

Second opinion requested – Meghan McLeod draft

Hi there.

I'm seeking a second opinion regarding the Draft:Meghan McLeod article.

Meghan McLeod is a working American screen and voice actor with over 20 years of professional credits in film, television, and gaming. These include a supporting role in Titanic, recurring work on series such as Hung and Ted, and recent voice acting in Fallout 76: Skyline Valley.

The current draft includes multiple independent, reliable secondary sources that provide significant coverage:

- A published editorial interview in Indie Flick Review - A verified industry panel hosted by Bethesda Studios - A long-form podcast feature on Actor’s Lounge

These are cited inline and meet the standard for notability under WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. However, recent reviews have dismissed them, seemingly due to format bias—because they are interviews or panels—rather than based on content, depth, or editorial independence.

I want to respectfully point out that the nature of a working actor’s career is that they do the work, often without receiving major press unless or until they reach celebrity status. But by that point, they rarely need a Wikipedia page—it becomes a trailing effect.

Working professionals like Meghan McLeod, who have built legitimate, ongoing careers, deserve accurate, well-cited pages—because when someone Googles them (casting director, producer, journalist, fan), a Wikipedia article is often the first result. It’s not about hype—it’s about clarity, presence, and record.

I’d appreciate any guidance or re-review by an experienced editor. Thank you sincerely for your time and expertise.

Fixthisbs (talk) 04:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fixthisbs: there is nothing in this draft to indicate that she would meet WP:NACTOR, and the sources fall far short of satisfying WP:GNG. Therefore my 'second opinion' (or rather fifth, given the four earlier declines) is that the subject is unlikely to be notable and the draft cannot therefore be accepted at this time. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First off, interviews and panels involving the subject are not independent of her. As for Wikipedia having a trailing effect on fame, that's a feature not a bug, and this is precisely what is intended. Wikipedia is not social media or promotional platform. Wikipedia is supposed to be the last to recognize notability, not the first, as the purpose is to summarize the knowledge of reliable, independent sources. If Wikipedia is conferring notabilty rather than recognizing it, something has gone horribly wrong. As it currently stands, there's not a single independent source cited, and if you continue to submit it without improvement, a reviewer might reject the draft rather than declining it. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:59, 25 April 2025 review of submission by 방명호

Dear reviewers, I am writing to respectfully request a re-evaluation of the article Draft:Junghun Choi.

Over the past two weeks, I have carefully revised the draft multiple times based on all feedback received from the AfC process. Specifically: - All citations now use correct inline formatting with [1], and the References section displays properly using. - All sources are reliable, independent, and secondary (e.g., Chosun Biz, Forbes Korea, Yonhap News, JoongAng Daily, Korea Herald). - Any content based on primary or unverifiable material has been fully removed. - The tone, structure, and content now fully adhere to Wikipedia’s standards for biographies of living persons (WP:BLP) and verifiability (WP:CITE).

I understand the high standards of the community and have done my best to honor them.

🙏 With deepest sincerity, I would like to ask for your help. I’ve devoted every effort to ensure that it now meets all the guidelines. I humbly and earnestly ask that you please consider reviewing this updated version once more.

Thank you so much for your time and the incredible work you do as volunteers. 방명호 (talk) 04:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@방명호: you have resubmitted this draft, so you will get a re-evaluation when a reviewer gets around to assessing it.
That said, there is still unreferenced information which needs to be supported with citations. For example, which (reliable published) source gives this person's date of birth? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @방명호, I'm sorry to say I think you have more work to do. Firstly, you say the approval is truly important to my professional responsibilities - could you explain further? Do you know Junghun Choi in some way, or are you connected to one of his businesses?
Secondly, for your draft to be accepted, you are trying to find three sources that meet all three criteria in WP:42. I have skimmed through your sources and it seems to me that most of them don't match at least one criteria. You may wish to reassess them against this information. Happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 07:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @방명호. If somebody has assigned you creation of an approved Wikipedia article as part of your professional responsibilities, then I'm afraid that they may have assigned you an impossible task. If your subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability then you will not be able to complete your task.
I suggest you read WP:BOSS, and show it to whoever assigned you the task. ColinFine (talk) 04:23, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:15, 25 April 2025 review of submission by Fede130509

Any help or references that why my article is again begin denied and it says about "footnotes" so I don't know to improve the article. Fede130509 (talk) 05:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fede130509: articles on living people require inline citations throughout, to support the contents. You already have made some, eg. the date of birth at the start of the first paragraph is correctly supported. You need to do the same for everything. Currently most of the information is not supported in this manner, and the items listed in the 'References' section are not references, since they are not cited anywhere; they're just links to external sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:52, 25 April 2025 review of submission by Terrorry

because im new Terrorry 05:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Terrorry: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:51, 25 April 2025 review of submission by DR LION SAI VENKAT

Hi! My draft article Draft:Dr. Lion Sai Venkat was declined with a note that it lacks notability. I believe the subject meets notability guidelines based on [mention sources or achievements]. Could someone please review it and advise what improvements are needed? Thank you! 

DR LION SAI VENKAT (talk) 06:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DR LION SAI VENKAT: whether or not you are notable, this draft provides no evidence of that, as it is entirely unreferenced.
Please also see WP:AUTOBIO, which explains why writing about yourself is very strongly discouraged. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DR LION SAI VENKAT You have attemtped to use Wikipedia to advertise yourself and your career. You must know that this is not allowed here. WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA applies here. If you want to post your resumé I suggest LinkedIn 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 06:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:52, 25 April 2025 review of submission by Weveriowa

As a new user of Wikipedia, I made an error of using the English sandbox to submit a text to the Spanish Wikipedia. The message tells me to correct the error and resubmit, which I do not want to do. Now I have an error message in my English sandbox that I cannot erase. How do do I get out of this mess? Weveriowa (talk) 10:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Weveriowa: there's no mess, you needn't do anything necessarily. If you just abandon that draft, it will be automatically deleted six months from the last (human) edit. Or if you prefer, I can delete it for you now? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Oh, I just saw that you've already translated this into English, so perhaps you weren't asking for it to be deleted? So what did you mean by saying you don't want to "correct the error and resubmit"? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:05, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:54, 25 April 2025 review of submission by John.s.fontana

What about the references is causing the denial? John.s.fontana (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The references are not properly formatted, and are not displaying properly. Please see Referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:47, 25 April 2025 review of submission by Jwc012

Hello, The Wikipedia article I have written on the contemporary Cuban-American artist Reynier LLanes continues to be rejected, even though I have heeded suggestions & made appropriate edits. The reviewer does not seem to be objective, having said that it "reads like an advertisement", which it does not.

I would like to request that another reviewer read the draft.

Thank you, Jwc012 (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected would mean resubmission is not possible.
Instead of dismissing the more experienced reviewer because you don't like what they said, consider their point of view. I agree with them- we have a broader definition of "advertisement" than most places.
You can resubmit it, but doing so without substantive changes will likely lead to rejection, regardless of the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jwc012 I am offering an additional opinion, As it stands it cannot be accepted because of both poor referencing (better please, not more) and having a promotional feel. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jwc012: there is a vague but definite promotional tone to this throughout, as well as a few blatantly peacocky expressions like "celebrated for his narrative-driven works" and "immersing himself in the city’s art scene and drawing inspiration from its museums". So to say so categorically that it does not read like an advertisement is simply not correct. Added to that, the sources are all primary and at least some are not independent of the subject. I concur with the decline, although I would also have added back the earlier reason of lacking inline citations. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:37, 25 April 2025 review of submission by 2409:40D4:401F:6C12:8000:0:0:0

why did you reject this 2409:40D4:401F:6C12:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and AI generated promotion of non-notable individuals has no place here. --bonadea contributions talk 18:06, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who is the non-notable individual? Cstumpfl (talk) 21:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The person the draft is about – Muzammil Shera. --bonadea contributions talk 08:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:43, 25 April 2025 review of submission by Cstumpfl

Can you please advise why this is rejected and how we can fix it? Thank you Cstumpfl (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was a promotional essay, not an encyclopedia article that neutrally summarizes what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about a topic. 331dot (talk) 22:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this draft has since been deleted for being pure advertising and as such not appropriate for Wikipedia. Whilst I can no longer see the draft so cannot comment on the content, I would reccomend you read WP:SOAP before creating any more drafts. CoconutOctopus talk 22:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CoconutOctopus Recreated here Draft:What is a Perpetual Care Fund? and rejected again. Theroadislong (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Theroadislong. I didn't see the original before it was deleted, but @Cstumpfl this draft is an exceedingly long essay that at most appears to be an advert for a website regarding perpetual care funds. Topics must meet strict notability guidelines to be included on Wikipedia and this draft does not show that this topic meets those, in addition to reading as an advertisement. CoconutOctopus talk 21:31, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 26

01:05, 26 April 2025 review of submission by Toptier5stars

I would like to move this to my user space. There are a few sources out there indicating notability, however they are WP:VALNET sources, so I'm not very confident that this would be accepted and moved into main space. S★★★★★ 01:05, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the draft to User:Toptier5stars/Sanabi (video game), you are still welcome to submit if you would like. Sophisticatedevening🍷(talk) 02:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:36, 26 April 2025 review of submission by Samolxis

This topic is considered not to be sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. You will have to consider that is the newest economical system that it might change perspective upon administrating public wealth also called common wealth. Samolxis (talk) 01:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Samolxis. A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications; and very little else. What people associated with the subject say or wish to say about it is almost irrelevant to Wikipedia.
You have cited not one source that meets those criteria - the three English sources do not even mention the particular subject, and the Romanian source is evidently not independeent.
When there have been several independent in-depth articles about the subject, it may be possible for there to be a Wikipedia article about it. It is not possible at present. ColinFine (talk) 04:33, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:33, 26 April 2025 review of submission by 313LHM

I have submitted some good mentions, references, and articles to highlight the biography. It is yet getting rejected. Can you please guide on this. Thanks. 313LHM (talk) 09:33, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@313LHM: as you say, this has now been rejected (as opposed to previously declined), which means the end of the road. The guidance is therefore to find something else to write about. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:45, 26 April 2025 review of submission by VasMis12

How to make that article important VasMis12 (talk) 11:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can't "make it important" or a notable organization; there must be significant coverage in independent reliable sources to summarize, in order to demonstrate notability. 331dot (talk) 11:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:47, 26 April 2025 review of submission by 82.8.141.222

Ana de Armas

de Armas in 2025 Born Ana Celia de Armas Caso 30 April 1988 (age 36) Havana, Cuba Citizenship CubaSpain Occupation Actress Years active 2005–present Spouse Marc Clotet ​ ​(m. 2011; div. 2013)​ Ana Celia de Armas Caso (Spanish pronunciation: [ˈana ˈselja ðe ˈaɾmas ˈkaso]; born 30 April 1988)[1] is a Cuban and Spanish actress. She began her career in Cuba with a leading role in the romantic drama Una rosa de Francia (2006). At the age of 18, she moved to Madrid, Spain, and starred in the popular drama El Internado (2007–2010). After moving to Los Angeles, de Armas had English-speaking roles in the psychological thriller Knock Knock (2015) and the comedy-crime film War Dogs (2016).

De Armas rose to prominence for her roles as holographic AI Joi in the science fiction film Blade Runner 2049 (2017) and nurse Marta Cabrera in the mystery film Knives Out (2019), receiving a nomination for the Golden Globe Award for Best Actress – Motion Picture Comedy or Musical. She then played Bond girl Paloma in the James Bond film No Time to Die (2021) and actress Marilyn Monroe in the biographical drama Blonde (2022), for which she became the first Cuban nominated for the Academy Award for Best Actress. 82.8.141.222 (talk) 11:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 11:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have very low tolerance for resubmissions made with zero changes since the last decline, and I tend to quickly reject drafts that do so, usually only if they are entirely fluffy in tone, or is entirely an AI-generated slop. To help redirect other reviewer's time and resources to more promising drafts, and to bar people from repeating the useless resubmissions again, I just press the reject submission button and call it the end. Of course, I'm open to overturning rejections, only if articles are rewritten by humans from ground. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 12:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, good rejection. I can't find any evidence that this "upcoming" single and album exist, even from sources that are inappropriate. The album name looks like an AI hallucination based on a very well-known album that actually exists, Terence Trent D'Arby's Introducing the Hardline According to Terence Trent D'Arby. From the editor's history, this doesn't look like it's the first time they just made up something. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:55, 26 April 2025 review of submission by Ronaksingh

My submission is declined. Please help. Ronak Singh (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What help are you seeking? 331dot (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:58, 26 April 2025 review of submission by Richcaldicott

Why was this submission declined? Richcaldicott (talk) 14:58, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You declared a conflict of interest, what is the general nature of it?
The draft does little more that state that the app exists. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about the topic and show how it is notable as Wikipedia uses the word. 331dot (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:14, 26 April 2025 review of submission by Albi Vajvoda

I want to resubmit again my draft because i changed it Albi Vajvoda (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has no content other than references. A Wikipedia article needs to summarize what the references say about the topic. 331dot (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just did it i fixed it Albi Vajvoda (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not written in English; this is the English language Wikipedia. You need to post that to the Wikipedia of the language you are writing in. 331dot (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to publish the article now that i changed it but i can’t submit it for review Albi Vajvoda (talk) 17:24, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not create a new thread for every comment, just edit this existing section. Please see my comment above. 331dot (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Albi Vajvoda: Articles in Shqip are published in the Shqip Wikipedia, sq.wikipedia.org, and not at the English Wikipedia. --bonadea contributions talk 18:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:49, 26 April 2025 review of submission by Gurkiratvirk597

my page is good Gurkiratvirk597 (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about the draft, you don't cite a single usable source and there's no claim to notability made, so it was rejected rightly. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 27

00:28, 27 April 2025 review of submission by 2600:1700:5300:36B0:69A6:5C99:1EE6:C591

So the other draft Sry:Shorthand a followup got declined this draft "draft:sry" how can i fix it so this one gets accepted 2600:1700:5300:36B0:69A6:5C99:1EE6:C591 (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is entirely unreferenced. Unreferenced drafts can never be accepted because they fail the core content policy of Verifiability. Also, Wikipedia is not a dictionary of alternate spellings. Cullen328 (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:24, 27 April 2025 review of submission by Rectech enthusiast

Hey there, I have only covered information in this draft that can actually be cited and all information corresponds to all cited sources including some verified ones like Forbes, Economic Insider, Marketwatch, Crunchbase and more, I am not sure why this was declined on the basis of not having reliable in depth sources. It would be great if someone could assist here. Rectech enthusiast (talk) 06:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't necessarily the sources themselves, but their content. You have done little more than document the existence of the company and describe its offerings. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company.
Being mentioned in various publications does not in and of itself confer notability. Awards do not contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award).. 331dot (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:05, 27 April 2025 review of submission by 2405:201:681A:794F:8990:1B6D:D1BC:EAB2

why my submission is rejected?? 2405:201:681A:794F:8990:1B6D:D1BC:EAB2 (talk) 07:05, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This draft is unreferenced, highly promotional, and was probably written by AI rather than a human being. It bears no resemblance to an actual encyclopedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 08:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:20, 27 April 2025 review of submission by PancakeDisliker

Sorry about that! I forgot that my article was unfinished. That was a big mistake on my part.

Unreferenced drafts are not acceptable and it is inappropriate to say who should or should not read an encyclopedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 08:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:28, 27 April 2025 review of submission by Ahmad210901

am requesting assistance for the draft Draft:Rayan_Sharaf_Al_Deen_(musician). The subject, Rayan Sharaf Al Deen, is a notable emerging musician who has received growing independent coverage in multiple reliable sources, including interviews, features, and music reviews. This draft aims to meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines and the specific notability criteria for musicians. I would appreciate assistance in reviewing the sourcing, improving the neutrality of the tone, and ensuring the article is appropriately formatted to meet Wikipedia’s standards. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. 

Ahmad210901 (talk) 12:28, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahmad210901: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further.
FYI, "notable emerging" is pretty much an oxymoron; it's a bit like saying "veteran newcomer". -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and please don't use AI to communicate. Theroadislong (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:30, 27 April 2025 review of submission by Jawadcs83

Reason for requesting assistance: I have revised my draft based on the feedback provided but I am still unsure if it fully meets Wikipedia’s requirements for reliable sourcing, notability, and neutral tone. I would appreciate guidance on improving the references and ensuring the article is suitable for publication. Thank you for your support and time! Jawadcs83 (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notable alumni shouldn't be listed unless they have articles themselves.
I'm not seeing a summary of independent reliable sources thst shows how the school is a notable organization. It reads like a promotional brochure for prospective students.
Are you associated with the school? 331dot (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reviewing my draft. I appreciate your valuable feedback.
I understand now that notable alumni should only be listed if they have their own Wikipedia articles, and I will remove or adjust that section accordingly.
Regarding the sources, I am working on gathering more independent and reliable references that better establish the college's notability based on achievements reported in media and official recognition, rather than promotional material.
To clarify, yes, I am associated with the college, but I am committed to maintaining a neutral and encyclopedic tone, and I welcome your guidance to improve the article further to meet Wikipedia's standards. Jawadcs83 (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jawadcs83: in what capacity are you "associated with the college"? I will post a conflict-of-interest (COI) query on your talk page, please read and action it.
BTW, have you considered composing your messages yourself, rather than relying on AI? It's so much more you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:07, 27 April 2025 review of submission by FrasalvaGmg

It is not understandable the reason of the declination / not acceptance for an Association which has worldwide activity and hundreds worldwide members; being well recognized in his field. Have a look at a similar Association: Galpin Society. Why did you accepted Galpin and not Animusic? Reliable sources are even more than those of Galpin, text more rich, Yearly activity with hundred participants ; articles, books (ISBN), papers with researches from Japan to USA, from South Africa to UK, from Peru to Israel, Tunisia, all European countries. Please be so kind to give objective explanations of your rejection, for an engineer like me it's not acceptable anything not justified with pertinent, clear, reliable objective reasons. Furthermore few days ago you refused because of not enough reliable sources never mentioning, like now, that it has not a Wikipedia relevance?! After adding tens reliable sources in two days as requested on the 25th, now you find another reason, not mentioned before, and absolutely not understandable.Thank you. FrasalvaGmg (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FrasalvaGmg, Please see WP:N, WP:IC, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:SPAM. — 🦅White-tailed eagleTalk to the eagleStalking eagle 19:29, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FrasalvaGmg, Galpin Society is a well-referenced, concise encyclopedia article. Your draft is a poorly referenced, poorly written, sprawling non-neutral promotional brochure that strays into a biography. Cullen328 (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328 At the beginning you refused the draft because of the poor context; then because of the sources. I then added text, certainly not commercial but academic. If excessive I cannot know the methods of judgement, a text must describe as much data as possible for those consulting an entry in an encyclopaedia and provide as many sources as possible. And that is what I did, in my opinion not at all "sprawling non-neutral promotional brochure that strays into a biography" as you criticize, but simply speaking about the President of the Association describing her know-how. A promotional brochure is something commercial; Animusic is a non-profit cultural association without any commercial need nor promotion. If you don't like a biography together with the Association foundation, purposes, activity, etc. of course I can cut the biography part. Please be so kind to let me understand what do you prefer, because it seems quite difficult, or even impossible, to contribute to Wikipedia. I simply explained the history, the aims, the works, the members, etc.everything beeing absolutely only academic, scientific. I'm italian, I write books, I'm an engineer; maybe my english is poor, but I think clear enough to explain the matter; Animusic is well-referenced too, as Galpin Society, some of whose members are also our members operating in related fields. Among the sources there is also Galpin Society, as maybe you noticed. I'd like to continue contributing, but I need your support. Thanks for understanding. FrasalvaGmg (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FrasalvaGmg, it was declined for multiple reasons because there are a lot of problems here. Things like Thanks to the networking participants and members of the association connect with like-minded professionals, artists, and enthousiasts. Build valuable relationships, share insights, and collaborate on future projects. Expand your network and be a part of the vibrant ANIMUSIC community. The association is deeply thankful and honoured to have the support and the collaboration of a number of precious institutions and individuals who are always welcoming the ANIMUSIC Congresses do read like they're ripped from a brochure and the entire article is simply filled with odd, promotional-sounding passages such as this. It veering off-course midway for a biography is a problem as well. Large sections are really hard for an English-speaker to parse at all. Cullen328's description is absolutely correct, and likely made as gently as possible.
If you'd like to continue writing an article on Animusic instead of a simpler task, the article's in a state that I think you'd need to start over from scratch. First, assemble only sources that are independent of Animusic, reliable, and provide significant coverage about Animusic. Then, write an article based only on these sources. Things like passing mentions of conferences they were involved in or interviews with people from Animusic don't qualify. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FrasalvaGmg, where to begin? You wrote At the beginning you refused the draft because of the poor context; then because of the sources. But I didn't "refuse the draft". I am just a volunteer offering you some advice at a help desk. Individual volunteers do not speak on behalf of all other volunteer editors. You wrote it seems quite difficult, or even impossible, to contribute to Wikipedia and yet we have almost seven million articles and I have written over 100 of them with just a lot of careful attention to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and a lot of hard work. You write A promotional brochure is something commercial; Animusic is a non-profit cultural association without any commercial need nor promotion when all experienced Wikipedia editors know that representatives of non-profit organizations routinely try to write promotional content on Wikipedia, and the larger of these organizations have paid staff members whose job it is to write content promoting these groups. You write that a text must describe as much data as possible for those consulting an entry in an encyclopaedia and provide as many sources as possible, but a Wikipedia article should be a summary, and quality is vastly more important than quantity when it comes to references. In addition to the passage that CoffeeCrumbs quoted above, you also wrote Animusic founders and members believe in the unanimous recognition of musical instruments in the world, part and partners of the human being since always. They are products of and produce evolution, in them Inventiveness and Art: are fused. To promote knowledge and research about this always surprising patrimony. This is overtly promotional content. Who said that the patrimony is surprising, other than you? We write articles about organizations in Wikipedia's neutral voice, not in the voice of the organization itself. So, your draft needs a dramatic trimming and a radical rewriting. Cullen328 (talk) 01:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328
I thank you so much for the clarifications.
I'll try to rewrite it following your points; I'm not at all experienced with this style, so excuse me, please. Just to let you understand I used some textes from Animusic Congresses presentations, adding references from newpapers, participants institutions they belong to, etc.
By the way my first draft was very concise, maybe even too much, because it was pointed out that the context was not enough?!I know you were not refusing the draft at that time, but if you move to my side you may understand that it's hard to satisfy the different volunteers replying and not accepting the draft always for different reasons. Your guide lines are very general, complicate and difficult to understand the way to put in practice their recommendations. As you wrote you did more than 100 articles I'm kindly asking you what kind of contribute could you offer to Animusic, which is a non-profit organization living on volunteers activity. If you read the draft and the references you can have a wide and deep idea of what Animusic is; for sure we are not looking for promotion and we do not have any commercial purpose. All the works are done with the single members volunteer contribution without any payment for that. The congresses are hosted by Conservatories of music, Universities, Museums, etc. for free. The Association was established on the purpose to spread out the organology" science knowledge to Institutions, Academics, Professors, Researchers, etc. because the field is very unknown and very few Associations exist (like Galpin Society, CimCim - Icom International Museum association) and very few meetings of professional in this field are organized in the whole world. For that reason not only for a small country like Portugal (where no organological associations existed before Animusic) but for the entire world in 2010 the Association was founded by Dr.Patricia Bastos and Prof. Jeremy Montagu (Oxford university, unfortunately passed away few years ago) and they started to yearly collect participants from different continents with the aim to exchange each other their research results on specific organological objects, showing replicas done, palying sound and even concerts with those unique musical instruments letting other participants know and listen to. That is the aim of the research, open to anyone.Sorry for the long explanation, just to reply to your comment "non-profit organizations routinely try to write promotional content on Wikipedia, and the larger of these organizations have paid staff members whose job it is to write content promoting these groups." For all the contributors and members of Animusic the fact to see Animusic on Wikipedia means only a honorary recognition of their work, no financial or promotional purpose, just professional satisfaction for their knowledge and time given. I'm sure you will fully understand. So now, what can I do? Should you help me? For sure I'll try to rewrite the text of the article, insert only few references of newspapers and other institutions (also Galpin Society cites "the Times" as their reference among few others. I thank you for your patience and I'm hopefully waiting for your support, thanks a lot Giulio Salvadori FrasalvaGmg (talk) 07:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. I just replied to the last one to Cullen328.
I think you can see what I wrote, so I don't repleat it to you.
I reply to your comments "ripped from a brochure and the entire article is simply filled with odd, promotional-sounding passages such as this. It veering off-course midway for a biography is a problem as well. " confirming that I used some sentences of our own Congresses presentations, wrongly thinking they would be clear and complete enough. So I understand I have to start from the early beginning, but I would like to avoid continuing getting negative remarks. So I'd appreciate very much your support. Thank you so much Giulio Salvadori FrasalvaGmg (talk) 08:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:45, 27 April 2025 review of submission by Ahmad210901

This page has achieved sufficient attention and should be reviewed by an administrator. Thank you. Ahmad210901 (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ahmad210901, I'm afraid Eugen Zimbelmann is not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, and your repeated attempts to submit the draft withiut serious improvement have led to it being rejected, thus it will not be possible to resubmit it. May I suggest you read WP:BIO and WP:GNG before attempting to write any further articles? CoconutOctopus talk 21:56, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahmad210901: You have not responded to the paid editing query on your talk page. Please do so before editing further. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:04, 27 April 2025 review of submission by 1956Chevy

I received a message that my draft had a "Conflict of Interest." There was no explanation of what that conflict is, so there's no way I can address/correct it. 1956Chevy (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That message is there due to you as part of creating the draft(I think it comes from checking a box, but I'm not sure). If you didn't intend to declare a conflict of interest, and don't have one, you may remove the message. 331dot (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. 1956Chevy (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 28

01:13, 28 April 2025 review of submission by Maxtonnage

Hello, My draft was originally declined with feedback stating: "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." I took that feedback seriously. I completely rewrote my draft to meet the standards for encyclopedic tone and neutral point of view, citing multiple independent, reliable sources directly within the text. However, upon resubmitting the corrected draft, it was declined within seconds, which strongly suggests the revision was not actually reviewed. My concern is not simply about the outcome, but about the fairness of the process. If a draft is going to be declined, I respectfully ask that it be reviewed in good faith. If there are concerns about notability or sourcing, I am open to working with editors to address them. However, if the subject itself is not considered appropriate for inclusion, I would appreciate clear communication about that — rather than implying it is an issue with tone or formatting. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your response. Maxtonnage (talk) 01:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Maxtonnage. Your draft has zero references. Consequently, any reviewer will decline it immediately.
A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else. 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.
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) 01:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the decline notice which you removed in your last edit. As far as I can see, you have only submitted it for review once. ColinFine (talk) 01:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Maxtonnage, I think you may have inadvertently removed your reference section during your rewrite. That being said, I'm not sure that the sources you had can be used to show that the company is notable by Wikipedia's standards. Your sources all need to meet the triple criteria at WP:42; if you think they do meet those criteria, have a look at referencing for beginners to learn how to cite correctly. Happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:51, 28 April 2025 review of submission by Drb1988


Apparent draft article in help space. Please draft in Draft: space

Aarogya Social Welfare International Foundation (ASWIF) is a non-governmental organization (NGO) based in India. It was registered on January 8, 2021, and is involved in health and social work activities.

Here's what information is available about them:

Locations:

Registered Office: Road No 3 Ganesh Nagar, Subedari, Hanamkonda, Warangal, Telangana, India - 506001. Operational Addresses: 24-3-271/A, Road No.3, Ganesh Nagar Colony, Subedari, Hanamkonda, Telangana, India - 506001. Film Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana, India. Benz Circle, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh, India. Contact Information:


Objectives and Activities:

ASWIF states its mission is "to provide accessible, compassionate healthcare and support to underserved communities worldwide." Their activities include:

Health and Medical Services: Organizing COVID-19 service camps (free testing, vaccinations, medical aid). Conducting blood donation camps. Running medical camps with free check-ups, medicines, and consultations. Raising awareness about menstrual hygiene and providing sanitary kits. Offering support to orphanages and old age homes (essential supplies, medical aid, emotional support). Social Education Service: Operating skill centers for vocational training and career development. Providing financial aid to first-generation college students through the Ademia Scholarship Foundation. Other Areas: Women empowerment initiatives. Activities related to agriculture. Support for children. Food donation services to underprivileged communities. Partnerships:

ASWIF associates with various organizations, including:

Youth for Change Youth For Parivarthan Youth For Seva Yuvagalam Aarogya Social Welfare International Foundation appears to be an active organization focused on providing a range of social welfare and healthcare-related services to communities in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. Drb1988 (talk) 04:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question? This doesn't read like a sourced encyclopedia article, if that's what you're asking. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:22, 28 April 2025 review of submission by Twistedhack

Hi, not sure how to proceed with this article. FabFilter are a significant player in the audio production industry. I'm not connected with them in any way, other than as an occasional customer. Other similar firms such as Waves and Arturia have wikipedia pages. I kept the original draft short to avoid it looking like an advert, but that was rejected because of a lack of a range of sources. W/hen I added in further sources and links to demonstrate prominence, the subsequent revision was then rejected for looking like an advert. I modelled the article on the Waves piece and that hasn't been taken down due to lack of prominence, or for looking like an advert. So I'd welcome advice on what to do next.

It's curious to me that an obscure guitar such as the Gibson EDS-1275 has a lengthy wikipedia entry, yet there are none for audio tools which are much more widely used within the industry such as synths like Serum and Omnisphere, which are used on thousands of dance tracks and film soundtracks, and the FabFilter plugins, particularly the Pro-Q models, which are a cross-genre industry standard. I had intended to write articles on some of those other instruments and effects as well, but if I can't get the most prominent one out of the door then I don't want to waste the effort. Twistedhack (talk) 08:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Twistedhack: regarding your point about other articles in the encyclopaedia, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
This draft is about the business, therefore citing product reviews and other sources which do not provide significant coverage of the company behind them does not establish notability. WP:NCORP is the guideline the sources would need to meet.
As for the promotional nature of this, I agree with the reviewer, this does sound like it's trying to 'sell' the subject. Even though some of the peacock expressions appear to be quotes, their inclusion inevitably gives this a certain tone. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:50, 28 April 2025 review of submission by McKennaTech

Im confused about why this is rejected as Psychologist, Dr Elsie Mobbs RN RM B.Sc, B.Ed M.Sc PhD was highly acclaimed due to her research in human imprinting. Can you please have another look and reconsider? Dr Mobbs unfortunately dies of a brain tumour in 2012 not long after releasing her book, Latchment before Attachment. Thank you McKennaTech (talk) 11:50, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@McKennaTech: this draft is completely uncited. Even though this doesn't come under the WP:BLP rules governing articles on living people, you still need to support contentious statements like "significant contributions" and "groundbreaking" with independent and reliable sources, otherwise they're just your opinion. In any case, inline citations would be very helpful, as they show the reader where the information has come from, that's why they're always the preferred method of referencing.
Looking at the sources, many of them are works by her, and some, eg. this, don't seem to have any obvious connection to the draft contents.
Consequently, it is difficult to ascertain notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable Sources

I completed my content and posted it for review. I have included reliable and verifiable sources, such as Wikipedia biographies and AllMusic.com listings. Every time I publish, I get a message stating that my sources don’t meet the requirements. 1956Chevy (talk) 12:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and AllMusic.com are NOT reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And even if Wikipedia were an acceptable source, circular referencing is an academic sin. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Courtesy link: Draft:Blind Willie's Blues -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:12, 28 April 2025 review of submission by Raresdolga

I have been trying to improve this draft for a while, but it keeps getting rejected. I do not know what the reviewer means by independent sources. The citations come from places like IEEE, an independent source - a journal. Can anyone help me by providing more explicit feedback?

Thanks Raresdolga (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources are seemingly all by the subject himself, we need to know what people entirely unconnected to him have reported, and Amazon clearly isn't a reliable independent source. Theroadislong (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Raresdolga. 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) 02:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:46, 28 April 2025 review of submission by 150.220.170.170

Why was it rejected 150.220.170.170 (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia is not a platform for publishing fiction. --bonadea contributions talk 15:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:42, 28 April 2025 review of submission by K201230

Hello - I'm curious if the draft was declined because it references the subject's own website? Or was there another reason? All the other sources are reliable and meet the required criteria. Best, Kelly K201230 (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined because it has not been shown how the organization is a notable organization. You have done little more than describe the activities of the organization; instead you need to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization; "significant coverage" is that which goes in depth and provides discussion/analysis as to what makes the organization important/significant/influential. If you work for this organization, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID as well as WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:57, 28 April 2025 review of submission by 1956Chevy

Reliable sources Pt 2 I was told that my original sources were not acceptable. I replaced all of those that were noted and re-submitted. I got another error message that one or more were not acceptable. No mention was made of which ones were problematic. If I don't know, I can't fix it. Thank you. 1956Chevy (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1956Chevy You had the text "Reliable sources Pt 2" where the title of your draft should go(as it automatically creates a link). I fixed this.
It may help if you formatted your references in the proper manner, please see Referencing for Beginners. I'm finding it hard to parse what goes where. I would also suggest that you ask the last reviewer directly what they found problematic. 331dot (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@1956Chevy, a useful page is WP:42, which tells you the three criteria a source must meet in order to count towards the subject being notable by Wikipedia standards. Not all of your sources need to meet these, but you need at least three that do. Once you're confident that your sources show that your subject is notable, go through your draft and check that everything asserted in it has a source. For example, employing his masterful 12-string guitar - who says it's masterful? Wikipedia can't say that unless someone independent and reliable has said so, and you have to cite that person. We need to know where all your information came from before the draft can proceed. Good luck and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 06:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:23, 28 April 2025 review of submission by Mago7891

Page in the sandbox Hello everybody ! How can I fix the page I created and make it ok for the Wikipedia standards ? Mago7891 (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mago7891 You had "page in the sandbox" where the full title of the page your draft is on should go, so you created a link to a nonexistent page titled "page in the sandbox". I've fixed this for you.
You have just summarized the work history of the journalist; you need to summarize what independent reliable sources say makes her a notable person; what do independent sources say makes her notable as a journalist? That's what is being looked for. 331dot (talk) 19:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much.
One independent source is this one: https://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/brussels-economic-forum/2024/speakers/mcmahon.html which I think I have already linked Mago7891 (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very brief mention that does not give significant coverage of this person. It is sometimes hard to write about journalists, as they don't often write about each other, especially with a critical analysis. 331dot (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot also this: https://www.nobelprize.org/events/nobel-prize-dialogue/brussels2024/panellists/meabh-mc-mahon/ Mago7891 (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that is not significant coverage of her. It almost reads as a resume, and was probably supplied to the Nobel Committee by her. If she is notable for speaking at this event put on by the Nobel Committee, you need independent sources that discuss what made her involvement with this event important. 331dot (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An independent source like what ? An article from a newspaper where she is mentioned on what she did ? Mago7891 (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mago7891: FYI, there's an explanatory essay on independent sources at WP:INDEPENDENT. As for which particular independent sources you should use, that's not for us to say; you need to cite the sources that you've summarised to create this draft, and at least three of those sources should meet the general notability guideline WP:GNG (unless this person qualifies under one of the special WP:SNG guidelines). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mago7891: I've posted a conflict-of-interest query on your talk page, please read and respond to it. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:14, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:44, 28 April 2025 review of submission by TheEditShade

The draft submitted is supported by reliable independent sources, such as UK government pages listing this notable person receiving honours from the King. Also published books by the person, Also mentions in the press (2 articles) along with the person noted as a trustee for two national charities in the UK and as the CEO of another. Additionally, she is listed on the website of the biggest educational show in the UK as a judge and a former board member. This page is similar to others who have received the same recognition from the UK government and Royal family. Please explain what further detail could possibly be required? Thanks TheEditShade (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is actually located at Draft:Beverly Clarke (consultant).
As noted by the reviewer, you actually have too many sources. This person is likely notable, but we need less detail, or at least fewer sources, not more. 331dot (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TheEditShade Clarke might be notable, but you have concealed it by throwing every goshdarned alleged reference you can at it. Frankly, no-one is going to check them to give a full review until you have pared them down to the ones you choose. So choose only those with pass WP:42 please 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:22, 28 April 2025 review of submission by Featheredphilosopher

Hi editors, still learning over here and would appreciate some guidance. It makes complete sense that lists of awards should be cited with secondary, independent sources to assert the notability of each award for inclusion in the lists. I removed any awards from the list I couldn't verify.

What about published works lists though? I see on many wiki pages a simple book list like this Marie Battiste or a list of some publications in journals like this Jo-Ann Archibald and I'm not sure how my lists are different, nevertheless and more importantly, how can I improve my lists as per my reviewer's comment? Featheredphilosopher (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Featheredphilosopher I think first read WP:NPROF and WP:NFILMMAKER and determine whether further work would verify notability under those criteria. If neither shows notability, widen your net to WP:BIO. If that fails then adjourn your work until Haig-Brown is notable, because no amount of editing can create notability.
Once verified, then yes, something different is needed. The papers and books can become self citing by not deploying the <ref></ref> tags and using {{cite book}}, and {{Cite journal}} as appropriate. But this is wasted work unless notability is verified. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 06:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 29

03:38, 29 April 2025 review of submission by 112.196.184.119

Hello,

My draft article Draft:Rukmini_Devi_Institute_of_Advanced_Studies has not been accepted multiple times due to concerns that the references do not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. I understand the need for sources that are in-depth, reliable, secondary, and independent of the subject.

Despite my efforts, I am struggling to find sources that meet all these criteria. Most available references are brief mentions or come from affiliated or promotional content. I would appreciate guidance on:

Whether any of the current references are salvageable with better formatting or context

Suggestions on where or how to find acceptable secondary sources

Whether this topic may inherently lack notability by Wikipedia standards

Thank you! 

112.196.184.119 (talk) 03:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Do not generate questions with AI
  2. "Whether any of the current references are salvageable with better formatting or context " That is a huge understatement. there is a completely lack of any inline citations. Both references seem to be affiliated to the source and are not secondary
  3. Suggestions on where or how to find acceptable secondary sources - find Wikiproject india or wikiproject education for that
  4. Whether this topic may inherently lack notability by Wikipedia standards - if you can't find any secondary sources, yes. If you can find a secondary source, no.
Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:30, 29 April 2025 review of submission by Khutijabegum7

Hello respected reviewers,

I had submitted Draft:Mohammed Rahim Khan for review more than five weeks ago. I understand that there is a heavy backlog, and I truly appreciate the reviewers’ hard work and time.

If possible, I kindly request a review whenever convenient. Thank you very much for your efforts in maintaining the quality of Wikipedia!

Kind regards, Khutijabegum7 (talk) 04:30, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Khutijabegum7: You resubmitted the draft on 26 April, so only three days ago. It will be reviewed again at some point, and as you were told 10 days ago we don't do expedited review on request. What's the hurry? --bonadea contributions talk 05:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking more closely at this, you created the draft on 14 April and your account was registered on 13 April, so I don't understand where the "more than five weeks" claim comes from. Have you used a different account in the past? --bonadea contributions talk 05:57, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:52, 29 April 2025 review of submission by 134.215.60.241

What can I do ti make this more relevant and included on wiki? 134.215.60.241 (talk) 04:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor, your draft has been rejected which usually means this is the end of the road. If you are absolutely confident that this subject is notable by Wikipedia standards - which it may well be, if it's a commonly used measurement - then you will need to scrap most of the current draft and start again, citing your sources. WP:42 will help you decide which sources to use; only ones that meet all three criteria will help your case. Once you've found sources, use referencing for beginners to cite them properly, and when the draft looks good you can politely ask the reviewer to reconsider. StartGrammarTime (talk) 06:20, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:07, 29 April 2025 review of submission by Abdool AK

what do i need to do Abdool AK (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection typically means that there is nothing you can do, and that it is the end of the line for the draft. If you can, however, find significant coverage in independent reliable sources, you should do so, then appeal to the last reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:19, 29 April 2025 review of submission by 63.64.85.100

Hello! Can someone help me improve Draft:Andrews Federal Credit Union get approved? I've modified what I could, and I used the below similar sized credit union as reference for creating the content but I'm not sure what's still needed? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!

Achieva Credit Union 63.64.85.100 (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The whole url is not needed when linking, I've fixed this for you.
Remember to log in when posting. Please respond to the concerns on your user talk page regarding conflict of interest. If you work for this credit union, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID.
While understandable, it is not usually a good idea to use any random article as a model or example, as it too could be inappropriate and you would be unaware of this as a new user. There are many ways to get inappropriate content past us, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles, which have received community vetting.
The awards you mention do not contribute to notability unless the awards themselves merit articles(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). Otherwise, the draft just documents the activities and offerings of the credit union, which does not establish notability as Wikipedia defines a notable organization. That requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:48, 29 April 2025 review of submission by JATIN KUMAR3042

I am requesting assistance to improve this draft by adding proper inline citations and ensuring it meets Wikipedia’s notability and verifiability guidelines. I would appreciate help identifying reliable sources and formatting the references correctly to support the content. JATIN KUMAR3042 (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JATIN KUMAR3042: That would require sources for us to assess. The onus for sourcing is on the person who wants the content on Wikipedia (read: you), and searching for sources should have been the first thing you did. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:20, 29 April 2025 review of submission by ZHEditor&PR

Hi there,

I believe the sources cited are reputable third parties, and the language is formal and unbiased, but want to make sure I'm following the rules to the best of my abilities. Do you have any pointers?

Thanks! ZHEditor&PR (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ZHEditor&PR! The page I've found most helpful is WP:42, which gives you a quick summary of the triple criteria required in a good source. Your goal is to establish notability, and the best way to do this is to find at least three sources which meet all three of the WP:42 criteria. You will also need to be aware of WP:NCORP, which explains what is required to make a business notable. I would suggest you go through each of your sources with these in mind, removing any which are not independent (press releases are not independent, for example, since they are the company speaking through the press), not from reliable sources, or don't include significant coverage. If you're unsure about any, feel free to link them here and we can take a look. Happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:07, 29 April 2025 review of submission by Stephanoccenad

Hi I got rejected for some edits that were made. I would like to know exactly what needs to be done for this to be published Stephanoccenad (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were given advice by reviewers and resubmitted it, the next reviewer will leave feedback if not accepted. 331dot (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:26, 29 April 2025 review of submission by Cstumpfl

Why was this rejected? Can you please provide concrete examples so I can edit it properly? Thank you. 

Cstumpfl (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've asked and had this answered already. 331dot (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely not advertising and the article is quite informative but there are limited sources available on the topic of perpetual care funds/perpetual care adequacy. Would it be helpful to narrow the topic further and make it much shorter? Cstumpfl (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you write it with an AI? 331dot (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. I did use ChatGPT for formatting into wikitext but it was written by me personally. Cstumpfl (talk) 22:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even that can be problematic, see WP:LLM. You are telling us about the topic, not summarizing what independent reliable sources say about the topic. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something, that's considered promotional here.
I feel like you have a relationship with this topic, do you work in that industry? 331dot (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do not have a connection and don't work in the industry. I am an independent journalist. This is my first Wikipedia page writing attempt, however. Cstumpfl (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cstumpfl: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. If there are limited sources available then by definition there's little to summarise into an encyclopaedia article. It's a very bad idea to write the text first and then backfill the references. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 22:14, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I did. I used the resources/references to write the article. This is getting very twisted. Cstumpfl (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You said that there are limited sources available, if you used everything you could find, that means the topic doesn't merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:41, 29 April 2025 review of submission by Editormls070

The submission was rejected while still at editing and draft stage. Could you help retrieve and review as a draft? 

Editormls070 (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft was declined for improvement, not rejected, and is still available here;Draft:Abdoulie "Attack" Gaye. CoconutOctopus talk 21:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Editormls070 - while you're working on it, you'll want to look at referencing for beginners, because at present your draft is effectively unsourced. You need inline citations before it can be accepted. WP:42 may also be helpful for you to review your sources, and WP:BLP as your subject is a living person. Happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:17, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Independent Submission of Draft:TD Barnes

Hello, I am the subject of Draft:TD Barnes and previously attempted to submit the article myself. Although I included reliable secondary sources (CIA.gov, Annie Jacobsen, The Debrief, Atomic Testing Museum) and followed neutral tone guidelines, the draft has been declined, likely due to conflict-of-interest concerns.

To avoid further issues, I respectfully request an independent editor or AfC helper to review the draft and, if appropriate, submit it for review on my behalf. Thank you for your assistance!

Thorntondbarnes 23:07, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are allowed to submit drafts, even if it is about you, as drafts are reviewed by independent editors. While it's inadvisable for you to write about yourself here(see the autobiography policy), submitting a draft is the correct way to do so. 331dot (talk) 23:10, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thorntondbarnes: The CIA is not a suitable source (gov't document). That being said, none of your sources are properly cited. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:11, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:12, 29 April 2025 review of submission by HenryMaxG

AfC draft submission rejected, but listing on the white house, NY state agency, UN portal, and 10 news articles doesn't make it notable? HenryMaxG (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HenryMaxG: Mere listings and gov't sources don't help for notability (the former are too sparse; the latter are, well, gov't documents). I don't have time at the moment to assess your sources in depth, but once I do I'll come back here. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HenryMaxG: Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
You have three usable sources here; the issue is the wheat is getting smothered by the chaff. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 04:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 30

01:09, 30 April 2025 review of submission by Romandraco42

I want to publish. PLEASE help me. Edit. Perfect. Publish ~ Thank you Romandraco42 (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Listing it here isn't going to get it reviewed any quicker. Your submission was declined because you haven't included any references (please see WP:CITE). Once these issues are fixed, resubmit it. If you don't fix these issues, it will be declined again. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 01:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:29, 30 April 2025 review of submission by Kaiserreich1918

Does anyone have any idea of how I can improve my draft so it's accepted? The declination notice mentioned something about reliable and primary/secondary sources. Unfortunately, official government sources regarding the project are scarce, which may be surprising to some of you, but that's mexican bureaucracy at its finest lol. Kaiserreich1918 (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kaiserreich1918! The great news is you don't need government sources - in fact we would prefer you don't use them, because we want to hear what independent people have written about it. Perhaps there's been articles in newspapers or magazines about your subject, or even a book (or part of a book) if it's important enough? Those would be ideal. StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:54, 30 April 2025 review of submission by Simonasim414

Hello, I would like to ask for assistance to understand why this topic is not sufficiently notable for Wikipedia (yes, I have read the guidelines). I understood that Wikipedia is missing information and building up the knowledge of business in Africa. Fintech and financial technology sphere is recent sphere (just a few decades) and developing in many African countries. I wrote a page of one of the fintech pioneers in Uganda with demonstrable official recognition in the country's fintech and technology area. How else it could earn notability? This is a very fresh and recent development in the African countries - we are talking just of a few decades and just max. 20 years and of 10-15 years of existing official regulations and guidances and attempts to establish the field. There will be no proper historical research and biographers... But the topic should have coverage in Wikipedia, it is an advantage. Simonasim414 (talk) 05:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Simonasim414: there is no such thing as "should have coverage in Wikipedia" because you feel the subject is somehow "worthy" or "deserving", let alone that you think it needs "exposure" etc. If sufficient sources don't exist to demonstrate notability, then the subject cannot be included in Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:21, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:58, 30 April 2025 review of submission by 103.217.78.200

every one in this world want to know about sir sooban talha. so please make this draft vailable 103.217.78.200 (talk) 07:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

People do not want to know about Sooban Talha. This draft has been rejected so it can't be resubmitted. People need to meet strict criteria to be notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia and Mr. Talha doesn't meet those.
Also, please don't use AI to write your draft for you. CoconutOctopus talk 08:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:58, 30 April 2025 review of submission by 120.29.91.251

what kind of sources do i need 120.29.91.251 (talk) 09:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to tell us the sources where all this information has come from, because it clearly hasn't come from the ones cited in the draft.
Also, the citations need to be placed inline next to the information they support, so that it's clear which source has provided what information, and how much of it is not supported by the sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:02, 30 April 2025 review of submission by Salicia7

Two clarifications on the comments: 1. In terms of notability, can consideration be given to the fact that the company's subsidiary has an existing Wikipedia article KlickEx? 2. Which sources in particular fail the test of depth, reliability, independence? They are taken from third party news articles (e.g. Techcrunch), and appear relatively detailed. Salicia7 (talk) 12:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited by association. It is possible for a subsidiary company to merit an article but not its parent company. Your references all describe the routine business activities of the company, this is not significant coverage that shows how the company meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company.
If you are employed by Norumpay, that must be disclosed per the Terms of Use, see WP:PAID, as well as WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 12:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:56, 30 April 2025 review of submission by Bhartiya Sangeetkar

Plz help me write this article that matches Wikipedia's terms and conditions... Bhartiya Sangeetkar (talk) 12:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bhartiya Sangeetkar You need the full title, including the "Draft:" portion, when linking. I fixed this for you.
We don't do co-editing here at the Help Desk. Do you have questions about the reason for the decline?
You declared a conflict of interest, what is the general nature of it? 331dot (talk) 13:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:17, 30 April 2025 review of submission by Barunpmondal

I added some references for this article. I thought this is suitable and sufficient for this. Could I know what's more I need to do? Barunpmondal (talk) 13:17, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have resubmitted the draft for review; the reviewer will leave you feedback if not accepted. 331dot (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:21, 30 April 2025 review of submission by Jitheshcr7

Could anyone please review the submission ? its been more than 3 weeks now pending for review. My previous submissions had been reviewed within the same day. Appreciate a feedback. Jitheshcr7 (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jitheshcr7: It will be reviewed at some point, but we don't do expedited reviews and there is no way of predicting when a draft will be reviewed. Since this draft was rejected a couple of weeks ago, it should not have been submitted for review at all. --bonadea contributions talk 13:25, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:43, 30 April 2025 review of submission by Visha78

Hello, Being a member of the credit union, I feel it is notable (it is currently the 4th largest CU in MD), but I understand if I shouldn't be submitting on its behalf being that I work there. How do current organizations who are mentioned substantially get submitted but the topic is not as mainstream (like popular figures). Thank you! Visha78 (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Mainstream" is not relevant; what matters is the coverage in reliable sources. You haven't provided that; you've just summarized the activities of the credit union. See WP:ORGDEPTH. 331dot (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:43, 30 April 2025 review of submission by GisPiano34

I want to understand why my Wikipedia page keeps being declined. I fixed the references to the standards of Wikipedia, had taken out some information I did not have references for, and for the references I do have, made sure they came from reputable public, first-hand sources. This is not an easy process. But please help me to understand. My goal is to have the page. GisPiano34 (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a relationship with this musician, that needs to be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID.
The draft is very poorly sourced. A Wikipedia article should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about (in this case) a musician, showing how they are a notable musician as Wikipedia defines one. 331dot (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I now see that you are editing about yourself; this is highly discouraged, please see the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves. It's usually very difficult for people to set aside what they know about themselves and only write based on what others say about them. People also naturally write favorably about themselves.
There are good reasons to not want an article about yourself. I suggest that you go on about your career as if you had never heard of Wikipedia; if you truly meet the criteria for an article, someone independent of you will eventually write one. 331dot (talk) 14:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:25, 30 April 2025 review of submission by Tedwardhering

Our page submitted is NOT "unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view" and we would like to contest this immediate deletion. How can we effectively contest this? We're a legitimate business organization, as clearly outlined in all of our facts and references, and confused why this has occurred and we're unable to get to our page to contest it, the chat box doesn't work and we have no avenue to connect with Wikipedia. Tedwardhering (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tedwardhering: I assume you mean Draft:Benefit Corporations for Good? That has been deleted already. I've just had a look at it, and it was indeed pure promotion, with no evidence of notability per the relevant guideline WP:NCORP.
You also don't seem to have made the paid-editing-disclosure required by our T&Cs. I'll post a message on your talk page with instructions. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tedwardhering The legitimacy of your business is not at issue. The issue is if your business meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable business. Wikipedia is not a place for businesses to tell about themselves, their offerings, and what they do- that is considered promotional here, you don't need to be actively soliciting customers or selling something. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources say about a business, not what it wants to say about itself. 331dot (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:51, 30 April 2025 review of submission by BodhiHarp

My draft was rejected because it was about a sound that didn't occur in any languages, so what should I do with it? BodhiHarp (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as Wikipedia is concerned, there's nothing more you can do, the draft was rejected. 331dot (talk) 15:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:09, 30 April 2025 review of submission by Jgiambattista

I am hoping to get assistance in requesting that someone edit this page. Since I am not an unbiased writer, I would like to have the page reviewed/edited by someone else so that it will be approved. How can I go about doing this? I have taken a look at the "Edit Request Wizard" but am unsure if I can use it since my page is currently still a draft. Thank you for your help! Jgiambattista (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to click the "Submit your draft for review!" button, located in the lower right corner of the box at the top of your draft, to formally submit it. Before you do, I would suggest you see Referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 17:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:58, 30 April 2025 review of submission by HelpfulEditorPerson

Sabaa Tahir has written a series of books and graphic novels in the An Ember in the Ashes series. 3 of the 4 novels in this series have Wikipedia entries. There are 2 graphic novels in the same series, with a 3rd untitled graphic novel having been announced. I just submitted an article for the first of these graphic novels by this New York Times best selling author. Sabaa Tahir is a well respected author, having been favorably compared to George R.R. Martin and J.K. Rowling. When an established author publishes a book, there should be no question about the worthiness of including an article about that book. If Stephen King publishes a new book, does anyone have to prove that the book is noteworthy, or is it enough that Stephen King is the author? The real question is, why haven't these articles already been created? A Sky Beyond the Storm was published in 2020 -- no article. A Thief Among the Trees was published in 2020 -- no article. A Spark Within the Forge was published in 2022 -- no article! HelpfulEditorPerson (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @HelpfulEditorPerson neither of the sources you cited are useful. One is just the book itself which is not needed and the other is Amazon which is commercial site selling the book so not a reliable source. See WP:NBOOK for the notability guidelines which is usually met by in-depth critical reviews of the book by reputable sources. If you look at An Ember in the Ashes, you will see several sources, some verifying it was a bestseller such as the New York Times, others are reviews and awards. Not that you need that many but you do need at least two or three qualifying sources. S0091 (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now read the plot summary for An Ember in the Ashes, where someone clearly copied and pasted (or paraphrased) the book jacket blurb. It's not clear that whoever wrote that plot summary has even read the book. I visited Wikipedia specifically to read about A Thief Among the Trees only to find no article. I have read the book. I have provided a concise, 1-page summary of the plot of that 144 page book. My article is about the book itself, so the book itself is the main source of information for my article. It is self-evident that the book is qualified. You can read the sources cited in An Ember in the Ashes for the same justification you just claimed you need. I mentioned Sabaa Tahir's entry on Wikipedia multiple times. Is your position that Wikipedia itself is an unreliable source? HelpfulEditorPerson (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correct "Wikipedia itself is an unreliable source" see WP:NBOOK for the criteria. Theroadislong (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By this logic, any reference published on Wikipedia is therefore an unreliable source, so you have given me an impossible task. In the meantime, people would like to be able to read about this book. HelpfulEditorPerson (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No; Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source, but Wikipedia contains reliable sources. Sources should be examined by readers. The article text itself may contain inaccuracies or vandalism not reflected in the provided sources. Usually, articles are reasonably accurate, but it's not guaranteed. See the general disclaimer. 331dot (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HelpfulEditorPerson I just searched for sources but it does not appear the related graphic novels received critical coverage like the first few in the series. All the reviews I found were a brief summary, then a blurb or sentence which is not enough. S0091 (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But there might be enough for an article about A Sky Beyond the Storm, if you are interested. S0091 (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you just want to publicize the book, you should use social media or other website with less stringent requirements. Wikipedia is the last place to write about a topic, not the first. 331dot (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to read about the book at Wikipedia, but no article is available. You are being unreasonable and it smacks of racism and sexism toward a New York Times Bestselling author. I'm not trying to publicize the book. I had questions about the themes and the characters in the book and I wanted to learn more about it. You have lost your way if you don't understand that you are being ridiculous about this. HelpfulEditorPerson (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HelpfulEditorPerson I just left you a warning. Do not launch baseless attacks on editors. Everything 331dot has stated is factual and how Wikipedia works. S0091 (talk) 19:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I note that no one has anything to say about the quality of the plot summary in the entry for An Ember in the Ashes. HelpfulEditorPerson (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An Ember in the Ashes has 42 sources, your draft has none. Theroadislong (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And how do you rate the quality of the plot summary for An Ember in the Ashes? My article references An Ember in the Ashes, which has 42 sources. HelpfulEditorPerson (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know your race or your sex or gender, nor is the race or gender of the author relevant. I understand that you may be frustrated, but try to listen to what more experienced people are telling you. There are criteria to meet and you have not demonstrated that this book meets them. 331dot (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"It is self-evident that the book is qualified." It is very much not, it is entirely dependent on what reliable and independent sources have to say about the book. If those sources simply don't exist, then it is unlikely it will meet WP:NBOOK at all. Sophisticatedevening🍷(talk) 19:44, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1288151858"