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 Plmoin2514 (talk | contribs) at 09:44, 26 July 2025 (Requesting assistance regarding Draft:Singapore_Arrival_Card). 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 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]
Hi @ColinFine, did you get a chance to look at the above message? I really appreciate your time. Thanks and I look forward to hearing back from you soon. Flyhigh223! (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, @Flyhigh223!, I'm not interested in following this up. ColinFine (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, can anybody else help me then? Flyhigh223! (talk) 16:12, 25 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]
Thank you very much for the very specific guidance! Now I know how to modify. And no, not AI or LLM generated draft. I drafted this based on similar wiki posts. HSCNU2402 (talk) 01:12, 23 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]
Thanks a lot! HSCNU2402 (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not taking any school classes anymore. HSCNU2402 (talk) 01:10, 23 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]
Thanks for your input @Helpful Raccoon I'll review the notability criteria! 81.107.33.102 (talk) 10:22, 24 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]
Hello, @Dilanrajeewalk1997. 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) 10:47, 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]
Thank you! I have done so now, would you be someone available to review it?
Thanks again AlbertoCuevasHU (talk) 15:33, 25 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]
This would mean citations are missing? I will add them MagicalPavard (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MagicalPavard, I see you've been working on adding citations, which is great - but your sources must meet all three criteria in WP:42. Discogs, Google Groups and IMDb aren't reliable sources, unfortunately. You may have written this draft backwards, starting with what you know rather than starting with independent, reliable sources. Read through those links and see if they help! Meadowlark (talk) 02:00, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that, but sadly, the German wikipedia about the Band fur Afrika had less info that i expected. MagicalPavard (talk) 09:49, 23 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]

Please log in when you edit as it makes communication easier. While it is still in draft, if you believe you have resolved the issues you can remove the maintenance templates. Do not remove the previous declines and comments by reviewers though. Thanks for doing your due diligence regarding your COI and condolences for your loss. S0091 (talk) 17:58, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear S0091
Thank you for your helpful and kind comments. I will remove the maintenance templates as you suggest. I will, however, wait a while longer before resubmitting the AFC in case I receive any further guidance from my mentor or the other editors who have been helping me.
Thanks again
Kestrel2Zero Kestrel2Zero (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:41, 22 July 2025 review of submission by Lindos1a

Hello AfC reviewers— I've submitted a draft for "Dr Millan Sachania" (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lindos1a/sandbox&oldid=1301929144). The draft is fully sourced with independent coverage in *The Times*, *Telegraph*, etc. I'm happy to provide any further references or edits. Thanks so much for any assistance. Lindos1a (talk) 12:41, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lindos1a: The draft doesn't come close to fully-sourced:
  • Sachania read music at Christ’s College, Cambridge, graduating with a Double First-Class degree. - Source?
  • ollowing this, he worked in New York as an editor for Carl Fischer Music. - Source?
  • From 2012 to 2022, Sachania served as Head of Streatham & Clapham High School, part of the Girls’ Day School Trust. - Source?
  • During both headships, he promoted curriculum innovation and inspection readiness, and was widely recognised for his leadership in music and the creative arts. - First half of the sentence is blatant promotion; second half is not properly attributed. You need more than just the source there; you also need to state who's making that claim.
  • He has also contributed nationally to education strategy, serving as... - each of those four positions requires a source.
  • He has also featured in *The Lady*, *The Evening Standard* and *The Sunday Times* on topics including Latin, coding, music education and public examinations. - You only cite The Evening Standard. We need cites for the other two.
  • The "Selected Writings" section should be removed wholesale as trivial. The previous section can have a sourced sentence stating he frequently contributed op-eds to those outlets.
  • As an editor, Sachania has published critical editions of works by Godowsky (five volumes, Carl Fischer LLC), Poulenc, Stravinsky, Philip Glass, Otakar Ševčík, and others, for leading publishers including Chester Music, Novello and Bosworth. - Source? I will note that expanding this into a full bibliography of his most notable works will do the work of this entire section, but it does require a lot more information than you have here for each book (title, page total, publisher, year of publication, authors/editors, ISBN/OCLC#).
  • His edition of *Stravinsky’s Renard*, with full commentary and source filiation, is cited by academic sources and widely used in performance. His editions of Poulenc's chamber music and Ševčík's violin studies remain in standard pedagogical use. - Source?
When writing about living people on Wikipedia, EVERYTHING a reasonable person could challenge must be cited or removed. This is not negotiable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:40, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:37, 22 July 2025 review of submission by 196.175.249.181

I want to submit this page but seems like the submission was rejected by someone 3 months ago. How can I submit this page? 196.175.249.181 (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It cannot be resubmitted, that's what rejection means – the end of the road, for now at least. The draft is pure speculation, we don't even know which country will host the tournament, in fact we don't even know if the tournament will even take place. Wikipedia is not WP:CRYSTALBALL. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:44, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:39, 22 July 2025 review of submission by Sgoldthr

This article has been rejected despite having sources that are appropriate for this type of entry. Every Wikipedia article about a University or a school within a university contains citations from the university itself (such as the course offerings, catalogues, etc.). I am not getting specific feedback on which items need to be remediated. I need help identifying specific areas that need new citation rather than receiving the same general rejection message despite several updates to each version.

My article has many and more specific citations than many others I've looked at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johns_Hopkins_School_of_Nursing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanderbilt_University_School_of_Nursing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_University_Rory_Meyers_College_of_Nursing Sgoldthr (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
Please see other stuff exists. It could be that these other articles you have seen are also inappropriate and have just not yet dealt with yet by a volunteer. There are many ways for inappropriate content to exist, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles, which have been vetted.
Schools have the additional wrinkle that a few years ago notability requirements were tightened in that mere existence was no longer sufficient to merit a school an article, they are treated like any other organization, they must meet WP:ORG. You shouldn't be describing the offerings of the school like a brochure for prospective students. You should summarize what independent sources choose on their own to say about it. Rankings from notable publications are a start, but more is needed.
If you are associated with the school, that must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 16:34, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:19, 22 July 2025 review of submission by Hurley.cour

Hi, I'm not quite understanding why it's being rejected. I was trying to create a company page, like Apple and other companies have. Can you give me some guidance as to what I did wrong? Hurley.cour (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurley.cour: Your sources are all unacceptable, either being connected to the subject or routine business news. (Wikipedia is a poor place to practise SEO on, as all pages are NOFOLLOWed and swathes of the encyclopaedia are NOINDEXed.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:22, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hurley.cour We don't have "company pages" here that companies own and control. We have articles about companies. Those articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the subject, and they summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the subject, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability- like a notable company. 331dot (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please respond to the inquiry on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:41, 22 July 2025 review of submission by Mahtabamanmahid

Hlw sir Mahtabamanmahid (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a coherent question, but your draft has been rejected because there is zero evidence that the topic is notable in Wikipedia terms. Theroadislong (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Subject: Request for Clarification on Draft Rejection
Hello,
I recently submitted a draft titled "Mazharul Mahin" which has been declined. I kindly request clarification on the specific reasons for the rejection. I want to understand what improvements are needed to meet the notability and verifiability requirements of Wikipedia.
I’m happy to revise the draft accordingly and would appreciate any suggestions or specific feedback you could provide.
Thank you for your time and assistance.
— Mazharul Mahin Mahtabamanmahid (talk) 17:44, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mahtabamanmahid: Chatbot-written requests will not be considered. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:52, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why Mahtabamanmahid (talk) 17:58, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mahtabamanmahid: Because we want to hear from you, not from an incompetent machine pretending to be you. We don't care that your English isn't that good, as long as it is understandable. As to your draft, we don't cite social media (no editorial oversight), IMDb (no editorial oversight), or your own website (connexion to subject). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:01, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Sir, could you please let me know what is needed to help this page get published? Mahtabamanmahid (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mahtabaanmahid: In-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the-subject news/scholarly sources that discuss the subject at length, are written by identifiable authors, and are subject to fact-checking, corrections, retractions, and other forms of strong editorial oversight. You have nothing of the sort cited. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:13, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am a website developer, video content creator, many people search for me, everyone wants to know about me, so I wanted to upload some information about myself, where is my mistake in this, I have given proper proof. Mahtabamanmahid (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Everyone wants to know about me"- that's precisely what social media is for. It sounds like you are an intelligent young man with a bright future, perhaps one day you will merit a Wikipedia article, but right now you don't. 331dot (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mahtabamanmahid: We have much stricter requirements for information about living people, and this naturally extends to autobiographies. Sourcing everything to social media, IMDb, and your own websites is not acceptable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:36, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be writing about yourself, Wikipedia is not a place for people to write about themselves. Please see the autobiography policy. You should use social media to write about yourself. 331dot (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:06, 22 July 2025 review of submission by EchoOfLiberty

Hello, could you please let me know what is needed to help this page get published? EchoOfLiberty (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the message left by the reviewer- citations need to be in line next to the text that they support, please see Referencing for beginners if you need guidance formatting citations. Every substantive fact about a living person must be sourced, per the Biographies of living persons policy. 331dot (talk) 18:14, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:15, 22 July 2025 review of submission by Vankal

Can you please guide me where I must give more references🙏 Vankal (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:20, 22 July 2025 review of submission by Mahtabamanmahid

Duplicate request CoconutOctopus talk 18:29, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, could you please let me know what is needed to help this page get published? Mahtabamanmahid (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

19:09, 22 July 2025 review of submission by Mahtabamanmahid

Duplicate request, again CoconutOctopus talk 19:20, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am a website developer, video content creator, many people search for me, everyone wants to know about me, so I wanted to upload some information about myself, where is my mistake in this, I have given proper proof. Mahtabamanmahid (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mahtabamanmahid. That is literally the definition of promotion which is prohibited on Wikipedia. qcne (talk) 19:10, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

20:22, 22 July 2025 review of submission by 2601:47:4B87:7F40:7AD2:B8E0:B3B7:A16B

Why was my article denied? 2601:47:4B87:7F40:7AD2:B8E0:B3B7:A16B (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP editor. Which draft? You have no other contributions on your current IP and you just linked to Article instead of the draft. Please tell us the nae of the draft you are talking about. qcne (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:58, 22 July 2025 review of submission by ᖻᒪᓱ ᒋᔈᒪ

I need help again, my draft, Voiceless velar alveolar sibilant affricate, got declined again. ᖻᒪᓱ ᒋᔈᒪ (talk) 20:58, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ᖻᒪᓱ ᒋᔈᒪ you still only have one source? qcne (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just added two more citations to that draft. There's more sources out there that could be found. The main challenge is that while a decent number of publications mention this affricate, they mostly discuss it in the context of specific issues in Blackfoot phonology, so it might be difficult to find clear citations for basic info like "what are the featural specifications of this segment?" -- LWG talk 22:07, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:24, 22 July 2025 review of submission by EKMayle

Why was my article on Edgehill United Methodist Church declined? EKMayle (talk) 22:24, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EKMayle The draft is in your sandbox, I fixed your link to match. The reason for the decline was provided by the reviewer. Do you have a more specific question about it? 331dot (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:34, 22 July 2025 review of submission by Katherinezheng19011822

How much coverage is needed to reach the benchmark of significant coverage, and do news releases count? We were told at first that we needed media reporting news, but later that news releases are not reliable, so we are unsure which additional sources to add. Katherinezheng19011822 (talk) 23:34, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News/press releases are not acceptable. Significant coverage is that which goes beyond just documenting information and goes into detail about the subject.
Who is "we"? 331dot (talk) 23:51, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 23

00:47, 23 July 2025 review of submission by A person of sorts

Does this tag at the top of the draft article mean that this article should no longer be ediited because it is viewed as non notable? Or is it just a rejection based on the current state of the article? I've just never seen that large 'STOP' at the top of the article. A person of sorts (talk) 00:47, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just an onlooker and not involved with this article at all, but I happened to see this and was confused too. I've seen and declined a number of AfC articles that were in much worse shape and whose subjects were much less notable than this that weren't outright rejected on the first submission. Pinging @Zxcvbnm: was there a specific reason rejection was preferred over declining here? GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 01:50, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After running a WP:BEFORE, I could not find evidence that he passed WP:NBIO, hence it was rejected. As stated in WP:AKON, no amount of improvement can overcome a lack of notability. Reject means it is not notable and should no longer be worked on.
If the article creator still believes it is notable, they should please state the WP:THREE best sources here that show significant coverage in reliable sources, without failing WP:1EVENT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:22, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:30, 23 July 2025 review of submission by OmarWikiEdits

Hi, thank you for reviewing the draft. I understand it was rejected for not meeting WP:ORGCRIT. Could you kindly clarify which types of independent sources would be considered acceptable to establish notability for Space42? I want to ensure any future improvements are aligned with Wikipedia’s standards. Appreciate your guidance. 

OmarWikiEdits (talk) 05:30, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @OmarWikiEdits. Please see golden rule.
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) 13:25, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:11, 23 July 2025 review of submission by 103.216.195.97

recently updates which is sufficient to notable 103.216.195.97 (talk) 06:11, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe you have added sufficient citations (which meet the criteria in WP:42) to establish that Mishra is notable, you need first to approach the reviewer who rejected the draft, @Bonadea ColinFine (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:17, 23 July 2025 review of submission by 2601:205:4B00:A2D0:2893:184:9918:5969

Dear Reviewer,

This is the new concept of "Learning Dates" and is being used by multiple families in California. It's recently published in International paper and we heard a talk about this in our community. Though I am not a good editor, I tried submitting details as much I could to get this page available for more people to contribute.

Could you please help getting this published? 2601:205:4B00:A2D0:2893:184:9918:5969 (talk) 06:17, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't cite Wikipedia (circular reference), and your "two other sources" are simply the same research paper. One source, no matter how good it is, cannot support a Wikipedia article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:52, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only source this draft cites is a paper (published three days ago) by the person who invented the concept. For something like this to be notable, we need to see significant coverage of it by multiple sources which are reliable and entirely independent of the concept. As it stands, this is very far from being acceptable for publication in Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:40, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:17, 23 July 2025 review of submission by Arno Koch

I got stuck... I want to bring a subject to the wiki community, however it was rejected; the reason was LLM suspected. In the talk I understand me using Deepl Pro for language and grammar correction might be the problem. I checked the text multiple times: To me -from a content expert view- it looks valuable and I see no violations of wiki rules. I am now out of ideas on what else I can improve. Also because I would like to add a few more entries, it would help me to know exactly what is wrong and what the criteria are to avoid this in the future. Your help is greatly appreciated. Kind regards from Belgium Arno Koch (talk) 08:17, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Arno Koch: in my non-expert view, this suffers from many of the problems typical to AI-generated drafts, as listed in the decline notice. And one fairly clear "violation of wiki rules" is that most of the sources are offline, but they are cited with insufficient bibliographical details to allow them to be easily verified. (BTW, are these really not available online anywhere?)
Another thing is that starting with the '8 steps' section this reads like a how-to-guide, which is not what Wikipedia is about.
My advice would be to simply not use generative LLM to draft articles. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:30, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, this helps partially.
1. I understand Wikipedia prefers online references above references to books (as I did, since the topic originates from the 50's and 70's. Correct?
2. The '8 steps' is the core of this method. They are essential. So how to otherwise incorporate them?
3. I still have no clue what you see specifically in this article as 'problems typical to AI-generated drafts'.
I fully acknowledge AI text often is terrible and should be avoided. But is using language and grammar correction leading to correct English (or also German, Dutch and French in my case) really a problem for wiki reviewers? In order to be able to keep contributing to this beautifull initiative, I need to understand this. As I am not willing to stop using a wordprocessor, I am also no longer willing to give up on Deepl since it is really supporting me to concentrate on good content. (which I believe should be also the goal of Wiki). Can you please help me out there by giving specific feedback on specific lines that are 'a typical problem to AI generated draft? Thank you very much for your support, Arno Koch (talk) 09:02, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Arno Koch:
  1. Yes, online sources are preferred, because they are much easier for most users to access. Offline sources are also accepted, but they need to be cited with sufficient detail; see WP:OFFLINE for more on this. There is a particular problem with LLM-generated content: AI is well known to hallucinate and/or invent sources, and when the sources are offline, the reviewer has no confidence that they actually say what AI says they do.
  2. Drawing a parallel to cooking, the article on Bouillabaisse tells you in broad terms what the typical ingredients are, but it doesn't give you a recipe with precise ingredients and step-by-step method. Does that help at all answer your question?
  3. I think there is quite a big difference between generating a draft using LLM, and having one "to correct English".
-- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:16, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks.
AD1 I have many of the books in my bookshelf: What needs to be added in this article?
AD2 mm, a good SGA follows 8 steps; so they should be mentioned I guess. Is it wrong to decribe what the steps is for? What happens in the step? that is far from 'how to', isn't it? I just try to grasp the nuance I seem to be missing.
A3 Fully Agree, but that still is not answering my question, So I still do not understand what you exactly see here as a problem that needs to be fixed. Without learning that I am afraid I can not proceed... Arno Koch (talk) 09:45, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the concerns raise, there's also at least some WP:COI in the mix. You're literally citing your own work for the sentence According to some, virtually any problem can be solved with a good SGA, and that's a huge red flag for an article. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:45, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. As I do not hide behind a fantasy name anybody can veryfy my trackrecord. So this sentence will be removed.
Now how about my real request for help after AD3? Arno Koch (talk) 12:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a little shocking you don't think disclosing a serious WP:COI problem is a "real" thing to worry about. Good luck to you. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, those are your words, not mine.
I do not experience much support to get this thing going. Time to draw my conclusions. Arno Koch (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:52, 23 July 2025 review of submission by BryantK2022

Hi there! It seems I have used too many internal links on this wiki page and that's why it's been declined, if I remove the internal ones and leave the external will that suffice? BryantK2022 (talk) 09:52, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm skeptical as a large percentage of the independent sources remaining are mostly coverage of funding rounds or routine business transactions; Wikipedia considers this as trivial coverage, see WP:CORPTRIV. Of the ones that are not, there are a lot that are just lists of pricing, which isn't really significant coverage of the company. And frankly, that it has so many internal links provides a clue as to a crucial problem: the resulting draft looks a lot more like what the company wants to say about it rather than what independent parties are saying about the company. Much of the language is quite promotional, and there's more than a faint fragrance of LLM writing.
To be perfectly honest, while this company may be notable, the draft is in a pretty poor state. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:33, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @BryantK2022. 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. .
Also: 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) 13:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:55, 23 July 2025 review of submission by BryantK2022

Hi there, my draft was declined because I had too many internal links, if I remove these and keep the external links, would that be within the guidelines? I would appreciate any help you could give me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:FileCloud BryantK2022 (talk) 09:55, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BryantK2022: where did you get the idea that this was declined because of "too many internal links"? That's not a reason to decline, and in any case this draft isn't even overlinked.
It was declined because the sources aren't sufficient to show that the subject is notable according to the WP:NCORP guideline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I've made some edits, do you think the article is sufficient now? I'm a bit confused, as I've seen many approved wiki pages with far less content (e.g., just four paragraphs and six links), which makes those subjects appear less notable. The topic I'm writing about is a reputable company with a long history and several external references. BryantK2022 (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:58, 23 July 2025 review of submission by Taccobaby

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Taccobaby/sandbox I was wondering if you think my draft is good enough for resubmission, or if any of you have suggestions or feedback. I don’t want to waste the admins’ time. Thanks in advance! Taccobaby (talk) 09:58, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Taccobaby, have you read and implemented the feedback the reviewers have given you? The draft has received a review since the last time you worked on it, so you have some information to work with.
Admins are not the ones to approve or decline drafts - it's done by experienced editors who can judge whether the drafts are up to scratch. You won't be wasting anyone's time unless you resubmit your draft without making improvements.Meadowlark (talk) 10:44, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you. So you think i can resubmit, given the fact that i changed and implemented the changes?
Sry for asking stupid questions :D Taccobaby (talk) 11:13, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Taccobaby. Is it your sandbox, or Draft:Exotec that you are working on?
Your citations are mostly just titles. While this is not forbidden, it makes the draft considerably more inconvenient to review, because it does not readily provide crucial information which helps a reviewer evaluate the source: date, author, publication. Please read referencing for beginners.
Glancing through the titles, it looks to me as if the vast majority are routine business announcements (see WP:CORPTRIV) and I suspect that many of them are not independent. If a source does not meet all the criteria in WP:42, it does not contribute to establishing notability, and should be used only to add uncontroversial factual data (like dates and places) to an already solid article draft. ColinFine (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:16, 23 July 2025 review of submission by DLVDJ

Hello, I hope this finds you well. I've updated the draft article to address Itzcuauhtli11's concerns and added wikipedia references and secondary sources; I'm quite sure it now meets the standards for a worthwhile contribution. Can you tell me what the process going forward is? Thank you very much for your time and guidance. DLVDJ (talk) 10:16, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DLVDJ, you have submitted it for review again so now you simply wait and see whether the next reviewer agrees with you. As a heads-up, I chose some of your sources at random and found that they were all either interviews with Flageollet (which do not establish notability as they're not independent) or about De Bethune (which do not establish notability as they're not about your subject). You may wish to highlight your three best references on the talk page, considering WP:42 as you do so, to make it easier for reviewers to assess your subject's notability as Wikipedia understands it. Meadowlark (talk) 10:49, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for this, Meadowlark. Much appreciated. Will do as you suggest. Many thanks for your time. DLVDJ (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:29, 23 July 2025 review of submission by 2406:7400:10B:28BE:2D12:74FC:537E:1D69

Help me move this article to the namespace from Draft. I have given most of the citations.2406:7400:10B:28BE:2D12:74FC:537E:1D69 (talk) 11:29, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that you have addressed the concerns of the reviewer, you may resubmit the draft. 331dot (talk) 12:59, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:21, 23 July 2025 review of submission by Wixel owl

Hello, respectable community! I need help regarding this page, Lee A. Doernte. Can anyone help me with this? What measures have been taken to make this eligible? I have reviewed it and made changes, but still vain.

I really appreciate any help you can provide. Wixel owl (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Wixel owl, did you use an AI/LLM such as ChatGPT to create this draft?
The biggest problem for this draft is that you don't have any sources that establish notability by Wikipedia's standards. You need to find sources that meet all three criteria in WP:42. Papers Doernte has written are not independent, and as far as I can see your other sources do not have significant coverage. Meadowlark (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:06, 23 July 2025 review of submission by Shahidul Hussain B.SC, B.ED

Why you rejected my page Shahidul Hussain B.SC, B.ED (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is self-promotion; Wikipedia is here to share what reliable sources have to say about notable topics, not here for people to promote themselves. If you want to create a page about yourself you should try a social media platform such as Linkedin. CoconutOctopus talk 18:13, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a place to post your resume. Please use social media for that. 331dot (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:52, 23 July 2025 review of submission by Jeff633

Hello, I’ve written a draft article about Sir Patrick Bijou, a British investment banker and author. I’ve cited independent sources such as Business Today and Outlook India, and tried to follow Wikipedia's notability and referencing guidelines.

However, I keep getting “Submission failed” errors even after moving the article to the correct Draft: namespace. The draft includes inline citations, neutral tone, and a proper structure.

Can someone please help me understand why the submission keeps failing, and whether the current version is suitable for review?

Thank you in advance! Here is the link to the draft:

Draft:Patrick Bijou (investment banker) Jeff633 (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff633: you've created Draft:Patrick Bijou (investment banker) and User:Jeff633/sandbox (and User:Jeff633). You should only create one.
In creating Draft:Patrick Bijou (investment banker), you yourself added a faulty template, which caused the draft to be seemingly declined. I assume you used some LLM tool to create this? They really don't know what they're doing, which is just one of the many reasons why you shouldn't use them.
Meanwhile, there's also Draft:Sir Patrick Bijou, created by Billing63. Are you and Billing63 connected somehow?
And what's your relationship with this Patrick Bijou person? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I’m the same person as Billing63 I’ve switched to my 6-month-old account (Jeff633) to avoid confusion and start fresh.
I am not connected to Sir Patrick Bijou personally. I was hired as a freelancer to help research and write a Wikipedia draft about him.
I understand the concerns about AI-generated content. I’ve reviewed and rewritten the content in my own words.
I’ll stick to a single draft from now on:
[Draft:Patrick Bijou (investment banker)]
Could you please help confirm if the current version of this draft is fixable or what improvements are still required? Jeff633 (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you were hired, you must comply with WP:PAID, a Terms of Use requirement. 331dot (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The AI that you used to write the draft put a decline notice. We would prefer that you write yourself. AI can be problematic for several reasons, see WP:LLM. 331dot (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I’ve prepared a clean, neutral draft for Sir Patrick Bijou using three independent sources (Business Today, Outlook India, Free Press Journal). I’ve removed all promotional and unverified claims and included an AFC submission tag properly.

However, the draft keeps getting rejected automatically, even though I’ve addressed all earlier feedback. Can someone please review it manually and advise what needs fixing to get this approved?

Draft page link: User:Jeff633/sandbox

Thank you! Jeff633, paid editing disclosure on user page & draft talk Jeff633 (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't create additional threads, just edit this existing thread. 331dot (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You may click the "resubmit" button to submit the draft. It has not been "automatically rejected", the AI put that there. I will note that it is unlikely to be accepted, as it reads like a resume. If you are getting paid to do this, it's up to you to first learn what is being looked for. 331dot (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 24

01:39, 24 July 2025 review of submission by 9aija

Leave it at the draft don’t move it, I’ll wait for it to be approved. SORRY I’m still new here.9aija (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:30, 24 July 2025 review of submission by Smucle

I haven't Enough time and experience to Edit this All Text and References in my own width. Please help me to make it all good . Smucle (talk) 02:30, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Alambre Púa (Song)
please help me to edit this Smucle (talk) 02:11, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:40, 24 July 2025 review of submission by Smucle

I haven't enough time for edit, Too trouble for me! But with a good editor , it's My pleasure, please give me some help for me, THANK YOU! Smucle (talk) 02:40, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:51, 24 July 2025 review of submission by Szeremeta

I'm honestly not quite sure what else to do. I feel that this company is important and will only become more relevant as time passes, but I repeatedly receive notice that it "[doesn't] meet notability guidelines". What can be done to get this article published, or perhaps edited by someone more knowledgeable than myself? Szeremeta (talk) 02:51, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A company being “important” is subjective - whether or not a subject is wikinotable depends only on how significantly covered they have been by secondary, reliable sources. As Wikipedia articles are based on such subjects, without them there can be no article.
If Anzu Robotics are indeed growing, this may just be a case of too soon and I advise you to try again when more strong sources become available. -- NotCharizard 🗨 04:53, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Will only become more relevant as time passes"- this means it is too soon for an article about it- Wikipedia has articles when the topic has already arrived in terms of relevance, not because it may be relevant in the future. 331dot (talk) 08:06, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:56, 24 July 2025 review of submission by Iamasqurl

I would like to know how to add my mythos to Wikipedia, I have been advised I need reliable references but I am not sure what that entails, I am not trying to promote, monetize, or any of the like. I have been advised I need references such as a BBC article or the like but how anyone would get that is beyond me unless you are internationally known. I will be happy to remove any type of link that points back to anything I have done in regards to this as it may seem self serving or a conflict of interest but this is a legitimate project that has active fans. I have been advised that my article is both a hoax and vandalism which I am unable to fathom. I assumed incorrectly this was a place I could post my growing mythos as other fantasy mythos are listed. If this is not the place please let me know. Thank you for your time. Iamasqurl (talk) 05:56, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Iamasqurl: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a free webhost for publishing your fiction writing; Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:01, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why Tidus from final fantasy is listed, or Pennywise, or Captain White, or d'Artagnan are in fact in Wikipedia? Because they are not fictional characters? I included no stories, songs, comics, etc just the basis of the mythos Iamasqurl (talk) 06:48, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My question was A: what is required to make it eligible for Wiki and B: if this is the place for it. You answered B but not A and your response is incorrect, every fictional character, world, time, place was just made up one day and the article you linked, informative seems some what gate keeping and condescending. I am not famous no, I do not have a huge following for my mythos, but it may be more appropriate and helpful to explain the requirements for getting your article or page approved for Wiki Iamasqurl (talk) 07:04, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Iamasqurl: yes, it is 'gatekeeping' – that's one of the reasons why we review drafts before they are allowed to be published.
Alright then, to answer 'A': notability is a key requirement for inclusion in the encyclopaedia; verifiability is another. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiabilty has no context or role in a fictional setting, there is no way to verify something that has never existed and has been created, please show me how you have verified Mickey Mouse. Notability I can understand which was what I was asking. The article needs to be about something that is well know like a viral tik tok and according to you needs to be verifiable as actual fact which invalidates every article Wiki has containing anything fictional Iamasqurl (talk) 07:25, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of articles on fictional characters, Superman, Mario, James T. Kirk. They are notable because they have been extensively discussed and analyzed by independent reliable sources.
You wrote "Legacy Sir Squirrel Von Dawn has become a symbol of forest vengeance and nature’s resistance against human destruction in the mythos, inspiring ongoing music, art, and collaborative storytelling projects." but offer no sources to support this claim or for most of the content in your draft. 331dot (talk) 08:01, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
so validity only means exposure? this I understand as I have very little exposure. Thank you. I have been a bit hampered by terminology I suppose as validity does not mean the same thing as article written about a fictional character. So If I understand correctly I need to have "people talking about it" to be able to post an article. Iamasqurl (talk) 08:07, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I understand that. I have no sources. Like any story it has to start somewhere. I have admitted this was not the correct forum. My issue is the reviewers and the hostile way of responding Iamasqurl (talk) 05:51, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Iamasqurl, Verifiability is a core content policy and applies to every acceptable Wikipedia article, including those about fictional characters. You mention Mickey Mouse as if nothing about him can be verified. And yet the article about the fictional mouse who has been around for 97 years contains references to 187 reliable sources verifying various assertions about Mickey. Read even 10% of the references at the end of Mickey Mouse and you might develop a better understanding of verifiability. Compliance with that core content policy is mandatory. No, people talking about it is inadequate. What is required are recognized published reliable sources devoting significant coverage to the character. We do not talk about validity much. Notability is the standard. Cullen328 (talk) 08:15, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you and that was more my point, at some point Disney said, lets make a Mouse, just one day made it. 97 years later there are numerous references. I am not disputing the my article should be rejected. According to the guidelines posted on Wiki, which I admit I did not read, it should have been rejected. I am concerned at the responses I have gotten. "You can't just make an article about something you made up one day", Well every fictional character, world, language, was just "made up one day". Or the fact when asking about what was needed to get my article accepted and what sources would be acceptable I was told "BBC" and then my article was flagged as Vandalism and a Hoax. I understand where I went wrong with my submission and agree with the rejection based on the requirements, but driving people away seems slightly counter productive. Iamasqurl (talk) 04:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I will again reiterate my point, I was just tagged by Doublegrazing as using double accounts, this is what I was referring too, the post was made 3 days ago I think but the moment I push back against his views and or comments he submits this. Just like my article that was flagged for vandalism the moment I confronted another reviewer. Reviewers need to be vetted and the choices they make need to be looked at. I have nothing against Double grazer except the way they respond to people but suddenly I am on notice, coincidentally after I disagreed with them, for having multiple accounts, which I do not. So a new user who may not know the requirements, may ask actual valid question, and may not like responses such as "you can't post an article you made up one day" without context are attacked? This is the review process you embrace in a forum that clearly states "to make the sum of all human knowledge freely available to every person on the planet" Iamasqurl (talk) 07:10, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Verifiabilty has no context or role in a fictional setting", really? So, reductio ad absurdum, anyone can say anything they want about a fictional concept, and it all must be accepted because the concept is fictional? Alright, Mickey Mouse is a duck. Captain America is a gay icon created by Tom of Finland. Hamlet was actually murdered by Iago (the parrot, not the Shakespeare character). I have many more like these. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:17, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will note the obvious gaming on Draft talk:Sir Squirrel Von Dawn. qcne (talk) 09:45, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not real sure what you mean. My article is a mythos I have have created and spent quite some time on. Yes it is currently not notable and may never be. And yes this was the wrong forum for it. But the simple fact you claimed my page was Vandalism, which by Wikipedias own terms it is not, and a Hoax, which unless you have an alternate definition of hoax it is not, because I confronted you on your replies to me tells me you did it out of spite. The fact your response to the question "you really took time to do that" was "it didn't take that long" emphatically shows the problem I am discussing Iamasqurl (talk) 05:46, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am fairly positive Milne did not write a story about Winnie the Pooh and Piglet (SPOILERS) eating Eyore and slaughtering some teenagers. It depends on context. You can say whatever you want about a fictional character, Captain America was a treasonous Hydra member in one story. You can validate ownership, who created the character, what has previously been written about the character but as something of fiction it can be changed at any time. You are not discussing validation, you are talking history, you are talking published works with many years of history. And again my issue is not with the rejection, it's with the response that I have received from certain people that do the reviews . Possibly the terminology possibly not. My issue is that for someone who may be new to Wikipedia, with what they consider a valid article, the interaction with someone they may consider the face of Wikipedia and possibly the first interaction with Wikipedia may be discouraging. Instead of mentorship and guidance to assist in creating a valid article I have seen, well what we are seeing here from certain people. As a forum to make the sum of all human knowledge freely available to every person on the planet, you would think contributions would be welcome. Iamasqurl (talk) 05:41, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your contributions are welcome. But that doesn't mean that you can do whatever you want. You certainly wouldn't be aware of the various policies that we have, and that's fine, but once you are told, you should try to listen to what you are being told. No one has been rude to you- which is hard to judge via text communication which is difficult to convey emotion with. I don't see where anyone said your writing was "vandalism"(maybe I missed it). It was tagged as a hoax, but that has been removed. That can happen for many reasons- mostly related to the fact that different people can see things differently and disagree in good faith. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:57, 24 July 2025 review of submission by SHLAKW

Subject: Relevance of the Drakhan Conlang for Wikipedia

I respectfully disagree with the assessment that Drakhan “is not relevant” for inclusion. In fact, Drakhan meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria for constructed languages for the following reasons:

Independent Coverage

Drakhan has been discussed in at least two independent, secondary sources (e.g. the Conlang Journal issue on objectivist languages, and the online linguistics magazine NeoLinguist).

It has appeared in at least one peer‑reviewed conference proceeding (the 2024 International Conference on Constructed Languages), which demonstrates scholarly interest.

Unique Linguistic Features

Its complete elimination of subjective markers and introspective vocabulary is a novel typological innovation.

The strictly male‑perspective lexicon and “two‑root, seven‑letter” compounding rule set Drakhan apart from all other documented conlangs.

Cultural and Technical Impact

A small but active Drakhan community uses the language for technical documentation and online role‑play, generating measurable traffic on GitHub and Discord.

The Drakjal symbol system has been implemented in an open‑source font (Drakjal.ttf), now downloaded over 1,000 times.

Verifiability and Sources

All claims can be backed by reliable sources. I can supply direct citations to the Conlang Journal (Vol. 8, 2023) and the 2024 ICCL proceedings (pp. 45–52).

Because Drakhan satisfies both WP:NATLANG (as a naturally inspired constructed language) and WP:CONLANG (as a language with clear independent coverage and usage), I believe it merits its own article. I will gladly expand the entry to include properly formatted citations and secondary‑source quotations.

Please let me know if you need further source details or draft improvements. SHLAKW (talk) 06:57, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SHLAKW: you say sources exist, so why aren't they cited in the draft? It's not our job as reviewers to go searching for them, nor is it enough for you to assert that they exist, you need to produce them as evidence.
And even if the subject proves to be notable, this draft would require a major rewrite, because it is not written as an encyclopaedia article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:02, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:20, 24 July 2025 review of submission by Priya Sharma0

Hello,

I have created a draft article titled "Draft:Md_Sakib_Raza" about a youth political leader from Bihar, currently serving as the President of the Student RJD unit at RKK College, Purnia.

I have added multiple reliable sources from major Indian news outlets (e.g., Dainik Bhaskar, Hindustan) that cover his appointment, expansion of student leadership, and his work for student welfare. These are **independent, third-party, and non-promotional** references.

Please let me know if the article now meets the general notability guidelines, and what more is required if not.

Thank you. Priya Sharma0 (talk) 08:20, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have already resubmitted the draft, the next reviewer will leave you feedback if it is not accepted. 331dot (talk) 08:31, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Priya Sharma0 Actually, there was something wrong with the way you submitted it- you can try again by clicking the blue "resubmit" button at the bottom of the last review- but you haven't really fundamentally changed the draft to address prior concerns. You only have a few sources that just detail this young man's appointment to his position, no sources with significant coverage- coverage that goes beyond just documenting his activities and goes into detail about how he is notable as a person(he does not meet the narrower notable politician definition as he does not hold public office) 331dot (talk) 08:36, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:18, 24 July 2025 review of submission by Krisshkarthick DN

Need to know why article got declined. What will be the solution Krisshkarthick DN (talk) 09:18, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Krisshkarthick DN You had the words "article got declined" where a link to your draft should have gone(thus you linked to a nonexistent page with the title "article got declined". I fixed this for you.
Wikipedia is not a place for people to write about themselves, see the autobiography policy. You have no citations in the draft, you should be summarizing what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about you, showing how you are a notable creative professional or notable actor. This is usually very difficult for people to do about themselves. 331dot (talk) 09:31, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:01, 24 July 2025 review of submission by Msmraqeeb

Please make me clear which section I've fault and also tell me what are needed to add in my article. Thanks Msmraqeeb (talk) 10:01, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Msmraqeeb. No indication this person meets our criteria. I have rejected it on that basis. qcne (talk) 10:29, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:44, 24 July 2025 review of submission by Sofia kavtaradze13

all this is true why you don’t post it i am famous person Sofia kavtaradze13 (talk) 11:44, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Sofia kavtaradze13. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what several people, wholly unconnected with the subject, have independently chosen to publish about ths subject in reliable publications, and very little else.
If you are trying to write about yourself (which is strongly discouraged, as it is almost never successful - see autobiography) then you need to find several sources which meet all the criteria in WP:42. Then you need to effectively forget everything that you know about yourself, and write a neutral summary of what those sources say.
Do you see why it is difficult to succeed? ColinFine (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:49, 24 July 2025 review of submission by Sofia kavtaradze13

why Sofia kavtaradze13 (talk) 11:49, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sofia kavtaradze13 No indication you meet our criteria for inclusion: Wikipedia:Notability (people). qcne (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:03, 24 July 2025 review of submission by Littleclown27

I’ve made edits and added reliable sources and inline citations to address previous concerns. However, when I click “Resubmit,” the system immediately declines them without a new review. I believe it may be related to the AFC code or timestamp issue. Littleclown27 (talk) 13:03, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have resubmitted. @Littleclown27.
I have restored the Decline notice that you removed after the last review. Please do not remove such notices. ColinFine (talk) 22:37, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok! Apologies. Littleclown27 (talk) 05:56, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:23, 24 July 2025 review of submission by 75.158.193.110

I'm struggling with the current feedback. I believe the language being used is very neutral and hasn't been written by AI. Please let me know if there is a certain section that is not neutral in your perspective, or should be reworked. As well, all of the sources are third-party (Government, third-party watchdogs like Charity Intelligence, or news agencies). I removed one source (Hospital News), since I thought the language in those articles might be seen as too promotional. Thanks. 75.158.193.110 (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the creator of the draft, remember to log in when posting.
If you are associated with this charity, that must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID.
Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about an organization, its offerings, and what it sees as its own history. A Wikipedia article about an organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When a draft is declined as "promotional" or "like an advert", it is usually because it reads as what the subject wants the world to know about themselves. But 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) 22:42, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:14, 24 July 2025 review of submission by 217.163.101.38

While short, the entry appears we refenced to me including a number of respect sites in the music world. What more would I need to do to get this article approved? 217.163.101.38 (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can't use Discogs or Last.fm. We can't use interviews to establish notability. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (music). qcne (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:24, 24 July 2025 review of submission by Lucas Henrique Noll

translate the page from Portuguese to English, as it is important content that has not yet been translated Lucas Henrique Noll (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucas Henrique Noll You need to translate the text, as draft author. qcne (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:30, 24 July 2025 review of submission by Sashwattanay

Dear Sir/Madam,

I need help with publishing the following article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:%C3%89ric_Gourgoulhon

It was recently declined by RangersRus‬ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RangersRus), stating that "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

However I would like to disagree. I mention this two published academic books (by Springer) with citation of the publisher's webpage. These two widely read books alone would make Eric (subject of the Wikipedia article) a notable figure. Plus, toward the end of the article, I also cite links to his appearances in popular media (his podcast series on RadioFrance and his interview by the notable journalist Alain Cirou).

I request a reconsideration of my article. Thank you.

Regards, Sashwat Tanay Sashwattanay (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We had a discussion in #wikipedia-en-help. Potentially this person might meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics) criterion #2 as a holder of the CNRS Silver Medal. @Sashwattanay will see if they can gather any evidence of book reviews etc to satisfy criterion #1. I don't think he meets #7.
Some general advice for @Sashwattanay: your draft still has lots and lots of primary sources, and it would be better if you could show notability through three really strong secondary sources that are specifically not interviews.
Pinging @RangersRus, @Caleb Stanford, @Ldm1954. qcne (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am dubious about WP:NPROF#C2. The silver medal is a mid-career award from his employer, and as such I would not consider it as prestigious as one from a major national or international society. The books alone also do not necessarily lead to a pass, many academics publish books. The books would need to have major reviews and lead to a pass of WP:NAUTHOR. Giving lectures is also not something major, WP:MILL for academics, and many have blogs.
Looking back at when I reviewed the page on July 14, while some sources have been added there were 7 duplicates, and one of the major ones is his own web page (self-published). The page is still of very low quality, with far, far too many sources of his and/or his employer, and not enough independent. He might pass WP:NPROF#C1 based upon a quick hand count in Google Scholar; I estimate his h-factor to be 40-50 which is decent although care is needed about team papers. It would be good if he had a Scopus h-factor included in the page.
Back on July 14 I did suggest reading WP:NPROF carefully. From what I see the editor has not done this. The page still fails to be specific about where and how he is notable (without bragging). As one example, the SageManifolds is mentioned, with a source to his employers web page, that does not prove any notability. A highly cited (> 100) review would provide weight. If I was to re-review this now (or review it at WP:NPP) it would not pass for general quality control. The editor really has to read WP:NPROF and also WP:GNG. I cleaned up the duplicates, but I am not going to write this.
N.B., WP:NPROF does not have the same WP:SIGCOV requirements etc as WP:GNG of course. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:45, 24 July 2025 review of submission by SamEzek

Hi all, I work alongside Professor Adrian Wilson who has numerous patents to his name and is the most famous knee surgeon in the world (just Google "number one knee surgeon") yet I can't seem to create the right layout for a Wikipedia page.

Could anyone advise me or provide tangible help.

Thanks SamEzek (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SamEzek: DISCLOSE. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:05, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What you have created is mostly just a list of his achievements and reads more like a CV than an encyclopaedia article. Most of it is also unsourced, which is super problematic in a blp. It looks like you have written the article backwards.
It is very hard to write a Wikipedia article without first spending a while editing and learning how Wikipedia works, and it is especially hard when you have a conflict of interest. My suggestion at this point would be, once you have disclosed your COI on your userpage, to delete most of what you have written and rewrite the article forwards. -- NotCharizard 🗨 17:22, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:30, 24 July 2025 review of submission by Zom00000

The alst reviewer mentioned that I have "attitude of IDHT and I am doing advertising in my article". First I have changed the WHOLE article tone to NEUTRAL (confirmed by ChatGPT) and I only listed stuff that they told me to include...

I have added Beign Elected and becing Chair at many jobs and I have added many awards includeing 5 back to back ASRM star awards.

I am trying to address the reviewer's concerns but not sure what to do at this point.

I have article on NY times with my main photo in it. I have TV interviews (non paid for) ,.. if i list them, they say it is adversiting, If I don't the reviewers say "I dont have enough" ...

I am not using Wikipedia for advertising... I already advertise on social media and MANY other platforms.

Thank you for your help Zom00000 (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Zom00000. Please don't use ChatGPT to review what you've written- ChatGPT simply is not very good. How does this person meet our criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (academics)? qcne (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I only used it to confirm the "NEUTRALITY" of the tone of the article.
I appreciate your help and I will look (again) on Wikipedia:Notability (academics) Zom00000 (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Zom00000. Given that new users usually have difficulty understanding just what Wikipedia means by "neutral", it is very unlikely that ChatGPT will be able to check this reliably, since it works only with surface patterns, and has no "understanding".
"Neutral" is about the sources as well as the content. If a draft fairly summarises what a source says, but the source is based on the words of the subject or their associates (an interview or a press release), then the draft will not be "neutral". 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) 15:53, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I APPRECIATE YOUR HELP! Zom00000 (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:57, 24 July 2025 review of submission by Sbandyopa

There are some flags on this page asking for more complete citations for verification. I checked all the sources and they are complete. All the references are clickable and go to the right pages. Please advise what to do to remove this flag. I cannot fix something if I do not know what to fix and how to fix it.

Also for the sake of full disclosure, I edited this page and I am the subject, but I am not the original creator/editor of this article. The original creator was a stranger who I did not know. My edits corrected some inaccuracies and provided missing references. Sbandyopa (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbandyopa This help desk is for drafts but this is an article. Even so, I suggest starting a discussion on the article's talk page. S0091 (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:02, 24 July 2025 review of submission by MTBEditor2007

Hi, I’m reaching out because I’m a bit confused about what I’m supposed to do with sourcing. From the beginning, I’ve made sure to include citations from reliable, independent sources. While not every source goes into extreme depth, mainly because this is a relatively niche topic, they do directly support the statements made in the article. These sources come from some of the most reputable voices in the cycling industry and are neutral in tone; they are not promotional toward Pivot Cycles.

However, after having my draft repeatedly declined with the same generic feedback, I decided to strip it down to just the introduction paragraph in hopes of avoiding further issues. At this point, I’m unsure how to improve the sourcing, given that I’m already using some of the most credible information available within this niche industry. I’d really appreciate clarification on what exactly is lacking or what types of sources would be considered acceptable in this context.

Also, I’ve noticed many existing Wikipedia pages with little to no sourcing at all, so I’m struggling to understand why the standards seem so much stricter for this article.

Thanks for your time and help. MTBEditor2007 (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MTBEditor2007 as far as other articles, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There are tons of poor articles that do not meet today's standards because standards have changes over time and things get by when they should not. If you are looking for an article to get a baseline, Good articles are better to place to look. At far as Draft:Pivot Cycles, the Forbes articles are not reliable sources because they were written by a contributor rather than staff (see WP:FORBESCON) so not useful and should be removed. Interviews, press releases, what those involved state, etc. are primary sources and not independent so not helpful for notability and should only be used very sparingly. I suggest reading WP:NCORP from top to bottom. S0091 (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:07, 24 July 2025 review of submission by Henrique960

Why was my page rejected? Henrique960 (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your link for proper display(you need the "Draft:" portion)
The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
The reason was left by the reviewer- you have not shown that this musician is a notable musician. 331dot (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You had two drafts on the same topic, I assume you mean this one. 331dot (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:34, 24 July 2025 review of submission by Dabs 313

how can i improve the article so it is published Dabs 313 (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dabs 313 see Your first article and WP:PROMO. What you wrote serves no other purpose than to promote Attila Paladi which is not allowed as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not LinkedIn or the like. S0091 (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
what edits can i make so it doesn't look like promo, since he is somewhat of a public figure, that's why we decided to create the article Dabs 313 (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dabs 313 Who is "we"? S0091 (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is an attempt at a paid disclosure on their user page, we is probably them and Mr. Paladi. 331dot (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:BOSS and WP:PROUD, and have Mr. Paladi read them, too. 331dot (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yes i did do the paid disclosure did i do it incorrect Dabs 313 (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it. 331dot (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
so the article was rejected, ive disclosed that ive been paid what else do i need to do to get the article published,
he has to be notable Dabs 313 (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He does not seem to be notable, as you have not provided independent reliable sources with significant coverage of him. Did you read WP:BOSS? As it says, "your company or boss is likely not notable". If you just want to tell the world about Mr. Paladi, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:05, 24 July 2025 review of submission by Aaron Craven

This draft has a COI and while it very likely qualifies as a notable person, another editor has to edit and submit it. Is there an editor who can do this? Aaron Craven (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Craven The draft process is the correct way for someone to submit a draft about a subject where one has a COI- including someone editing about themselves(as inadvisable as that is). 331dot (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 25

01:12, 25 July 2025 review of submission by Dchmin

Yes kpop groups announced to disband in 2025 August. 

Dchmin (talk) 01:12, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You don't ask a question. But a Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several reliable independent sources have chosen to publish about a subject in reliable publications, and very little else. Your sandbox is nothing like an article. ColinFine (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:47, 25 July 2025 review of submission by 0 RamenWarrior 0

I stumbled upon this article as an avid editor looking for users to help out. In my opinion, this article spends much more wordage discussing the life of Lanza than the original event article, and therefore is notable enough to become its own article. 0 RamenWarrior 0 (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:48, 25 July 2025 review of submission by Charlie Fritzgerald IV

I was given the feedback that my draft of an article "Fails WP:NSONG", and contains acceptable/unreliable secondary sources, which i get. If the article failed WP:NSONG, does that mean that the topic itself is not notable and that i should find something else to write about? While I do think that the song was popular, it was hard to find verifiable credible sources that were specifically about the song. Charlie Fritzgerald IV (talk) 04:48, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It means more-or-less that; the nuance is more "you haven't provided enough sources to demonstrate this is notable". Note that streaming plays are effectively tantamount to vendor-specific music charts, which we never consider helpful. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 05:55, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlie Fritzgerald IV: re-signing for ping—Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 05:55, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Considering how difficult it was to find secondary sources that directly were about the song, do you think it would be wise to write about something else? Charlie Fritzgerald IV (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:22, 25 July 2025 review of submission by CMCMC12

Hello, All the sources I have provided are reliable. Interperformances is not only a PR source, it is also a professional basketball agency. Myprincegeorgenow is the newspaper of the city Prince George in Canada. I do not know if Eurobasket is unreliable, but it is usually provided by professionals. CMCMC12 (talk) 09:22, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @CMCMC12. Most sources need to be not only reliable, but also completely independent of the subject. An agency is unlikely to be that. See WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:49, 25 July 2025 review of submission by 78.147.155.37

My draft of a biogrpahy for John C. Williams was rejected by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Theroadislong for absence of independent verification of notability. I would like to ask for advice here. As the footnotes, show, he was in the Grove dictionary of music and musicians (which really is the standard for notability in the music world) - received an award for the Sunday Times for the best jazz CD, and was regularly reviewed in the British press. Is there more that you need to signal notability?

James Mark 78.147.155.37 (talk) 09:49, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you are Jamesmark50; remember to log in when posting.
The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
You have described your father's career, but not what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about him and what makes him a notable musician. 331dot (talk) 10:05, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:57, 25 July 2025 review of submission by ThisUserIsVivid

I have addressed the last AfC decline (removed more promotional wording, cut weaker refs, reorganised sections) and asked the previous reviewer for any remaining issues, but am still waiting for a response.

Could an uninvolved editor please:

  • point out any wording that still violates WP:NPOV / promotional style; and
  • confirm whether the current sources satisfy WP:NCOMPANY depth/independence, or suggest what else is needed.

That guidance will help me edit in the right direction.

Talk‑page thread for context: Draft talk:Vivid Money#Follow‑up for PunjabiEditor69

Thank you! ThisUserIsVivid (talk) 10:57, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To obtain another review, you need to resubmit the draft. 331dot (talk) 10:58, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:01, 25 July 2025 review of submission by Rezarostamirad

Hi, What should I do now? I thought I had written it from a neutral point of view—and I even included the only investigation that happened around them. How can I move it forward? Rezarostamirad (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rezarostamirad. Some problematic language includes:
> Despite its size, the public may not readily recognize the national chain
> Recognizing that a cemetery business must be grown over many generations, Scanlan developed a long-term plan to build and acquire end-of-life facilities that would provide more than just places sanctioned for the final disposition of the deceased. He envisioned a family of cemeteries and full-service funeral homes that would serve the needs of the living.
> an initiative designed to make the cemetery more park-like in atmosphere
> For their customers, this simplified the task of planning, reduced paperwork and eliminated the need for a funeral procession
> To extend their purview within local communities
etc etc
This is the sort of vaguely emotive language you might see in the About Us section of their website, but not on Wikipedia. The content of your draft should only summarise in a dry, factual way what the secondary sources state. qcne (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:10, 25 July 2025 review of submission by Achanandhi M

Hi there,

I recently submitted a draft to add information about Keploy on Wikipedia. So far, the draft has been rejected around five times. After each rejection, I made edits and improvements. However, for the last three rejections, I haven't been able to understand the reason, as there doesn’t seem to be any promotional content, and I’ve used independent and reliable sources.

This is my first submission to Wikipedia, so I may have missed something unintentionally. I would really appreciate any guidance or support from the community to help me improve the draft and get it approved.

Looking forward to your feedback!

Thank you so much! Achanandhi M (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Achanandhi M: the last three declines (not 'rejections') were because of insufficient evidence of notability. The general notability guideline WP:GNG requires significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject. Your first source is a blog, and the last one is Crunchbase which is deprecated. I'm not quite sure what the remaining (2nd) source is, but it alone wouldn't be enough toe satisfy GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:14, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Please read and respond to the paid editing query I've posted on your talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:18, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:24, 25 July 2025 review of submission by GYHASHAKE

I have received feedback in the recent re-submission that was not accepted that the article for artist David Clendining (Draft:David Clendining) reads like an advertisement. Yet, looking at other accepted artists' profiles, (e.g., Ghazaleh Avarzamani; or Jocelyne Alloucherie; or Jaime Angelopoulos), I do not see the difference in the write-up. I would appreciate some more definitive clarification if someone could take a moment, as to what needs to change. Looking at the examples I've shared here, I think the article on Mr. Clendining should be accepted. GYHASHAKE (talk) 14:24, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GYHASHAKE We don't have "profiles" we have articles. That an article exists does not necessarily mean that it was accepted by anyone, or that it meets current standards. See other stuff exists. Though understandable, it is a poor idea to use any random article as a model or example, as it too could be inappropriate and you would be unaware of that. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles, which have received community vetting.
You have summarized his work, but not what independent reliable sources say is important/significant/influential about him or his work, or in other words how he is a notable artist. 331dot (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The whole url is not needed when linking to another Wikipedia article or page, I've fixed this for you. Just place the title in double brackets, like [[Draft:David Clendening]]. 331dot (talk) 14:50, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:22, 25 July 2025 review of submission by Theochino

I am adding sources that are local and international and it is being declined. One of the sources, speak negatively of us, but accurately. What is missing because the denial is vague. Theochino (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have not shown that the organization is a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How do you show notability? This is what we have:
- We organized this: https://www.pbs.org/show/county/ See the screens
- We run the best candidate: https://x.com/SocDemsAmerica/status/1932086139990749475 and https://x.com/SocDemsAmerica/status/1927537654142316703
- The press report on every thing we do: https://x.com/JCColtin/status/1915176606785581303 and https://x.com/JCColtin/status/1915178631975874790
- We are everywhere: https://x.com/SocDemsAmerica/status/1906393288363450748
- They confuse SDA and DSA because nobody understand the difference and there is no wikipedia to explain the difference: https://x.com/SocDemsAmerica/status/1854687490428358764 Theochino (talk) 17:00, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That you are sharing the groups own social media posts in an attempt to show notability shows that you have not done much research on Wikipedia’s definition on notability despite the feedback you have been given, which is frustrating for reviewers.
Notability on Wikipedia is almost entirely based on having multiple independent, in-depth, reliable sources having written about a subject - these sources are then what is used to write the article. Without such sources, no article can exist. -- NotCharizard 🗨 23:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:56, 25 July 2025 review of submission by Gdonlead

Hi I have been submitting the page for review. Page is getting rejected. Please help me write about this person. Gdonlead (talk) 16:56, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:20:10, 25 July 2025 for assistance on AfC submission by UFC 84

I am Farmina Usman. I'm an editorial assistant at Mamitua Saber Institute of Research and Creation. I understand that the original draft contained copied content. While I had internal permission to use the material, I now understand Wikipedia requires all content to be freely licensed or paraphrased. I am currently rewriting the article in my own words using reliable sources. My goal is to provide neutral and verifiable information about MSIRC to increase public awareness through Wikipedia.UFC 84 (talk) 17:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 84 That is exactly the wrong reason to create an article, see WP:YESPROMO. A subject must already be known to the public before it merits a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is the last place to write about something, not the first. 331dot (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:47, 25 July 2025 review of submission by TheSWHYPER

Please help me correctly upload this music artists wikipage. TheSWHYPER (talk) 23:47, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 26

00:47, 26 July 2025 review of submission by TVresource

Hi there,

I’ve just resubmitted my draft article on **Tomm Voss** after addressing all the issues raised in the previous declines:

- Added significant coverage from reliable, independent, secondary sources (e.g., *Shine On Hollywood Magazine*, *Budo Brothers*, *Martial Arts & Action Entertainment*, *Kihapp*, and *UCLA Recreation*) - Reformatted references to proper inline citations using <ref> tags - Removed promotional language and editorializing to ensure neutral encyclopedic tone - Tightened the writing to avoid vague or speculative statements - Verified that all listed credits and biographical claims are supported by cited sources

Before the resubmission is reviewed again, I would appreciate if someone could take a quick look and let me know if anything still needs to be addressed. Here is the draft:

Draft:Tomm Voss

Thank you so much for your help and time! TVresource (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TVresource: I've fixed the link for you. We don't do pre-reviews here (we're all volunteers and have limited time as it is). Did you get a chatbot to write your comment here or any of your draft? ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 04:46, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:54, 26 July 2025 review of submission by Elvar Granheim

I would like assistance so the Wikipedia site can get better. So people can learn from it. Elvar Granheim (talk) 01:54, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Elvar Granheim I'm afraid that draft is nowhere near the standards required for Wikipedia articles. Please read Help:Your first article and understand that writing a new article from scratch is one of the most difficult tasks on Wikipedia, and not recommended for brand-new editors like yourself. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 04:51, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's why I need help to edit it. Elvar Granheim (talk) 08:34, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't really get into co-editing here at this Help Desk. We can't edit it for you.
I would suggest that you first gain experience and knowledge before continuing to edit the draft. It will remain as long as it is edited at least once every six months(and can be restored if deleted due to inactivity, via WP:REFUND). Try using the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 08:54, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:05, 26 July 2025 review of submission by Carolaispuro14

Wikipedia Team

I have provide all information valid read from news websites in pakistan. Our purpose explore entrepreneur in Asia and Europe. Please Approve this article Carolaispuro14 (talk) 03:05, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Carolaispuro14 Wikipedia is not a business directory or a provider of free advertising space. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 05:01, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked this user as a likely sock or meat of Bilalnazarseo. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:25, 26 July 2025 review of submission by GodspowerChinemerem

Hello! I’m requesting assistance with three related draft articles I’ve submitted:

1. Miss Teen Nigeria – A national teen pageant founded in 2017, recently revived with virtual editions and international representation. 2. Vanessa Edem – Miss Teen Nigeria 2024, who gained national media coverage in ThisDay.

I understand I may have a potential conflict of interest (COI), as I am affiliated with the Miss Teen Nigeria organization. I want to contribute transparently and in line with Wikipedia’s policies. I’ve disclosed my COI here and am open to editing only through Talk pages if needed.

All drafts are written in a neutral tone and supported by reliable sources such as Channels Television, ThisDay Live, and The Nation. I would really appreciate feedback on:

- Whether the current sourcing and content meet notability and style guidelines - Whether I should continue editing directly or only propose changes via Talk - How to best move these drafts forward for approval

Thank you very much for your time and guidance!

— User:GodspowerChinemerem GodspowerChinemerem (talk) 08:25, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GodspowerChinemerem You are welcome to continue to edit and resubmit the draft, that is exactly what you should do.
What is the general nature of your conflict of interest? Are you employed by the pageant organization?
You claim that this picture is your own personal work and that you personally hold the copyright to it, but it appears to be a professionally taken image. Do you personally hold the copyright to the image, or does the pageant organization? 331dot (talk) 08:57, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:44, 26 July 2025 review of submission by Plmoin2514

How is this not sufficiently notable for inclusion on Wikipedia when it relates to an immigration requirement by Singapore that millions of travelers must complete every month? Other topics for Thailand and Malaysia and other countries already exist on Wikipedia too. Was this permanent rejection a mistake? Plmoin2514 (talk) 09:44, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1302586349"