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 HelpfulBeagle (talk | contribs) at 03:31, 17 June 2025 (Requesting assistance regarding Draft:COVID-19_Season). 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
June 2025
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


June 11

04:24, 11 June 2025 review of submission by Stefaniebayer

I added the same resources as with the 2024 article which has been published. Besides the official IFSC website I could only mention other news articles mentioning the results of the paraclimbing World Cups. What else do you want me to reference? I have no clue... Stefaniebayer (talk) 04:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See: 2024 IFSC Paraclimbing World Cup compared to my draft... Stefaniebayer (talk) 04:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Stefaniebayer, the first thing that jumps out at me with the 2024 article is the maintenance tags at the top - you will notice that one says the article may not meet the notability guidelines. This is not a good sign: it is very possible this article will be deleted if no one can find better sources soon. I would strongly advise you against using this article as an example - and if you have no better sources than that article does, your subject is probably not notable by Wikipedia's very specific standards. Have a look at the Good Articles on WikiProject Sports for some better examples of what you're trying to do, and perhaps you could ask for more specialized assistance at the WikiProject. Meadowlark (talk) 08:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:58, 11 June 2025 review of submission by VEON.MNS

Hi everyone! I've submitted this article Draft:Augie K Fabela II and it was declined. If I understand the rejection correctly, it's a notability issue? This person has a film (https://www.connected-doc.org/) dedicated to him, along with his associate Dmitry Zimin who does have his own Wiki article. People who watch the film may search for Augie Fabela, and it would make sense for him to have his own article. It would be really helpful to know what's missing from this draft before I resubmit, I'd be happy to update, add or remove anything. Thank you! VEON.MNS (talk) 05:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

VEON.MNS The whole url is not needed when linking, I fixed this for you. I would also suggest that you read WP:BOSS and have your superiors read it, too.
The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
You have provided many references, probably too many. Most of those just document his work and activities, they do not say what makes him a notable person as Wikipedia defines one. Notability is not inherited by association; he does not merit an article merely because a colleague does(if he does). 331dot (talk) 08:08, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Thanks for this. Augie Fabela has a film about him directed by a well known director. He's co-founder of one of the biggest telecommunications companies outside of the US. Articles have been written about him and his story - I found an article on London Daily News but Wiki blacklisted the website for some reason, which is frustrating. I have read the notability guidelines quite thoroughly - if a film and articles about him do not prove notability, could you please let me know what does? I would appreciate any clarifications here. Thank you! VEON.MNS (talk) 08:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The London Daily News is user-generated pap, basically a blogging site masquerading as a news outlet. That's why you couldn't cite it. (In the unlikely event that you were trying to cite the 1980s newspaper by the same name, let us know and we'll give you the work-around.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:46, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
user:331dot I just looked at the spam list, there is a website called londondailypost that's blocked and I think my link (londondaily dot news) is being blocked because of it. What can I do? London Daily News is just a media outlet... VEON.MNS (talk) 08:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
VEON.MNS "Film about him by a well known director" might merit the film an article, but not necessarily him personally.
If you have sources about him that you have not yet used, that aren't interviews and where the source extensively discusses him and what they see as important about him, please provide them. 331dot (talk) 08:48, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Let me find some. VEON.MNS (talk) 08:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, you don't need to provide them to me personally; just incorporate them into the draft. When writing a new article it's best to first have the sources in hand before summarizing them, see WP:BACKWARD. 331dot (talk) 08:54, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:32, 11 June 2025 review of submission by Olivertheboi988

A quick question:Why'd it get rejected?I promise you I don't own any big company or anything. The truth is:I just wanted to make a small page about my OC and the little unpublished story he's in. Olivertheboi988 (talk) 07:32, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I read the five pillars and I guess somehow it would seem like advertising,but I wasn't exactly attempting that. Olivertheboi988 (talk) 07:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the reason given on your draft page; and because your article does not meet the requirements stated at WP:N.
Also, please don't open discussions on multiple pages asking the same question. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not host fiction. There are websites designed to publish fiction if that's what you want to do. 331dot (talk) 08:03, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So I could just publish this on Fandom lol thx Olivertheboi988 (talk) 08:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:18, 11 June 2025 review of submission by 2A00:1EB8:C077:C13A:EB6F:E78D:978:1165

Removed fake info. 2A00:1EB8:C077:C13A:EB6F:E78D:978:1165 (talk) 08:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. One source by itself is never enough to support an article, and especially not an online storefront. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:54, 11 June 2025 review of submission by Cpeedexpert

Requesting assistance to ensure the article meets Wikipedia’s notability and neutrality guidelines, with proper sourcing and formatting Cpeedexpert (talk) 08:54, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cpeedexpert Please disclose your conflict of interest on your user page as well(User:Cpeedexpert) for better visibility. If you are an employee or contractor, the Terms of Use require you to make the stricter paid editing disclosure instead. I see that you claim to have personally created and personally own the copyright to the company logo. You've also made it available for anyone to use for any purpose with attribution- something that the company may not want.
We don't really do co-editing here at the help desk, but I can say the awards do not contribute to notability as the awards themselves do not merit articles(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). The rest of the draft just tells of the company and its offerings 331dot (talk) 09:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:31, 11 June 2025 review of submission by PIYUSHPRIY

what is the way-out for Editor Community constantly Declining anything they don't found aligned with western though process and making a Bureaucracy of there own, if the platform is not open then it should not say open encyclopedia, its closed encyclopedia or limited encyclopedia. PIYUSHPRIY (talk) 10:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PIYUSHPRIY This has nothing to do with Western thought process. The draft is a pure promotional piece, telling of what it does and its activities, no sources with significant coverage of it and what makes it notable as Wikipedia uses the word.
Are you associated with this government agency/initiative? 331dot (talk) 10:34, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
if your understanding of promotional piece is that then Wikipedia is very cheap place for advertising.
CHIPS and Science Act - Wikipedia
Akash Tripathi - Wikipedia
these two pages have reference of same department @DisplayEcosystem was trying to make a page about.
@331dot concerned to me yes I am part of the agency, and i supported the team who was trying to make a informative page about the department. Again no payment is being made for this thing, we don't do paid promotion. PIYUSHPRIY (talk) 10:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As you are an employee of the agency, you are 100% a paid editor- your salary as a government employee is sufficient to trigger that Terms of Use-requirement to disclose paid editing. 331dot (talk) 10:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PIYUSHPRIY: if you are employed by this agency, you are automatically considered a paid editor under our T&Cs, whether or not you are explicitly paid to edit Wikipedia. Even if you are not employed for remuneration, you may still come under that definition. And even if you don't, you clearly have a conflict of interest in this subject, which needs to be disclosed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And as they state they have been specifically asked to edit- it's no question. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted instructions about disclosure on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
good for you, are you getting paid for playing along wiki pages also ? have wiki clarified anywhere what he does with him donation funding?? BIG NO, so dont lecture others about paid promotion when you dont have clarity on your own. PIYUSHPRIY (talk) 10:48, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia editors do not get money from Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
well where those money goes, no one knows right, so we cannt say who gets paid or not. this is the story of every article writer they say they dont get paid for that, and every reviewer who says the same that they dont get paid for reviews.
who can bring the clarity on this? PIYUSHPRIY (talk) 10:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a nonprofit, the Wikimedia Foundation's financial records are public and accessible to anyone interested, including you. 331dot (talk) 11:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you have evidence that reviewers or editors are paid for their activities and have not disclosed that, please see WP:PAID for how you can give your evidence. 331dot (talk) 11:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PIYUSHPRIY: this draft has been rejected, so unless you can persuade the rejecting reviewer to withdraw their rejection (which would typically require you to produce evidence of notability which was not previously considered), there is no 'way-out' other than to drop the matter and move on to subjects new. (Which is presumably not a problem, if, as you predict, Wikipedia is imminently to be consigned to the dust heap anyway.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yupp, before leaving this platform I want to make others aware about the current framework of this platform, its basically waste of time with people who have zero knowledge about any sector/area commenting on the pages LoL, its basically a bogus gameplay for few around. PIYUSHPRIY (talk) 10:47, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is written by lay people for lay people, yes, as all that is required to edit is basic reading and writing skills, in order to be able to summarize independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2020 United States presidential election - Wikipedia
Kashmir conflict - Wikipedia
Gaza war - Wikipedia
On what ground were above pages approved??? what reliable reference does that contains ?? why news paper and social media references where accepted?? where was your notability rules ???
its a platform used by lay people for its own needs, not for basic reading, since it promotes heavily biased pages ?? PIYUSHPRIY (talk) 10:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want to talk about editing about your government agency, or problems with other articles? If you believe those three articles contain no independent reliable sources- you have a lot to learn about Wikipedia.
Wikipedia does not claim to be without bias, as all sources of information have biases. Sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves when determining what to believe about a topic. We don't claim to be the truth, see WP:TRUTH. 331dot (talk) 11:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I get that you are frustrated, but that is no reason for personal attacks and incivility. 331dot (talk) 10:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing personal brother, if I am disclosing the biasness of Wikipedia during this discussion, are your getting frustrated ?? PIYUSHPRIY (talk) 10:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you here to be a truth warrior or warrior for your government agency, or do you want to talk about what improvements can be made? You also need to disclose your paid relationship on your user page, see your user talk page for instructions. 331dot (talk) 11:03, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:57, 11 June 2025 review of submission by Ssk123456789

Why was the page deleted when the subject is referred to in Bing and Sergeant (film) pages? Ssk123456789 (talk) 12:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssk123456789: your draft has not been deleted, it is still at Draft:Xavi Nixon. It was declined, because it is completely unreferenced and provides no evidence that the subject is in any way notable. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks so IMDb credits and references on other pages are pointless. No worries thanks for the feedback. Happy to not bother. Ssk123456789 (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All drafts must be supported by reliable sources, so that it is clear where the information comes from. Those sources must be cited on-page in the draft or article in question.
IMDb is mostly user-generated, and not considered a reliable source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:52, 11 June 2025 review of submission by Ankaminsky9

I'm going to resubmit this article but one quick question. It was declined for not having strong enough sources and says to "add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting."

My question is, should I remove all sources I used that do not meet the criteria? Or is it okay have a few B sources as long as I add more A+ sources? Does that make sense?

Thanks! Ankaminsky9 (talk) 14:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ankaminsky9: at this stage your main objective is to show that the subject is notable. To do that, you need to find a few (3-5) sources that meet the WP:GNG standard (reliable and independent secondary sources with significant coverage directly of the subject), and summarise what they say. While you can include "B sources" also, they will only muddy the waters and obscure the 3-5 "A+" ones you're relying in to demonstrate notability. By the time we're into dozes of sources, that's what we call WP:REFBOMBING, and this is often a red flag to reviewers, as it tends to indicate that none of the sources actually add up to notability and the author is hoping that quantity trumps quality (which it doesn't).
This also means that the draft content should be based on what the sources cited have said. If you cut out a source, you must also cut out the corresponding content. Conversely, if you add a source but you don't add any new content from that sources, you're just adding sources for the sake of sources. In that sense the content and the references are inherently linked; two sides of the same coin. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Thank you very much for your advice. That's very helpful. I'll rewrite and aim for quality, not quantity. Keep your great work. Cheers Ankaminsky9 (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:42, 11 June 2025 review of submission by Rare Moon

The article has been decline several times despite significant improvement with each feedback. The most recent decline provided no specific comment but a general notability decline. I posted this message to the reviewer but also posting here for the broader community to get a consensus on if my understanding is misplaced.

Context: BGZF (file format) is a popular file compression method used in Bioinformatics. To illustrate this:

  • Reference 6 (Li et al) – Primary source, has been cited >58000 times – other topics that came out of this primary publication include BAM (file format), BAI (file format), SAM (file format), SAMtools etc. all currently with their articles on Wikipedia. In fact, BAM files are created by compressing SAM files using this compression method. The number of citations in peer-reviewed journals meets suggests significance and meets the criteria of significant coverage in independent and reliable sources.
  • Nonetheless, to more specifically address that the coverage in those articles is about `BGZF` (and bot SAMtools or BAMtools), I included other examples. Ref 1, for example, says The BAM format is a coding format for SAM files, compressed in BGZF (Blocked GNU Zip Format) format. BGZF is a block compression format implemented on the gzip standard. BGZF's goal is to provide good compression along with the ability to access the BAM file in a non-sequential way to perform indexed queries. The BGZF format is compatible with gunzip, which makes it possible to extract a BGZF file by using a gzip tool., which is easily more than a trivial mention.
  • Ref 5 directly addresses the BGZF format in significant coverage and detail (since it proposes an algorithm to improve it). For example: In an effort to overcome this limitation, one of the highly cited software packages, SAMtools (Heng, 2009) was developed, which employs the Binary sequence Alignment Map (BAM) format. BAM uses the Blocked GNU Zip Format (BGZF) as its compression backend, and compresses data in blocks of 65,536 bytes. Using BGZF, a block's offset (48-bit), as well as the decompressed offset inside a block (16-bit), can allow for random access. As several software tools were developed after 2009 when SAMtools was published, it is important to maintain BAM/bgzip compatibility and use this as a starting point for new software tool development. – this is also more than trivial, independent coverage (and just one of the example paragraphs in that article).
  • Ref 8 cites the BGZF manuscript because they build upon its design and address limitations in the paper This indexing method is more coarse-grained than the BGZF-block level indexing that is common in standard indexes of genomic file formats, as subsetting requires decompression of entire vblocks (16MB of txt data in the default configuration) versus just BGZF blocks (64KB of data), and hence subsetting is significantly slower. However, in practice, this may be sufficient for many analysis applications.
There are more, but hopefully this serves to illustrate the challenge I am facing. In my opinion, these examples should server as WP:THREE per WP:SIRS. Please let me know how I can move forward. Rare Moon (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since I have not heard from original reviewer, pinging a few people who seem active on this section: @Timtrent @DoubleGrazing — thanks in advance for your time and opinion! Rare Moon (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rare Moon I am happy to review the draft once submitted. Others will also be happy do so. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I just resubmitted it and included a link to the helpdesk post for other reviewers if needed. Rare Moon (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Timtrent—a reviewer just declined my submission again saying "no improvement since last time." This is absurd and disheartening — I made this helpdesk post specifically to discuss the very fact that previous decline did not factor references properly and to ask for feedback (as you also indicated). I even included a link to the helpdesk post to ask for feedback before an action and still all of it was ignored? Would really appreciate some help. Rare Moon (talk) 22:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rare Moon The review process is not something to take lightly. You are expected to make improvements based upon the review. Resubmission without making improvements is akin to asking the other parent if you may have a treat when the first parent refuses your request. You have now done this twice. Did you misinterpret my comment here as an invitation to resubmit without improvement? It was not an invitation to do so. I had expected you to make real changes prior to resubmissions.
We do not expect perfection. We do expect more, though. Of your course, blogs at=re not acceptable, nor is Github.
Of the learned papers you use as citations, I am not seeing them cited by many people. That is suggestive of the fact that notability of your draft topic is not verified.
I will give you a firm suggestion that improvements in referencing are necessary prior to any putative acceptance. You will not be happy to learn that multiple submissions with n obvious improvement are likely to be viewed as tendentious resubmission and/or as disruptive editing. It often leads to summary rejection on that basis, with the resubmitting editor being regarded as a disruptive time sink. I doubt that is an outcome you wish for. So please pull your horns in, and go the extra mile. Oh, if I reviewed it nw as you have resubmitted it, I woudl be tempted to do just that, but I choose, now, not to review it. You have my opinion here, instead. And, of course, I may be incorrect.
The challenge you are facing is of your own making. This edit does not seem calculated to elicit assistance. Since all that you say there is combative I can understand perfectly why they made no reply to you. You received a perfectly valid review, a review which you appear to feel is not relevant to you. And you are now re-submitting tendentiously. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Timtrent! Thanks for responding. I concede that I did interpet your meesage earlier as a request to resubmit (for you to provide feedback), so I apologize for that misunderstandinf frustration when it was declined without any feedback by other reviewer. The resubmission without changes does not reflect the entire history of that article and it was revised everytime a feedback was received (except since SafariScribe reviewed it, following no-comment decline by CalebStanford). You can also see how I have tried to elicit help here and this helpdesk before responding to CalebStanford. I hope you'll consider that these meets all good faith attempts of resolution. This is not to say that I want to fight-through this issue, but simply make a case for due weight assessment of my actions.
Regarding your feedback re: sources, the article presently has a mix of sources: few to assess the topic directly (as noted by CalebStanford below) and others to contextualize its uses (which are more passing mention). If you're referring to the blog post that is used to cite the post, I will remove that in revision re: reliable sources. Thanks! Rare Moon (talk) 01:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rare Moon Reviewers check the entire history of an oft resubmitted draft. We are not obliged to leave additional commentary. Often we do. As often we do not. The decline rationale is usually sufficient, and we generally leave additional commentary when we feel they need embellishment.
The use of academic papers as sole source of citation is perfectly acceptable as long as they are peer reviewed and well cited by others intuit world. I think more than one of those you chose mentioned the topic very briefly and only as being used.
Had it been a lathe from Foo corporation and the paper said 'We used a Foo lathe' that is a passing mention, and is not about the Foo lathe, even if that lathe were the only such lathe in the world.
I have not rechecked the draft. It may have been accepted or declined by now. If declined pease go to work with a will and make real enhancements. The same is true if accepted. Unless, of course, you have a WP:COI in the latter case 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 07:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Rare Moon: My 2 cents: Ref. 6 probably does not meet "significant coverage"; it appears to be more of a passing mention. For Ref. 1, the coverage looks significant, but I am not sure if it is a reliable/notable journal. Ref 5 looks like it meets SIGCOV and is independent based on the excerpt you provided. I am not familiar with the bioinformatics domain so it would be expedient and could help your case to request a review from someone in a related WikiProject. Best of luck! Caleb Stanford (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Caleb Stanford thanks for responding here. Ref 6 is the primary resource and describes BGZF is significant detail in the companion spec document (https://samtools.github.io/hts-specs/SAMv1.pdf) — same document used for BAM (file format) and SAM (file format) pages. (cc @Timtrent) Ref 8 has been cited >45 times, Ref 5 is published in Computational Biology and Chemistry (journal) which has its own Wikipedia page and is a reliable peer-reviewed journal. Hope this contextualizes the references regarding your comment about secondary and reliable sources. Rare Moon (talk) 01:24, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rare Moon Let us not consider how many angels may dance on the head of a pin. Let us, by which I mean you, consider by editing and improvement if references how you will verify the notability of this topic. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 07:22, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:27, 11 June 2025 review of submission by Mnemonicbloom

Hello kind editors,

I recently submitted a draft article for *Luca Volpe*, an internationally recognized Italian mentalist, author, and performer. I have disclosed my connection (he is my mentor), removed unreliable sources, and added multiple strong independent sources including:

  • National TV appearances on RAI2 (*Detto Fatto*) and RAI1 (*La Vita in Diretta*).
  • Features in *Vanish Magazine*, *MagicSeen Magazine*.
  • Awards such as the **Merlin Award**, the **Robert Houdin d'Or**, and most recently the **M.I.M.C. with Gold Star**, the highest possible rank within The Magic Circle — an honor shared by fewer than 300 magicians globally.
  • Coverage in news media including *La Gazzetta dello Spettacolo*, *TheWayMagazine.it*, and *RomaDailyNews.it*.

Unfortunately, the article was declined before I had the opportunity to update the Awards section with the confirmed Gold Star honor (the highest honor, shared by fewer than 300 magicians worldwide), At this point, I’m unable to make any updates due to the draft being marked as rejected.

I respectfully ask if someone with no conflict of interest might be willing to take a fresh look and help carry this forward, or provide feedback. I deeply believe his career meets notability standards, but I want to honor the neutrality policy and step aside if that would help.

Thank you kindly for your time and support.

— Mnemonicbloom (talk) 

Mnemonicbloom (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mnemonicbloom I fixed your header to provide a link to your draft as intended(you had treated the section for the link as a header). Please do not ask the same question in multiple forums, this duplicates effort.
As I said on your other request, awards do not contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article. 331dot (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification, and for fixing the header. Understood regarding forum duplication. I meant no disruption, only hoped for fair editorial eyes and community guidance. I’m now stepping back respectfully and with gratitude for what I’ve learned. Mnemonicbloom (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:46, 11 June 2025 review of submission by Isthisthing

I need help with reliant sources. And make it have depth Isthisthing (talk) 18:46, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isthisthing Please disclose your connection with this company; you claim to have personally created and personally own the copyright to its logo. See WP:PAID and WP:COI.
The draft is purely promotional- any article about the company should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it is a notable company. We don't really do co-editing here; you need to find such sources yourself. 331dot (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay im gona do it Isthisthing (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So- did you personally create the logo of the company? It would be unusual for an employee to personally own the rights to the logo- it would also be unwise for the company to permit that. 331dot (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt create the logo, I acedently put it as own work. Now i have put the logo file for deletion Isthisthing (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt create the logo, I acedently put it as own work. Now i have put the logo file for deletion Isthisthing (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:57, 11 June 2025 review of submission by Bscotrousse

Can someone please tell me how I can move this draft to my sandbox? Thank you. Bscotrousse (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to be in your sandbox; why do you want to do that? 331dot (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:16, 11 June 2025 review of submission by Serviceeternity

Hi Team,

I got earlier feedback from User:LR.127 and User:Liz on the draft article for User:Serviceeternity/Sadakat Aman Khan. I’ve since made substantial changes based on your suggestions: The TEDx section has been merged into the broader “Career” section to avoid giving it undue weight. Promotional language has been toned down.

I’ve also ensured references are better aligned with WP:NMUSIC guidelines.

When you have a moment, I’d really appreciate it if you could take another look and let me know if there’s anything else I should address to bring the article closer to approval.

Many Thanks Serviceeternity (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Draft:Sadakat Aman Khan.
@Serviceeternity: Submit the draft for review if you wish to request feedback on it. --bonadea contributions talk 20:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:19, 11 June 2025 review of submission by Vscurto

Hello,

I am just a little confused as to why my article got rejected. We don't really have any other outside sources. I am the daughter of the owner of the company. Please let me know how we can get this approved.

Thanks, Tori Vscurto (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to declare a conflict of interest.
Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about a topic. A Wikipedia article about a business must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the business, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. If no sources have written about the business, it would not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:39, 11 June 2025 review of submission by Gbrading

I wholeheartedly believe this article is worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia, given every single compilation by folk singer Phil Ochs has a Wikipedia article (7 different articles, presumably created before the current drafting process). James Barclay Harvest are a well known prog rock band, but currently have none of their compilation albums on Wikipedia. I have cited various high-quality sources, included printed books, but it has now been rejected 3 times. Are there any routes left to getting this approved? I have tried to demonstrate it is mentioned and discussed in various third party, reputable sources but clearly they have not been sufficient. I am inclusionist at heart ultimately, so it saddens me this album would be lost to the ether. gbrading (ταlκ) 20:39, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the album is likely notable - but you do not demonstrate that. Can you add something about chart success? Or press reviews at the time of its release? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:14, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the suggestions; I will try to add that and look if I can find any media reviews from the time of release to add as well. I'm glad to hear you agree it hopefully has a place. gbrading (ταlκ) 12:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:LIBRARY for places where you can find, or get help finding, sources. You may also get help at your local public library (or your school or college library, if you are a student). Remember that paper sources, as well as those found online, can be used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:48, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that it has been 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. Andy is quite correct, those things would probably do it. 331dot (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, thanks for explaining the difference! I will try to add Andy's suggestions. gbrading (ταlκ) 12:44, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:38, 11 June 2025 review of submission by MLT1978

How do you write about a successful business without sounding subjective? This is a legitimate manufacturing business that has survived almost 50 years in the US in the same family. How do you describe the business history without discussing the business success? MLT1978 (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are telling us what the business wants us to know about itself, and not what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable business. 331dot (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NCORP for our requirements. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:20, 11 June 2025 review of submission by 110.20.118.191

This figure is notable in the Digital Marketing industry and has been referenced by AHREFS and other top marketing publications. How does this not count as independent sources & notability. 110.20.118.191 (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The awards do not contribute to notability as the awards themselves do not have articles(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). Other than that it reads like his resume. 331dot (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 12

04:25, 12 June 2025 review of submission by Gsnelsonwiki

AfC submission template shows broken Category timestamp output despite valid ts formatting. Seen in multiple drafts including Draft:Noreen Skagen. Can someone clear or purge? I can't figure this out. 

Gsnelsonwiki (talk) 04:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gsnelsonwiki: you say "despite valid ts formatting", but it isn't valid. The timestamp should be of the format ts=20250612042612, whereas you're entering it for some reason as ts=04:18, 12 June 2025 (UTC). I already fixed this once, but you seem to have changed it back. There should be no reason (that I know of, at least) to enter the value manually, the system does it for you when you submit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Did you use AI to generate the page source? It sometimes does weird stuff like that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:36, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I asked it to help me fix why the afc submission wasn't showing at all. I didn't realize I had deleted it mistakenly. My goal was not to not bother anyone, but it made it worse. I'm going to stop trying tonight. I appreciate your help and sorry for the trouble. Gsnelsonwiki (talk) 04:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gsnelsonwiki: okay, no worries; AI can be useful... and sometimes not so much. :)
I've removed the broken template and resubmitted, it should be fine now. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right. Thank you! Gsnelsonwiki (talk) 04:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article was published. Congratulations, and thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:51, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:02, 12 June 2025 review of submission by 周也

I recently received feedback indicating that some of the sources cited in my draft may not be considered reliable. However, all the references I included are from major Chinese media outlets and websites, including some official sources.I would greatly appreciate it if you could clarify which specific sources are deemed unreliable, and how can I revise. I really need your help. 周也 (talk) 07:02, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Media in the PRC is controlled by the government. 331dot (talk) 07:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: That doesn't mean all of it is bad. South China Morning Post is considered reliable (as long as the topic isn't one the Chinese government has opinions about), while China Daily and Xinhua can be usable as supplementary sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. 331dot (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:10, 12 June 2025 review of submission by Farah244

Dear Wikipedia Team,

I recently submitted a page in English that I had translated from its original Arabic version. Unfortunately, the submission was declined. I would appreciate it if you could kindly provide clarification on the specific issues or deficiencies that led to the rejection. This information will help me better understand the requirements and make the necessary corrections to meet Wikipedia's guidelines and standards.

Thank you for your assistance and support. Link: Draft:Fatima Al Safi

Best regards, Farah Farah244 (talk) 09:10, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Farah244: some of the sources are not reliable (note: you cannot cite Wikipedia as a source on Wikipedia), and some of the information is unreferenced. While this may be acceptable on the Arabic Wikipedia, each language version is a completely separate project with their own rules and requirements, and here at the English one our referencing (and notability) criteria are probably the highest of them all. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:26, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear DoubleGrazing,
Thank you for providing your valuable feedback. I'm currently working on the necessary adjustments. Farah244 (talk) 09:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DoubleGrazing,
If I cannot find the source, would you suggest that I delete the sentence? Farah244 (talk) 09:33, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Farah244: in articles on living people, pretty much every statement has to be clearly supported by a reliable published source, and particularly so anything potentially contentious as well as any private personal and family details. So any content that you cannot adequately support, must be removed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely want to thank you for all the valuable information and support you’ve provided. Your guidance has been incredibly helpful and made a real difference. I truly appreciate the time and effort you invested to help me — it means a lot. Farah244 (talk) 10:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello dear,
Thank you for your great feedback. I appreciate your care and attention. I have completed the required adjustments by adding all the available sources, and I have removed any information that couldn't be verified with proper references. Farah244 (talk) 12:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:33, 12 June 2025 review of submission by HannahDATAtab

Dear all, I would be really grateful if you could help me improve my article draft about DATAtab statistics software. Unfortunately it got declined twice, although I used several independet, published sources. Thank you so much for your support. Kind regards, Hannah 213.147.165.191 (talk) 09:33, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:DATAtab
(Please remember to log into your account when editing, HannahDATAtab.)
The draft is promotional, because it is basically just the software developer telling the world about its software, which makes this come across like an online brochure. We're not interested in that, you can save that for your website. We want to know what third parties, esp. reliable and independent secondary sources, have said about your product and what in their opinion makes it worthy of note. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:52, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing thank you very much for your feedback and the clear explanation! I am already working on a revised version. May I ask you one more question? Does it make any sense to mention additional information from literature that explains things which are not directly about the software? For example: "The software covers descriptive statistics, to summarize data by calculating key measures of the distribution." The second part of this sentence is a quote from a statistics book. Or is this information not relevant and it is better to just add a link to another Wikipedia article about descriptice statistics? Thank you so mch for your reply! Regrads, Hannah HannahDATAtab (talk) 06:33, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:48, 12 June 2025 review of submission by Buzzseoandgmb

request decline Buzzseoandgmb (talk) 09:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:58, 12 June 2025 review of submission by 87.209.237.86

Hello

I've been trying to change our article for quite sometime and receive the same feedback without any specific points what needs to be changed. Can you please help me to understand what exactly needs to be removed/changed to comply. 87.209.237.86 (talk) 10:58, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(If you're KatePelikh, please log into your account whenever editing.)
This draft is basically just your business telling the world about itself, what it does, where it operates, etc. That makes this effectively a company presentation or online brochure. We're not interested in any of that; that's considered pure promotion here. What we want to know is what reliable and independent secondary sources have said about your business and what in their view makes it worthy of note. You need to find at least three sources that meet the WP:GNG standard for notability, and summarise what they have said; see WP:GOLDENRULE for an outline of this approach. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:06, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See also WP:NCORP for our requirements for articles about businesses. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:25, 12 June 2025 review of submission by Salimassaf

can you send me please what should i delete or what should i add so my article gets accepted 

Salimassaf (talk) 11:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Salimassaf. A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else.
The only sources you have are about Assaf winning an award. Everything else in the draft is unsourced. That is not acceptable, particularly in an article about a living person.
Unless you can find several sources that meet all the criteria in golden rule, you are wasting your time.
Note also that, though we have an article on Murex d'Or, that article has been tagged as unsatisfactory - the lack of independent sources mean that the award may not be notable in Wikipedia's meaning of the word, and so may not provide grounds for supposing that Assaf is notable.
Finally, you say that you are paid by your employer, but you do not identify the employer: that is not complying with the terms of use: see WP:PAID. Are you Assaf? If so, then you are strongly advised against writing about yourself. If you are not Assaf, then you must change your username - see WP:CHU. ColinFine (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:26, 12 June 2025 review of submission by 78.62.191.9

Because these 3 decliners try to delete this draft! 78.62.191.9 (talk) 11:26, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You repeatedly resubmitted the draft without ever adding reliable sources telling us why it is notable, so it was ultimately rejected and will not be able to be resubmitted. I suggest reading this helpful essay on writing articles, and perhaps focusing on other tasks in the encyclopaedia before trying to create another one. CoconutOctopus talk 11:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Latgales reģionālā televīzija

Can i get tips for how to make the source reliant and independent? Isthisthing (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot make sources reliable and independent: they either are or are not. If you cannot find several sources that meet all the criteria in the golden rule, then you should stop trying to create this article. ColinFine (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:22, 12 June 2025 review of submission by 254acky

I have updated the content to add reliable secondary sources. Jewish Insider is independent from Jewish Journal and it is incorrect to associate them. I have included the initial link to the Jewish Journal article, but have also included articles about the publication from Politico, CNN Reliable Resources, Media Bias website featuring about Jewish Insider, and The Org which shows it's independence. 254acky (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@254acky The Jewish Journal is not an independent source as they have the same ownership, TRIBE Media Corp. and the section in the cited article that mentions Jewish Insider is titled "Who we are now" which makes it clear they are writing about themselves as a group so also a primary source. Politico is an interview with the founder so a primary source and not independent. CNN is a short quote of the Jewish Insider and The Org is not a reliable source because they are relying on what Jewish Insider says and Media Bias is self-published so also not reliable, In order for a source to contribute to notability it needs to meet all four criteria outlined in the declines (reliable, secondary, independent and provide in-depth coverage about the subject) and multiple are needed. S0091 (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:09, 12 June 2025 review of submission by Levanrami

Hello, I'm a inexperienced editor with limited Wikipedia experience, and my draft article, "Draft:Lyman Stone" (Draft:Lyman Stone), was declined because the references do not show significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject, as required for notability. I believe Lyman Stone may be notable due to his work as a commentator, economist, or demographer, which has been referenced in public discourse. For example, my draft includes references like articles authored by Stone in outlets like The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Reason, Vox, Deseret, The Federalist, brief mentions or quotes in Bloomberg, Telegraph and a biography on a think tank website (e.g., Institute for Family Studies). I thought these showed his visibility and expertise, but I understand they may not meet Wikipedia’s standards for independence or depth. Could you please explain which specific references are insufficient and why (e.g., primary, non-independent, or lacking significant coverage)? Additionally, could you clarify what types of sources or level of coverage would be sufficient to establish notability, and provide guidance on improving the draft for resubmission? Thank you for your help! Levanrami (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Levanrami I fixed the header so that you didn't link to a nonexistent page entitled "Improving references for Draft:Lyman Stone".
You have described his work, but not what independent reliable sources say is important/significant/influential about his work. 331dot (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Everything I wrote is based on what that independent reliable sources say about his work Levanrami (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have written what Stone says is important about his own work- not what independent sources say is notable about his work. 331dot (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote the draft after encountering Stone’s work in numerous podcasts and articles, believing he might be notable as a commentator, economist, or demographer, but found no Wikipedia article about him. Levanrami (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Levanrami. 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) 22:11, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are not The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Reason, Vox, Deseret, The Federalist, Bloomberg, Telegraph reliable and independent from the subject of the article? Levanrami (talk) 23:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources may be independent, but not their content- most of them are interviews. Interviews are not an independent source, as they are the person speaking about themselves. As I said, you have told us what Stone thinks is important about his own work, not what others say is important about it. 331dot (talk) 23:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:42. 331dot (talk) 23:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 13

04:28, 13 June 2025 review of submission by RyanPtrsn

Trying to understand which references did not meet the standards. Please advise—thanks! RyanPtrsn (talk) 04:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The first source (Accel) is explicitly not independent from the product, while TechCrunch is usually not good for notability, especially since most of that article relies on quotes from Whimsical's founder and partners. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 06:21, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RyanPtrsn Please see WP:Conflict of interest and WP:PAID; if you work for the company you are required to make a paid-editing disclosure as described at WP:PAID. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:25, 13 June 2025 review of submission by Bigwettofrmda6

I legit made this and structured this the EXACT same way as other articles about rappers and the only source of info was soundcloud. Why was it rejected???? Bigwettofrmda6 (talk) 05:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All content on Wikipedia, especially content about living people, must be verifiable to a reliable source. See our policy at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Your draft had a lot of negative information that was not verifiable to any reliable source—definitely not that SoundCloud. Please do not repost it. Mz7 (talk) 05:31, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications and very little else. If such sources do not exist, there cannot be an article.
As for the other articles you mention: Wikipedia has thousands of articles which would not be accepted today; but because it is a volunteer project, and volunteers work on what they choose, nobody spends much time improving or deleting those bad articles. See other stuff exists. ColinFine (talk) 09:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:41, 13 June 2025 review of submission by Ferina Giovanca Hotnauli

Can you help me to open my editing page? Ferina Giovanca Hotnauli (talk) 05:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. If you can fundamentally change the draft to address the concerns of reviewers(you may still edit it), you should then appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly on their user talk page to ask them to reconsider. Please see the advice left by reviewers carefully. 331dot (talk) 08:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:16, 13 June 2025 review of submission by Agus Damanik

Hello guys. I have been deleting the contentious content. Is there any recommendation you can tell about this submission cause most of the news talk about her life and independent cause most of the source came from news such as Tempo and Detik Agus Damanik (talk) 06:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:27, 13 June 2025 review of submission by Ambuj jain 18

Can you please tell me the reason why my article is rejected. Ambuj jain 18 (talk) 06:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ambuj Jain 18 I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" portion.
Your draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
I might suggest you disclose your conflict of interest on your user page as well, for better visibility.
You have no sources in your draft. You need to include the sources of your information so it can be verified. Please see Referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 08:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:20, 13 June 2025 review of submission by EditEnigma7

I have included all the required references including all sources from all reliable sources. I still don’t understand how he's not a notable person? a simple google search can verify that. I have included all of these references in the article as well. Could you please let me know specifically what is missing? I have also checked the "Notability of advocates" and he meets almost all the required qualifications except obviously the part of US, because he is from Nepal. Most of the sources are all from Supreme Court of Nepal and all the other references are from reputed publications where you can clearly see how notable he is. EditEnigma7 (talk) 08:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He is a lawyer who has given his views on various issues, but you have no sources stating what is particularly influential about him or his views. He's not a government official or judge who actually issued rulings. 331dot (talk) 08:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:36, 13 June 2025 review of submission by Kuzeyakkaya

I want to know which parts were biased,as shown as the reason why my draft was declined. Kuzeyakkaya (talk) 09:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bias is not the issue, the draft reads as an essay telling us about the topic, and not an encyclopedia article summarizing what independent reliable sources say about the topic. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:30, 13 June 2025 review of submission by 152.37.100.1

The above draft keeps being declined. I have reviewed several other NZ merit medal winners that have a bio on Wikipedia and they have under 8 references. This has 13 references and yet the decliner is saying more are required. What is the number that is actually needed? In the last decline they said no new references but there was no new facts presented. In every decline I have fixed the issue that was requested and another issue is raised. Can some one please give me a proper answer. More reverences is not an answer. if more are required then please state the policy number that is required 152.37.100.1 (talk) 12:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the creator of the draft, remember to log in when posting. Different reviewers view drafts differently, and may see different things at diffuse times. Such is the nature of the process.
The line "Details about White’s early life, education, and career prior to his advocacy work are not publicly available" should just be removed, you don't need to state what isn't said.
It isn't more sources that you need, but better sources, ones that do more than just document his work, but that show how he is a notable person broadly or more narrowly a notable author. 331dot (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:22, 13 June 2025 review of submission by Sciencesustainability409

Dear Reviewer,

I would like to know which main sections are not satisfying the article's requirements. General comments sometimes do not help identify the specific issues. Some sections or references may be fine, but if I modify them, they might change significantly and no longer qualify. I want to avoid this cycle because the reviewers keep repeating the same points without clear details.

Specifically, I would like to understand what you mean by "significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject." I have already provided references that are secondary, independent, and reliable because they are from third parties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Luis_Alfaro

Thank you very much, and I look forward to your feedback. Sciencesustainability409 (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You just asked this on your talk page and received answers, did you not see them? Theroadislong (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong: We spent a lot of time on wikipedia-en-help trying to help them yesterday, but they kept evading the majority of our direct questions and we flat-out stopped trying to help. We're thinking this may be a case of high conflict-of-interest. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:57, 13 June 2025 review of submission by Mrwikiguy1

Hi could you help me improve this with some advice? Thanks Mrwikiguy1 (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrwikiguy1 sorry to say but it does not look like the school meets the notability criteria as most of the sources are the school itself, routine coverage any school usually gets or brief mentions. S0091 (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:18, 13 June 2025 review of submission by WoodCup

I'm trying to determine why this article has not been accepted. The response indicates possibly a failure to meet one of the eight academic criteria or a problem with sources. I could understand either, but am just wondering if anyone could help provide more specific information or reasoning so I can improve the draft for resubmission. Any help is much appreciated! WoodCup (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WoodCup I have seen the draft, and indeed it appears this person lacks notability as an academic under the eight academic-specific criteria. If you don't think that is the case, then you should add more reliable, secondary and independent sources that cover the subject in some depth, to prove that he is notable that way. I also would lower the number of articles to five or six of the most notable ones. NeoGaze (talk) 20:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is helpful! I suspected that might be the issue. I can definitely gather some better sources to show he meets the criteria. Thank you! WoodCup (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to have helped, cheers! NeoGaze (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:13, 13 June 2025 review of submission by RalfsMiltovics1234

can we make this public? i really want to make this this real, bc my friend is a twitch streamer called, 'kingsammelot" and he wanted me to make a wikipedia page called "planet zygon" RalfsMiltovics1234 (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We do not accept fiction. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RalfsMiltovics1234: For which you can try Miraheze (after your request gets approved; e-mail required), or perhaps Wattpad (or several other similar platforms). --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 21:04, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:21, 13 June 2025 review of submission by Khajitdadddy

I just wanted to know the reason behind this biography being declined. If it is an issue with the citiations, I want to know which ones Khajitdadddy (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For starters Linkedin.com and YouTube are not reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:51, 13 June 2025 review of submission by 151.27.29.116

Hello, please help me to add information for publishing this page 151.27.29.116 (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't really get into co-editing here; you could try asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing. 331dot (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:11, 13 June 2025 review of submission by Akshat211521

I am seeking assistance because my draft article about Akshat Tiwari was declined due to notability and citation concerns. I want to understand how to improve the article by properly citing reliable, independent sources and presenting the subject’s career and contributions in a neutral, encyclopedic way. I’m new to Wikipedia editing and would appreciate guidance to meet the platform’s standards. Akshat211521 (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was not only declined, it was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves, please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:38, 13 June 2025 review of submission by DANTON WANDE KITUMBINI

Why is my submission being rejected? DANTON WANDE KITUMBINI (talk) 20:38, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't rejected, at least not by a reviewer, but you added the decline yourself because you are using Chatgpt or another AI chatbot so can't help you other than to say read Your first article and do not use AI. S0091 (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DANTON WANDE KITUMBINI There is little to no hope of this passing WP:BIO. Perhaps LinkedIn would suit your needs better. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:32, 13 June 2025 review of submission by MrTaco361

Hi, I’m just wondering why this has been rejected, and what I could do in future to improve it? MrTaco361 (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does nothing but promote him, as the reviewer indicated. Nothing is said about why he got a chip put in his hand, or what is significant about it. It might help if the references were not bare urls, and in line next to the text they support, see Referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 23:39, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:14, 13 June 2025 review of submission by Lynnjenni

I adjusted the tone in a few other areas along with excessive citations. Can I remove the Reception section and then resubmit to address the issues the past reviewer stated? Or is there something else I should do since that would also be removing the references in the reception area? Lynnjenni (talk) 23:14, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 14

06:51, 14 June 2025 review of submission by ClarkeMSmith

Dear Reviewers, I would like to request specific advice/assistance with this page which has been rejected a number of times. I have removed an entire section that I felt may have been the problem, but it was rejected. So in the interest in seemingly never ending editing and submissions, I would greatly appreciate some advice as to each specific instance as it pertains to: 'continued resubmission without improving sourcing'.

It would help me a great deal to know if the error(s) are in the PRODUCTION, RELEASE, or RECEPTION sections in question (or anywhere they occur). And then, which sentence contains the error. I think this may significantly reduce the amount of time being spent by the volunteer reviewers. Very appreciative. ClarkeMSmith (talk) 06:51, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft about your film has been rejected, so no more time will be spent by reviewers on this, you have not addressed your conflict of interest either. Theroadislong (talk) 07:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel I'm so close to solving the sourcing errors. That has been the only problem on this article for over a month, so I'm not understanding why at this point, there is now a conflict of interest issue. Each quote has been referenced, so I'm at a loss as to which one(s) are incorrect. I think we are really close at this point, and I'd appreciate it a great deal if you could tell me specifically which one is incorrect. I sincerely apologize for not asking these questions up front. I did not know this Help Desk was available until recently. I have spent countless hours studying the help links provided, when I should have come here instead of submitting over and over. ClarkeMSmith (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have significantly reduced the Production section, and simplified the narrative. I feel this section was the primary issue with both sourcing and conflict of interest. If you advise it, I will remove the Production section entirely. Every other section is factual and fully sourced. ClarkeMSmith (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel that you have fundamentally changed the draft to address the concerns of reviewers, the first thing you should do is appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You still need to speak to your conflict of interest- it should be formally disclosed on your user page(click your username in red above). 331dot (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have disclosed the COI on my page (red link). I will appeal the draft to the rejecting reviewer. ClarkeMSmith (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:39, 14 June 2025 review of submission by Gandes Setiawan

Dear Wikipedia editors,

I hope this message finds you well. I would like to kindly request your assistance in understanding why the draft article for Ant International was declined again despite my efforts to meet Wikipedia’s standards for neutrality and reliable sourcing.

The draft has been revised multiple times to ensure that:

-The language is neutral and avoids promotional tone;

-All statements are verifiable and sourced from independent and reliable media;

-No content is copied or based on primary sources like press releases from the company itself;

-It follows the structure and tone of other similar company articles.

I truly appreciate the volunteers’ time and effort, and I am eager to improve this draft to meet Wikipedia's standards. Any suggestions or pointers would be immensely helpful.

Thank you so much for your support and guidance.

Warm regards, Gandes Setiawan (talk) 09:39, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gandes Setiawan: Chatbot-written requests will not be entertained. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:53, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for using my language combined with AI, because I am not sure about my language. Back to the related topic, how to edit the page again, until finally the page can be approved and is no longer on the draft page. Thank you. Gandes Setiawan (talk) 04:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gandes Setiawan: You can't - this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. You've had far more than enough chances to provide sources that aren't just rote business coverage. If you can't find those sorts of sources, then we can't entertain an article. We are not a business directory. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 05:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:49, 14 June 2025 review of submission by Edouglasww

I first started working on a page for the Brooklyn band Late Cambrian, who have six albums and have won significant awards and have had significant achievements in many aspects of the arts with main singer/songwriter John Wlaysewski being a producer and composer and his partner Olive Hui being an artist and model, the two of them having created a scene around their work. My page was first denied over a year ago, and I proceeded to make changes and add citations but then Wikipedia changed the formatting. Recently, SafariScribe who had last turned down my submission since "Bandcamp was not a reliable source" -- I removed all of those references accordingly -- has now turned down the submission stating that it can no longer be submitted with no reasons or help on how the page can be approved to the point where it can be accepted. Wikipedia also changed the way how citations/references can be listed, and I haven't been able to figure that out either. I really feel as if my hard work to create a page for this band, something I'm doing on my own, because I'm constantly being asked for more info on the band when I invite friends to see them, is being unfairly maligned. No one at Wikipedia has been helpful at getting this page up to par for it to be accepted, so I do work, I resubmit with the same results. If you read the page, it's obvious that this band is just as notable for a presence on Wikipedia as any other indie band, and I would like a separate independent review not by this "SafariScribe" character, please. Edouglasww (talk) 09:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was meant to say "How the page can be IMPROVED to the point where it can be accepted." I feel like the very first time the page was turned down in April 2024 offered the feedback I needed to make improvements, but nothing since then has been helpful. I understand what Wikipedia has been trying to do, but not even someone from the site taking even the simplest of information on the page I created and including that on the site is ridiculous. How can this site even be trusted as any sort of reliable source of information where the mods are clearly biased against anyone trying to contribute RELIABLE information that can't be found anywhere on the site? Edouglasww (talk) 09:54, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not claim to be a reliable source, see the general disclaimer. Readers should examine the sources provided. Also see Wikipedia is not a reliable source. We don't have "mods" here. There are administrators like me, but any editor may review a draft.
Awards do not contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article, like Grammy Award. You have not shown that the band meets at least one aspect of WP:BAND. You have just described the activities of the band, not what independent reliable sources choose to say about it. 331dot (talk) 11:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:19, 14 June 2025 review of submission by Cv822

I have an article I've created, and I've been trying to get published for over two years now. It is an article about my local public high school and contains facts about academics, extracurriculars, the history of the school, quick facts, and even the plans regarding the new football field.

Currently, the article has been rejected for appearing "to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia." I do agree with this, and I’m open to fixing it. But even after multiple revisions, the submission is still dismissed for the same reason. I would greatly appreciate any help rewording parts of the article to meet Wikipedia’s standards. I truly just want this page to be published now, because I think it’s quite unfair that every single high school near me has a page (I checked), and mine doesn’t.

I kindly request any extra guidance regarding my article, and I’m flexible about changing any parts of it. And I would rather help than be told my article isn’t important like before.

Thank you, Cv822 (talk) 10:19, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are telling about the school and its offerings. Instead you should be summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the school, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization.
Most schools actually don't merit standalone articles, unless there is something unusual about the school like it being a historic structure, or independent sources extensively write about its academic/state test results. Even a school shooting doesn't merit a standalone article about the school itself(Sandy Hook Elementary School redirects to the school district while the shooting itself has an article). At one point in the past the mere existence of a school merited it an article, but that is no longer the case, they are treated just as any other organization. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. For this reason you may see other articles on schools that probably shouldn't exist, but just haven't been removed yet. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cv822 I see that you are claiming that you personally created and personally own the copyright of the logo of the school- typically the school would own the copyright. If you didn't personally create the logo, you must immediately without delay request deletion of the logo from Commons.
Images are not relevant to the draft process, which only considers the text and sources. Images can wait until the draft is accepted. Once it is, there may be ways to have the logo in the article, but you don't need to worry about that right now. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This might be off-topic, but I'm not sure about the copyright of the logo, and it's a bit of a story how I got it. The thing is, the school logo is openly available on sites like their Facebook. But of course, I will definitely talk to somebody at my school, like the principal or superintendent, about the situation with the copyright, but as of now, I'm unsure.
And I kind of did create the image of the logo because I took an image of the school logo on a wall and messed with it on Photoshop for a long time until it was perfect. So I am the owner of this specific variant of the logo, unless I'm misunderstanding.
Also, the part about Sandy Hook was extremely helpful and I was surprised to see such a famous school link to the school district's page. Thank you for that! Cv822 (talk) 11:15, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't know the copyright, you must get it deleted. It doesn't matter that you made a copy of it yourself(a derivative work); this is akin to you handwriting a copy of The Hunger Games novel and saying it's your own work. As I said, images aren't relevant right now. 331dot (talk) 11:29, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the image from Commons, but what now? Am I still able to contact school officials about the image and re-upload it if I get the OK? Cv822 (talk) 11:37, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My advice is to focus on the draft itself right now; once it is accepted and placed in the encyclopedia, you can then worry about enhancing the article with images. Images are considered to be an enhancement, not a necessity. A school official can probably release the logo or at least provide you with the appropriate documentation so that you can upload it yourself, but again, that's not important right now. 331dot (talk) 11:41, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does my article seriously have any chance of getting accepted? The requirement about the nobility seems like it completely ruined any plans of having the article published. One notable thing I can think about is one of the alumni from a long time ago, Rachel Carson, is known by many throughout the world. Does this help? Cv822 (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say definitively that the school does not merit an article, because I don't know what sources exist that might support an article about the school. But I can say that what you have now will not be accepted, and you would probably need to radically change your approach, essentially starting fresh(though you can do that by removing the current content and starting over, though the previous reviews need to remain).
Notability is not inherited by association, so the fact that Rachel Carson went to the school in and of itself would not be a claim to notability- unless you have sources that significantly discuss how the school profoundly impacted Rachel Carson and her life. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cv822 the school is already pretty well covered at Allegheny Valley School District. What could be done though is a redirect to that article so anyone search for Springdale Jr-Sr High School will be directed to that article. S0091 (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So I've currently shifted my focus to the school logo because I've lost most of my hope with the school article. I would like for the logo to at least be on the internet to be seen for now. Recently, I did research on uploading fair use logos and I did come across the fact I'm NOT able to post a fair use logo on Commons but instead I must upload it to Wikipedia itself. I just need some help checking if I filled out all the parameters correctly.
Here's the newly uploaded image as a non-free school logo under fair use:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Springdale_Jr-Sr_High_School_PA_Logo_Transparent.PNG Cv822 (talk) 05:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cv822 ask at the Teahouse. S0091 (talk) 13:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:41, 14 June 2025 review of submission by Mrintervalofficial

For reference I don't have anyone how can I do this Mrintervalofficial (talk) 10:41, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My advice would be to abandon this effort. Please see the autobiography policy. Writing about yourself is highly discouraged, because it is very difficult for people to set aside what they know about themselves and summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about them. You have no such sources. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves. 331dot (talk) 10:55, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:34, 14 June 2025 review of submission by 161.12.51.18

Additional eyes on my draft (requesting addition and second review) Hello, My Wikipedia keeps getting rejected without any thorough or scientific assessment & feedback of notability and credibility: Draft:Zied Tayeb I want the review to be objective and to properly assess and diligence the quality of the submission, which unfortunately does not seem to be the case can you assist please? 161.12.51.18 (talk) 11:34, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are Swajaan, remember to log in when posting. I fixed your header to contain the title of your draft as intended. I also removed the url from your link, the whole url is unnecessary.
The good news is that the draft was only 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. That you did not get the result you want does not mean that the review was not properly done. I understand that being declined can be frustrating, but more experienced people than you are looking at it.
As noted by reviewers, you have not shown that Tayib meets WP:NPROF. 331dot (talk) 11:40, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:46, 14 June 2025 review of submission by Under Sea World

My draft is unaccepted. Under Sea World (talk) 11:46, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 11:57, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 15

03:10, 15 June 2025 review of submission by Alyukaszaszlo

Why was my page draft rejected when I listed about 10 sources? Thanks! Alyukaszaszlo (talk) 03:10, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because you wrote a single sentence and slapped a list of sources after it with no context. You're writing an encyclopaedia article, not a Xitt. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 05:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Alyukaszaszlo.
A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else - and it should cite those sources at the end of the paragraph or sentence where the information is that is verified by the source. (See [[[WP:REFB]] for how to do this).
Most of the sources you list are not independent of Neszlenyi, and so do nothing to establish that she meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability - without such sources, no article is possible. ColinFine (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:10, 15 June 2025 review of submission by Cnemaspis

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for reviewing the draft article on Thomas Calame. I would appreciate clarification on the decision, as I included four peer-reviewed academic publications co-authored by the subject, as well as third-party sources verifying his role in conservation and ecotourism initiatives (notably, The Gibbon Experience in Laos).

Could you please advise specifically what additional sources or changes would be necessary to meet notability and content guidelines? I’m happy to revise accordingly.

Best regards, Cnemaspis (talk) 06:10, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cnemaspis Please see Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. A Wikipedia article should mainly summarize what reliable sources that are completely independent of Calame have to say about Calame. His social media profiles, publications written by him or his colleagues, and organizations that he's part of are not independent sources. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:07, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:54, 15 June 2025 review of submission by 2001:8F8:1473:1695:65C8:DA1B:2C5C:A131

Thank you for reviewing the draft. I understand the notability concern regarding the subject. I have included the following references in the draft, and I would kindly like clarification on whether these meet the standard for reliable secondary sources with significant coverage:

1. South Asia Commons – Naye Tarane by Izhaar Malihabadi – Digitized version of the poet’s book, confirming authorship and literary contribution.


2. Rekhta.org – Tazkira-e-Shuara-e-Uttar Pradesh by Irfan Abbasi – A critical literary compendium mentioning the subject with biographical context.


3. Rekhta.org – Goya Aur Khandān-e-Goya Ki Adbi Khidmat – Provides background about the family’s literary legacy, including the subject’s role.


May I ask:

Do these sources meet the criteria for reliable secondary coverage?

If not, what kind of sources would be considered sufficient?

Would adding newspaper articles, journal citations, or academic book reviews improve the draft’s notability status?


I am committed to improving this draft and will be grateful for specific feedback. 2001:8F8:1473:1695:65C8:DA1B:2C5C:A131 (talk) 09:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, his own works are primary sources so fine to use for verifiability but not helpful for notability. The only cite currently in the draft to Rekhta.org is a profile of him so also not helpful and it is unclear if Rekhta.org meets the reliable source criteria. And yes, newspapers, journals and reviews by recognized critics/experts would be helpful. See Your first article along with the the notability guidelines for authors. S0091 (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you can include his name in Urdu that would be helpful and it would also be great if you could do it for Josh Malihabadi. See Jamiluddin Aali for an example. S0091 (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:56, 15 June 2025 review of submission by Qpham478

My submission for this article creation got turned down. I'm a first time editor. Could you please help me understand which references are the problems here? Thanks! Qpham478 (talk) 09:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Qpham478 If you are the creator of the draft, who is now using this username, you should disclose your conflict of interest on your user page(User:Qpham478). If you are employed by Gridly, the Terms of Use require you to make the stricter paid editing disclosure instead. I note that your original username had "mkt" which usually means "marketing".
Your sources do not show that the platform meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. It just summarizes the activities and offerings of the platform, not significant coverage of it that indicates why it is notable. Awards do not contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article, like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:25, 15 June 2025 review of submission by Rory Milne

I don't understand why my submission has been rejected, the reason given is: "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" I have 40 references that are definitely secondary and independant. They are certainly considered reliable sources in the circles I travel in. If the editor that most recently reviewed my submission thinks otherwise then they haven't explained why. Any pointers would be very much appreciated, many thanks, Rory Milne. Rory Milne (talk) 10:25, 15 June 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.
The good news is that reviewers seem to think the subject is notable, but it's hard to see through the tone and numerous sources- it may sound odd, but you probably have too many sources. Fewer high quality sources are preferable to a large number of low quality sources. 331dot (talk) 10:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for your advice, I'm very grateful for you finding the time to help me understand the submission and review process. I'll reduce the number of references and resubmit.
Does the tone I've used need to be tweaked as well? I made a big effort to make the submission sound professional and business-like, but if it's too informal or enthusiastic or something else I can certainly made changes.
If you have thoughts on this I would love to hear them, thanks again, Rory. Rory Milne (talk) 11:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:54, 15 June 2025 review of submission by 18kvolt

Suggest some reforms What can i do for Wikipedia terms and conditions. 18kvolt (talk) 10:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@18kvolt Wikipedia isn't an IDE. Use VSCode or PyCharm to run your Python code instead. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:57, 15 June 2025 review of submission by 102.69.240.13

Oluwaseun Medayedupin (born April 26, 2001) is a Nigerian entrepreneur, technologist, and social impact advocate. He is the founder of SocioAfrica and SocioAsia, two intergovernmental platforms focused on digital equity, economic cooperation, and peacebuilding across Africa and Asia. He is also the chairman of Socio Technologies Limited. 102.69.240.13 (talk) 13:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 14:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:12, 15 June 2025 review of submission by 82.8.141.222

Ben 82.8.141.222 (talk) 14:12, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's little indication the draft is meant to be encyclopedia article and is rejected so will not be considered further. S0091 (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:54, 15 June 2025 review of submission by 108.146.89.58

My draft submission got declined and the reason given are sources and notability. The reviewer did not go into additional detail and I am confused because this submission is very adequately referenced with reliable sources. Can someone help so this issue can be corrected and the draft resubmitted? 108.146.89.58 (talk) 17:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, you need in-depth coverage by reliable secondary independent sources specifically about the rivalry not games they have played against each other. Also, a minor point but Winsipedia is not a reliable source so suggest removing it along with any content supported by it. S0091 (talk) 18:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi S0091. A couple of questions. First, how can you talk about the rivalry without talking about games they have played against each other? Second, take a look at the first four or five sources talking about Baylor players receiving a "history lesson" before playing Rice in 2019. I don't understand what the problem is. Specificity would be appreciated. 108.146.89.58 (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IP, most of the sources and content is a list games, not the rivalry. I looked at the first three sources and they are almost entirely what those involved say (i.e. Rhule) so is considered a primary source as is Baylor's website (and same true for Rice). Are their any by secondary sources with their own independent in-depth analysis, evaluation, etc. about the rivalry? Seems like such sources should exist. See Carolina–Duke rivalry for an example. You might also try posting a note at WT:WikiProject College football. S0091 (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:25, 15 June 2025 review of submission by JM04093

Hello, I have been trying to get a Wikipedia page out for Esau Williams for sometime now. I am confused about what the problem or problems are, and would be very grateful for some help! Each time I make the recommended changes, it seems as if the goalposts shift further. Moreover, I have encountered several other Wikipedia pages with scanty sourcing.

Finally, there also seems to be an unsolicited email for paid help each time I get a decline... could the two be related, I wonder?

Please if I can get help on what really needs doing from a person not intent on using their role on Wikipedia to make some money, that would be fantastic! I know there are honest people on here, and all I need is to get this page published. I have followed all the guidlines.

Much thanks in advance,

James JM04093 (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JM04093 please follow the instructions at WP:SCAM regarding the emails you are receiving. S0091 (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @JM04093. Unfortunately, we have thousands of seriously inadequate articles, mostly dating from ealier periods when we were not as careful about the quality of sourcing. Ideally, somebody would go through those thousands of articles, improving or deleting them. But since this is entirely a volunteer project, where people work on what they choose, not many people want to take on that job, and so they are still around. We don't want to add to them, so articles submitted for review are evaluated on their own merits, not compared to existing articles (see other stuff exists). If you want to point to some inadequately sourced articles, maybe somebody will have a look at them.
A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else. Writing an article successfully usually begins with finding such sources - discarding anything that is not published by a reliable source, anything that is written, published, commissioned, or based on the words of, the subject or their associates; and discarding anything with no more than a passing mention of the subject. This is summarised in WP:golden rule, and I suggest you review each of your sources aginst the three criteria in that page. ColinFine (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:27, 15 June 2025 review of submission by ANURAG NATH SHUKLA

Please help to my profile in list to wikipedia ANURAG NATH SHUKLA (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ANURAG NATH SHUKLA Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We don't do "profiles". See Your first article for guidance. S0091 (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ANURAG NATH SHUKLA Please edit this existing thread, don't create additional threads. 331dot (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:51, 15 June 2025 review of submission by 2A02:6B6F:E784:AF00:7205:F98:6704:23FA

Could I please have a bit more insight into which sources were unreliable and why? And if possible, could I just keep the reliable sources, even if it means cutting down a lot of information? Thanks 2A02:6B6F:E784:AF00:7205:F98:6704:23FA (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As noted by the reviewer, almost all the sources are unreliable. Social media is not reliable because anyone can post anything there without review or editorial oversight. Spotify is the same, almost anyone can make music available online. 331dot (talk) 18:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, thanks! Is it still possible to get the page accepted if I just remove all the info containing unreliable sources? 2A02:6B6F:E784:AF00:7205:F98:6704:23FA (talk) 06:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not unless you include several sources that do meet all three criteria in [{WP:42]]. A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else. Wikipedia has almost no interest in what the subject, or their assocaites, say or want to say about the subject. ColinFine (talk) 14:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:18, 15 June 2025 review of submission by 82.8.141.222

Ben 82.8.141.222 (talk) 21:18, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No question, no answer which seems to be your [MO] and time wasting. S0091 (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot requesting a block. See their ACFHD history which goes back to April and is useless time wasting much less their drafts. S0091 (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even worse than their time-wasting is that some of those articles were complete hoaxes, and even when the thing actually existed (the minority of articles), it was frequently LLM slop. Sometimes, they even left their prompt in and Chatbot discussing the prompt! CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:36, 15 June 2025 review of submission by Flyhigh223!

Hello! I have edited this page multiple times and have formatted as requested, could somebody please tell me what else I need to edit before resubmission? Thanks Flyhigh223! (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much should be good to go, good job! NeoGaze (talk) 08:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @NeoGaze! I've just resubmitted it. Flyhigh223! (talk) 16:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:48, 15 June 2025 review of submission by Zartsnarf

Hey there, I’m looking for someone to review my references. They’re claiming there’s not enough information to justify a Wikipedia article, but there absolutely is. Zartsnarf (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zartsnarf: The draft has been rejected, which means it can't be resubmitted, and I'm afraid I see why. Of the nine sources, five contain dead external links, one doesn't mentuin Chukwuka, one is a tweet, one is a namedrop, one is a (very brief) interview, and one is a YouTube link, apparently to Chukwuka's own video. That adds up to zero reliable, independent, and secondary sources that offer significant coverage. --bonadea contributions talk 08:39, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Zartsnarf. A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people who have no connection whatever with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, andv very little else.
Unless you have several sources which meet that characterisation (see WP:42), there cannot be an article, and you are wasting your time trying to create one. ColinFine (talk) 14:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:03, 15 June 2025 review of submission by 06nurahmed

How can I modify the article to be approved 06nurahmed (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can't, it has been rejected. You aren't notable in a Wikipedia sense. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is interested in what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about a topic, not in what it wants to say about itself. You should use social media to tell the world about yourself. 331dot (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:20, 15 June 2025 review of submission by EliG233

It’s a variation of Biddy Basketball https://www.basketballmanitoba.ca/2015/10/canada-basketball-releases-new-mini.html Under Basketball Canada EliG233 (talk) 23:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OP has been blocked for sockpuppetry. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 16

01:02, 16 June 2025 review of submission by BradOdis

Please provide more comments on why the submission was declined. It is difficult to know how to make revisions without specific comments. Thank you. BradOdis (talk) 01:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BradOdis As stated in the decline reason, you have not demonstrated that NeoBards meets Wikipedia's definition of a notable company, which requires indepdendent reliable sources that contain significant coverage of the company. The draft's current sources mainly cover the company's games and contain very little coverage of the company itself; notability of the company cannot be inherited from notability of its games. On the draft's talk page, User:S0091 asked you to list three good sources that meet all the criteria in the decline notice. Assuming you can find suitable sources, I suggest that you join the talk page discussion before continuing with the draft. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:01, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:09, 16 June 2025 review of submission by Moh216

I’d like to offer clarification on the Draft:LoadGen article, which was declined due to notability concerns. I appreciate the feedback and would like to provide more context — both on why I created the article and on the availability of independent sources that speak directly to LoadGen’s role in the industry.

I’ve been a hobbyist in the virtualization and load testing space for some time, and I noticed that LoadGen, which has been around since 2005 and is widely used in VDI performance benchmarking, did not yet have a Wikipedia page — despite similar tools like Login VSI being covered. This seemed like a gap, particularly for those researching software testing or performance monitoring tools in enterprise and EUC (End-User Computing) environments. Contributing to Wikipedia has been a long-standing goal of mine, and this seemed like a meaningful way to do so.

In terms of notability, I’ve compiled a number of independent, reliable sources that discuss LoadGen in significant detail:

A full-length 2006 review by Tim Mangan, hosted on TMurgent (formerly BrianMadden.com), assesses LoadGen's features and capabilities in comparison to Citrix’s own testing tools .

Multiple technical articles by EUC consultant Ingmar Verheij directly evaluate LoadGen’s components — notably the Analyzer and LoadBot modules — in practical testing scenarios .

LoadGen has been a featured tool in GO-EUC.com research from 2021 to 2025, where it was used to conduct in-depth system performance evaluations. In these cases, LoadGen is not simply mentioned, but plays a central methodological role in reproducible testing .

TechTarget’s 2023 article (“6 steps for calculating and sizing a Citrix VDI environment”) explicitly lists LoadGen as a recommended VDI benchmarking solution. This piece was translated and republished in ComputerWeekly.de, adding to its reach .

Tracxn (2025) and Capterra (2025) list LoadGen in software evaluation portals, supporting its standing within the broader tool ecosystem .

I hope this additional information demonstrates that LoadGen has received sustained, independent, and meaningful coverage within its domain — enough to meet the threshold for notability per WP:N. If the structure or tone of the article could be improved to better reflect that, I’d be grateful for suggestions and happy to make the necessary changes. Moh216 (talk) 08:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Moh216: Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
Most of your sources don't actually discuss LoadGen other than to note it was used as a tool for their purposes. You have two reviews of it, and those're the only usable sources you have. Are there any other full reviews of it? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:50, 16 June 2025 review of submission by Sciencesustainability409

I encounter a case where my article is always denied, I already follow the instructions that volunteers made. However, do not really highlight what is ok, and what is not ok. is there anyone who can truly take time to review and advice over the article? some people under estimate my effort. And always post the same message, if you specify the mistakes it will be easier to improve. Many thanks! Sciencesustainability409 (talk) 08:50, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources you have used do not seem to even mention the subject.
What is your connection to Dr. Alfaro? You took a picture of him where he posed for you, and took other pictures of him posing with who appear to be government officials. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:23, 16 June 2025 review of submission by Cashy1234

why is my artcle not valid and approved Cashy1234 (talk) 09:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer left the reason, "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." The draft is completely unsourced and shows no indication the person meets the definition of a notable musician. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

tell me what i should remove or add Cashy1234 (talk) 09:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not create a new thread for every post, just edit this existing section. There is nothing you can do, that is what rejected is meant to indicate. This is not a place to just tell about someone; please see the five pillars and Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 09:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:45, 16 June 2025 review of submission by Dr. Akinlu Ojo Damilola Brown

please i would like to know why my article was decline So I can make necessary corrections Dr. Akinlu Ojo Damilola Brown (talk) 09:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft as intended. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:59, 16 June 2025 review of submission by 2A02:B127:8F06:AE0C:59EF:6EA1:7C71:5444

Hello, I am requesting assistance with the draft article Draft:Andi_Krush. Andi Krush is an author of several books that are listed on well-known websites such as Feltrinelli, Goodreads, Amazon, and others. He is also a singer-songwriter who has collaborated with notable individuals, and his songs are published on various respected platforms.

I believe this subject meets the notability requirements for Wikipedia, but I may not have formatted or presented the draft correctly. I would really appreciate if someone could review the article and possibly collaborate with me to improve it, so it can meet Wikipedia’s standards and be accepted for publication. Thank you very much in advance! 2A02:B127:8F06:AE0C:59EF:6EA1:7C71:5444 (talk) 11:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It's not a matter of formatting. As far as I can see, not one of your citations meets the basic requirement of being reliable, wholly independent of Krush, and containing significant coverage of him: see golden rule
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject or their associates say or want to say: Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people wholly unconnected with him have published about him, and without such sources, there can be no article. ColinFine (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:12, 16 June 2025 review of submission by Vinukamal

Hi Team, I want to write a page about my startup. However, as there is a conflict of interest how can I go about doing this in the right way? Thank you. Vinukamal (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Vinukamal, follow the instructions on WP:WIZARD and make a WP:COI declaration on your userpage, I will leave an automatic note on your talk page with more information. Best, Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Vinukamal. It is unlikely that there has been enough independent material published about your startup to establish that it meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability (see TOOSOON) or to make a Wikipedia article about it possible. ColinFine (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:36, 16 June 2025 review of submission by LucasKrm21

Hello, I noticed that you rejected my article because it is not notable enough for Wikipedia. What can do to make it notable enough ? LucasKrm21 (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please make your WP:PAID declaration on your userpage. Thank you, Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand this but I'm not getting paid thats the problem, the article is even about a free and open source project LucasKrm21 (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LucasKrm21: the fact that the subject of the article is FOSS has no bearing on the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use which require that all editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which they receive, or expect to receive, compensation". You said "I work for the person that wrote it". Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the article which is not notable, it is the subject. There is nothing you can do about it, except wait until several people wholly unconnected with you have chosen to write in some depth about it, and been published in reliable places. See WP:TOOSOON, WP:NORG and WP:452. ColinFine (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I understand thank you verry much LucasKrm21 (talk) 14:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:18, 16 June 2025 review of submission by Steve Finlay

My page was declined again, even though I provided sufficient secondary sources. There's a Japanese page with the same content that has far fewer secondary sources, yet it was approved. Could you assist me in understanding what we did wrong and what steps are needed to improve it? Steve Finlay (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Finlay The Japanese Wikipedia is a separate project, with its own editors and policies. What is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others. Also, that an article exists does not necessarily mean it was "approved" by anyone.
By "we" I take it that you work for Astemo- the Terms of Use require that to be formally disclosed, see WP:PAID, as well as WP:COI.
Wikipedia is not a place to tell about a company, its offerings, and what it considers to be its own history. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. Just to clarify, I am not paid by Astemo or affiliated with them in any professional capacity. I’m simply interested in improving coverage of notable companies with substantial global presence, and I felt that Astemo, given its scale and industry relevance, warranted an article.
I understand that English Wikipedia has stricter standards compared to other language versions, and I respect that. I’ve done my best to gather reliable, independent secondary sources, but I may still be misunderstanding what qualifies as "significant coverage" under the notability guidelines.
Could you help me better understand what specifically is lacking in the draft or the sources I used? Are there particular types of sources or coverage I should seek out to meet the notability threshold?
Any guidance you can provide on how to move forward with this in a constructive way would be greatly appreciated. Steve Finlay (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hwllo, @Steve Finlay. What inexperienced editors often do not understand is 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.
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) 18:15, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who is the "we" when you say "what we did wrong?" 331dot (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:33, 16 June 2025 review of submission by CarstenBoehme

I have no experience with Wikipedia posts, so I wonder what kind of references do you need on top of published research papers to accept a publication? If there is too much information around, it would be helpful to know, too. So I could correct the post. We have here a leading AI scientist from Europe, financed in his research by the EU with decent research papers and even bigger business success. Hi application is technically leading the development in "AI in Investing". Many thanks for your support and answer. 

CarstenBoehme (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CarstenBoehme: You cite exactly zero references. This is not acceptable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are the published research paper not enough references? I don't understand. CarstenBoehme (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CarstenBoehme: I invite you to read the two links I provided above in the second sentence. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @CarstenBoehme. 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) 18:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:22, 16 June 2025 review of submission by OhNoItsBryla3837

Is there any hope of changing the sources cited to get it published or is the topic itself inherently not notable enough? OhNoItsBryla3837 (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have sources that the reviewer did not consider, you may edit the draft and then appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly, asking them to reconsider. You have not yet shown that the school is a notable organization. Also see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. 331dot (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:47, 16 June 2025 review of submission by 67.171.179.111

Isn't the ITTF a reliable source? What about USATT? 67.171.179.111 (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the draft is unsourced. The mission section should just be removed, as "mission" and "vision" are just what the organization thinks about itself and its purpose, and that can change at any time. 331dot (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 17

00:43, 17 June 2025 review of submission by 2603:6081:5503:2D95:C1F0:507:9950:AA49

there is a trademark for the brand as well that I would like to submit. would that help the article be published? 2603:6081:5503:2D95:C1F0:507:9950:AA49 (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. We're not looking for evidence the subject exists; we're looking for evidence third-parties with no connexion to the company have written about it at length. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 00:49, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:37, 17 June 2025 review of submission by Soccerfan888

Hello

This is an article about a professional soccer player and her history - not sure why it was declined. It is about Jaime Perrault and her life...... this format was followed by other professional soccer players. Soccerfan888 (talk) 02:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:39, 17 June 2025 review of submission by Soccerfan888

This is the story of Jaime Perrault - her life - not sure what the issue is? I followed other professional soccer players entries. Please advise. Soccerfan888 (talk) 02:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:31, 17 June 2025 review of submission by HelpfulBeagle

I need to find references for my article because I am struggling and it is tough for me to make this a great article like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flu_season. Although COVID-19 season has not developed yet, I’m trying to get as much information as I can about this topic and I want this to be accepted with all the information I got so then this article can evolve with the disease. HelpfulBeagle (talk) 03:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1295990186"