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 CoffeeCrumbs (talk | contribs) at 14:47, 3 May 2025 (→12:40, 3 May 2025 review of submission by 82.8.141.222: 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 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]
Thank you @StartGrammarTime... super helpful! ZHEditor&PR (talk) 21:24, 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]
Thank you @Jéské Couriano!. This was super helpful and I have now implemented your changes fully. Hopefully this now satisfies this Afc process and notes left by @CNMall41. HenryMaxG (talk) 01:24, 2 May 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]
I had drafted this article 2 times but i still don't understand what thing matches wikipedia's terms and conditions. plz help me understand that in simple words. Bhartiya Sangeetkar (talk) 12:18, 1 May 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]
The problem you're encountering here is that it doesn't matter what An Ember is like - if it's good, needs fixing, should be deleted - because your draft isn't about that book. If you think the plot summary needs to be updated, you're encouraged to do it yourself. We are looking only at your draft, and what reviewers are seeing is a lack of notability by Wikipedia standards.
What you are trying to do is to show the book is notable. You do this by finding at least three sources that match the triple criteria in WP:42, and then summarizing what they say. Have a look at WP:NBOOK also for some further pointers, and WP:RSPSS for a list of sources we consider reliable and unreliable. If you can't find sources that meet all three WP:42 criteria, it's too soon for an article and we'll have to wait until some reviews come out. I hope that gives you a better idea of why your draft has not (yet?) been accepted, and you can look for suitable sources now you know exactly what you need. StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:02, 1 May 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]

21:55, 30 April 2025 review of submission by Scarlettrosewulber3842

Why was it rejected? Scarlettrosewulber3842 (talk) 21:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted. The reason was left by the reviewer, your draft is completely unsourced. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about a topic, it is a place to summarize what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about a topic. 331dot (talk) 22:07, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't use AI to write a draft for you. CoconutOctopus talk 22:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 1

10:57, 1 May 2025 review of submission by Micprymu

What to change to be approved for publishing? Sorry but I don't understand what I need to do. Thanks. Micprymu (talk) 10:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Micprymu: you have to show that this game is notable, although I'm pretty sure it isn't. Notability per WP:GNG requires significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent. Your draft cites no such source, and in it you say that sources probably don't exist, either.
What is your relationship with this game? I've posted a conflict-of-interest query on your talk page, please read and respond to it. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:42, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:26, 1 May 2025 review of submission by NyandaI

Because this is my first time to make a submission of an article and I need proper guidance in editing the draft. NyandaI (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @NyandaI, and welcome to Wikipedia. I will give you some guidance, though it is probably not the guidance you thought you wanted: 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) 15:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant work. Article stays since months at Timoth Moses Mayala. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fernklang (talk • contribs)

14:30, 1 May 2025 review of submission by Jpp2621

I need help establishing secondary sources for this article Jpp2621 (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpp2621 we can't help you find sources. That is something you should do before creating a draft as it should summarize what secondary sources say about the school. Please see Your first article and WP:BACKWARD. I can tell you that elementary schools rarely meet the notability criteria unless it has historical significance such the building being listed at National Register of Historic Places. Also, the draft is written like it's the school's website, serving to promote it, rather than a neutral encyclopedia article. S0091 (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:56, 1 May 2025 review of submission by Alex114721

I am requesting assistance, or a rereview of the article I have written about Bar Pizza. I added more sources after being declined the first time. I'd like to point out the Beach Pizza article that is posted, that is another style of pizza that is popular where I am from. I followed similar resources to what that page has, while also providing more information about the topic of Bar Pizza. I hope someone will be able to point me in the right direction of getting to the point of approval. Alex114721 (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want another review, just resubmit the draft, but you shouldn't do so withhout changes to address prior reviews. The "where to find" section should be removed, the article shouldn't advertise the pizza. The statement about blue collar workers is unsourced. It's not the pizza that was put in a hall of fame, but a producer of the pizza. 331dot (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:24, 1 May 2025 review of submission by FLYX SOAR

I reviewed the five pillars and am unsure why this biography is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia FLYX SOAR (talk) 17:24, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because it reads like his personal website. 331dot (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:54, 1 May 2025 review of submission by 154.192.213.225

Sir, Hope you rejected on Notability Bases. Byt if Don't mind , could please explain how can i improve it ,i am ready to add more third oart , reliable, independent citations to the draft:vensh sayani. 154.192.213.225 (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing you can do as it rejected and has been deleted numerous times previously, often because of socks and block evasion which includes editing as an IP. S0091 (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:02, 1 May 2025 review of submission by FLYX SOAR

I'd like to have this re-reviewed...how can I re-submit? FLYX SOAR (talk) 18:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FLYX SOAR it's been reviewed three different times by three different reviewers and is rejected, meaning it will no longer be considered you so cannot resubmit it. However, if you want yet another review, I agree with the reject and would have done the same. There is nothing that suggests this person can meet the notability criteria. S0091 (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I have rejected Draft:Jim Segrave: CEO of flyExclusive on the same grounds. Please do not create duplicate submissions. Gaming the system is severely frowned upon. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I have just redirected Draft:CEO Jim Segrave to the first draft. Creating and submitting a third draft when two drafts have been rejected is disruptive. --bonadea contributions talk 19:20, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:22, 1 May 2025 review of submission by FLYX SOAR

Why would this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenny_Dichter) be approved and this draft not be? Please give me a list of actionable items I can accomplish to get this published. FLYX SOAR (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected under two different titles. It really is the end of the line. --bonadea contributions talk 18:46, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That an article exists does not mean it was "approved" by anyone. This process has not always existed, and is not required of all users. 331dot (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FLYX SOAR: Kenny Dichter was never drafted. (While there are moves to/from draftspace in the page history, those moves don't appear to be intentional.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FLYX SOAR: And while we're at it, I'm going to go over your sources list. Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
There's practically nothing here to work with. This is fatal to the draft. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:52, 1 May 2025 review of submission by Sophia Enoch

Dear reviewer,

I'm seeking a second opinion regarding the Draft: Miracle Godsent Nwachukwu

Miracle Godsent Nwachukwu is the only young under 30 Nigerian interior designer, that has been awarded by the interventional property awards for best private residence in Lagos state Nigeria. This is asides other notable awards he has received too.

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

- More than 2 published editorial interview with business world News paper, Business day news paper and other Blogs inclusively- The first two mentioned interviews where done in a verified telecommunication companies in Nigeria and widely recognized by both local and international bodies.

These are cited inline and meet the standard for notability under WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. However, recent reviews have dismissed them, and it is difficult to point out what exactly is the issue with the draft.

I want to respectfully point out that corrections should be more specific(if possible outlines and calling attention to specific places where adjustments needs to be carried out, so that editing would be seamlessly done accordingly.

Working professionals like Miracle Godsent Nwachukwu, who have built legitimate, ongoing careers, deserve accurate, well-cited pages—because when someone Googles them (interior designer), 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. 

Sophia Enoch (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not use AI to communicate. The majority of your sources are not independent of the subject, and the rest are only trivial mentions (not significant coverage). Articles need to be supported by reliable, independent and secondary sources to prove they a notable as Wikipedia defines it. Right now you draft does not demonstrate that, and has been declined for you to continue working on it. Sophisticatedevening🍷(talk) 18:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sophia Enoch also read WP:Yes, it is promotion. A bit harsh but the "Promotion is promotion no matter what you call it" is true from a Wikipedia perspective. S0091 (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much.
I accept your feedback wholeheartedly, can you please tell me the things to remove so it won’t look like this is a promotion, because that’s not what the aim is supposed to be. Please advise on our I can fix this.
Thank you in anticipation. 102.88.110.64 (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much.
There are no AI generated text here, all text was written by me.
secondly I would appreciate if you take a closer look at the sources because they a very much independent and very notable. Interviews are not trivial mentions, awards on the international property awards are not trivial mentions, this and more are not trivial mentions.
Again kindly check before responding. It would help a great deal.
Thank you for your patience and understanding . 102.88.110.64 (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are the person speaking about themselves, and as such are not an independent source. 331dot (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me that you copied from someone else's post here and adjusted who it was talking about; it was not all written by you. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, they forgot to change WP:NACTOR from the question they copied-and-pasted from elsewhere. Ah, the dangers of trying to Mad Libs a comment! CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2

05:06, 2 May 2025 review of submission by Kendallmay

Necesito ayuda con mi borrador, debido a que me está dando error a pesar de que puse fuentes confiables, me sigue dando error. Kendallmay (talk) 05:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Users here cannot help with drafts not on the English-language Wikipedia. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:33, 2 May 2025 review of submission by Shrabaniexp

Hello, our draft [1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Experience.com) was recently declined due to lack of notability. We want to improve it and need help identifying whether our current sources are sufficient or if we need better ones. Could an experienced editor please guide us on what to fix? Thank you! Shrabaniexp (talk) 06:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we" user accounts are strictly single person use, the draft is just advertising what your company does. Theroadislong (talk) 06:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:14, 2 May 2025 review of submission by Abhia4321

your advice and creating Abhia4321 (talk) 08:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was rejected – it won't be considered again. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 08:27, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:45, 2 May 2025 review of submission by Gopaaldhussa

Internet is not having much information about the Punjabi clans especially Dhussa & Gaind. I searched wikipedia about that but I couldn't find much information. I have shared what best I could get. Which other type of citation is required please let me know so that I can research and share about it. Gopaaldhussa (talk) 10:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gopaaldhussa: your draft cites two sources, neither of which is acceptable. If the content of this draft isn't coming from reliable sources, where is it coming from?
Source do not need to be online, but they do need to be reliable and independent, as well as published (no oral histories etc.). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:20, 2 May 2025 review of submission by DavidKelly97

Why was i rejected? DavidKelly97 (talk) 11:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DavidKelly97, Because there is no indication of notability or being a notable athlete. If you were to find multiple Independent reliable sources, it would be accepted. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 11:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:27, 2 May 2025 review of submission by 2600:4040:7C5B:FC00:CCBD:2876:145F:9F5D

Hello. Thank you for reviewing this submission. This is the first time I've done this before and am looking for any assistance understanding why the submission was denied. I'm happy to make necessary edits, however looking for any guidance to fulfill Wikipedia's policies. Thank you! 2600:4040:7C5B:FC00:CCBD:2876:145F:9F5D (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the reviewer left you the reason at the top of the draft. I might also suggest that you see Referencing for beginners, as well as the biographies of living persons policy. In short, every substantive piece of information about a living person needs a source. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft has only primary sources, which do not establish notability. Per the general notability guideline WP:GNG, we need to see multiple secondary sources which are reliable and independent, and which provide significant coverage of the subject.
You also must cite your sources inline next to the information they support, not merely list them at the end. See WP:REFB for advice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you DavidKelly97. Forgive the question, but the independent links I provided showing professional status, Team USA status, and college success do not warrant notable athlete? Again, please forgive the question I am just trying to make sure I provide the right information. Thank you. 2600:4040:7C5B:FC00:CCBD:2876:145F:9F5D (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved your comment here as you wrote in the wrong area in response to a different person talking about a different article.
These things you list do not automatically make an athlete notable. Please consult WP:NSPORT for notability requirements specific to athletes. What little additional information you provide about Makos is generally poorly sourced. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:08, 2 May 2025 review of submission by TheBoatyMcBoatFace

I have been going back and fourth on this article for months. When I included more sources, I was asked to remove them. - DKAN is a [Digital Public Good](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_public_goods), as [endorsed by the United Nations](https://www.digitalpublicgoods.net/who-we-are#:~:text=a%20multi%2Dstakeholder%20UN%2Dendorsed%20initiative). Source: https://www.digitalpublicgoods.net/r/dkan - The official list of hospital quality rankings, among much other data, is on DKAN. https://data.cms.gov/provider-data/ - Singapore Open Data is on DKAN: https://www.undp.org/policy-centre/singapore/dkan - USDA Ag digital commons uses DKAN https://agdatacommons.nal.usda.gov/ - Oak Ridge National Laboratory is using DKAN: https://www.thedroptimes.com/40093/civicactions-partners-with-oak-ridge-national-laboratory-dkan-open-data-project I've been told to add more content, then remove that content, and now that the subject isn't notable, even though incredibly important data is made available via this platform. What is the next step for this? TheBoatyMcBoatFace (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheBoatyMcBoatFace: Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
Nothing you cite is any good. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blurt Nickelodeon film

I would like assistance on improving the Draft:Blurt!, it's a Nickelodeon film from 2018. I got the IMDb sources off. I rather try to finish what I started rather than letting the draft expire. Technically, I don't think there is a time limit though. I done drafts before, one time it was WP:Too soon, eventually it was necessary enough. Cwater1 (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts stay active as long as they are edited at least once every six months. We don't really get into co-editing here; you might try the Wikipedia:WikiProject Film. 331dot (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, understood. Thank you. Cwater1 (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:21, 2 May 2025 review of submission by 2607:F2C0:E589:E4C0:7934:B453:DACB:A82B

I'm not sure why I am getting rejected. I was wondering if I could get a bit of help. Any kinds of suggestions or tips would be greatly appreciated. 2607:F2C0:E589:E4C0:7934:B453:DACB:A82B (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, this draft has now been rejected, not merely declined, which means the end of the road. There is insufficient evidence of notability, and not only that, there isn't even any real claim of noteworthiness; this draft just describes what seems like quite a run of the mill business. Wikipedia is not a business directory where mere existence would justify inclusion, there needs to be something about a business that clearly distinguishes it from its peers. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
You have nothing that we can use here. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:19, 2 May 2025 review of submission by Arch2spade

could you advise on how to get approved, and what is exactly missing from the article best regards, 

Arch2spade (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been rejected and won't be able to be resubmitted. Please read WP:AUTO and WP:BIO before trying to write any more articles. CoconutOctopus talk 17:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:22, 2 May 2025 review of submission by Mytroshyn

I'm not native speaker and do not understand some parts, like comment: Too much jargon, such as "populate the placement spots with content", and many other examples. Please write in plain English. Exactly this part is taken from a science article: https://jossams.smiu.edu.pk/index.php/JOSSAMS/article/view/27/21

Also, it is written that the article should be written in a neutral point of view, I do not write things like from my point of view, or similar. al text was written in such a style, if you find something, could you point out these parts

About sources, I have different varieties from blogs to science articles (around 5), How many should there be?

About essay format, I provide a lot of history that it facts, and some comparisons, that is taken from other resources, not my mind Could you help me to understand how to fix it? Mytroshyn (talk) 19:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We already have an article on this topic here Product placement. Theroadislong (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Virtual product placement, is similar but different. if you know programming language it is kind of like difference between c and c++ Mytroshyn (talk) 10:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you copied that sentence directly from the source. In fact, you copied an entire paragraph from that journal article and used that as the opening to the article. Since it's been nominated for speedy deletion due to copyright infringement, it seems that these were not the only copyright infringements. This is absolutely unacceptable.
While many contributors to English Wikipedia are not native speakers of English, including some highly respected administrators, creating an article in English from technical sources requires some fluency in the language. If you still want to contribute to English Wikipedia, I would suggest you do smaller, simpler edits, that are more suited to your level of ability. I don't mean this as an insult; I speak three other languages besides English on a conversational level, but I'm definitely not suited to create Wikipedia articles in those languages on their respective Wikipedia versions. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I will rephrase, it is not a problem, I thought that it will be better to use such phrases or whole paragraph from article, like citation, I put link to this article.
About languages I fluent in 2, level C1 in another 2 and level A1 in another one, so no insult )
I work in this area and though it would be good addition for Wikipedia.
My English level between C1 and C2, i do not have a problem with speaking(I was speaker at 3 besides last year), reading or writing but it is not fluent in my understanding, maybe I'm wrong Mytroshyn (talk) 10:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CoffeeCrumbs I make fixes and rephrasing for content, should I just resubmit it ? Mytroshyn (talk) 13:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can't fix copyright violations by just changing around a handful of words within sections. And the other fundamental problems with this draft remain; the sourcing is very hit and miss and it's very essay-like. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mytroshyn: Jargon is words or expressions that are hard or impossible to understand for people who are not specialists; such expressions are fine when you are talking to other specialists, but when you communicate with other people you need to adapt your language. (A surgeon might talk about pulmonary atresia during a surgery, but when she meets the patient's family she might say "the heart couldn't pump the blood out to the body".) The draft consists of jargon to a large extent. That is not odd since it was copied from various sources written for specialists. When you write for Wikipedia, you have to write for a general audience (and can't copy from sources, because that is a copyright violation as well as plagiarism). --bonadea contributions talk 09:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok I see, looks like I work in this area a lot a some Jargons I do not see. Mytroshyn (talk) 10:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:05, 2 May 2025 review of submission by DR LION SAI VENKAT

I have submitted several times but always rejecting can i know the perfect reason or please help me summation DR LION SAI VENKAT (talk) 21:05, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please abandon this effort. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves. Please read the autobiography policy. Our articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the subject. The draft was rejected, and will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 21:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
☒N Deleted G11. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 06:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]


May 3

00:02, 3 May 2025 review of submission by 201.141.123.32

Alvaro Dias Huizar (Q71312229)Wikidata 201.141.123.32 (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have a question, IP editor? StartGrammarTime (talk) 03:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. This chess player does indeed have a Wikidata entry, but Wikidata's notability rules are much looser than the same rules on English Wikipedia. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 04:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

00:15, 3 May 2025 review of submission by MissLizy1223

Hello! I submitted this draft months ago and wanted to see whether there was anything I could do to expedite its review. Thank you so much for your help. MissLizy1223 (talk) 00:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MissLizy1223, we have a long wait for reviews at the moment as you'll see in the big yellow box on top of your draft. You are welcome to work on it while you wait, as great drafts get approved quickly (and poor ones usually get declined quickly). My suggestion to you would be to read through WP:BLP and WP:CREATIVE so you know what you need to do to show Glanz is notable by Wikipedia standards, and then WP:42 so you can assess your sources against the triple criteria there. Only sources which meet all three criteria can show notability, and you want at least three of them.
Fewer good-quality sources is always better than lots of poor-quality sources, so consider going through your draft and removing or replacing any poor-quality sources. Keep in mind however that a biography of a living person needs to have every single fact supported by a source - one source per fact is usually plenty, so you could consider removing some sources when you have multiple supporting a single sentence. Happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:57, 3 May 2025 review of submission by Rozziv

Hi! I’ve submitted an article titled User:Rozziv/Jamal DNB and would greatly appreciate a review when someone has a moment. It’s fully referenced with independent sources and written in a neutral tone. Thanks in advance for your help! Rozziv (talk) 01:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Jamal DNB - I've moved this to draftspace; it was on your userpage, which is not a suitable place for a draft.
We currently have a long wait for review, as it says on top of your draft in that big yellow box. Making the draft the best it can be increases the chances that someone will come along and approve it quickly. You're welcome to continue working on it while you wait! StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rozziv no Declined and in need of substantial work. Please check before doing that work that the subject passes WP:NMUSICIAN. If they do not pass then there is no value in doing any further work 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 06:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rozziv Using a Large Language Model does not create an acceptable article. no Declined for other reasons, but please use your own words. AI can hallucinate, and often generates garbage. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 06:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:14, 3 May 2025 review of submission by HedyVolf

I do not understand the submission declined. It follosw all of Wikipedia’s requirements for notability, neutrality, structure, and verifiability. I’ll integrate global historical precedents, theoretical analysis, exhibitions, and contemporary figures. All references are be formatted using proper citation templates and include external links for visual documentation. This is my first article, I followed Notes on Wikipedia Eligibility 1. Notability: The article draws on multiple reliable and secondary sources, including museum websites (Philbrook Museum, MoMA), peer-reviewed journals, and recognized photography institutions. 2. Verifiability: Inline citations and external links provide verifiable references. 3. Neutrality: The text describes bare photography historically, theoretically, and with contemporary examples, avoiding promotional language or undue bias. 4. Reliability of Sources: The references include academic publishers (e.g., Routledge, Palgrave Macmillan, Oxford), reputable arts organizations, and established media outlets.

Could you please help me how to make it better and right? Thank you soooo much!!!!!!!! HedyVolf (talk) 07:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't appear to have submitted it for review? You seem to have cresated the draft with a decline already in place? Theroadislong (talk) 07:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the correct submit template for you. Theroadislong (talk) 07:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, I am total newbie :( I appreciate your help! HedyVolf (talk) 08:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HedyVolf: did you use an LLM to create your draft? If so, could you please tell us which one? Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I use only GPT o1-pro to help with formatting ("coding", how to use external links in text,...) and sticking with wiki rules. To not make a mistake. And scisite for more sorces. Text is mine, llm just did thediting formatting/editor job. HedyVolf (talk) 08:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The 'coding' was exactly why I asked. Your first edit had code that I've not seen before. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HedyVolf Please do not create requests here using a LLM. We wish to speak to you, not to it. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Using AI to format sources is a BIG mistake, I picked four of your sources at random and none of them work, they are dead links. Theroadislong (talk) 08:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weird, I checked them all. Ok! Newbie idiot, I will improve. Thanks for your time!!! HedyVolf (talk) 09:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
could you be so kind and tell me which are not right? I checked them and everything is ok. So maybe mistake in == External links == section directly below your == References == heading by matching the or something like that? HedyVolf (talk) 09:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These to start with...

Theroadislong (talk) 09:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! This is really old article, I should hade check the links again, I found alternative for every one of them. Thanks! HedyVolf (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:55, 3 May 2025 review of submission by Chaudhary Akhtar Abbas

HELLO FRIENDS,

WE COMPLETED DRAFT WITH PICTURE LAST MONTH , WE ISSUE UNDERTAKE THAT PICTURE WAS TAKEN BY OUR OWN PHOTOGHARAPHAR AND ARTICLES WORDING IS TURE AND CORRECT , WE SUBMIITED FOR REVIEW TWICE , WE UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND FOR REJECTION OF MY PAGE. NOW WE ARE REQUESTING FOR HELP DESK FOR THE GUIDE LINE , WHAT WE DO TO FOR UPLOADING ON WIKIPEDIA/ REGARDS Chaudhary Akhtar Abbas (talk) 08:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaudhary Akhtar Abbas: please don't SHOUT, it's unpleasant.
 Courtesy link: User:Chaudhary Akhtar Abbas/sandbox
Your draft was declined (not 'rejected') because it is completely unreferenced, with no evidence of notability, as it states in the decline notice.
Please also note that autobiographies are very strongly discouraged, see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chaudhary Akhtar Abbas (ec) Please don't yell at us(use all capital letters). You didn't properly link to your draft, it is located at User:Chaudhary Akhtar Abbas/sandbox. It is essentially your resume; a Wikipedia article about you needs to summarize what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about you.
It is inadvisable- though not totally forbidden- for people to write about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. Only a single person should have exclusive access to your account, you may not share access. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:33, 3 May 2025 review of submission by Sij08

Hello. My draft article about Mahmoud Valanejad was declined due to a lack of sufficient references. Could you please clarify what kind of sources are exactly required, and whether you can provide examples of acceptable ones? Also, would foreign sources that provide analysis or detailed reports about his works be sufficient? Please note that Mr. Mahmoud Valanejad generally does not give interviews and avoids direct media presence. Thank you for your guidance. 

Sij08 (talk) 12:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy link Draft:Mahmoud Valanejad Interviews are not reliable independent sources so wouldn't help here. Theroadislong (talk) 12:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:40, 3 May 2025 review of submission by 82.8.141.222

Whitgift School 82.8.141.222 (talk) 12:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This draft was already rejected and will not be published. I would have nominated it as a hoax along with a couple of your other drafts with content you made up (although your latest appears to actually be real), but I really needed to go to bed ad the time and forgot about it in the morning. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:19, 3 May 2025 review of submission by ModalNode

Hello. This submission has been declined with the comment "the sources don't mention Optigram or are only passing mentions". I just double checked and there was only one source that didn't mention either Optigram or his real name Manuel Sepulveda. This occurs in the paragraph about his work before adopting the name Optigram and I added that source only to corroborate the statement about the Grime albums bringing dubstep to a wider audience, but I have added a source to confirm that he was the album's designer as well.

I did carefully read the notability guidelines and as he has been featured several times by independent writers on prominent sites I thought that showed significant coverage. I was wondering if the issue might be that most of those writers interviewed him for their articles? I noticed in the talk section for the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Common_sourcing_mistakes_(notability) that someone has asked "shouldn't the fact that reputable media outlets choose to interview a person (in depth, about themselves, as opposed to on a topic they are an expert in) be evidence of their notability?" but there wasn't a reply so I'm not sure what the consensus is about that.

As for some of the sources being passing mentions it's true that a few of them are just passing, but I thought they were useful just to confirm a fact stated in the Wikipedia entry even if the online source doesn't expand on the topic in question. Should those kinds of corroborations not be included in articles? If not, is it better to simply remove those aspects of the Wikipedia article?

Thanks for any advice you can offer. ModalNode (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1288571826"