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 AnotherViewpoint1 (talk | contribs) at 09:47, 9 May 2025 (Requesting assistance regarding Draft:B_A_Bush). 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


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]
@Sij08: We're looking for in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-Valanejad news/scholarly sources that discuss them at length, are written by identifiable authors, and are subject to fact-checking and other forms of editorial oversight. Interviews fail the "independent-of-Valanejad" prong and wouldn't be acceptable, though what is more damning for the draft's chances is the avoids direct media presence bit. That implies that there's pretty much no sources available to base an article off of, and that an article would be counter-productive here as he clearly wants to maintain his privacy. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:43, 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]

The comment was "some of the sources don't mention Optigram or are only passing mentions" (emphasis added). It doesn't say that none of them contain in-depth material about him.
But the purpose of a citation is to provide verification of a statement about the subject, so if a source does not mention the subject, it is rarely of any value as a source, and should usually be removed. If a source contains a passing mention of the subject, it may possibly provide verification for an uncontroversial factual statement in the article (and should be removed if it doesn't), but it cannot contribute to establishing that the subject is notable. ColinFine (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I hadn't intended to suggest that the comment was saying that none of the sources mention Optigram, I thoughtlessly omitted the word some from the comment. I only meant to say that I had checked and only found one that didn't. I have removed that citation from the article and simplified the sentence so as not to require it.
As for your comments about citations sometimes being useful for verification, yes that's what I thought too, so it's good to have that clarified. None of those passing mentions were meant to establish notability, they were only to verify the facts in the article. There are plenty of other citations within the article which do establish notability, in my opinion. Do you feel that's still disputable? ModalNode (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently 23 references in the draft. I have checked a sample of six of them. None of those six was significant coverage in an independent source; they included sites associated with "Optigram" in one way or another (e.g. a business exhibiting his work), interviews with him, etc. Can you list three references which contain substantial coverage in independent reliable sources? If you can, that will be useful evidence of notability. JBW (talk) 10:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the most substantial features on his work do still incorporate interview quotes from him. I guess that's inevitable when the subject is alive. They are a 4-page printed feature in the German magazine, Groove (reference number 2 on the Optigram page); and a feature in Resident Advisor which includes a lot of commentary on his work (reference number 3). Reference number 21 from HardFormat only includes commentary and does not include any interview content, but it is a shorter feature.
Reference number 9 is a published book by the Design Museum to coincide with their exhibition, but there is no online version of the book https://designmuseumshop.com/products/electronic-from-kraftwerk-to-the-chemical-brothers-exhibition-catalogue. I would imagine that you'd have to pass a pretty high bar to have your work featured in a major institution such as London’s Design Museum and I felt that in itself would show notability.
When I first started considering writing a Wikipedia article for Optigram I did actually look at three existing entries about other designers whose work was shown in the same exhibition, and used the kinds of references that were used in those entries as a guide to what was acceptable. They were all references that either included interview content; were by institutions displaying their work; or were brief mentions that simply verified a fact. So I'm not sure I understand why those kinds of references aren't acceptable in this instance. ModalNode (talk) 12:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just for your reference, this is the exhibition in question on the main Design Museum site: https://designmuseum.org/whats-on/talks-courses-and-workshops/electronic-from-kraftwerk-to-the-chemical-brothers-multisensory-tour ModalNode (talk) 12:56, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry wrong link, I meant this one: https://designmuseum.org/exhibitions/electronic-from-kraftwerk-to-the-chemical-brothers ModalNode (talk) 12:57, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,again, @ModalNode. Wikipedia has thousands and thousands of articles which would not be accepted if they were submitted for review today - usually, created long ago before our standards had developed to where they are today. In an ideal world, people would go through these improving or deleting them, but that is not something that many volunteer editors want to spend time doing. If you want to mention a couple of those articles that you looked at, maybe somebody will look at them.
In the meantime, I suggest using only good articles or featured articles as models.
See other stuff exists. ColinFine (talk) 09:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that's interesting to know, and the Other Stuff Exists page makes some good points!
At the Design Museum exhibition there was a long wall that featured work by three designers: Optigram, The Designers Republic, and Tomato (design collective) and nearby there was a piece of product design by Yuri Suzuki (designer). These are the three articles I used as a guide. Having now understood the criteria for an acceptable reference I don't think any of the references in those three articles qualify as "independent" by Wikipedia's definition of the word. That being said, I don't think there can be any question that those three designers/design collectives are notable (The Designers Republic in particular have been extremely influential) so I don't think the articles should be deleted. But I'm not sure how many, if any, independent sources actually exist in order for their references to be improved. The Designers Republic have two substantial publications devoted to them but in both instances they put the whole thing together themselves.
I think all this does show that notability does invite publications and platforms to approach those kinds of designers for interviews for their features. There were actually several other interviews with Optigram which I didn't use because the ones I used seemed more than enough, ha.
Looking at the Good Articles page it was disappointing to note that there aren't any designers listed (graphic or otherwise). It's a shame that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Graphic design group which was set up to enhance the presence and understanding of graphic design subjects on Wikipedia seems to be inactive. It would have been interesting to hear their perspective.
There was one other artist/designer featured near to the Optigram display in the Design Museum: Abdul Qadim Haqq. His Wikipedia article seems to have some major issues as a lot of it just reads like a press release. I did actually consider rewriting it as he is someone whose work I love and he is definitely important, but I was worried about getting into an edit war with the original authors. ModalNode (talk) 11:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:57, 3 May 2025 review of submission by Iindmusician

How to improve this article Iindmusician (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iindmusician, this is probably something you should have asked before resubmitting your draft 10 times. There is a lot of good advice that has been ignored, again, up to 10 times, that is already stated in the draft. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
fandom, Spotify, Apple music, IMDb, discogs, and Genius.com are NOT reliable independent sources, that leaves you with nothing to base an article on, time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Theroadislong (talk) 09:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 4

01:45, 4 May 2025 review of submission by Rennis970

I want to know if anything else is ok, in order to re submmit the post, Rennis970 (talk) 01:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been accepted. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:48, 4 May 2025 review of submission by Laser5918

For this entry, I believe that point 3 of WP:NACADEMIC is met via my election to the AAAS. Can you please revisit my submission? Laser5918 (talk) 03:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's inadvisable- thought not absolutely forbidden- for you to write about yourself at all- but if you intend to proceed, the main issue is that the sources you have provided do not seem to be reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser5918 However, it does seem that you pass the point you mention. I agree with @331dot on the references, but I believe this draft is acceptable if tagged tor the correct improvements. This I have Accepted the draft and am in process of flagging inadequacies 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 11:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:59, 4 May 2025 review of submission by Bhushanpkg

Duplicate post 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

How I can improve my artcke draft? 

Bhushanpkg (talk) 11:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

12:02, 4 May 2025 review of submission by Bhushanpkg

How i can improve the article draft so that it will published.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kirtiraj_Gaikwad_(professor) Bhushanpkg (talk) 12:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bhushanpkg: you could certainly start by cutting down that very long list of publications considerably. Wikipedia is not meant to be a comprehensive catalogue of someone's entire output. If you feel the need to mention any publications, focus on a small number of the most noteworthy ones only.
Other than that, you need to show how this person meets the WP:NPROF notability guideline for academics. Anything else is arguably superfluous at this stage.
I have posted a conflict-of-interest (COI) query on your talk page, please read and respond to it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Bhushanpkg. A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else. Almost nothing that the subject or their associates have said is relevant. ColinFine (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:28, 4 May 2025 review of submission by OffxLethal

Can you please give me more details on how to improve it? OffxLethal (talk) 12:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@OffxLethal: this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:32, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@OffxLethal, see my reply to the previous section, #12:02, 4 May 2025 review of submission by Bhushanpkg. Also note that writing about yourself is very strongly discouraged, and very very few people who try it manage to get their drafts accepted. ColinFine (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:55, 4 May 2025 review of submission by Ajlr555

Why are relevant albums the only articles that should be made on the site when there are other albums of less relevance on the site that are accepted? Ajlr555 (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of older articles on the project that pre-date the current community standards for notability; if submitted today many would not be accepted. CoconutOctopus talk 13:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are nearly seven million articles on Wikipedia. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid justification for publishing an article. Allowing low-quality articles because other low-quality articles exist only degrades the quality of Wikipedia. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:03, 4 May 2025 review of submission by Lsb997

Hi, what can I do to improve this article? Other articles submitted by myself in past have used identical sources and been approved, what is different with this article and what can be done to improve it? Lsb997 (talk) 14:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lsb997: rugby players must satisfy the general notability guideline WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent. This draft cites mostly primary sources, passing mentions, or routine match reporting. This source probably comes closest to meeting the GNG standard, but it alone isn't enough; we typically require three. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:54, 4 May 2025 review of submission by Jennie.Gonzo.33

I’m not sure why it says submission deleted. This is my first article and trying to do this correctly Jennie.Gonzo.33 (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You tried to submit the draft for review, but ended up not doing it correctly and declining it yourself at the same time. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 22:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:56, 4 May 2025 review of submission by Eck28

Why was this declined? Eck28 (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And how can I make it so that it cannot be Eck28 (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not copying and pasting Chat GPT-written text would be a good place to start. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 23:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 5

09:08, 5 May 2025 review of submission by GaganJai

I have quoted various sources of national newspapers. Mafatlal is more than 100 Year old company and article is not a promotional article. It has direct simple information about a listed entity. I have shared various videos including TedX talks and national newspapaer links, All of them were news and not Press Releases. Why it is getting rejected? GaganJai (talk) 09:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As an ex-employee you first need to properly disclose your conflict of interest. Theroadislong (talk) 09:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
There needs to be more than "direct simple information". 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 and what makes it a notable company. Basic information is not indepth coverage.
A good chunk of the article is about the founder of the company, not the company itself. This should be removed to focus on the company. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:48, 5 May 2025 review of submission by Csburdick

Hi all, my draft is being declined because it's not "adequately supported by reliable sources". However, I've provided citations from several reliable sources like Good Housekeeping, AskMen, Esquire, Men's Health, NBC News, a TV show, and others.

I'm just not sure what else to do; what am I missing?

If I look at similar pages (like "Remington (personal care brand)" for example, they have none of this.

Thank you for your help. Csburdick (talk) 10:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Csburdick Please disclose your connection with the company per WP:PAID and WP:COI; you claim to have personally created and personally own the copyright to the company logo.
Your draft actually says very little about the company; it mostly describes its product offerings and where its products have been mentioned. That might merit the products of the company an article, but not the company itself. For the company itself to merit an article, there must be coverage of the company itself that goes beyond basic coverage and goes into detail about what makes the company important/significant/influential, or in Wikipedia parlance, a notable company. 331dot (talk) 10:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that, if you are a company employee, it is very unwise from a legal standpoint for the company to permit an employee to own the copyright to its logo. 331dot (talk) 10:58, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the detailed reply. Yes I work as a consultant for the company but I'm unsure how to disclose that. I tried to keep all of the wording neutral and factual, following some other published Wikipedia articles for reference. I will work on expanding that as you suggested.
In regards to the logo, I definitely have not created it and do not own it. I'm not sure where I claimed that or how I can unclaim it as mine. It's just the logo from their website.
Thank you! Csburdick (talk) 13:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Csburdick I will provide you with more specific instructions regarding disclosure on your user talk page. Regarding the logo, my advice would be to request its deletion from Commons; logos are generally uploaded to this Wikipedia directly under "fair use" rules, not to Commons which only hosts images that may be used by anyone for any purpose with attribution(which is typically unwise for a company to do with its logo). Fair use images do have restrictions, such as being unable to be used in drafts, but it does allow limited use in articles.
Images are not relevant to the draft process, which only considers the text and sources; images are an enhancement, not a requirement. Images can wait until the draft is accepted. 331dot (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and please don't add spam links to the company blog as you did here [1] it is likely to lead to a block. Theroadislong (talk) 13:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Csburdick. A Wikipedia article about Freebird should be a neutral summary of what people wholly unconnected with Freebird have chosen to publish about the company in reliable publications. and little else. Wikipedia has little interest in what the company or its employees and associates say or want to say.
At present you have not one source that meets those requirements. Unless you can find several such (and they give more than routine information about the company) then no article will be possible.
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. (I am aware your account has been around for many years, but with only 19 edits you still count as a new editor). ColinFine (talk) 12:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:29, 5 May 2025 review of submission by 12.216.118.218

I was very much looking forward to publishing this page due to the significance of this specific game on roblox. But it isn't the main reason however.

My (and some IRL friend's) page was rejected on the 25th of April of this year unfortunately, but I want this to be published due to the legacy this game had on roblox, and to their suceeding community. It's a very well known game to deserve an article on wikipedia, but the soruces come from me the first party, and the country collectors fandom. 12.216.118.218 (talk) 12:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid this draft has been rejected and won't be considered for inclusion. Wikipedia has very strict guidelines on what is notable enough for an article, and this game doesn't meet it. You may have more luck at a Fandom wiki? CoconutOctopus talk 12:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:40, 5 May 2025 review of submission by MunjoLohiPeeyeth

After reviewing the notability guidelines, I have added more information regarding "significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources". How can I re-submit the draft without it being potentially deleted? MunjoLohiPeeyeth (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MunjoLohiPeeyeth: there's a blue 'resubmit' button in the corner of the decline notice (the large pink box), click on that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:09, 5 May 2025 review of submission by Nidarao

I am seeking assistance to ensure that the article meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, formatting standards, and citation requirements. I want to confirm that the subject is suitable for inclusion and that the content is neutrally written, well-sourced, and properly structured according to Wikipedia’s policies. Guidance from experienced editors would be greatly appreciated. Regards, Nida Rao Nidarao (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nidarao This person doesn't merit an article as a politician unless they had won their election, so they would need to meet the broader notable person definition. 331dot (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:55, 5 May 2025 review of submission by AndreaLivnat

Hi, I don't know how improve the sources here. That seems to be the reasons why its declined? The main source is actually an article published in an academic yearbook (I am the author myself). The article is based on the unpublished sources on Gersman; there are no other articles written on him (apart from orbituaries that were also declined as reliable source). So I dont know how to deal with this. Happy for any suggestions and help. THank you in advance. 

AndreaLivnat (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @AndreaLivnat, unfortunately Wikipedia's articles are a summary of published work about their subjects, and so if there are few or no sources to summarize, there cannot be an article. It sounds like that's the position you're in here. StartGrammarTime (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:10, 5 May 2025 review of submission by SherAhmadHaqyar

Quetta Province Meezan chawak Shop Number SherAhmadHaqyar (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear what the article is about and IMDb is not a reliable source. Theroadislong (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The draft and this request are both non-sequiturs without context. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:56, 5 May 2025 review of submission by AhmadSMubesher

i wanted to publish this page for a personal project of mine. which is why you can see me going over various versions. i didn't know about the subjective/objective bit but I have changed it now. i chose this lad not because I am being paid but I found some articles about him and no article here. i didn't know that it will cause this issue. furthermore I have to get this right now cause he is the one that was approved for me, I would appreciate any and all help that I can get on this. i have these 5 articles that I believe fit your criteria, please tell me if it works: https://www.handelszeitung.ch/bilanz/boris-collardi-und-murat-yakin-investieren-in-fussball-app-650243 https://www.horizont.net/schweiz/nachrichten/rolle-rueckwaerts-francesco-j.-ciringione-nimmt-prestige-titel-zurueck-216893 https://www.persoenlich.com/medien/prestige-mag-night-mit-marco-rima-und-the-straits-311942 https://www.luzernerzeitung.ch/wirtschaft/magazin-prestige-nach-boersengang-ueber-250-millionen-euro-wert-ld.1197955 https://www.shn.ch/sport/fussball/2019-07-27/die-fontanas-haben-keinen-platz-mehr-beim-fcs AhmadSMubesher (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AhmadSMubesher the only thing you need to be concerned about is addressing the paid issue as noted on your talk page. Read that message and follow the instructions. S0091 (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did change the wording i believe you can see it as well. furthermore as explained before, this is not a paid article. hopefully they will find this and pay me but not as of yet. trying to do my best to address the issues mentioned and would appreciate it if i can be guided in this regard as this is my first self-published article. AhmadSMubesher (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"hopefully they will find this and pay me" means that you are editing with the expectation of payment, which means that you are a paid editor. 331dot (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you must be a pretty noice reporter because taking things out of context seem like 2nd nature to you. Keep it up lad. Renegoad (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Renegoad: Drop the personal attacks. Whether or not this is a paid article is irrelevant; your intent is to use this to springboard a career as yet another mercenary editor, as per your own words above. Frankly, this draft is VERY badly sourced, and I wouldn't pay you for this poor effort.
  • https://www.persoenlich.com/medien/prestige-mag-night-mit-marco-rima-und-the-straits-311942 doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Name-drop, no real in-depth discussion of Ciringione.
  • https://www.luzernerzeitung.ch/wirtschaft/magazin-prestige-nach-boersengang-ueber-250-millionen-euro-wert-ld.1197955 doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Name-drops, no real in-depth discussion of Ciringione.
  • https://www.shn.ch/sport/fussball/2019-07-27/die-fontanas-haben-keinen-platz-mehr-beim-fcs doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Two sentences that merely describe what he owns; no further discussion.
  • I can't assess the Bilanz or Horizont sources (walled).
  • Ciringione was born in Basel [on March 2, 1974.] - Source?
  • [Ciringione] completed his education at the Leonhard Gymnasium. - Source?
  • He later undertook an apprenticeship in international commerce at the pharmaceutical company Sandoz. - Source?
  • In the 1990s, Ciringione founded the United Dance Academy, located in the Basel area. - Source? We also do not allow external links in the body of the text.
  • Ciringione entered the publishing industry in 2004 with the founding of Prestige Magazine... - Source?
  • Additional titles produced under his publishing ventures... - Relevance?
  • In 2021, Ciringione re-entered the publishing sector by founding Schweizer Fachmedien GmbH, which resumed production of some of the previously sold magazines. - Source?
  • He also launched Preferist, an online luxury marketplace. - Source?
  • [Ciringione] founded IMMO FAMILY AG, a real estate company based in Aesch (BL), which was later sold. - Source?
  • [Ciringione] founded Green Medi Group AG, a company producing CBD products sourced from Swiss hemp. - Source?
  • His branding and marketing agency, Brandoo, and media production company, Instinct Pictures, are also operated under his firm First Consulenza AG, established in 2021. - Source for the establishment date and creation of each of the subsidiaries?
  • In 2022, Ciringione co-founded Footbao[.] - Source?
  • The company [was] co-founded with Swiss investment banker Boris Collardi. - Source?
  • In 2018, Ciringione received an honorary award from the Young Leaders Club for his contributions to the Swiss business and media sector. - Source?
  • Ciringione resides in Basel, Switzerland. - Source?
The sources I can assess are all poor and the article as presently writ is far, far, far below our minimum standards when it comes to sourcing content about living people. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:54, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Horizont source is also very brief and lacks in-depth coverage. --bonadea contributions talk 07:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bonadea: Are you able to read the full piece? It's behind a subscription wall. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:22, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AhmadSMubesher: Could you clarify what I have to get this right now cause he is the one that was approved for me means? I'm afraid I don't understand. --bonadea contributions talk 07:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:24, 5 May 2025 review of submission by Kaalsingh

Dear reviewer, Thank you for reviewing the draft. Could you kindly advise why the references from Moneycontrol and The Pioneer (which are independent national financial publications) were not considered sufficient for notability? If additional improvements are needed, I’m happy to make them. Kind regards, Ajay Yadav 

Kaalsingh (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because Ajay Kuma wrote them, so they are not independent! Theroadislong (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Kaalsingh. Please understand that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 12:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Re-review

Dear reviewer, I have updated the draft with independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage of Ajay Kumar Yadav's professional contributions. Kindly requesting a re-review. Kaalsingh (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No you haven't? Theroadislong (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:56, 5 May 2025 review of submission by Ілля Криворучко

I'm not sure that this article is suitable for Wiki. Should I delete this draft? I'll be grateful for your answer. Ілля Криворучко (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ілля Криворучко I cannot see the subject to pass WP:BIO as presented here. He appears to be a decent journalist doing a decent job in difficult circumstances. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, I must nominate this draft for speedy deletion. Thank you for your response. Ілля Криворучко (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Review – Draft: Vijay Kapoor (director)

Hello editors, I submitted Draft:Vijay Kapoor (director) over 20 days ago and would greatly appreciate a review. The article cites multiple independent, reliable sources including Arab News, Amar Ujala, Outlook India, and The Tribune. Coverage includes both his directorial work and notable projects like *Call Girl (1974)* and the Doordarshan-commissioned telefilm *Akanksha*. I’ve done my best to ensure the tone is neutral and all claims are properly cited. Thanks for your time and any feedback! FreshPaint1999 (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FreshPaint1999 plese exhibit substantial patience 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your response. I completely understand that there is a queue and truly appreciate the time, care, and dedication you and the reviewing editors give to this process. Please take whatever time is needed — I’m grateful for your support and happy to wait patiently. FreshPaint1999 (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FreshPaint1999 In the intervening period please familiarise yourself with WP:NFILMMAKER and seek to determine whether Kapoor passes. Submission for review does not freeze the draft. You may, and should continue to improve it. However, the notability criteria come first. If he fails the criteria then no amount of editing can conjure notability up. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your message and the guidance. I’ve reviewed WP:NFILMMAKER and have been working to improve the draft accordingly. I’ve added multiple independent sources with significant coverage, including retrospective features in Amar Ujala, Arab News, Outlook India, and others. I’ll continue refining the article to better reflect his notability. I appreciate your time and input. FreshPaint1999 (talk) 04:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:08, 5 May 2025 review of submission by Kaalsingh

Dear Sir , I have shared journalist coverage from prominent media national media houses . Independent coverage . What else I should share to get it published . Humble request to publish it. Kaalsingh (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaalsingh For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent just an FYI, they have removed the declines and reject a couple times now. S0091 (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@S0091 That is a very awkward stance they have taken. I hope your warning gets through to them. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:08, 5 May 2025 review of submission by Masuk Alam Noton Traveler

Kindly please check and also check in google and make it possible published Masuk Alam Noton Traveler (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Masuk Alam Noton Traveler If it is to be then it is up to you to make it happen. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:54, 5 May 2025 review of submission by Karldroth

Rejected draft Karldroth (talk) 21:54, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Karldroth It was not rejected. You had submitted it, bit concealed the text inside an HTML comment tag
<!-- thus -->
It looked to be a blank submission. I made the text appear, abnd have just declined the draft with rationale. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, yeah, I'm not completely clear on the syntax. So, am I good, or, do I need to fix and resubmit, or, did you fix it for me? Karldroth (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:17, 5 May 2025 review of submission by Vj Ice


Hi everyone!

I’ve drafted a Wikipedia article in my sandbox about a notable Malawian DJ and music video director, VJ Ice (real name Anthony Malisawa). He has won national DJ awards, directed videos for top artists, and performed at major festivals like Lake of Stars and Sand Music Festival. The draft includes multiple references from reliable sources (Music In Africa, Malawi Music, Viberate, etc.) and follows Wikipedia's notability guidelines for musicians.

Here’s the draft: User:Vj_Ice/sandbox

I’d really appreciate it if an experienced editor could review it and guide me on how best to move it into mainspace, or help with the submission process. Thanks in advance for your support! 

Vj Ice (talk) 22:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vj Ice You have found out the problem of autobiographies. You very soon discover you are not as notable as you believe.
You had not submitted it for review, so no-one was one going to see it. What you have created is WP:ADMASQ 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:31, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting feedback on draft article about environmental sustainability company (COI disclosed)

Moved from Template talk:AfC help desk

Hi there, I'm working on a draft article about a company involved in environmental sustainability, an innovative project that is going to impact the worldwide community. I have a disclosed conflict of interest, as I’ve been asked to assist with this article, and I’m doing so in line with Wikipedia’s guidelines for paid and COI editors. My disclosure can be found on my user page.

I’ve aimed to keep the draft strictly neutral and informational, focusing on the company’s initiatives and their documented impact on international communities, without promotional language. The draft is in my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TheGreenPenWrites/sandbox I’d be very grateful if someone could take a look and let me know whether it aligns with Wikipedia’s content and notability standards, and what improvements might be needed.

I have read a lot of articles here on Wikipedia on how to create a draft according to the official requirements, however it is my first time and the actual writing can be challenging. Thanks a lot to whoever is going to help me with their comments! TheGreenPenWrites (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @TheGreenPenWrites.
A Wikipedia article should bve a summary of what people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else.
Much of your draft User:TheGreenPenWrites/sandbox reads as what IAmAmazonia wishes people to know about itself: but Wikipedia has essentially no interest in any of this. Start by finding several sources that meet WP:42, then forget everything that you personally know about the organisation, and write a summary of what those sources say.
I'm not sure if any of your sources meet the criteria, as I don't think that any of them are in depth about the organisation, as opposed to some of its projects. (The last two don't even mention IAmAmazonia: a source which does not mention the subject is rarely of use in a Wikipedia article, since the purpose of a citation is to provide verification for a claim about the subject).
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) 12:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @ColinFine thank you so much for taking the time to comment and help. I'll follow your advice to pause on my draft and start suggesting edits on existing article to get some first hand experience. TheGreenPenWrites (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:55, 5 May 2025 review of submission by Forbesfounder

confusion around resubmission Forbesfounder (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Forbesfounder: Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
None of your sources are particularly good. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 00:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
how is one meant to gather information if not via reputable interviews. This is one of Britain's biggest businessman, who still does not have a Wikipedia biography. Please insert the references you see fit. Thank you. Forbesfounder (talk) 00:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By reputable news stories that actually report on him instead of just giving him a pen and leaving the room to get some water. Anything that's wholly or substantially written by the subject doesn't help for eligibility because of that connexion (and in the case of articles like this, can only be used to source direct quotes or identity claims no reasonable person could try to dispute). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 00:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate your input, I don’t agree with your assertions. It is the media’s responsibility to validate and fact-check statements made in interviews, precisely to avoid conflicts of interest. These are reputable media outlets, regardless of personal opinion. Furthermore, I’ve seen numerous Wikipedia articles that cite self-reported accounts as primary sources. In cases like this, such accounts often form the core of the available information. If there were any issues of privacy or misrepresentation, the media would be held accountable. Forbesfounder (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Forbesfounder: Which doesn't matter because the media doesn't do that except for the most blatant whoppers or the most hostile interviewees, and there is no practical punishment for publishing falsehoods someone spouts even if they are immediately fact-checked. And even if they did, we don't consider anything a subject or its surrogates say in any venue for eligibility or biographical claims. I will repeat what I said: Look for sources that actually report in-depth on him instead of just transcribing whatever he says. (And as to the rhetorical grenade you're trying to throw, how many of those articles post-date April 2018?) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 00:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I shall review the references. Thank you for your help. Forbesfounder (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 6

Request on 05:11:13, 6 May 2025 for assistance on AfC submission by AndreaLivnat


Hi, I am trying to publish this article. As I understand, it was declined: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject." It is based on an article in a acedemic yearbook (wrote it myself), giving all the necessary sources. I cant give the sources in the wikipedia article, because they are primary non published sources (I had access to Boris Gersmans estate, letters, private stuff). So I dont know what to do with it. I did my research as always, I am an historian, but cant publish it here. Please help me with this! Thank you very much in advance.


AndreaLivnat (talk) 05:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Non published sources, private stuff and letters CANNOt be used to cite an article here, yes you are correct you cannot publish it here, that would be original research. Theroadislong (talk) 07:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:17, 6 May 2025 review of submission by Dvalev

Hello, I'm trying to understand why is the article rejected for a second time although I added more (secondary) references to it. I struggle to comprehend how is this article unsuited for the Wikipedia (a scientific discipline, related to philosophy, epistemology, math, IT), and on the other hand we have Wikipedia articles about random people who didn't contribute to anything nor didn't make any scientific or other discoveries; or even more random topics with colose to none references or importance. I believe that this article is important, and I'd love to get some help from the pros to get it published. Thank you. 

Dvalev (talk) 07:17, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not have articles based on purpoted "importance" but on notability; that is, significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. As the reviewer stated this article is a confusing mess and reads like an advertisement for one man's idea. As it stands the article has been rejected and won't be considered further. CoconutOctopus talk 08:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:27, 6 May 2025 review of submission by Teamworkers

omar owns the make hijrah platform, and the make hijrah channel, he got thousands of Muslims to make hijrah because of it Teamworkers (talk) 07:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but the article does not show he is notable per Wikipedia's standards and you repeatedly re-submitted it without making the required improvements so I have rejected the draft and it can no longer be submitted. You have not responded to the COI notice I have left you, are you in any way related to Omar or the app? CoconutOctopus talk 08:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:41, 6 May 2025 review of submission by Naturenerd135

Hello, my submission has been rejected as it doesn't have an encyclopaedic tone - I've tried to keep it as neutral as possible. Please can you advise which parts may need re-looking at or any other advice in how to make it acceptable? Thank you Naturenerd135 (talk) 07:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through the draft and I'm personally struggling to understand why the most recent reviewer declined for tone. @Gheus, did you click the wrong reason or am I missing something? CoconutOctopus talk 08:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"produces nature-inspired", "The brand", "partnered with", "It marked the first time in over 400 years", sounds like an advertisement to me (of course, you can resubmit if you disagree). Gheus (talk) 09:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:15, 6 May 2025 review of submission by Pistachio Tiffany

Submission declined, kindly assist. Thank you. Pistachio Tiffany (talk) 08:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pistachio Tiffany, do you have a question about anything in particular? The decline reason has quite a few links that should help you out. StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you for your kind reply. I am not sure how I can get the submission to be accepted. Is there any way that you could suggest to me? Thank you in advanced! Pistachio Tiffany (talk) 08:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pistachio Tiffany: Refer to the basic notability criteria for biographies and the general notability guideline – requirement for significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The only sources I see here are a business directory entry, a puff piece, and announcements of awards that do not appear to be notable. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 08:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input. Those awards are by independent third parties and are notable in the legal sector which are LexisNexis and Asian Legal Business (ALB) by Thomson Reuters. Please explain what you are suggesting as puff piece so that I may clarify where necessary. Pistachio Tiffany (talk) 09:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are not notable in Wikipedia terms however, since we have no articles about them. Theroadislong (talk) 09:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LexisNexis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomson_Reuters
Kindly refer, thanks. Pistachio Tiffany (talk) 09:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
then add links to the draft! But the awards have no article? Theroadislong (talk) 09:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is, https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-hk/40under40/2024/yi-qing-loh
Thank you for your input. Pistachio Tiffany (talk) 09:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
that is a profile page, it confers zero notability. Theroadislong (talk) 09:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
that is by the website of LexisNexis, how is that a profile page? It is stated with clarity here, https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-sg/news-and-insights/40Under40 Pistachio Tiffany (talk) 09:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think what Theroadislong means here is that there are no articles in Wikipedia about these specific awards, because nobody has shown that these awards meet our notability standards. Awards do not inherit notability from the organisations that sponsor them. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 09:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that is because nobody edited them in, it does not mean is has no notability. Pistachio Tiffany (talk) 09:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but until that happens, we don't consider it notable. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
great, meaning as long as it has ben edited in then it could count as having notability. Thanks for your input. Pistachio Tiffany (talk) 09:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the entirety of Wikipedia's guidance on Notability, and genuinely taken the time to consider whether Ms Loh, and these awards, meet our requirements? — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 09:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you asked for a secondary source that is notable and I have provided them bearing in mind that it is a third party link that I have no control over. Am I missing something? Pistachio Tiffany (talk) 09:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The link I provided explains what "puff piece" means in contrast to unbiased journalism. The Glam Week article is really just a gallery of glamour shots supplemented by a friendly interview (free publicity). — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 09:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, it is a fact that the featured person is a beauty queen, lawyer and entrepreneur. Can you please explain further on the meaning of puff piece as the contents of the article are mere facts? Pistachio Tiffany (talk) 09:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The answers have already been provided in previous replies. Please read them carefully. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 09:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've gotten tons of replies now, but I'm still going to link you the page I think is most useful and give you the explanation that made sense to me! Have a look at WP:42, and then here's my spiel.
Your goal here is to establish that your subject is notable by Wikipedia standards, which are very specific. There's a bunch of different options, but in general the way to show that your subject is notable is to provide at least three sources which match the triple criteria in WP:42. Once you have those, you can use other sources for additional bits of information, but the WP:42-compatible sources are the most important - without those you can't have an article.
One thing that trips lots of people up is that interviews can't be used to show notability, because they're not independent. Wikipedia editors have also spent a lot of time and argument over which sources are reliable, and which are not - you can find a list of some frequently used ones at WP:RSPSS. If you've looked at a source against WP:42 and aren't sure whether it passes, you're welcome to link it to me and I'll have a peek. I hope this helps! StartGrammarTime (talk) 09:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
can you please review my draft and let me know what else is required? I have added many links under "External Links" other than "References" that are independent sources, are you able to see them? Pistachio Tiffany (talk) 10:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, a couple more things @Pistachio Tiffany because I can see you're working on your draft right now. Don't worry about external links - they're basically irrelevant in terms of your goal. You want references - you want good, solid sources. So just pause for a moment and read through the information I've given you about sources (WP:42!) and above all, don't resubmit until you have those sources and you've got them cited! If you keep resubmitting without making improvements, the draft will be rejected and all your work will be wasted. You don't want that. Just slow down, maybe grab a cup of tea or coffee, and then come back and do some assessing of the references you've got. There's no deadline, there's no rush, the draft will be there in an hour or a week or a month. StartGrammarTime (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:46, 6 May 2025 review of submission by Montreuxconvention

I submitted as page as draft and it asked for secondary, strictly independent of the subject sources. Theses sources do not exists for the topic. even though the infomation is the truth how do i get around this? Montreuxconvention (talk) 09:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the ALB links, there is a tab for finalist and it can be seen there in the lists. Please refer to the External Links as I have edited and added relevant links for review and submission. Thank you very much. Pistachio Tiffany (talk) 09:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AlB? Montreuxconvention (talk) 09:51, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Asian Legal Business or is there any other sources that you are specifically referring to? Please let me know so that I may guide you on that. Thank you. Pistachio Tiffany (talk) 09:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are going to have to be more specific as i do not understand? Montreuxconvention (talk) 09:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Theses sources do not exists for the topic. even though the infomation is the truth how do i get around this?" you asked this? How can I assist? Is there any specific link that is not working? Pistachio Tiffany (talk) 09:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
there are links for the topic that work but they are primary link from the boat club about it self. there are not secondary links about it and i need secondary links for a submission. but the secondary links do not exists anywhere so how do i get around this problem. Montreuxconvention (talk) 10:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pistachio Tiffany, I think you're in the wrong thread here - @Montreuxconvention is asking about their own draft. Yours is the next one up :) StartGrammarTime (talk) 10:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for your input, can you please look into mine? Very much appreciated! Pistachio Tiffany (talk) 10:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pistachio Tiffany, [2] is my latest response that I hope will help you. StartGrammarTime (talk) 10:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the secondary links are in "External Links" and "References"
LexisNexis® 40 UNDER 40 2024 - Yi Qing Loh www.lexisnexis.com
ALB Malaysia Law Awards 2024 | Asian Legal Business www.legalbusinessonline.com (under FINALIST TAB : Managing Partner, Woman Lawyer and Rising Law Firm categories)
ALB Malaysia Law Awards 2025 | Asian Legal Business www.legalbusinessonline.com (under FINALIST TAB: ESG ans Sustainability Law Firm category)
ALB SE Asia Law Awards 2025 | Asian Legal Business www.legalbusinessonline.com (under FINALIST TAB: Managing Partner (Emerging Markets) category)
Miss Planet International 2024 Alphageant Wiki Top 18
Youtube Event Video of Miss Planet International 2024 - 4th Edition by Miss Planet International
LexisNexis Wikipedia under LexisNexis Asia Pistachio Tiffany (talk) 10:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pistachio Tiffany: please stop commenting in this thread. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I wasn't aware earlier. Pistachio Tiffany (talk) 10:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Montreuxconvention: if, as you say, secondary sources don't exist, then this organisation is not notable enough to justify its own article. It's not enough that something exists, for inclusion in Wikipedia it must have also received coverage in multiple secondary sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What happens if they do exist they just cannot be referenced due to the fact that they are physical paper? Montreuxconvention (talk) 10:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Montreuxconvention: offline sources (assuming that's what you mean by 'physical paper'?) are perfectly acceptable, as long as they otherwise meet our requirements, ie. are reliable, independent, secondary sources that have been published and remain accessible. In citing offline sources, you need to provide sufficient bibliographic details to allow the sources to be reliably identified for verification, see WP:OFFLINE for more on this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
how do you work out if they remain accessible? Montreuxconvention (talk) 10:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Montreuxconvention: that's also discussed in the guidance on published, but to give an example, the source cannot be only in a private archive which no one is allowed to access; similarly, if the only known copy of something is destroyed or its whereabouts cannot be determined, it would not be accessible (and to say that at one time it was accessible isn't enough). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Montreuxconvention (talk) 11:18, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:23, 6 May 2025 review of submission by Ms 2024 baiiiii

how can i get this topic be reviewed, thanks Ms 2024 baiiiii (talk) 13:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can't, it has been rejected. Please see the messages left by reviewers. If you can fundamentally change the draft to address the concerns, the first step is to appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:59, 6 May 2025 review of submission by 157.125.74.221

I'd like to understand why it's being declined, when the subject is neutral. Additionally, I believe it's quite important when mentioning regarding the growth of Employee Ownership and the link to one of it's board members, especially being a previous prominent member of the EU parliament. 157.125.74.221 (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have only summarized the routine activities of the company, not significant coverage in independent reliable sources that shows how the company is a notable company. 331dot (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:31, 6 May 2025 review of submission by Kaalsingh

Dear Sir, can I start fresh . Since I am new & I am struggling with rules & regulation Kaalsingh (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have nothing at all to support the topic being notable in Wikipedia terms. Theroadislong (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaalsingh, if you decide to start over, I strongly recommend that you begin by finding several sources where people wholly unconnected with Yadav or Wise have chosen to write in sonme depthv about Yadav and been published in reliable sources: see WP:42 for more infoermation.
If you cannot find at least three sources that meet these criteria (and thus far you have none at all) then you will know that any further effort you put into this subject is a waste of your time, as no article will be accepted.
If you do find three or more such sources, then you can indeed begin again. Approach the editor who rejected your draft, present them with the sources you have found, and ask them to rescind the rejection.
If they agree, you almost ceratinly want to throw away all your existing text, and begin again: forget everything you know about Yadav, and write a neutral summary of what those independent sources say. Then submit the draft for review.
But I would even more strongly recommend that you put the whole idea of this article aside until you have gained more knowledge of Wikipedia. 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) 19:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank for you honest suggestions . Kaalsingh (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaalsingh, you have been told that this draft has been rejected and that if you keep trying to resubmit it for further review, you will be blocked for disruptive editing. It's time to let this go.
Is there a reason you are so desperate to have the draft accepted? I note your other draft appears to be about the same company - do you work for Wise? StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't work for this company. Though there are so may reliable references I have shared from top media houses still the article was getting rejected & this was making me feel upset. Was not able to understand where i am going wrong. Kaalsingh (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:34, 6 May 2025 review of submission by Baidaimeng

I acquired electronic copies of some old reports and newspaper articles regarding Chik Wai Leung from some library archives. These documents are only accessible in their respective libraries. How should I cite these documents if they are single pages in larger documents but some information about those documents are missing? Baidaimeng (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be able to cite enough information that someone could locate these passages if they so wished. If it's a page of a larger book or document, you can cite the specific page number along with author, publisher, publication date, etc. 331dot (talk) 16:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:47, 6 May 2025 review of submission by Solenereboulet

Hello,


I recently submitted a draft article about the company Advans, which was declined on May 3, 2025. I understand that the issue is mainly related to the sources not meeting the required criteria (depth, reliability, secondary, and independence). I would like to improve the draft and resubmit it, but I need some guidance to move forward properly.


Would someone be kind enough to:

- Point out one or two sources in the current draft that are considered acceptable according to Wikipedia’s standards;

- And one or two that are not acceptable, with a brief explanation?


This would really help me understand what’s expected, and what I should aim for or avoid. Also, if some parts of the draft are clearly problematic due to poor sourcing (or could be removed for now), please let me know.


Thanks a lot in advance for your help and your time!


Best regards, Solenereboulet (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Solenereboulet this article was just deleted via an WP:AfD discussion - WP:Articles for deletion/Advans - where you were given some robust feedback. Right now there are 29 sources and no reviewer is going to review all of them so my advice is to cut!, cut! cut! and it reads promotional to me. Best to make a simple draft using the best five-ish sources.. S0091 (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:59, 6 May 2025 review of submission by Teedadonn

Please Can You Put "KTB" On Here, Its A Gang So It Should Be On Here. Teedadonn (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Totally unsourced and zero evidence of notability correctly so rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 17:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Teedadonn. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what some people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to write (in some depth) about the subject, and been publixhed in a reliable publication; and very little else.
Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what you, I, or any random person on the internet knows about the gang, and even less interest in what the gang wants to say about itself.
If you haven't got any independent, reliable, in-depth sources (see WP:42) there cannot be an article. ColinFine (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:47, 6 May 2025 review of submission by SVSWIKIPED


The page submits but laters says its not submitted for review. Plz help.. I made an article on tests in the USA but everytime I submit, I see a yellow box saying successfully submitted for review but refresh from my inbox and see that it says it is not submitted. What is happening? SVSWIKIPED (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your post to provide a link to the draft as intended. I don't believe there are any notifications of submission. You have indeed successfully submitted it, you will get a notification when it is reviewed. 331dot (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:50, 6 May 2025 review of submission by Ellagracerr

Hello! My article was denied as the sources weren't adequate. Can I have help determining if I just need more sources and to add depth, or if my sources are not considered 'independent'? Thanks so much!! Ellagracerr (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Ellagracerr. I suggest you look at WP:42, and evaluate each source against it.
The question to ask for each source is "Is this a place where somebody completely unconnected with the Incentives and with the organisations which create and maintain them, has chosen to write in depth about the incentives, and been publixshed in a reliable publication?" If the answer is No, the source is of little use, and cannot count towards establishing that the subject is notable in Wikipedia's sense. ColinFine (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's very helpful, thanks so much!! Ellagracerr (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:41, 6 May 2025 review of submission by 2600:6C5E:18F0:6AC0:4DC2:B51E:D9DF:F68

It was a fun thing to put on there. It was going to be a part of a movie 2600:6C5E:18F0:6AC0:4DC2:B51E:D9DF:F68 (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately for your article, Wikipedia doesn't have articles just because they are "fun". If there are reliable sources to back it up we would accept it. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 01:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 7

01:16, 7 May 2025 review of submission by SVSWIKIPED

If I was making a article about state testing, would information from schoold districts like things about the EOG and if you can face retention be independent reliable sources? SVSWIKIPED (talk) 01:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SVSWIKIPED: No (connexion to subject). You'd need news reports about the standardised test. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 02:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I also found websites that rae not popular but seem to be independent like mathandreadinghelp.org so i am wondering if this would count and help my article to be accepted.
i was rejected off the basis that I did not provide resources that are independent so its important that i have a reliable and credible source that can be used and help the article get accepted.
I also included an article about helping kids prepare for an EOG by wilmingtonparent.com so please let me know if this is enough and good source that i can use to get this article approved. SVSWIKIPED (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SVSWIKIPED, have a look at WP:42 for guidance here. You will need to find at least three sources that match all three criteria in WP:42 to show that your subject is notable and should have an article here. Websites don't need to be super popular, but they do need to be reliable and independent. WP:42 has some more information about how you can tell whether a site is reliable and independent, and whether the coverage is considered significant. 04:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC) StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OH MY GOD THANKS! SVSWIKIPED (talk) 11:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:15, 7 May 2025 review of submission by 99.130.144.132

I don't know how to add reliable sources or footnotes to my article. 99.130.144.132 (talk) 02:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:Referencing for beginners and WP:Reliable sources. I'll also note the draft is just a massive, impenetrable wall of text; separate it into paragraphs. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 02:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:03, 7 May 2025 review of submission by LbnSchoolResearcher

I submitted a draft about stars college article, can u review it as soon as possible LbnSchoolResearcher (talk) 09:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has no deadlines; what's your hurry? Drafts are reviewed by volunteers in no particular order, please be patient. 331dot (talk) 09:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LbnSchoolResearcher: please take care not to remove the previous decline notices - doing that created extra work for the volunteer reviewers, and leads to longer review times. --bonadea contributions talk 12:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:51, 7 May 2025 review of submission by OttoBenjamin

Hello everyone, I would like to adapt my article so that it meets the requirements. Unfortunately, I'm not sure what exactly the problem is. In the German Wiki it was accepted as it is. If someone could point me in the right direction it would be great. Br OttoBenjamin (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@OttoBenjamin: the problem with this draft is that it just tells us what the is and what it does, from the point of view of the provider. That is considered inherently promotional, see WP:YESPROMO, and Wikipedia does not allow promotion of any sort. In any case, we're not interested in what you want to say about your product, what we want to see is (summaries of) what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about this product and what makes it worthy of note. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:54, 7 May 2025 review of submission by Websfarm

Afternoon, any help for understanding this refusal:

Promotional tone, editorializing and other words to watch Vague, generic, and speculative statements extrapolated from similar subjects Essay-like writing Hallucinations (plausible-sounding, but false information) and non-existent references Close paraphrasing Websfarm (talk) 14:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Websfarm: this was declined because it seems to have been drafted by LLM. This often creates all sorts of problems, including the ones listed in the decline notice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:00, 7 May 2025 review of submission by FloweryLion

I have added additional different sources as well as someone helping me cut out a lot of the "promotional" language. How do I go about resubmitting it? FloweryLion (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FloweryLion: you can't resubmit, since it has been rejected (rather than merely declined); that's what rejection means. You may appeal directly to the rejecting reviewer, if you wish. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @FloweryLion. I echo what DoubleGrazing says. I see that an IP address (presumably you) has just added three citations to the draft - you'll need to convince @Theroadislong that the citations are now adequate to establish notability.
How come you are asking about a draft which you have not edited? Are you @Alex114721 using a different account? ColinFine (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yes I am, i lost my password to the other account and when they were supposed to send an email to reset it, but I never got one so I just made a new login. Additionally I was also the IP address that edited, i thought I was logged in but was not and didn't want to risk losing the changes I had made by logging in after the fact so I just published them under the IP address. FloweryLion (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are extermely poor, but please at least ensure they actually support the content, this [3] and this [4] appear not to? Theroadislong (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first source you linked here, talks about the style of pizza and how it is known only locally, rather than the larger scale that some see it deserves. i removed the second source you had listed here because it was only addressed bar pizza briefly. If you can, what qualifies as a better source? I've gone through many articles trying to find ones that are reliable. Do you have any advice on other sources that can be used? FloweryLion (talk) 19:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FlowerlyLion Are you associated with this style of pizza in some way, such as working for the Cape Cod Cafe(the main producer of this pizza)? 331dot (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I grew up eating it a lot and I am from the area where it is know to be most popular, so when I saw the list of all of the styles of pizza and bar pizza wasn't on there I wanted to change that. I am realizing now that it is a lot more than I thought it would be. FloweryLion (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, OK, @FloweryLion. I suggest you put a note on your user page User:FloweryLion explaining that you were previously Alex114721 but lost your password: that will avoid suspicious people like me chasing you with questions. (You could also put a corresponding note on User:Alex114721, but that's probably less important). ColinFine (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:26, 7 May 2025 review of submission by Cmertig26

How can I make this topic notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia? Thank you. Cmertig26 (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can't "make it notable". He(you?) doesn't seem to be a notable person more broadly or more narrowly a notable musician. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about someone. 331dot (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cmertig26: well, they could maybe receive the Nobel Prize, or get elected to Congress, or perhaps become the Principal of a major research university. Or alternatively, get lots of coverage in independent and reliable secondary sources such as print or broadcast media. Is any of that on the cards? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to at least get the info from the draft back? It was deleted and i'm not sure how to get the article Cmertig26 (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 8

04:28, 8 May 2025 review of submission by Sahilm1331

Hi, my article did not meet the criteria as it lacks multiple published sources that are indepth, reliable, secondary, and independant. Can anyone help me with how to make my article visible and correct through these measures 

Sahilm1331 (talk) 04:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sahilm1331 You have resubmitted it. That is one of the best ways of getting the help you seek 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:18, 8 May 2025 review of submission by Reshmaaaa

Hey, I have incorporated multiple reliable and independent sources in international and local websites, citing the popularity and impact of the serial as well. Yet, it is being rejected on the same basis, when I have addressed the matter. I can give a detailed reference assessment, if required, to justify the acception of an article. Please look into it. Reshmaaaa (talk) 07:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of the reviewers who have "declined" (not rejected) on the basis of the sources being unreliable such as this which is non-bylined churnalism which is similar to WP:NEWSORGINDIA as well as this one which is the same.--CNMall41 (talk) 07:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Reshmaaaa, I've gone through your first five sources; I only speak English so I'll be relying on machine translation for non-English sources.
Source 1, from Samaa TV, is about an actor, not about the series; it does not provide reliable, independent or significant coverage (you need all three);
Source 2, from Dawn News, is the same;
Source 3, from ARYNews, has basically nothing about the series and so can't be used either;
Source 4, from Independent Urdu, is an interview with an actor, which is not independent;
Source 5, from The Nation, is mostly about an actor, and the over-the-top praise and lack of a named writer means it's hard to see as reliable or independent. There's really very little about the series itself, as well.
Although I am not an AfC reviewer, if you presented me these sources in an existing article I would be removing your edit and asking for better sources. I agree with the reviewers thus far; you need better sources. Have a look at WP:42 to get an idea of what you need in a source: you will need at least three sources that meet the triple criteria in WP:42 in order to show us that this series is notable by Wikipedia's standards. I hope this helps. StartGrammarTime (talk) 09:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @StartGrammarTime, let me make an assessment of majority series references below;
  1. [5] - This covers the female lead of the show, who made her debut with the series, briefly discussing the plot of the show.
  2. [6] - It is about the female lead as well, focusing on her background and how she managed to get a role in the series after becoming viral.
  3. [7] - covers the viewers reaction to released teasers of the show.
  4. [8] - focuses on the critics views regarding female lead role.
  5. [9] - shedding light on female lead incident where she went viral.
  6. [10] - focuses on the main leads of the show and their pairing as a couple.
  7. [11] - talks about plot of the story, where Abdul Bari, male lead takes a stand for her wife in the series.
  8. [12] - people's reaction on the finale of the show.
  9. [13] - written from the point of view regarding what should Pakistani people watch, where serial is listed and the plot is discussed in detail.
  10. [14] - Here the article is about the most watched Pakistani dramas digitally and the show is discussed there as well in detail.
  11. [15] - here it authenticates that show is being watched internationally by UK audience as well.
What else we should expect in the references section of a drama serial? All the references are covering the serial and it's title. Few sources have not mentioned the title but confirms the prevalence to the article. Express Tribune, Dawn, Samaa, Biz Asia, Urdu point are all reliable sources and looking one way or the other show has been covered from every aspect in the sources.Reshmaaaa (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fact you ignored the source assessment by the three reviewers who declined plus another editor opining here says a lot. No amount of editing will make it notable unfortunately so not sure what else to say to help you. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is declined by two editors. The first time it was declined, made sense to me cause it required improvement at that time but this time I'm quite confident. Also @StartGrammarTime is not an AFC reviewer, so I'm just discussing it here and taking opinions and Sorry but yours are not convincing with regards to weak sources. Reshmaaaa (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your reassessment suggests that you're missing the point entirely. The assessment is supposed to directly evaluate the sources for reliability, independence, and being significantly about the subject. You simply list what the source is, not connect it with these crucial concepts, which has nothing to do with a source assessment. I do not think this draft is near ready to be published. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll add more references and re-submit. Thanks. Reshmaaaa (talk) 04:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Reshmaaaa, did you read through WP:42? It will be very helpful to you, especially since it links to a lot of other policies. Remember that you need at least three sources which meet all three criteria in WP:42 to show the series is notable.
Adding more sources will not necessarily help you, since multiple reviewers are saying that the current sources don't show notability. Concentrate on better sources, evaluating them all against WP:42 and setting aside any that don't match. Reliable, independent, in-depth sources will give you most of what you'd want to put in your draft in any case, so lesser-quality sources can be replaced or discarded entirely. Happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:23, 8 May 2025 review of submission by Dead2late

Not sure if I put the references in correctly, as the links are old and I do not know where to place them when archival or alternative links exist. Dead2late (talk) 07:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dead2late We do not do pre-reviews. Please submit for review and also continue to work on the draft. In general, just use the best references which meet WP:42 that you can find 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dead2late, can you tell us whether you're using the Visual Editor or Source Editor? The Source Editor will have HTML code and Wikipedia's coding when you're editing, and the Visual Editor won't. If you're using the Source Editor, it's fairly straightforward: simply add archive-url= |archive-date= into your cite template, so for example your very first source would become:

<ref name="POY">{{Cite web|title=POYi Judges 2022|url=https://www.poy.org/79/judges.html|website=Pictures of the Year International|access-date=2025-05-08|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240625015253/https://www.poy.org/79/judges.html|archive-date=2024-06-25}}</ref>

which becomes:

[1]

Make sure that at least one link works - if there's a page that's a 404 and no online archive exists, you may need to remove that citation or use a different template (Template:Cite news perhaps if you found it offline) so that the reviewer can access the reference and verify the information. Happy editing! 10:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC) StartGrammarTime (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "POYi Judges 2022". Pictures of the Year International. Archived from the original on 2024-06-25. Retrieved 2025-05-08.

10:36, 8 May 2025 review of submission by 2001:2042:2C2F:5100:44AC:E8F6:DC0B:FC8B

I have no idea what to do with this. I cannot see the "formatting" errors etc. Regards, Kinga Práda 2001:2042:2C2F:5100:44AC:E8F6:DC0B:FC8B (talk) 10:36, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The formatting errors are not really a huge problem –they are fairly easily fixed, but you should be able to see that the lists of his works are weidly formatted, for instance.
More to the point, in order for this to be a viable article, there needs to be more independent and reliable sources, and the sources must be cited correctly. For example, the official website for Föreningen svenska tonsättare is listed as one source, but the link in the source leads to the main page fst.se, not to fst.se/tonsattare/stellan-sagvik which is where we can find information about Sagvik. (We don't expect our readers to search through a website to find the information – in particular not when it is a non-English website.)
There is also a bit of an issue with the writing style – it comes across as a CV rather than an encyclopedia article, and there are some Swenglishisms as well (though that's not hard to fix, and is not a reason the draft would be declined). Again, there should be more independent, reliable sources, and those are not hard to find! I just made a quick Google Scholar search, which yielded a respectable number of sources. Sources do not have to be in English to be acceptable, but they do have to meet the requirements outlined in the decline notice. --bonadea contributions talk 13:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:35, 8 May 2025 review of submission by Superiorpro

why my submission is not accepted? Superiorpro (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission is actually located at Draft:The Ancient Ages. You were given a clear reason by the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually surprised it was merely declined rather than rejected. This is an encyclopedia, not a webhost. It looks a lot like you just wrote a story, loosely based on various religious concepts. Wikipedia contains articles about subjects, sourced by what reliable, independent parties have to say about those subjects. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:37, 8 May 2025 review of submission by 50.213.135.153

Hello, I submitted an article for consideration. The article was generated using only information that was written in articles in newspapers, magazines or tv news stories with the sources provided. There were no other sources used yet the article was denied because of lack of sources. How do I get the article reconsidered with this information provided? 50.213.135.153 (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting. It's not that you're lacking sources, you're lacking sources that show this man is either a notable person broadly or more narrowly a notable musician. 331dot (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:12, 8 May 2025 review of submission by Theroninindex

Hi there! I’m seeking another opinion on Draft:Jeffrey Prang, which was recently declined due to concerns about notability.

Prang is the elected Los Angeles County Assessor (the largest such agency in the U.S.) since 2014 and previously served four terms as Mayor of West Hollywood. He is also mentioned in other Wikipedia articles, including the Los Angeles County Assessor page.

The draft includes independent, reliable sources with significant coverage, such as two Los Angeles Times articles, reporting from the Beverly Press and WeHo Times, and official Los Angeles County reports and datasets.

I believe this meets both WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN guidelines. I’d really appreciate any additional feedback before resubmitting.

Thanks so much! Theroninindex (talk) 19:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:22, 8 May 2025 review of submission by Sam Arcayna

Hello! I interviewed Mauricio himself since there is, quite literally, no information on him on the internet. I got in contact with him through my clarinet professor who knows him personally. If that's he's only source I have, will I not be able to publish this article? How can I change my citation to better show the article's credibility? Sam Arcayna (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sam Arcayna information about him doesn't have to be on the internet, print sources such as books and newspapers are equally acceptable. But, if the only source you have is an interview that you conducted with him then you really have to question if he meets the notability criteria. Nthep (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sam Arcayna Interviews with the subject are primary and non-independent sources, and are therefore useless for meeting Wikipedia's definition of notability. In addition, to meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy, all sources must be available to the public in some form (but not necessarily online). WP:MUSICBIO lists additional ways that a musician can meet the notability guidelines, although reliable sources are still required in any case. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sam Arcayna even if you could prove he meets notability guidelines, remove all content from the interview. Interviews conducted by wikipedia editors are not allowed as sources. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:16, 8 May 2025 review of submission by P.thechemist

I don't really understand why my articles is beeing rejected, I have added all the references requested but it keeps getting rejected I would like to know what I should do to improve it... Thank you in advance for your help 

P.thechemist (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
what drafts you made wanna see them TheNonEditor (talk) 01:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's declined, not rejected.
Don't submit it till you have changed it though. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 9

01:24, 9 May 2025 review of submission by TheNonEditor

to get it accepted in the article space TheNonEditor (talk) 01:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you improve it first. Remove peacock terms, add inline citations, and more references in general. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
what are peacock terms TheNonEditor (talk) 02:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Terms used for promotion or are visibily biased Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TheNonEditor Example: "Mr Foo is a wonderful example of a hugely successful expert in Bar, and we were honoured with his visit to the highly esteemed Foo corporation, named as a tribute to his magnificence" 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 07:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:24, 9 May 2025 review of submission by Kunalroyindia

What should be done for the inclusion of this page on the Wikipedia main page? Kunalroyindia (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kunalroyindia: Your draft has been rejected and will not be considered for inclusion any further. There is no way for this current draft to make it to the main page of Wikipedia. Articles on the main page go through a rigorous process to ensure only the best articles are exhibited. cyberdog958Talk 04:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:56, 9 May 2025 review of submission by Manzoor Bargat

میرا پیج کیوں نہیں بن رہا ہے Manzoor Bargat (talk) 05:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Manzoor Bargat: please communicate in English, thank you.
No article منظور برگٹ exists, at least not here on the English-language Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Courtesy link: User:Manzoor Bargat
Translation of the Arabic text above: "Why is my page not being created?"
Answer, in English: No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Manzoor Bargat Several points:
  • You created this draft on your user page. I have moved to to Draft:Manzoor Bargat
  • You are misusing Wikipedia as a web host. Please invest in your own web site
  • This is a blatant advert for yourself. Advertising is not what Wikipedia is for
  • I have rejected it as failing notability and contrary to Wikipedia's purpose
  • WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA applies
  • I have nominated it for Speedy Deletion as an advert
So, in answer to "Why is my page not being created?" it is not being created because you have a basic misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. Perhaps, if you ever become notable, someone will write an article about you. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 07:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:14, 9 May 2025 review of submission by Applum

Hi, I have been contributing to a page for the eyewear company Oscar Wylee. It has been rejected a few times based on feedback such as a lack of reliable sources and formal language used. I was wondering if specific examples in the article can be given that should be cut out/altered. Also suggestions on how to get it submitted like its competitors have. Applum (talk) 07:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Applum: The draft has already been submitted, by an IP user, and will be reviewed again at some point. --bonadea contributions talk 08:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:47, 9 May 2025 review of submission by AnotherViewpoint1

This is purely a question to help me understand what I have to do to get this published, how come the latest update I have written has been rejected but this article is acceptable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwik_Fit AnotherViewpoint1 (talk) 09:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1289549685"