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 212.108.134.119 (talk) at 10:11, 22 July 2025 (Requesting assistance regarding Draft:Norman_Frederick_Astbury). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
  • Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.
Ask a new question
Please check back often for answers.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions
Skip to top
Skip to bottom


July 16

00:38, 16 July 2025 review of submission by SMJPA

This draft article on Sharon Jurd has been revised to address previous feedback by removing promotional language and adding inline citations in accordance with Wikipedia’s referencing guidelines. The content focuses on verifiable facts supported by multiple reliable sources, including independent industry publications and business award announcements.

While some sources are industry-specific, they represent significant recognition within her field. Further independent media coverage is limited but efforts continue to identify additional third-party sources to establish notability.

We welcome any further feedback to improve the article’s compliance with Wikipedia’s standards. SMJPA (talk) 00:38, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources specifically do you believe are reliable, independent, and contain significant coverage of Jurd? This message feels like an LLM saying what it thinks will convince reviewers, but doesn’t actually reflect your draft at all.
Also, who is “we”? Wikipedia accounts should not be used by more than one person. -- NotCharizard 🗨 07:03, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @SMJPA, please don't use AI/LLMs to create drafts or when talking to us - see WP:LLM. We want to speak to a human, not a machine, and we do not allow AI-generated drafts to become articles. Meadowlark (talk) 13:27, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:03, 16 July 2025 review of submission by Hirushakithmi

I need to ask this page is good Hirushakithmi 06:03, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear what you're asking, but you have written a self-promotional blog post instead of an encyclopedia article. See WP:NOTESSAY and WP:NOTPROMO. I suggest creating a personal blog outside of Wikipedia if you want to write this kind of thing. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:12, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:33, 16 July 2025 review of submission by Marina.rubies

Request to move sandbox article about Geoff Layer Hello, I’ve written an article in my sandbox about Geoff Layer, and I believe it’s ready to be published. I’ve read the Wikipedia guidelines carefully and tried to follow everything correctly. However, I’m not sure how to move it to the main page myself. I looked through other discussions here but didn’t find anything specific about this, so maybe I’m doing something wrong.

I would be very grateful if someone more experienced could review the article and move it to the mainspace if appropriate.

Here is the link: User:Marina.rubies/sandbox

Thank you so much! Marina.rubies (talk) 07:33, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Marina.rubies: you cannot yet move pages or publish articles yourself, because your account is too new (you are not yet 'autoconfirmed'). In any case, the point of the Articles for Creation review process (which is what this help desk is for) is that article drafts are... reviewed before publishing. I will add the AfC submission template to your draft, and move it into the draft space? You can then submit it for review when you feel ready. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:40, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your kind response. I really appreciate you taking the time to move the article and explain the process so clearly. It means a lot as I’m still new to editing Wikipedia.
I’ve made a few updates to the draft, such as correcting the tone and some grammatical issues. However, I’m not entirely sure if I’ve successfully submitted it for review through the AfC process. Would you be able to confirm if the draft has been submitted properly? Thank you again for your support!
Best, Marina.rubies (talk) 11:39, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: The draft is now at Draft:Geoff Layer. The AfC template has a blue button on it. When you click on that, it sends the draft for review. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:43, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your kind response. I really appreciate you taking the time to move the article and explain the process so clearly. It means a lot as I’m still new to editing Wikipedia.
Best, Marina.rubies (talk) 10:49, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Marina.rubles I fixed your header so you don't link to a nonexistent page titled "Request to move sandbox article". 331dot (talk) 12:39, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a connection to Mr. Layer? You took his picture. 331dot (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, The explanation of how I know Mr. Layer is in the Talk section of the article.Sorry if that’s not the right place for it—I thought I was doing the right thing by starting the discussion there!
Thanks!
Marina Marina.rubies (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there,
I’m a bit unsure about why the references I included are considered not reliable or independent. All the information I gathered about Geoff comes from the internet, and I believe the sources are trustworthy.
Could you please clarify what exactly you’re looking for? Are you perhaps expecting sources from newspapers or news articles?
Thanks in advance for your help! Marina.rubies (talk) 18:56, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Marina.rubies. The problem is that all the references come either from bodies to which Layer is affiliated, or from government sources.
A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what several people wholly unconnected to the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else.
The majority of your sources (and all those which are to establish notability) should meet all the criteria in WP:42.
If you cannot find several such sources, then he is probably not notable in Wikipedia's sense of the word. ColinFine (talk) 11:51, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:44, 16 July 2025 review of submission by TheWikiCraft

If another company has invested in Afriwork, is it acceptable to cite the investor’s official website as a source in this article—especially when referencing the investment itself or related collaboration details? TheWikiCraft (talk) 07:44, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A company investing in another is a routine business activity that does not establish that this company is a notable company. See WP:ORGDEPTH. To establish notability you need significant coverage in independent reliable sources- coverage that goes beyond just documenting the activities of the company and describes what the source sees as important/significant/influential about the company. Staff interviews, press releases, and annoucements of routine business activities are not significant coverage. 331dot (talk) 07:50, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:16, 16 July 2025 review of submission by Amit635k

please give me some idea for i approvedmy artical Amit635k (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves or post their resume, please read the autobiography policy. Please use social media to tell the world about yourself. Also know that an article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing. There are good reasons to not want one. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a place to promote yourself, @Amit635k. You do not meet our criteria for inclusion. qcne (talk) 10:26, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:53, 16 July 2025 review of submission by Shafiek Mouton

I’m the subject of a declined draft article and need help from an experienced, neutral editor who can assist with rewriting and citing reliable sources. I understand I can’t edit the page myself due to a conflict of interest. Shafiek Mouton (talk) 10:53, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Shafiek Mouton. You can edit the draft - this is one of the reasons the draft process exists, to allow subjects to edit articles they have a CoI with.
You need to follow the referencing tutorial at Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1 to format your references properly. This is mandatory. Please also carefully read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons which states that every statement in your draft must be accompanied with an in-line citation. qcne (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:26, 16 July 2025 review of submission by FitnessMuseNC

Hello, Can you assist me with making this article sounding less promotional? FitnessMuseNC (talk) 16:26, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Draft deleted, user blocked for socking.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:58, 16 July 2025 review of submission by 209.52.99.114

I made the last changes as the reviewer mentioned. If I add the == References == <references /> in the bottom of the selected exhibitions it gives a long list of errors. Please let me know how it looks at this stage. Thank you 209.52.99.114 (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried following this tutorial Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1 in order to create citations, instead? qcne (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:29, 16 July 2025 review of submission by 2601:600:8F82:B890:7095:3C0D:9AA5:C967

I don't understand why this submission wasn't good enough. Any suggestions for improvement that might change the outcome. This is an interesting group of women doing good work. Seems like it would be nice to have a record of them for history. Thanks for your help. 2601:600:8F82:B890:7095:3C0D:9AA5:C967 (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This draft is completely unsourced. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell the world about good things. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources state about a topic. If you have sources, please see Referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:53, 16 July 2025 review of submission by Undercoveranonymous

I resubmitted the draft and I am waiting for a new review of the page. User Fade258 rejected it last time because of a previous lack of citations. I have since fixed the citations. I recently put citations in the article and such. I need someone to rereview the article then maybe make some edits to improve, then approve the article. I want the draft article to be approved because it is about a very significant crime case from years ago. Draft article needs to be approved. Undercoveranonymous (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Undercoveranonymous It will be reviewed when it is reviewed. If it is a very significant crime case from years ago then you will have added sufficient references passing WP:42 to verify any notability.
Wikipedia does not work o perceived need, it works on verified notability. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:55, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:40, 16 July 2025 review of submission by Dpatrick100

Hi, I am very confused. I got a rejection I fixed it per the suggestions from the rejector...I resubmitted it per what i believed where correct process....not really sure if that is the case. I am also not sure if i completed everything required and I would certainly want to do that. Can some one take a look and tell me what i need to do? I would be very appreciative of any guidance at this time. 

Dpatrick100 (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at your draft you will see that it is submitted for review, done by you in this edit. Others have tidied the submission, including the restoration of prior decline template(s) which should not be deleted, and form part of the review history 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:53, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:58, 16 July 2025 review of submission by WillisBlackburn

I'd like to continue a discussion from the May 9 page [1]. Please see my reply there. The TL;DR is that editors have suggested that disproving a mathematical conjecture does not necessarily mean that William Martin Boyce is notable, but a few days ago, a new page appeared for Hannah Cairo, who is notable for only one thing: disproving a mathematical conjecture through construction of a counterexample. Which is exactly what Boyce did. Boyce's case is stronger: his paper was published in a peer-reviewed journal (Transactions of the American Mathematical Society) and has been cited dozens of times, and he followed up with further research on the same topic. I think the main difference is that Boyce made his discovery in 1967, so he doesn't have the benefit of lots of recent, Internet-accessible coverage of his work. To be fair, there is an ongoing conversation about deleting the Cairo page. However, there was a similar discussion about whether Maryna Viazovska was notable for just solving a mathematical problem, and ultimately Wikipedia kept her page. WillisBlackburn (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. Articles are evaluated individually; whether other similar articles exist or do not exist has little precedential value on English Wikipedia. There are more than seven million articles on English Wikipedia, many of which aren't good. If you believe Boyce is notable, you have to argue for that notability using Wikipedia guidelines and policies. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:17, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided a rationale for why William Martin Boyce is notable, several times, but each time, I have not received a follow-up response from the person who asked for the justification. Then later, another editor again asks for the rationale, without reference to any of the prior discussions. In the May 9 discussion, someone asked me to explain why Boyce was notable, in response to a message in which I explained why he was notable, specifically referencing the notability criteria for academics. I'd like for someone to approve the page or or tell me what additional information is needed. It doesn't seem right to just leave it limbo forever. The Hannah Cairo comparison is relevant because it isn't a page that someone added to Wikipedia 20 years ago, or about someone who is notable for substantially different reasons. Her page was added just this week. Both Boyce and Cairo disproved mathematical conjectures that had been unproven (but assumed to be true) for many years, through the construction of counterexamples. WillisBlackburn (talk) 14:00, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WillisBlackburn: this draft was last edited by you three months ago, then declined a couple of weeks later, and doesn't seem to have been touched since; hence, the 'limbo'. Are you saying that the decline was wrong? In which case, have you tried to discuss it with the reviewer? And what is it that you would like us here at the help desk to do about this – overrule the decline? On what basis? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that the reviewer did not apply the notability criteria for academics correctly and that the page should be accepted. I posted my rationale in May (which I repeat in my second comment on this page), but the only response I got was someone asking me again for my rationale. At that point I did move on to other things for a couple of months, so that's on me. But, note that there were review cycles before that: the article was rejected in September, with the reviewer saying that I could not use self-published sources, even though the article relied on no self-published sources at all; all of Boyce's papers were published in peer-reviewed journals. I edited the article, added more sources, then *removed* some sources in response to another reviewer's critique, and (also following advice) created the common fixed point problem page, which was accepted immediately. If the page needs work, then let me know what it is. But I don't think that the argument that Boyce is not notable is tenable. He's recognized in the field of mathematics for solving this particular problem and made other recognized contributions to the field. He's been cited by Knuth! (https://cs.stanford.edu/~knuth/papers/baxter-matrices.pdf) WillisBlackburn (talk) 14:53, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let me bring this back to first principles. The rejection rationale on the page says that the draft needs to "meet any of the eight academic-specific criteria."
In response, I that criterion 1 states: "Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline."
Boyce disproved the common fixed point conjecture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_fixed_point_problem), which was an unsolved problem for 13 years despite the efforts of other mathematicians to prove it (see the page for the history). His original paper continues to be cited in mathematical literature to this day. WillisBlackburn (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:14, 16 July 2025 review of submission by 209.52.99.114

Hi, I changed the refences in the selected exhibitions section. If the == References == 

is added at the end, errors show up. Right now they don’t show up which seems

Correct. Thanks 209.52.99.114 (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any errors 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:31, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:52, 16 July 2025 review of submission by Milliot68

I created the Richard Otto Gläsel page. CivicInk posted: {{Multiple issues}}

I have included citations,can you explain how I can improve the citations? Milliot68 (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Milliot68: While you may find this a pedantic answer, this is not the correct help desk. Please ask at WP:TEAHOUSE where a different team will be able to help you. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:02, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:54, 16 July 2025 review of submission by Thomas93201

Why was my draft declined Thomas93201 (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for a community to memorialize its war dead. To merit an article on this topic you would need to summarize what independent reliable sources say about this community's war casualties as a distinct topic, as a whole group- or, to show that each individual person meets WP:BIO(in which case each person should have an article). 331dot (talk) 22:18, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:00, 16 July 2025 review of submission by Anniyangx

need help Anniyangx (talk) 23:00, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you need help with, @Anniyangx? Some links that may assist: WP:42 for what is required in a source; WP:NBIO for information about biographies; and WP:PROUD for the dangers inherent in being the subject of a Wikipedia article. Meadowlark (talk) 02:31, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 17

03:16, 17 July 2025 review of submission by Fienkie84

Need help improving sandbox draft on 24-hour self-service dog boarding facility Hello, I have written a draft article about the first 24-hour self-service dog boarding facility in Malaysia. My draft is here: User:Fienkie84/sandbox I have a COI, so I’m seeking neutral editor input before submitting. The topic is certified by the Malaysia Book of Records and has been covered by Free Malaysia Today and The Borneo Post. Could someone help me improve it for tone, sourcing, and structure? Fienkie84 (talk) 03:16, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a duplicate post of Wikipedia:Teahouse § Need help improving sandbox draft on 24-hour self-service dog boarding facility. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 04:44, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fienkie84: your draft has been deleted, twice, and you have been warned repeatedly against trying to use Wikipedia to promote your business. You are very close to being blocked from editing as a promotion-only user. Please stop this now, and find some other marketing channels for your dog boarding facility. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:42, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I truly apologize if my edits appeared promotional cos that wasn't my intention. My main goal was to share an innovative concept that is already working in practice and could be meaningful for today’s busy generation. The self-service model—starting with dog boarding—could potentially inspire similar ideas in other fields, which is why I thought it was worth documenting on Wikipedia for broader awareness. Somemore this concept had been recognised by The Malaysia Book of Records as First 24-Hour Self-Service Dog Boarding Facility . I understand and respect Wikipedia's strict guidelines on neutrality and verifiability. That’s exactly why I had been asking others for help to improve the draft — to ensure it meets Wikipedia’s standards. Perhaps, if you’re open to it, and since you clearly have experience and a deep understanding of the platform, you might be kind enough to guide me — or even help revise the draft into a version that is neutral, factual, and verifiable. I am more than willing to collaborate and learn, and I truly appreciate any constructive input that can help contribute meaningful content to the Wikipedia community.

Fienkie84 (talk) 07:47, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fienkie84: 'sharing information', creating 'broader awareness', etc. are just alternative spellings for 'promoting'; see WP:YESPROMO. And when this is you telling the world about your business, rather than summarising what independent third party sources have said about it, that is when it crosses the border into advertising.
I get why you would think that it would be helpful for your business to be featured in a global encyclopaedia and one of the top ten websites in the world, but even that isn't necessarily so. If this article were accepted for publication, you would no longer be allowed it edit it yourself – but anyone and everyone else would, and they might include information that you would rather not be included, such as negative press coverage and controversies. This is one of the reasons why having an article about yourself or your business isn't necessarily a good thing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:01, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thoughtful reply and for taking the time to explain the guidelines so clearly.
Frankly speaking , I don’t have any ambitions to expand my business globally or to use Wikipedia as a promotional platform. That was never my goal. My intention was simply to share an idea concept that’s already working in our local community and might be useful or inspiring in other areas, especially in today’s fast-paced world where convenience and self-service solutions are becoming more relevant. If there are criticisms and negative feedback, actually for myself I will more happy to welcome that. Honest input helps us grow and improve. Thats part of life ,we learn from our mistakes and keep evolving. I believe progress comes from sharing ideas, learning from each other, and continuously improving and it's really what motivated me, not to promote a business, but to introduce something new that could benefit others, or even be improved on by someone else. I truly believe we live in a connected world (Global Village), where sharing knowledge and innovation can have a meaningful impact.That said, I truly hope you can understand where I’m coming from. I respect Wikipedia’s policies and the community behind it, and I’m not here to push any agenda. My hope is that, if the idea is ever seen as notable enough, it can be presented in a neutral and meaningful way and if you're willing, I’d really appreciate your help or guidance in shaping it to fit within Wikipedia’s standards. Terima Kasih (Thank you ),❤️ Fienkie84 (talk) 08:34, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fienkie84 I fixed your header so it contains a link to your draft and doesn't link to a nonexistent page titled "Need help improving sandbox draft on 24-hour self-service dog boarding facility". You say you want to just "share an idea concept"; that is promotional here. Wikipedia is not for merely sharing information. 331dot (talk) 08:43, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you again for making the correction to the header .I truly appreciate that.
    Really apologies for using the sharing an idea, I understand the concern about "sharing an idea" being seen as promotional. However, I want to clarify that my intention is not to use Wikipedia to market a service or business, but rather to document a real-world development that reflects a broader trend in how certain services are evolving. Fienkie84 (talk) 08:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:37, 17 July 2025 review of submission by Pandaboop

Hi! I'd like to know which citations need to be replaced, please, so I can fix them with reliable sources! Pandaboop (talk) 03:37, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pandaboop: every material statement you make must be supported by a reliable source. And note that IMDb, Discogs, and LiveJournal are not considered reliable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:45, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thank you, I will find alternative sources and resubmit! Pandaboop (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:03, 17 July 2025 review of submission by Ross.mary16

Hello,

I would like to ask for help regarding my draft Draft:Gomibo, which was recently declined. I understand that the reason given was that the article reads too much like an advertisement and does not meet neutrality standards.

I want to clarify that I have disclosed my conflict of interest (COI) on my user page and the draft’s talk page, and I have tried my best to follow Wikipedia’s neutrality guidelines. I also want to be transparent that I used a large language model (LLM) to help prepare the first draft: I started creating the text by looking for reliable sources, and then asked LLM for help to improve my writing. I carefully reviewed the output created and edited it myself, aiming to remove any promotional language or hallucination, and base the content only on sourced information.

As this is my first time contributing to Wikipedia, I am still learning. I would like to request assistance from experienced Wikipedia editors to help me improve the draft. It would be very helpful if someone could give me more specific guidance on which parts of the draft are too promotional or non-neutral, or what improvements are needed to bring it closer to Wikipedia’s standards. In this way, I will be able to make the right changes and improve it.

Thank you very much for your time and any advice you can offer!

Ross.mary16 (talk) 08:03, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ross.mary16: we are happy to answer specific questions, but I rather doubt anyone is going to start co-creating this with you (aka. doing your job for you). As a paid editor wanting to get free publicity for your employer on Wikipedia, the onus is squarely on you to come up with an acceptable draft.
But, as I said already, if you have specific questions about the drafting and reviewing process, you're welcome to put those to us. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:19, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Ross.mary16
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.
More specifically, note 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.
Your job as a Wikipedia editor with a conflict of interest is to find the wholly independent reliable sources with significant coverage of Gomibo, the places where people who have absolutely no connection with Gomibo have chosen to write in some depth about Gomibo (see WP:42); and, having found some, to effectively forget every single thing you know about Gomibo, and write a neutral summary of what those sources have said.
If you think they have left out something important: tough (unless you can find another independent source that talks about it). If you think they are wrong: tough. The standard for Wikipedia is WP:Verifiability, not truth.
Finally, please be aware that if eventually there is an article on Gomibo (whether you or somebody else writes it), it will not belong to the company, it will not be controlled by the company, it will not necessarily say what the company would like it to say, and as far as Wikipedia is concerned it will not be in any way for the benefit of the company (though of course such articles often are - but not necessarily!). See WP:PROUD. ColinFine (talk) 12:32, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:43, 17 July 2025 review of submission by Smaddl

I have reworked the article multiple times, trying to react to reviewers comments. But they are so generic with very little concrete guidance that it is very difficult for me to understand what to improve right now. The last review repeated the criticism that "The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you."

But it didn't put any "citation needed" pointers or otherwise explained what exactly is insufficient or missing. If a reviewer gives this feedback, he/she must have stumbled across one or more concrete passages which need to be reworked, why are they not identified/pointed to? This would be much more efficient.

Maybe you can help me out here. Smaddl (talk) 10:43, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Smaddl most of the Abolition of inheritance (1919) is unsourced and also be mindful of WP:SYNTH. Be sure the sources you cite explicitly support the content (and of course are reliable, meaning there is editorial oversight, history of fact-checking, etc. per WP:RS) and not based on your own interpretation or analysis of the sources. S0091 (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Smaddl. I'm afraid you are having an experience which is very common for people who start editing Wikipedia and almost immediately try to create an article.
Imagine you want to build a house. You're good at carpentry, so you know how to put up some walls and doors and windows, and you do. And then some builders look at it, and tell you that you haven't built the foundations, or surveyed the site to check it's fit to build on. And you say "But tell me precisely what is wrong".
Any builder will tell you to spend time learning the trade - not just the bits of it you already understand. It is not worth their while - or yours - for them to try and explain the individual problems to you.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 12:41, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:43, 17 July 2025 review of submission by Patrizia Schoeppl

Hello I do not understand why this is marked as advertising? The article is not promotional, just stating the facts that are linked in the sources? Can you please help me and explain why it is callen "advertising"? Please give examples? It is not different to other company pages? It gives a not promotional overview of what the company does? All proven by the links?

Best Patrizia Patrizia Schoeppl (talk) 13:43, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You disclosed a conflict of interest, what is the general nature of it? If you are employed by this company, you must instead make the stricter paid editing disclosure.
Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell about themselves, their offerings, activities, and what they consider to be their 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) 14:36, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, I didn't realize there was a difference as Wikipedia instructed me to declare it that way. Will update this.
I agree, but examples of other companies like Liquid Death or Evian have the same structure. And the story is based on the linked newspaper articles. And there are newspapers like Forbes or the Financial Times that report on the company. So it's seen as a remarkable company. And as I said, the structure is based on existing wikipedia entries.
Best Patrizia Schoeppl (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Patrizia Schoeppl Please see other stuff exists. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and just not yet addressed by a volunteer.
Most companies do not create, or even edit, the articles about them here. Our articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the subject. If company employees wish to contribute, they must disclose their status as employees(as you have/will do). If you have evidence that a company's employees are editing the article about their company and not disclosing it, that can be reported(see WP:REPORTPAID).
I would suggest that you read WP:BOSS, and have your colleagues and superiors read it, too. What you are attempting is not likely to succeed, to be frank. You are too close to your company; you need to be able to set aside everything you know about your company and all materials it puts out, only writing based on the content of independent sources(truly independent, not based on information from your company like interviews or press releases). Most people cannot do that.
I might also suggest you read WP:PROUD; there are good reasons for your company to not want an article. 331dot (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thank you very much for your message, it helps clarify several important points. I understand that each article is reviewed individually and that existing articles may not meet current standards. When I referred to other articles like Evian or Liquid Death, I did not mean to justify publishing mine based on their existence, but rather to explain that I used them as inspiration for how similar topics are structured.
In my draft, I have been careful not to use company press releases, the company website, or internal materials. All sources are independent publications, such as media articles, external interviews, and product reviews from established outlets. I also had the draft reviewed by others, both internally and externally, before the second submission to ensure it has a neutral tone.
I am aware that I have a conflict of interest and have disclosed it. What confuses me is that despite aligning the draft as much as possible with Wikipedia’s standards, it seems to be rejected not because of the content itself but because of my declared connection to the company. (at least that is the impression I got...) This makes it difficult to understand how to improve further, especially when the draft is similar in approach to other accepted articles.
Thank you for providing the links. I would appreciate your advice on what you would recommend as the next step. Should I abandon the draft entirely, or is there a path forward where I can improve it further?
Thank you again for your time and help. Patrizia Schoeppl (talk) 07:48, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:00, 17 July 2025 review of submission by 121.50.200.216

I am quite surprised at the resistance of adding this as a Wikipedia page. I provided numerous sources in the submission and whilst I'm aware of my conflict in being the daughter of the subject, my father (the subject), was awarded a Member of the Order of Australia (amongst other significant awards) which is an award given by the Governer-General of Australia. You have webpages for numerous people who have contributed far less than my father who gave tirelessly to his community and who was also a Councillor of the Council of the City of Gold Coast. Quite frankly, I'm quite disgusted with the capitalizations in your response and feel rather vindicated in stopping my donations to Wikipedia. 121.50.200.216 (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem like you are asking for advice or assistance. I'm not sure of the reason for your hostility. The last reviewer even said that the topic may be notable but you just haven't shown it yet.
Donating or withholding donations has no impact on this process or article content, as we editors don't get the money; donations are collected by the Wikimedia Foundation that operates the computers Wikipedia is on. It is not involved in day to day matters like this, typically. Donating or not donating is only a decision that you can make based on whatever criteria you wish. 331dot (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have "webpages" here, we have articles, a subtle but important distinction. Please see other stuff exists; each article or draft is judged on its own merits. 331dot (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Nikxmas. I'm afraid that you are having a common experience for people who come to Wikipedia and immediately start trying to create an article.
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. And that is even without a COI.
If you look up and down this page (and its archives) you will see hundreds of people who are or have been in a similar position: Embarking on a challenging task without first having learnt what is needed, and then feeling frustrated and angry when their efforts are not accepted. In some cases their subject is notable in Wikipedia's sense, but they have not learnt what they need to know to demonstrated it. In others the subject does not meet the criteria. ColinFine (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:32, 17 July 2025 review of submission by Alephtav2

Aleph-Tav = Alpha & Omega. It deserves to be on wikipedia. את ('et') is the most written word in the original Holy Bible... and no gatekeeper shall prevent it from being shared w/ the world. Thus, please provide the resolution YHWH.pro (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Alephtav2. Your draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. We have no interest in hosting Biblical quasi-conspiracy theories. qcne (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aleph-Tav ( את ) is part of the original Hebrew-Bible text, and its presence is not a theory, yet a textual fact. Interpretations may differ, yet respectful dialogue is always possible. Time will tell the rest... YHWH.pro (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alephtav2 Please stop removing the decline and rejection notices from the top of the draft. qcne (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the oversight. Thy intent is only to preserve the factual presence of את in the Hebrew-Bible text and offer respectful interpretations from relevant historical traditions. Thank you. YHWH.pro (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alephtav2 Wikipedia is not a web hosting service - the draft will be deleted six months after it's last edit. Please move the text to a personal blog or something. qcne (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the guidance. The entry is not intended as content-hosting, yet as a testimony to the eternal Aleph-Tav (את), verifiably being the most written word in the Hebrew-Bible (Tanakh). Whether here or on another platform — such as ALEPHTAV.pro, YHWH.pro, bn.com, את.net, etc — the truth of את endures beyond time and place. Thanks YHWH.pro (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@YHWH.pro: Do not use this page or Wikipedia en generale to attempt to proselytise. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:33, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:50, 17 July 2025 review of submission by Kasey Kitley

what can i do to get this article approved? i am new to this. Kasey Kitley (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add WP:INDEPENDENT sources? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:44, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:52, 17 July 2025 review of submission by Bard Arts

Boom, problem solved. Bard Arts (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bard Arts, did you have a question..? qcne (talk) 21:10, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:19, 17 July 2025 review of submission by BroadcastTalent

We're talking about a significantly notable public figure here, who is very much in the public domain, not least because of Wimbledon 2025 and all the mainstream attention the tournament has garnered. There's ample evidence to prove people aren't just searching for this TV presenter but also specifically looking for the Wikipedia page associated with him. Wonder what the best course of action might be to have this page published, for wider public interest and transparent information? BroadcastTalent (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did answer the question you left on my talk page. I also see you re-submitted for review without any real changes after my decline, which is frustrating. A Wikipedia biographic article is a summary of existing independent secondary sources - your draft is basically all primary sources. qcne (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only just seeing this, @Qcne - Guess we've covered substantial ground since then. Any re-submissions will likely be with wholesale changes, rest assured. BroadcastTalent (talk) 16:43, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @BroadcastTalent. 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) 16:14, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful stuff, Colin - duly noted and I think we caught that drift. I'm sure there will be a far more substantial submission in due course. In the meantime, thanks for your two pence of insight here. BroadcastTalent (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:30, 17 July 2025 review of submission by 2800:320:4218:1700:7890:689F:23CC:D1D6

porfavor 

2800:320:4218:1700:7890:689F:23CC:D1D6 (talk) 21:30, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have not submitted the draft for review. But if you did so now, it would be declined, as you have no sources.
A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have written about it in reliable publications, and little else.
If you can find several sources that meet all the requirements in WP:42, then it is possible you could successfully write a draft based on those sources (and nothing else).
But I think it far more likely that it is WP:TOOSOON. See WP:CRYSTAL. ColinFine (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

por quepara m es importante :( 2800:320:4218:1700:7890:689F:23CC:D1D6 (talk) 22:28, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:45, 17 July 2025 review of submission by Kasey Kitley

Hello i was wondering what i can do to help get my page published? Why was it denied publication? Kasey Kitley (talk) 22:45, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kasey Kitley I fixed your header so the link to your draft is properly displayed(you need the "Draft:" portion). The reviewer left you the reason, do you have a more specific question about it? 331dot (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 18

01:27, 18 July 2025 review of submission by Odewale Olayinka Isaac

I want my new website to be on wikipedia but it kept rejected Odewale Olayinka Isaac (talk) 01:27, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Odewale Olayinka Isaac
You need to disclose this conflict of interest immediately on your talk page or user page.
Additionally, unfortunately your website isn't notable yet. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:43, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:20, 18 July 2025 review of submission by A-4224

please help me with the next process to submit this draft A-4224 (talk) 04:20, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest having a less promotional tone Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:41, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see this article being approved in its current state. The sourcing is, to be frank, a mess. The sources are all either WP:PRIMARY, press releases, simple listings in databases that just show the company exists, and more than one source that doesn't go to any specific content. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:07, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:01, 18 July 2025 review of submission by Vivekvvarriyer

I was already submited the backlink of 10+ articles may I know why its not engoh Vivekvvarriyer (talk) 09:01, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vivekvvarriyer Please see the referencing tutorial at Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1. Most of your in-line citations are hanging randomly at the end of the draft. They should be in-line with the text. Then choose three sources that meet Wikipedia:42 - a small draft like this doesn't need 20 sources and 8 external links. qcne (talk) 09:09, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:08, 18 July 2025 review of submission by Floy mushi

iam trying to upload my article but it is rejected. Kindly help Floy mushi (talk) 09:08, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Floy mushi. Wikipedia doesn't host memorial pages. Our articles are summaries of existing published sources, nothing else. I would recommend if you wanted to host a memorial for this person, you create your own website? qcne (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:16, 18 July 2025 review of submission by BrodieEdits23

Just delete the page. :-| BrodieEdits23 (talk) 09:16, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marked for deletion. qcne (talk) 09:20, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:28, 18 July 2025 review of submission by 188.17.221.8

Hello, can you help me? I do not understand the problem, the links in the article have a detailed, secondary and independent assessment. I have also inserted books, articles, and journal publications about this in various sources. 188.17.221.8 (talk) 11:28, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please log in when posting(if you are the creator and principle editor of the article). 331dot (talk) 11:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, can you help me? I do not understand the problem, the links in the article have a detailed, secondary and independent assessment. I have also inserted books, articles, and journal publications about this in various sources

13:04, 18 July 2025 review of submission by Acasola

Hello,

my article has been rejected even though i tried to deep dive and find the best referencse i could for this article. I just wanted to ask if articles about the company's past under the name "MBE Worldwide SpA" could cause a problem with regard to compliance with the guidelines, given that Fortidia is the new brand name of MBE Worldwide SpA.

I don't know if I what i said make sense.

Thank you Acasola (talk) 13:04, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Acasola. Only declined, not rejected. The issue with the draft is that your sources do not provide significant coverage of the company: they are mainly press releases. We need independent sources that give some kind of critical analysis/debate/discussion/review. qcne (talk) 13:07, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry could you please explain to me what do you mean with critical analysis/debate/discussion/review? like, if you could give me an example of some other company references.
could you please check if the refences i have right now, i edited, are now quite ok? i'm not sure that none of these work well.
thank you for your help Acasola (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All your references are just routine business coverage of acquisitions and all based on press releases and interviews. That is just churnalism and useless for establishing notability on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:ORGCRIT which outlines an example of the types of sources we need. qcne (talk) 13:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:32, 18 July 2025 review of submission by Ycsblr

Submission rejected Ycsblr (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ycsblr. That's not a question, but yes I rejected your draft as being ChatGPT/AI generated with not a single source. Please carefully read Help:Your first article. qcne (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:47, 18 July 2025 review of submission by BlockyTheMCFan

I need help making the information please 

BlockyTheMCFan (talk) 13:47, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BlockyTheMCFan I rejected this draft, as there is absolutely nothing to indicate this movie even exists. qcne (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your crazy thats mine BlockyTheMCFan (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not question. qcne (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop (Personal attack removed) BlockyTheMCFan (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a specific question you'd like to ask? qcne (talk) 13:55, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BlockyTheMCFan: Do not throw insults at reviewers (or anyone), and do not delete previous reviewers' comments like you did mine. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 14:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BlockyTheMCFan: No sources, no article, no debate. The article itself reads like word salad and is self-contradictory. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:14, 18 July 2025 review of submission by Pksois23

A question on notability for AFL players, as far as I can see from WP:AFL and WP:ATHLETE and by my interpretation of "people who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport", it should include any player who has debuted in the AFL? Is the reason the article was declined that there are not enough sources to prove that he has indeed played in the AFL, or that the fact that he did does not make him notable? I guess if Logan Evans is notable too then Moraes should be too? Pksois23 (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pksois23: what those guidelines say is (and I'm paraphrasing for clarity) that people who play at high enough level are likely to have been covered in sufficient secondary sources to satisfy the general notability guideline WP:GNG. It doesn't mean that they have necessarily been covered, and it doesn't mean that they are somehow automatically considered notable by virtue of this fact. In other words, you still need to cite sources that satisfy GNG. In the case of this draft, it only cites primary sources, which don't count towards GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adding onto what DoubleGrazing said, you would also need to satisfy WP:Biographies of living persons, which doesn't accept the subject itself as a source except for matters no reasonable person with no knowledge of the subject could challenge. You would need strong third-party sources in any event. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:29, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pksois23: Re-signing for proper ping. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:47, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you guys! Pksois23 (talk) 06:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:18, 18 July 2025 review of submission by StartUp Founders

Which information should I edit? StartUp Founders (talk) 14:18, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@StartUp Founders: this draft has been rejected, and will shortly be deleted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:41, 18 July 2025 review of submission by Michelkabondobakimbe

i'm a bit confused Michelkabondobakimbe (talk) 14:41, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Michelkabondobakimbe: what are you confused about? As the reviewer said, this is totally unsuitable for an encyclopaedia, which is what Wikipedia is. Your draft is a somewhat odd mix of CV/resume and personal profile, and we don't publish either of those. We also very strongly discourage editors writing about themselves, see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:41, 18 July 2025 review of submission by Mattygezart23

why did you reject it Mattygezart23 (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattygezart23: because Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, and especially not for things that haven't even been made yet. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:50, 18 July 2025 review of submission by Verdunmh

Article got denied. My main concern is that there is only one place website listing notable/award-winning librarians in Michigan. While I don't expect that page to go down at any point, I'm worried that if it does, that information will be lost, and I believe it's of historical value, especially for genealogists and librarians. The information seems more suited to Wikipedia than genealogy databases, however. I tried to follow the guidelines, but this is my first page, and I didn't want to copy the source material (a list of names) directly, so I just listed awards, instead of the individual names, even though the ultimate goal is to get people's names and achievements listed.

Would the article have been better broken down into multiple pages for the specific awards and winners? My plan was to create pages for those as well, and then create pages for the individuals who won. What's the best way to make sure this information doesn't become lost over time? Again, my main priority is to make sure the achievements of people in the library profession are recognized. Verdunmh (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Verdunmh: The best way would be to host your own website for this information. If the third-party sources don't exist, then we have nothing to summarise for an article and can't even consider one. You could create articles for the specific winners regardless of what ultimately happens to this draft. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:54, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But there was a third-party website that I referenced, and I summarized it. That's why I'm trying to figure out what I did wrong. Verdunmh (talk) 16:56, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Verdunmh: Note that I used the plural above. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:58, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, ok. So if I get another source, like a YouTube video, would that be enough to get it approved? How many sources are needed? Verdunmh (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, at a minimum, we're looking for three sources that each meet reliable; independent; significant coverage. qcne (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Got it. Have 10 sources listed now. Hopefully, that's enough to start the page. Verdunmh (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are several sources and news articles I can use. I just linked to the official website. Verdunmh (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Verdunmh: The official website in this case is not considered third-party (i.e. has no financial, professional, or social connexion to the subject). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:27, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:10, 18 July 2025 review of submission by 9aija

My draft is still getting declined. Can someone help me go through it now and tell me if it’ll be approved now ‘cause I’ve made the significant or the right changes. I missed some things but I have added it. 9aija (talk) 20:10, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have already resubmitted the draft, the reviewer will leave you feedback if not accepted. We don't do pre-review reviews. 331dot (talk) 00:53, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:33, 18 July 2025 review of submission by Akkermansia

Thank you for your feedback. I'm a bit puzzled and would appreciate further clarification: How could a distinguished scientist with multiple published books, extensive media coverage by major national outlets, and independent secondary sources highlighting groundbreaking research be considered lacking significant coverage? The subject has been featured prominently in respected media outlets, which clearly meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability.

Could you kindly advise what specific additional references or criteria you feel are missing, given the extensive media and literary coverage already provided? Your guidance would be greatly appreciated to ensure alignment with Wikipedia’s guidelines. Akkermansia (talk) 20:33, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merely appearing in media does not make him notable. If you have sources that describe why media outlets chose him to appear on them, that would be better.
Large sections of the draft are unsourced. 331dot (talk) 00:51, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 19

00:40, 19 July 2025 review of submission by FurretSuperFan

I don't know which of my sources are reliable and which ones aren't. Would the sources with the interviews of Mitchie be unreliable? Would I need to remove the sources that are in Japanese? A source I use a lot is the from the Tokyo Otaku Mode site, is that one unreliable? Are the news articles I cited unreliable sources? I also took some sources from his Japanese Wikipedia article, so would they be considered unreliable as well?

Should I cut out the part in Mitchie's career section with the heading "realistic tuning?" I have four sources there that praise him for his tuning on his song "Freely Tomorrow" and how it sounds realistic, and I know a lot of the Vocaloid community talks about his realistic tuning but would that section be considered unnecessary or are the sources there unreliable? FurretSuperFan (talk) 00:40, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not need to be in English. Interviews are primary sources and cannot be used to establish notability. 331dot (talk) 00:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not using the interviews to establish notability, however I do use parts of the interviews, mainly when they give a background about Mitchie for the claims of his "realistic" tuning, which aren't stated by Mitchie. Should I remove the references that use the interviews for that? FurretSuperFan (talk) 02:02, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to remove the information from interviews(it just doesn't contribute to notability). 331dot (talk) 08:23, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:17, 19 July 2025 review of submission by Israell

Can I still approve or decline articles? Israell (talk) 05:17, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:43, 19 July 2025 review of submission by Dikshukukreja

Wanted to submit this article for review and get it published on Wikipedia. All the information is backed up by publications and the links.

Here is the link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dikshukukreja Dikshukukreja (talk) 06:43, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it to Draft space at Draft:Dikshu Kukreja and added the appropriate information to allow you to submit it. This is provided automatically if you use the Article Wizard to create and submit a draft. 331dot (talk) 08:22, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:27, 19 July 2025 review of submission by Paulybi

Hello, I noticed my draft article about Traffic Racer was declined for not meeting the notability guidelines. I'm still learning how Wikipedia works, and I would really appreciate any help understanding what exactly is missing or needs improvement.

I did include some independent sources like Pocket Gamer and Lifewire — are these not considered sufficient?

Thank you for any advice or clarification! Paulybi (talk) 07:27, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have resubmitted the draft already. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Laithhand

Hi

I’m sorry for the inconvenience but I’ve recently submitted an Draft:Laith Hamzeh but unfortunately it was declined and I want to know the reason why it was declined and how it can be submitted on the site

In addition, I’m famous actor in my country so plenty of people know me there

Thanks? Laithhand (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Laithhand did you read the information in the decline message? You may also find Your first article helpful along with autobiography. S0091 (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:49, 19 July 2025 review of submission by Verdunmh

I think I fixed the issues. Would someone please take a look and let me know if I still need to fix anything else before resubmitting? Thank you for any help. Verdunmh (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Verdunmh we do not do pre-reviews so if you want another review resubmit it and a reviewer will take a look. S0091 (talk) 14:54, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:20, 19 July 2025 review of submission by Eloquentverse

Hey! I am trying to build the wikis on some early pioneers in Brazilian private equity, including Draft:Luiz Fraga and other associates of Arminio Fraga the ex president of the bank of brazil. All of these guys are incredibly notable in the field and the company they founded has a Wikipedia page, i am not understanding the criteria for notable persons? I found sources from GQ magazine and brazil journal for this one and those are major publications, I find a ton of press articles about deals they made but for some of them like Draft:Amaury Bier and Draft:Paula Bellizia they are very notable but are private people it seems. what is the criteria?? ive seen random people with dubious sources and all of that but mine get declined. I am a total wikipedia noob and wanted to contribute inthe best way i can i appreciate any help!!!! Eloquentverse (talk) 17:20, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Side question do interviews count?? private equity/ceo people in this time and sphere did not really have puff pieces praising them and stuff. but i find a tonof interviews and stats on deals they made. i do find pieces about the jobs they get like Paula Bellizia and Microsoft. i am just a tad confused on criteria! thank you!!! Eloquentverse (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:47, 19 July 2025 review of submission by FurretSuperFan

I'm trying to prove/find a reliable source to show that Mitchie's first album Greatest Idol was released under Sony Music Japan. I was told that the official album site off of Sony Music Japan wasn't reliable enough, and I should look for reviews of the album; however, I couldn't seem to find any reviews for the album. Is there any other way I can prove it was released under Sony Music Japan? FurretSuperFan (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @FurretSuperFan the site is fine to use for verifiability but does not do much help to establish notability. That is where reviews would be helpful. S0091 (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to use it to establish notability but I can't find any reviews about the album. Is there any other sources I can use to establish notability? FurretSuperFan (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:32, 19 July 2025 review of submission by Chittaranjan Murmu Indian Rugby

My draft has not been approved despite all references are available. please approve my article please Chittaranjan Murmu Indian Rugby (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be writing about yourself; while not forbidden, it is highly discouraged, please see the autobiography policy.
If you have summarized everything that is available, then you don't merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 19:51, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:26, 19 July 2025 review of submission by Bscotrousse

Hello, I wonder if you can help me assess whether the new version of my page for Monogamish is ready to resubmit. I added sources for all of the previously unsourced sections (synopsis, production, and cultural context) and streamlined some of the writing. All of the sources cited, including in the "critical reception" section, are reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Film Threat and the Hollywood Reporter, for example, are well-known publications. Thanks for any advice or guidance you can offer! Bscotrousse (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have already resubmitted it, the reviewer will leave you feedback. 331dot (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 20

02:02, 20 July 2025 review of submission by Matthewstarfox

My draft for this article has been declined for a second time. What other sources or information can I add to get this accepted? Matthewstarfox (talk) 02:02, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthewstarfox: you need to find multiple sources which discuss this at significant length and depth. It isn't enough that this operetta exists, it must be somehow worthy of note. If it has been reviewed or critiqued (unlikely, perhaps, given that it was never performed), or its importance analysed in the context of the composer's output or contemporaneous culture etc., that's the sort of sources we would want to see. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:21, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:25, 20 July 2025 review of submission by AlexHuang8FG

Hi everyone, I'm reaching out to ask for some advice on how to improve my Wiki page so that it has a better chance of being approved. This is my first time helping a friend create a professional Wikipedia profile. I've tried multiple times, but the page keeps getting rejected. I’d really appreciate any tips or suggestions from those with experience. Thank you so much!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tony_Tolovae AlexHuang8FG (talk) 04:25, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not meant for creating "professional Wikipedia profiles". As a rule people with a close connection to the article subject aren't suppose to even edit those articles because of the potential for bias though they can make suggestions on the talk pages. Creating articles about them is one step further over the line.
Wikipedia is meant for creating articles about a subject that meets a certain standard of significance. Even if you didn't have a close connection to the subject, nothing in your article draft shows significance. It mentions teams he has been on but there are no links to articles about those teams which raises concerns about whether the teams are significant. Without the teams being significant, how can a player be significant for playing on those teams?
In the addition the references are ill-formed (all those red warnings); even if everything else is fine those have to be fixed before an article can get out of draft space. Then there is your use of Wikipedia:Large language models (follow the link for why dependence on them can lead to problems).
It is not usually a good idea for a new editor to dive straight into creating new articles. Start with fixing up already existing articles you are interested in (make sure they are up-to-date, add necessary references, fix the grammar, learn to work with other editors, learn the rules and guidelines, get a feel for what a good article looks like). Erp (talk) 05:21, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See further discussion at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Tony Tolovae. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:09, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:42, 20 July 2025 review of submission by Mightyheart

Could I get a second opinion on what aspects of the article need further improvement to make it ready for publication? Mightyheart (talk) 05:42, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mightyheart: the second opinion is the same as the first opinion, namely that you need to support the contents better with citations. In articles on living people, pretty much every statement you make must be clearly supported with a citation to a reliable published source. Now there are large chunks of unsupported material. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:13, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please help by pointing out the unsupported material? Mightyheart (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mightyheart: a citation should come after the content it supports. Therefore, any paragraph which ends without a citation, by definition ends unsupported. That is the case with most of the body text paragraphs in this draft. Also, which source gives this person's date of birth, shown in the infobox? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your insights, @DoubleGrazing. I truly appreciate your thoughtful feedback. I have taken your notes into consideration, added a source to confirm the birthdate, and made the changes you suggested earlier. When you have a moment, I would be grateful if you could take another look at the draft and share any further thoughts or suggestions. Mightyheart (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:04, 20 July 2025 review of submission by Nikhilan007

Why my page was declined, it would be a great help If I knew how I can improve this Nikhilan007 (talk) 06:04, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikhilan007: it was declined for a complete lack of any evidence of notability, on account of the draft being unreferenced. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:10, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:59, 20 July 2025 review of submission by Gvrpkumar

Request your review and approval for publishing. Phanindra Kumar.GVR (talk) 08:59, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You will first need to edit the draft amd fundamentally change it to address the concerns of reviewers. Note that, while not absolutely forbidden, writing about yourself is highly discouraged, please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:REF
WP:RS
https://elcinema.com/en/person/2199666/
https://nettv4u.com/celebrity/telugu/actor/phanindra-gollapalli
https://www.filmaffinity.com/us/name.php?name-id=925683625 Phanindra Kumar.GVR (talk) 13:00, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Gvrpkumar. The first and third have essentially no information about him. The second has a little more, but given that there is no author credited, it seems likely that it comes from Gollapolli or his team.
A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else.
Unless your draft cites at least three sources which each meet WP:42, and contains almost nothing which cannot be found in one of those sources, you have little chance of the draft being accepted. ColinFine (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:00, 20 July 2025 review of submission by Erythros Leykos

i am reguesting to review my article for submission after my last edit Erythros Leykos (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should first ask the rejecting reviewer directly to reconsider. 331dot (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you dont know his whereabouts, and his condition right now
the person you talk IS semi RETIRED, taking wikiBREAK coz is facing health issues. Is on vacation
i dont want to do this, i am concern about his health. i am going to talk to him even i don't want to disturb him Erythros Leykos (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Given that the last review was in January I will enable resubmission. 331dot (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:54, 20 July 2025 review of submission by Olena girshman

Article submission On June 13, I submitted the English version of the article already existing in the Russian and Ukrainian languages. The article is devoted to the scientific and artistic work of Elina Sventsytski (Еліна Свенцицька, Элина Свенцицкая)

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F,_%D0%AD%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0

https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%86%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%95%D0%BB%D1%96%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB%D1%96%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0

Please help me understand why the article was not accepted. I believe it contains the necessary sources and this person is known internationally and has works published in different languages. Olena girshman (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Olena girshman You inadvertently linked to a nonexistent page titled "article submission"; I fixed this so it links to your draft as intended.
Please know that the Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedias are separate projects, with their own editors and policies. What is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here. It's up to the translator to determine if the topic meets the notability criteria of the Wikipedia for which they are translating. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others. 331dot (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have essentially written her resume; a Wikipedia article here must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about Ms. Svetsytska, showing how she is either broadly a notable person or more narrowly a notable creative professional. 331dot (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:26, 20 July 2025 review of submission by Fearless Lion

Hello, I created a draft article for Judithe Niyonizera, a Rwandan-Canadian actress, but it was declined without clear feedback on the Talk page. I would appreciate guidance on how to revise it to meet Wikipedia’s standards, especially concerning reliable sources and maintaining a neutral point of view. Thank you very much for your assistance and time! Fearless Lion Fearless Lion (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Fearless Lion.
A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of several cited sources, each of which meets all the criteria of WP:42: being reliable, independent of the subject, and containin significant coverage of the subject.
Your first source in Draft:Judithe Niyonizera is mostly an interview, and so is not independent. The second is mostly an interview with an associate of Niyonizera, and so is not independent.
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) 22:32, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fearless Lion: I've fixed the link to your draft. Colin has given you the reasons that this draft would be declined by a reviewer. However, what actually happened is you "declined" the draft yourself by pasting the decline notice at the top instead of submitting it through the Article Wizard. Did you use a chatbot to write or submit this draft? There are many reasons not to use chatbots to contribute to Wikipedia, and improper draft submissions is one of these. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 22:40, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:29, 20 July 2025 review of submission by MP191

change draft name to Will Burns (comedian) MP191 (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The specific title of a draft is not particularly relevant. The draft will be placed at the proper title when accepted. 331dot (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help regarding Sanjib Bhattacharjee's draft page

Hello, the article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sanjib_Bhattacharjee) has been rejected, however I wanted to reiterate that I have taken great care to ensure that it meets the notability guidelines.

Following changes, there are at least five independent, reliable sources that offer substantial coverage of Mr Bhattacharjee’s road safety work and recognition. I have also included other non-English sources not listed below.

- Assam Tribune — one of India’s most respected papers, with in-depth biographical detail

- Intelligent Instructor — an industry-leading UK publication in the road safety sector

- Road Safety GB — a national body advising on government policy

- Waltham Forest Guardian — showing long-standing political and public activity

- The Pioneer — a global newspaper established in 1865, featuring the subject on its World News page

The Pioneer I have only just added, and demonstrates Mr Bhattacharjee's international relevance.

If you think there are still specific areas that would benefit from stronger sourcing, I would be grateful for any examples or suggestions — and I remain fully committed to improving the draft with further reviewer input.

Thank you. Flyhigh223! (talk) 20:15, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Flyhigh223!. What do you hope to achieve by telling us that the Pioneer was established in 1865? That has absolutely no relevance to anything. The Daily Mail was founded in 1896, but the consensus in Wikipedia is that it is not reliable.
Furthermore the articles in The Pioneer and the Assam Tribune are very clearly paraphrases of each other (whether they are paraphrases of another article, or even a Press Release, I don't know), so at the very least it is misleading to cite them as two different sources. Like them, the first-cited Intelligent Instructor article doesn't have a writer listed (though you cite it to Paul Caddick, for no obvious reason) and quotes Bhattacharjee, so it can't be taken as independent.
I haven't looked further, but this all suggests that you either don't understand or don't care about the criteria for sources in WP:42. I wonder if you wrote the draft backwards? ColinFine (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @ColinFine. Thank you once again for your time and feedback.
This is my first experience writing a Wikipedia article, and I’ve approached the process with a commitment to learning from other reviewers. I appreciate the scrutiny of the draft and the clarity you’ve provided on sourcing expectations.
In earlier versions of the draft, I included citations from Metro (which featured Mr Bhattacharjee’s motoring advice) and NHS volunteer pages on LinkedIn referencing his community service. These were added in good faith because they reflected real-world impact and verifiable roles. However, based on helpful guidance from another reviewer, I removed them — understanding that Wikipedia prioritises sources with strong editorial control, independence, and reputational reliability.
I’ve since focused on including sources that meet those expectations more closely. For example:
  • The Pioneer — established in 1865, and widely regarded in Indian journalism, it published coverage of Mr Bhattacharjee on its World News page, noting his recognition and advocacy work. I referenced its founding year not to imply automatic reliability, but to offer context about its editorial legacy. I understand that age alone doesn't define reliability — and my aim was to spotlight the relevance and reputation of the source. The information in the article seems to be different and the date published is recent (17 July), whereas the others are in January. This implies a change and that he continues to contribute, and it is not from a press release, there are also different images.
  • Assam Tribune, Road Safety GB, Intelligent Instructor, DIA, and The AA — each independently highlight Mr Bhattacharjee’s role in road safety and confirm his status as the first person from London to receive a British Empire Medal (BEM) for driving instructor training. His presence at the King’s New Year Honours press conference was also noted by multiple outlets, underscoring both his national recognition and uniqueness in the field. In terms of the quotes, I didn't realise that small quotes from Bhattacharjee implies non-independence, as the rest of the information is not from him.
Regarding Gati Dainik, a Bengali-language newspaper, I want to clarify that while its coverage included Mr Bhattacharjee’s place of birth, student election victories, and early college leadership, I deliberately chose not to include those details in the draft. My reason was that I could not find corroborating independent sources, and I wanted to avoid synthesis or reliance on non-English sources without appropriate translation. If such non-English material can be included with proper citation and context, I'm happy to revisit it with care.
Please find the auto-translated article below to see the information given:
Headline: Shreebhumi’s Sanjib Bhattacharjee to Receive British Honour
Sanjib Bhattacharjee, originally from Shreebhumi in Karimganj district, has been selected to receive the British Empire Medal (BEM) in recognition of his long-standing contributions to public service and road safety in the United Kingdom. His name was announced in the King’s New Year Honours list, and he becomes the first person from London working in the field of driving instructor training and mentoring to receive this honour.
Born and raised in Shreebhumi, Sanjib was active in student leadership during his education. At Karimganj College, he was elected General Secretary and later Vice President of the student union. He continued his involvement in civic life at Gauhati University, demonstrating early commitment to social engagement.
Since 1989, Sanjib has been involved in volunteer and community service activities in both India and the UK. His work has focused on road safety awareness, mentoring driving instructors, and emergency volunteering, including responses to natural disasters and public health campaigns. His recognition has brought pride to the people of Karimganj and Assam.
In the UK, Mr Bhattacharjee serves as a Trainer and Mentor for driving instructors with two of Britain’s leading motoring organisations: the British School of Motoring (BSM) and the AA. He has held positions within the Labour Party, including President of the party’s local division.
He switched to the Conservative party thereafter, receiving personal recognition from then Prime Minister David Cameron.
As for the Intelligent Instructor article, Paul Caddick’s name appeared on the page when the source was first automatically uploaded (rather than manually), which is why I attributed it to him. If that’s unclear or misleading, I’ll revise it immediately — my intent has always been to ensure transparency and accuracy.
I truly want to get this right and am fully open to further constructive advice. If there are remaining areas that need stronger sourcing or improved context, I would be grateful for any examples or direction. I remain committed to learning through collaboration and improving the article in line with Wikipedia’s standards. Flyhigh223! (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:30, 20 July 2025 review of submission by Yenaled-dsull

Looking for advice on how I can make one of the top journals in the field be accepted as a wikipedia article. I've cited secondary sources (Clavirate, JRank, NIH/NLM) and primary sources both within and outside the publisher.

Other journals, such as Nature Communications and Cell Reports, are similar in how they're presented on wikipedia. Not sure what I need to do...

Thanks! Yenaled-dsull (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion with the reviewer, I've added three new secondary references (now references 4, 5, 6) that mention JCP as a leading journal in key dermpath areas of research such as skin cancer. Hope this warrants reconsideration :) Yenaled-dsull (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Yenaled-dsull: you've asked also on my talk page, but I'll respond here, so others can join in if they wish.
When I reviewed this, there were three sources cited, one of which didn't actually point to an external source, the others were to the journal's own pages on Wiley's website. There was a claim of notability, namely inclusion in Science Citation Index, but this was only verified by Wiley, whereas it would be better to get independent verification.
Since then more sources have been added, still primary ones, but at least some are independent of Wiley. That said, I've not analysed them in any detail. I'm pinging the reviewer who rejected this, Caleb Stanford, who can hopefully tell you more. (FWIW, I think this journal probably is notable, but in cases of rejected drafts, the primary recourse is normally the rejecting reviewer.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:32, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, re-pinging Caleb here, @Caleb Stanford: 4.4.133.77 (talk) 23:26, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
^sorry, that was me; forgot to login. Yenaled-dsull (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Yenaled-dsull:
I am not sure realistically how much I can help you with this.
I may have made a mistake in my previous review as I judged this relative to WP:GNG, however, WP:NJOURNALS is the more specific criteria that would apply here. Specifically, it looks like we should be looking for:
Criterion 1: The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area.
Criterion 2: The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources.
Criterion 3: The journal is historically important in its subject area.
Basically, we need reliable sources demonstrating the above three statements. If you can find papers or other sources which discuss the reliability or historical significance of this journal, then that's great.
For what "reliable" means: it's not just a subjective thing, but based on consensus. JRank is not considered reliable according to the table at WP:Perennial sources, so should be removed. For reliable sources, always prefer sources listed in green on that table if you can find any.
It sometimes happens that even a topic that is notable (in general terms) does not have significant coverage in enough independent articles and so is not considered notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. It may sound backwards, if this is the top journal in your field, but then again it depends on the size of your field and how obscure it is. Reliable coverage in independent sources is the gold standard for how this is judged.
I am not an expert in academic medicine so not sure I can really help more! Please leave this for others if you have further questions or ask at WP:Teahouse. You can always edit and re-submit. You would want to be very clear about how the above criteria are met, both in the article and in the comments.
If I were you, I would find some sources that are reliable, independent, and clearly demonstrate 1-3 above. If such sources exist, post them in a comment, and resubmit for AfC.
I hope that helps!
So sorry that I cannot help any further with this. Kind regards, Caleb Stanford (talk) 03:05, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Caleb Stanford: - As I said above, I had already updated the page since your most recent review. Also as mentioned above: I've added three new secondary references (now references 4, 5, 6) that mention JCP as a leading journal in key dermpath areas of research such as skin cancer.
Those references are reliable -- all three of them are peer-reviewed journal articles with PUBMED IDs. (In fact, they all cite the journal I'm trying to create a page for AND mention how it's the #1 or #2 journal in research in key skin conditions).
I can't resubmit because you put it as "rejected" rather than "declined". Yenaled-dsull (talk) 04:57, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
^Just now, I copied and pasted that message into the comments of the page I'm trying to create by the way. Yenaled-dsull (talk) 05:01, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, did not realize that issue. I can resubmit on your behalf when I get back to a computer. Caleb Stanford (talk) 05:19, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Will be sometime tomorrow Caleb Stanford (talk) 05:21, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:56, 20 July 2025 review of submission by Mr. Tabodi!

I don't know, why? Mr. Tabodi! (talk) 23:56, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Tabodi!: I don't know why you would submit a sandbox saying "this is my sandbox", over and over, wasting reviewers' time? If you've no interest in helping us build an encyclopaedia, there are things we can do about that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:59, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 21

00:39, 21 July 2025 review of submission by Ajcomeau

I don't understand why the references in this draft are inadequate. This is an article about an episode of the TV show M*A*S*H, like many other episode articles on Wikipedia. I actually used the entry for "The Winchester Tapes" as a template. What other references do I need to add? Ajcomeau (talk) 00:39, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajcomeau: this draft is completely unreferenced, apart from one rather irrelevant factoid, and even that cites a source that doesn't even mention the subject. As such, it fails our core requirements of verifiability and notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:56, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Ajcomeau. As for other episodes, please see other stuff exists. ColinFine (talk) 06:53, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:58, 21 July 2025 review of submission by Parvin joon Naficy

Why My Article is Declined. This is a complete bio of Parvin Joon Naficy. And I added all the document. If this is not article this is a bio so give me a help how to live this bio Parvin joon Naficy 04:58, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Parvin joon Naficy: I'm assuming you're asking about the draft in your sandbox, User:Parvin joon Naficy/sandbox, which was reviewed a week ago? (You also have created Draft:Fatollah Naficy on the same subject, but that was never reviewed.)
The draft is not ready for publication, because it is insufficiently referenced, and there is therefore no reliable evidence that the person in question is notable. You cite three sources, the first of which is obviously relevant, but it isn't clear to what extent the other two cover this person, and since all sources are offline, it is difficult to ascertain this. What's more, you've cited each source only once, suggesting they each cover only a limited amount of the draft content, and you've piled the citations at the end rather than inline after the information each source supports, making it impossible for the reviewer to know where all this information has come from and how much of it is actually supported by the sources, versus not.
On a different matter, judging by your username, I assume you are related to the person you're writing about? If so, that gives rise to a conflict of interest (COI) which must be disclosed. This was already queried on your talk page, but you seem not to have responded. Please do so now. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:50, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:43, 21 July 2025 review of submission by BradOdis

Hello, I have included multiple credible sources that are not merely one-line mentions. The company's past works, location and relationship with publishers were reported in these sources. It is nearly impossible for game development companies, who do not own the IP of the games they worked on, to receive the so called in-depth reports about the company itself. The fact that Konami filmed a behind-the-scenes video about the developers of the game, SILENT HILL f, is not only proof that the company is recognized by Konami, but also evidence that the company is receiving huge media exposure. There has been talks/ discussions about the company in game forums and related videos. This is an appropriate timing to add a Wikipedia page of the company to give the public organized information about it. To gain more in-depth coverage about the company will require hiring of PR agencies, which is against the vision of Wikipedia. As a result, I'd like to request a re-opening of this page for review. BradOdis (talk) 05:43, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BradOdis: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. The sources are interviews, press releases, product announcements, etc., none of which contributes towards notability per WP:NCORP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:04, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:08, 21 July 2025 review of submission by Ericamary70

i dont understand the issue Ericamary70 (talk) 06:08, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ericamary70: This is a very blatant advertizement. We take a zero-tolerance approach to being used as a billboard. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:13, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Augie K Fabela

Hi again!

My draft on Augie Fabela has been declined again. The reason provided was once again lack of notability, saying Mr. Fabela is not mentioned in other reviews of the film. However, there are multiple ones that discuss him and his relation to Zimin. Here are a few: https://filmthreat.com/reviews/connected-2025/, https://www.filmfocusonline.com/post/connected-review-friendship-documentary, https://meduza.io/en/feature/2025/03/08/film-review-vera-krichevskaya-s-connected, https://www.movie-blogger.com/connected-2025-film-review/, and many, many more. He is literally one of the two subjects of the film, which centers around Zimin reminiscing with him on their journey as they take one last cruise before Zimin elects to undergo euthanasia. As I previously mentioned, Dmitri Zimin has his deserving and undisputed article on Wikipedia, where Augie Fabela is mentioned as his friend, partner, and co-founder of Vimpelcom. I understand the reluctance to accept COI articles, but request that you please look at this one in an objective way. If the text needs to be edited, if any bits need to be removed or updated in order for the article to work, please edit away or let me know and I'll happily do so. All I ask is that this article be considered for the subject notability and not for my conflict of interest. Thank you - M VEON.MNS (talk) 07:37, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Adding to this that apart from Augie Fabela being the subject of award winning documentary “Connected”, along with friend and business partner Dmitri Zimin - for which many reviews are available online, he has also written two books, one of which (The Impatience Economy) is an Amazon bestseller; he is co-founder of one of the very first telecommunication companies from the former Soviet Union to be listed on the NYSE; he has been quoted and mentioned in multiple pieces about VEON, a telecommunications company publicly listed on NASDAQ, (https://www.brecorder.com/news/40332589, https://www.capacitymedia.com/article/-kyivstar-nasdaq, https://ru.interfax.com.ua/news/general/1089118.html, and many, many more). He has spoken at countless public events and been covered by Yahoo Finance, (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/veon-shareholders-elect-board-2025-152000875.html) and NASDAQ themselves (https://www.facebook.com/Nasdaq/videos/behindthebell-vimplecom-co-founder-chairman-emeritus-aug/10154610846847429/, https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/veon-ltd-shareholders-re-elect-board-and-chairman-augie-fabela-2025-agm). VEON.MNS (talk) 11:46, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @VEON.MNS. Just responding to the paragraph above:
  • Documentary about him: possibly relevant, if truly indepedent and issued by a producer regarded as reliable.
  • Written books: irrelevant (unless independently written about)
  • Amazon bestseller: irrelevant
  • co-founder of anything: irrelevant unless independently written about
  • quoted: irrelevant
  • mentioned: irrelevant
  • Has spoken: irrelevant unless etc.
  • "covered by" - depends what the "coverage" is. Is it independent, and in depth, or is it just a passing mention, or based on an interview or press release?
Please study WP:42 to understand what kind of sources are an non-negotiable requirement for an article. ColinFine (talk) 15:00, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. I have studied the reliable sources guides inside and out. That is why I can't understand the rejection of the sources I've provided. The film "Connected" was made by a well known director Vera Krichevskaya. The film is narrated mostly by Fabela as it is literally about his life and friendship with Dmitri Zimin. All the sources written about him refer to his business activity or philanthropy, as well as the huge effect he and his company had in Ukraine, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, and many many others. I would encourage you to look at the actual draft and sources, and also to research the man, if you'd like. I am only asking for my request to be considered objectively. Many thanks and appreciation. VEON.MNS (talk) 08:15, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:18, 21 July 2025 review of submission by Rashiwiki123

Hey Admin

please give me advice to publish my article

Thank you Rashiwiki123 (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. You were given advice by previous reviewers. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OP blocked as a confirmed sock.-- Ponyobons mots 19:57, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:11, 21 July 2025 review of submission by 2001:DF7:BE80:10EB:51E8:35D5:7D58:998A

I wouldn't find reliable sources in this topic but in Nepal parliament doesn't always published about there leader but majority Parliamentary party leader who is not minister is known as leader of the Ruling Party in the National Assembly so, quite hard find source about it. How would I improve if there no any reliable sources. 2001:DF7:BE80:10EB:51E8:35D5:7D58:998A (talk) 09:11, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no reliable sources that provide coverage of a topic, it cannot have an article on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But I provide some news source which related to this topic, for example I already say that majority coalition who Parliamentary party leader is not minister is known as leader of the ruling in the national assembly, whereas minority or opposition Parliamentary party leader is known as leader of the opposition in the National Assembly. 2001:DF7:BE80:10EB:51E8:35D5:7D58:998A (talk) 09:31, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be saying this is an equivalent position to Party leaders of the United States House of Representatives; I'd look to that as a guide. 331dot (talk) 09:37, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly like Party leaders of the United States House of Representatives but same as it. For example Devendra Dahal was is Parliamentary party leader of CPN (UML) and also Leader of the Ruling Party in the National Assembly but due appointment as minister he not recognised as leader of ruling party but now Krishna Prasad Sitaula who parliamentary party leader of Nepali Congress and also recognised as leader of the ruling party, who is one of the Parliamentary Party leaders inside coalition parties. 27.34.72.60 (talk) 09:48, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:03, 21 July 2025 review of submission by 82.60.205.119

my bosses are putting a lot of pressure on me for the brand to have a wikipedia page, could you please assist me in understanding what exactly you need from me to be able to have this page? 82.60.205.119 (talk) 10:03, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting.
Please read WP:BOSS, and show it to your bosses too. I'm sorry they have put you in a difficult position, but we aren't concerned with deadlines or other requirements imposed on you by others. If you are editing about your company, the Terms of Use require that to be disclosed on your user page(see WP:PAID).
Brands/companies do not "have pages" here, pages that they own and control. Wikipedia has articles about topics that meet our criteria, like a notable company. You have not demonstrated that the company is notable, which is why the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further.
Your bosses may also want to read about how the presence of a Wikipedia article is not necessarily a good thing. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:08, 21 July 2025 review of submission by Scroll kgitla

How can I add or attach a photograph on my draft? Scroll kgitla (talk) 10:08, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Photos are not relevant to the draft process, which only considers the text and sources. You don't need to worry about photos until the draft is accepted into the encyclopedia. They are an enhancement, not a requirement.
You have bigger issues than photos- "rising" anything almost never merits an article. A subject must have already arrived and be noticed in order to draw the coverage in independent reliable sources needed to support an article. You need to summarize what independent sources say and show how he is a notable musician.
Social media is also not acceptable as a source. 331dot (talk) 10:15, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:38, 21 July 2025 review of submission by Spworld2

I have prepared this draft of an article on religious harmony in the South Indian state of Kerala. I need help checking it to see if it is of the quality to publish and publishing it. Spworld2 (talk) 10:38, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It is an essay that advocates for a particular point of view. It does not neutrally summarize what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about the topic. 331dot (talk) 11:18, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:48, 21 July 2025 review of submission by MichaelMorris96

New notable citations have been added to the topic. MichaelMorris96 (talk) 11:48, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing you should attempt is asking the rejecting reviewer to reconsider their rejection, directly on their user talk page. 331dot (talk) 11:59, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:04, 21 July 2025 review of submission by Mkalcher

@Avgeekamfot @QCNE @KylieTastic

Are you serious? You guys just said before that there were too many primary sources. So I spent hours trying to find external sources that mention the institute. Now you're saying, the sources added make it seem like an advertisement? Please understand that there is NOT A LOT OF MATERIAL ABOUT THE INSITUTE ONLINE. If you don't believe that the Institute exists, or any of the history stated is false, I will gladly book you a ticket to Zurich, and you can come physically look at the Institute with your own eyes. Mkalcher (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mkalcher. Courtesy ping @Avgeekamfot and @KylieTastic.
What would you say are your three best secondary sources from the draft? qcne (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say:
1. https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2013/08/03/the-machine-of-a-new-soul
2. https://science-stories.ch/indiveri/
3. https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/sci-tech/neuroscientists-count-on-technology-evolution/37190572
Would you consider an autobiography of one of the institutes founders that is hosted on an external academic website a primary source? If not, definitely this also. Mkalcher (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mkalcher
  1. This is a single reference to Giacomo Indiveri, an engineer at the Institute. That doesn't meet the significant coverage of the institute.
  2. An interview with Giacomo Indiveri - again, doesn't discuss the institute as a concept.
  3. A single reference.
If these are your best sources, then the institute unfortunately does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). qcne (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well then unfortunately there is nothing anyone can do, and the world will never know about this place.
2. "Your institute is famous all over the world for its research. What do you do differently?
The institute works in an interdisciplinary manner. When it was founded in 1995, it was the first in Zurich that was associated to both ETH Zurich and the University of Zurich. We are the home to physicists, mathematicians, neuroscientists, computer scientists, bioengineers, electrical engineers and many other specialists. They all have to complete a course in biology as we want to understand the biological principles inside the brain.
«Today, the world’s best researchers
in this field are in Zurich and in Europe.»
We owe this structure to the founders of the institute: ETH Zurich Physics Professor Klaus Hepp who fought for an institute of neuroinformatics when hardly anyone knew about this young branch of research; to the Zurich City Council and the Government Council of the Canton of Zurich which recognised the potential of this research area as well as to the first heads of the institute, Kevan A. C. Martin and Rodney J. Douglas who were both enticed away in 1995 from Oxford University.
When did you join the institute?
I came to Zurich roughly one year after the institute was founded as a postdoc from the California Institute of Technology (Caltech). (...)"
This literally talks about the history of the institute?
As I said. What I have in the draft is everything that exists about the institute. If you don't think this is enough then there's nothing anyone can do, the world will never know about this place. Mkalcher (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Mkalcher.
I will make a correction about my analysis of source 2 though, you're right it does discuss the institute, but being an interview with the Professor at the Institute it is not independent of the institute. Apologies for misleading you the initial assessment.
It's really common for smaller or newer institutions or organisations to not merit an article on Wikipedia. It is not a case that Wikipedia doesn't think that the institution doesn't exist or isn't important: our articles are based off secondary sources that cover the subject in detail. If there are no secondary sources, there can be no article. Does that make sense?
In the future it's very possible secondary sources will write about the institute, and that will mean it will likely meet our criteria for inclusion.
Wikipedia isn't the final say on if the world knows about a subject. It's absurd to say the world will never know about the institute just because there is no article. qcne (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mkalcher Did you take the aerial shot of the campus as you are claiming? Seems higher than could be done with a drone.
If you are associated with this Institute, that must be disclosed, see WP:COI. If you are compensated in any way for your association, the Terms of Use require disclosure, see WP:PAID.
Sources do not need to be online, as long as they are publicly accessible(like books/magazines in a library). We don't want just mentions of the Institute, there needs to be significant coverage of it, more than just detailing what it does and its activities. 331dot (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mkalcher, The statement "If you don't believe that the Institute exists, or any of the history stated is false" shows you are misunderstanding what is required. Subjects are required to show that they are notable per Wikipedia:Notability not just 'exists'. I have not rechecked the current sources as I'm at work but when I first declined it was all primary sources, I see that it has moved on from that, but it appears the subsequent reviewers have not seen the depth of coverage to show notability. Also as Avgeekamfot said in a comment the use of inline external links is inappropriate, the point of an encyclopedic article is not a link farm for the subjects groups - see Wikipedia:External links especially section WP:ELLIST. Is there not a single source to use as a reference for the current groups? That being said I would think the subject could be notable, you just need to find 3+ independent, reliable sources, that have non-trivial coverage. Final note is that sources do not have to be in English and I would expect converge in German at least. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"you just need to find 3+ independent, reliable sources, that have non-trivial coverage".
Please understand that I put on "everything" I could find about this place. I am student and only have so much free time, I don't think I can do anything else for this, seems like a lost cause. Thanks. Mkalcher (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Mkalcher. I'm afraid that may be so. Many organisations (and people), though notable in the ordinary sense of the word, are not notable (sometimes, not yet notable) by Wikipedia's criteria.
A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else. If such soures do not exist, there cannot be an article.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. (I see your account has been around for three months, but with only seven edits in your history, you are still a new editor) ColinFine (talk) 15:05, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well there is no rush, if you come across sources in the months ahead you can re-visit. I've noticed a subject not having an article several times and just not been able to find enough sources - we are all reliant on the sources both existing, and being able to find them. You gave it a go which is a good thing: only by trying and sometimes failing can you learn, those that don't even try won't learn. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:12, 21 July 2025 review of submission by Noyanhehe

Banu Wifi draft review and sourcing help Reason for requesting assistance: Hello! I recently submitted a draft article titled "Banu Wifi", but it was declined with the reason being lack of notability and concerns about sourcing. The draft is based on a real online community that originated from the Imamiyah Discord server. I cited a Substack article that documents the group and their activities. I would like help understanding:

1. What kind of additional sources would make this notable?


2. Whether a Substack article (written independently and publicly available) is sufficient as a primary or supporting source.


3. How I can improve the tone, neutrality, or format to meet AfC standards.


I’m willing to improve the draft if given more specific guidance. Here is the link to the draft: User:Noyanhehe/sandbox

Thank you in advance! Noyanhehe (talk) 13:12, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noyanhehe I fixed your header so it provides a link to your draft as intended, instead of linking to a nonexistent page titled "Banu Wifi draft review and sourcing help". The whole url is not needed when linking to another page or article on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Large portions of the draft are unsourced. Where are you getting this information? 331dot (talk) 13:16, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know those ppl belonging to this movement actually & information is 100% reliable, I've seen a blogger post as well should i link that one too? in reference Noyanhehe (talk) 13:21, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Drafts cannot be written based on your personal knowledge or other information that is not published in a reliable source- no matter how accurate it may be or how much you trust the people telling you. Others need to be able to verify the information. 331dot (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well the information is 100% reliable & its not based on personal knowledge mostly is collected by other members & totally accurate Noyanhehe (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it doesn't matter how accurate the information is if it is not published in an independent reliable source that can be verified. We cannot verify "some people told me this, and I believe them, it's totally accurate! Trust me!" It would be like me saying that I have very good, accurate information that you are a space alien from the planet Vulcan who is disguised as a human. You have no means of looking at that information to see where it is coming from(to know that it is, of course, a lie).
I don't disbelieve anything you have said. But if it's not in a published source, it can't be in a Wikipedia article. You could try other websites with less stringent requirements, like social media or a blogging site. 331dot (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
so what should be done to publish this page of banu wifi? Noyanhehe (talk) 13:36, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you have no reliable sources, there is nothing that can be done. 331dot (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Noyanhehe I have rejected this draft. qcne (talk) 13:55, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:06, 21 July 2025 review of submission by JKR98116

Draft article was rejected for reliance on primary rather than secondary references. In trying to amend, I find that I could edit the article itself, but when I attempt to edit the references, I am offered only: (references section) with all of the contents absent. How can I edit the references? JKR98116 (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{reflist}} only collects references that are properly cited above it in the text; you would need to edit the references at the spot they are cited in the text. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:16, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:51, 21 July 2025 review of submission by 193.60.93.98

Hi there,

I would like to ask for more specific feedback regarding this comment: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources."

Moreover, I received this particular comment on this draft project as well: "Many unsourced claims and excessive use of external links." Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 21:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Could you please provide more context, give particular examples and let me know how to improve the next iteration of the Wikipedia page?

Thank you in advance. 193.60.93.98 (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor, you need to cite your sources so that we know where the information is coming from. For example:
  • Anoop Chandola (December 24, 1937 – January 31, 2024) - where did you find his birth and death date?
  • He was born into a Brahmin family and raised in the mountainous region of Pauri Garhwal, Uttarakhand, India. - how do we know that?
  • He attended the Christian Messmore Intermediate College of Pauri, a Methodist school run by Indian Christians of Chinese origin. - how do we know that?
  • After completing a year of intermediate education, he joined D.A.V. College of Lucknow for his second and final year, majoring in Hindi literature. - how do we know that?
  • He later pursued undergraduate studies in Economics, Sanskrit, and English literature at the University of Allahabad. - how do we know that?
You will see I have not even gotten past the lede and already there are a lot of claims that need to be sourced. Have a look at WP:42 and WP:REFB for how to do this. Please also see WP:EL for the policy on external links - you must remove these from in the main text, so for example 'Ford Foundation Scholarship' should not link to their website. If their site mentions Mr Chandola's scholarship, you could use it as a source with proper citation (WP:REFB). I hope this is helpful and wish you happy editing. Meadowlark (talk) 03:06, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:10, 21 July 2025 review of submission by Theanikbd

If i m doing anything wrong input or any supporting according to your policies. Extremely sorry. Please advise me for further Theanikbd (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Please see the messages left by reviewers. 331dot (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:21, 21 July 2025 review of submission by Nikhilan007

Hi Team,

Why was my page declined? This time, I added the sources, too, but still it didn't get approved. Can someone guide me on what all points I should keep in mind before publishing?

Best, Nik Nikhilan007 (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Nikhilan007. Step one: find sources that are reliable, indepedndent, and contain significant coverage of USICOC. See WP:42.
You have not so far done this: The Dallas Innovates piece is mostly not about USICOC, and where it is, it is not independent. The profile is a primary source which almost certainly comes from USICOC, and so it not indepenent. I haven't watched the video, but I doubt whether it contains in-depth independent material about USICOC. And the News India Times piece does not even mention USICOC, and it is hard to see why it would even be cited.
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) 20:49, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:22, 21 July 2025 review of submission by HSCNU2402

Hi there,

The reviewer rejected my creation because of "advertisement" reason. There are lots of existing wikipedia pages regarding living or passed professors. My creation is nothing different than the others (see some references below). Why is my creation considered as "advertisement" despite with lots of notable references and citations?

The comment is not specific enough for me to make further modifications before resubmissions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Uzzi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Jones_(economist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_Chen_(engineer) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chang-Lin_Tien https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Berdahl

Best, HSC HSCNU2402 (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The whole url is not needed when linking.
Please see other stuff exists. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and you would be unaware of that.
Your copyright information for the image is invalid- you will need to go to commons and give evidence that the photographer, not the subject, released the image. If you cannot do that, you must request its deletion. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You say the professor is your advisor- this likely makes you a paid editor as he gives you grades and advice as "payment". 331dot (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. However, what you said seems unrelated to the reviewer's rejection reason.
"The whole url is not needed when linking." Well, I can try modify it. Or anyone can if public. That is also not the given reason of rejection.
Also, if something similar published in wiki, there should be a reason for that. People see these pages and will have the idea to create similar topics. So still the question is valid: what is the difference between my creation and the others which got published? By knowing this difference more specifically, I will have a better idea of how to modify. This question cannot just be answered by "Each article or draft is judged on its own merits".
COI disclosure was made and I will deal with the image issue. And I am not paid in any form of doing so. This kind of unjustified statement can be used in anyone who created pages for other professors and other notable people. Most importantly, that seems also not the given reason of rejection.
Again, specific reasons related to the rejection reasons (advertisement, notability, etc.) will be better since I have already included many independent, published sources like the others. HSCNU2402 (talk) 04:19, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @HSCNU2402, I will try to clarify some things.
The other articles you have found did not go through the AfC process. They were either created before the process existed, or they were created outside the process - which may be done by editors who do not have a conflict of interest. The main difference is that those articles were created according to the standards of their times (between 2002 and 2018), which are not the same as the current standards. All new articles must comply with current standards. Your draft does not yet do so. We would very much like it if all the older articles on Wikipedia also complied with current standards, but there are not enough editors to find and update all of them, unfortunately.
Some things you will need to do, as a starting point:
  • Remove all external links in the main text of the draft - please see WP:EL for more information
  • Cite all claims made in the draft, preferably to sources that establish notability - please see WP:42 and WP:REFB for more information
For example, you write, He is widely recognized for: Developing micro- and nano-electromechanical systems (MEMS/NEMS). The citation is to a paper he has written. This does not back up the claim that he is widely recognized for it; you need to find a source that says 'Espinosa is widely known for developing micro-' etc. You must do this for every single claim in the draft, including his birthplace, his career information, his company, the awards he has won, and so on. If you can't find a source for a claim, it's best to remove it.
I note also that the reviewer thinks that you may have used an AI/LLM to help you create the draft. Could you please let us know whether there has been any AI/LLM input, for example working with ChatGPT? Meadowlark (talk) 08:16, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HSCNU2402 Sorry, my comment about not needing the whole url was referring to your links in your post to other Wikipedia articles only. You just need to place the title in double brackets, like this, [[Nobel Peace Prize]]
Does your professor not grade your work? 331dot (talk) 08:41, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:11, 21 July 2025 review of submission by Dhil Knight

This page was declined I was just adding a series to Wikipedia which is a web series that first aired from 1994 to 2006 and revived in 2022 as a reboot series I was paid to edit and add articles Dhil Knight (talk) 21:11, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dhil Knight: No sources, no article, no debate. The entire "article" is a massive run-on sentence. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:38, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OP blocked as a confirmed sock.-- Ponyobons mots 22:39, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:13, 21 July 2025 review of submission by AIAEditor57

Why the sources indicated do support Wikipedia Notability:

Significant coverage: Each covers Damiano's work and leadership roles in detail—not just brief mentions.

Independent and credible: The articles are from museums, reputable community journalism, academic institutions, and civic organizations.

Documented leadership: They verify his roles as AIA national president, AIA College of Fellows chancellor, and chair of the American Architectural Foundation.

Disciplined context: The articles describe his architectural projects, public sculpture installations, exhibitions, and lectures—substantiating his professional and creative impact. 

AIAEditor57 (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @AIAEditor57. Independent: anything from a museum where he has exhibited, or an institution or organisation he is employed by or a member of, is not independent.
Please don't use LLMs anywhere on Wikipedia, including talking to us here: we want to talk to a person, not a machine. ColinFine (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:34, 21 July 2025 review of submission by Anikmsharfuddin

Positive and no commercial issues Anikmsharfuddin (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected and will not be considered further.
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) 21:50, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:39, 21 July 2025 review of submission by Gracebarlow

I tried to add references but it says I did it wrong. Can you help advise me on how to properly add the references to the article? Gracebarlow (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I gather that you are related to the subject.....please declare a conflict of interest on your user page(User:Gracebarlow). See WP:COI.
As advised, please see Referencing for beginners to learn more about referencing. 331dot (talk) 21:46, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 22

01:21, 22 July 2025 review of submission by Theconnorrossfangirl11

to accept connor ross into wikipedia. i have been working on this article 4 months n stil nuttin. what can i do? Theconnorrossfangirl11 (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Theconnorrossfangirl11.
The answer is, Nothing. Some people (groups, companies, schools, charities, events ... ) are simply not notable by Wikipedia's criteria, ie. they haven't been independent written about much. In that case, no article is possible, and you are wasting time and effort trying to create one.
Your draft has been rejected and deleted - that is the end of the line. ColinFine (talk) 07:23, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
damn that iz sad. he is notable in my eyes plus i thought dat the rotten tomatoes and tv guide refs would saveit too Theconnorrossfangirl11 (talk) 09:10, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:20, 22 July 2025 review of submission by Abcontributor

Hi, my contribution keeps being declined for not being neutral enough, but I'm struggling to see where there is any subjective information. I've included sources for all points made and kept the language factual. Can anybody point me to the problematic text so I can comply? Abcontributor (talk) 04:20, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abcontributor Your draft was only declined once; a more important reason that was not addressed by @Aydoh8 is that you have not shown that the company meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies); none of your sources meet all the criteria outlined there.
Please see WP:Conflict of interest and WP:PAID; if you have a connection to this company, you should disclose it, and if you are employed at this company or otherwise have a financial connection, you are required to declare yourself as a paid editor. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:29, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:27, 22 July 2025 review of submission by 5.195.161.185

please help me to upload this article in wikipedia 5.195.161.185 (talk) 05:27, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected for the reasons provided, and will not be published in the encyclopaedia. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 05:30, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:53, 22 July 2025 review of submission by ᖻᒪᓱ ᒋᔈᒪ

Óki! (Hello!) I need help for the wikipedia article: Voiceless velar alveolar sibilant affricate, it’s a article about the ks sound in Blackfoot, but i need some help for many reliable sources and more. And Nitsíniiyi’taki(Thank you). ᖻᒪᓱ ᒋᔈᒪ (talk) 08:53, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ᖻᒪᓱ ᒋᔈᒪ. You have cited "Frantz 1999" but not included any other bibliographical information about this reference. qcne (talk) 08:57, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but i need help finding sources about the ks sound. ᖻᒪᓱ ᒋᔈᒪ (talk) 09:11, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't really get into co-editing or co-research here; we just help with the submission process. You could ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics/Phonetics. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks. ᖻᒪᓱ ᒋᔈᒪ (talk) 09:28, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:41, 22 July 2025 review of submission by Dilanrajeewalk1997

why Rejected 

Dilanrajeewalk1997 (talk) 09:41, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's just spam, @Dilanrajeewalk1997. qcne (talk) 09:50, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
no miracle baby is my company Dilanrajeewalk1997 (talk) 09:53, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dilanrajeewalk1997 I am not disputing that. But all you've done is written a spam draft which will shortly be deleted. qcne (talk) 09:56, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How do you do it right then? Dilanrajeewalk1997 (talk) 09:58, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dilanrajeewalk1997 Have a very careful read of Help:Your first article and then Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). qcne (talk) 09:59, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:50, 22 July 2025 review of submission by AlbertoCuevasHU

I need some assistance to review my submission once again, I have updated the article with the feedback and I would like to have it be seen again, Thank you! AlbertoCuevasHU (talk) 09:50, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi :@AlbertoCuevasHU. You can press the Resubmit button at the top to have it re-submitted for review. Before you do, please remove all the external links from the body of the text as per Wikipedia:External links. qcne (talk) 09:52, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:52, 22 July 2025 review of submission by MagicalPavard

Hello, so i've heard that there's a user that goes by the name of DoubleGrazing, who declined by submission, i was wondering why since that is the maximum of information that i could got fof the Band fur Afrika page.

Thanks for reading MagicalPavard (talk) 09:52, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MagicalPavard: you've also heard that rumour, have you?
Your draft doesn't cite one single source, how are we meant to know if any of it is even true? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:56, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @MagicalPavard. There is not a single source on your draft? Please very carefully read Wikipedia:Verifiability. qcne (talk) 09:57, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:59, 22 July 2025 review of submission by Abhaykamble2005

My article is speedly deleted Abhaykamble2005 (talk) 09:59, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, @Abhaykamble2005. Wikipedia is not a social media website and we do not have personal profiles, which is what I think you have tried to write. It is not suitable for Wikipedia. qcne (talk) 10:01, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:11, 22 July 2025 review of submission by 212.108.134.119

Please could I ask for help with respect to Maintenance Templates?

In the AfC which I am currently drafting, two Maintenance Templates have been inserted advising ‘This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (Learn how and when to remove this message)’

The first Maintenance Template refers to Appointments and I believe that I may now have ‘fixed’. There are 14 appointments listed, each of which now has either one or two citations.

The second Maintenance Template is more problematic because it refers to the subject’s Personal Life thereby posing the challenge of validating the content. I have now been able to include two citations, one used twice, and one used once, in an entry comprising 133 words in two paragraphs.

Having clicked on ‘Learn how … etc’, I have noted, even though I believe I may have fixed the issues, that if I have a conflict of interest (COI) then I should not remove the Maintenance Templates. The COI is on my talk page: the subject of the AfC is my now deceased father.

I would like to resubmit my AfC, if possible, having worked on the editing since it was declined last year.

Please can you let me know how I should proceed? Many thanks

212.108.134.119 (talk) 10:11, 22 July 2025 (UTC)Kestrel2Zero[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1301913973"