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 Jrdemers (talk | contribs) at 17:35, 16 August 2025 (→How to find things and start a new entry in sandbox: new section). 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


August 10

01:42, 10 August 2025 review of submission by Newbamboo

I have translated a good article from the Chinese Wikipedia into this draft, and I ask for your help to review it, thank you very much. Newbamboo (talk) 01:42, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Newbamboo You have submitted the draft for review, and it will be reviewed when someone with the interest and expertise comes along – see the note at the top of the submission saying that there are currently >1,100 drafts waiting to be reviewed. Also, as noted at Help:Translation § Attribution, if you are translating from another language Wikipedia, attribution is required. You can add the attribution in a new edit summary by making a Dummy edit, or one of us can do this for you, but we would need to know the name of the article in Chinese (FYI, I cannot read Chinese). ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 01:52, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ClaudineChionh I am the author of the Chinese Wikipedia article[1]. Newbamboo (talk) 02:29, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Newbamboo Thanks – I've added the attribution. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 03:16, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:21, 10 August 2025 review of submission by UnforgivingDolos

I submitted a request to republish an article previously deleted under contested PROD, making changes before resubmitting, but it was declined again with the note that “some sources are primary and do not provide a secondary review-like reference” and that more reliable, secondary, independent sources with significant coverage are needed. I am unclear on exactly which references are considered primary and how best to replace or supplement them. I have already replaced academia.edu links with citations to published journal versions and improved formatting, but for some older career details (from the pre-digital era) it is difficult to find online sources. Could you clarify which parts need secondary sourcing and advise on how to handle verifiable but pre-digital information? UnforgivingDolos (talk) 04:21, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @UnforgivingDolos. To answer the last part of your question: you cite non-electronic sources the same way as you cite online sources: by giving the important bibliographic information such as title, author, date, publication, volume etc, and page number. {{cite journal}} or {{cite book}} will help you do this.
Even for most online sources, a URL is a convenience for the reader, not a core part of the citation: the citation should have all the above, except possibly a page number if the copy cited is one which is unpaged. ColinFine (talk) 16:58, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And to address the first part, anything written or published by Poddar or by his colleagues or by any organisation he is affiliated with, is almost certainly primary. 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) 17:02, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! Your explanation really helped me a lot. I have now added "secondary sources" as you suggested: book reviews by people non-related to the source person and citations of the book/chapter/article in other books/chapters. There was also a "citation needed" flagged against the note that the subject's D.Phil was under the supervision of Bhabha. It is a 1996 D.Phil - so the only way to validate this claim is to attach the thesis, where the supervisor is mentioned in the acknowledgements (records were not kept as it is now). Would that suffice? UnforgivingDolos (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:49, 10 August 2025 review of submission by Thunderlionhhh

Please move my sandbox article to mainspace: User:Thunderlionhhh/sandbox → Phan Gia Nhat Linh Thunderlionhhh (talk) 07:49, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thunderlionhhh: I won't move it to the mainspace, since it hasn't been reviewed and I've no idea whether it is ready to be published. I have, however, moved it into the draft space at Draft:Phan Gia Nhat Linh, and also added the AfC submission tag. When you're ready, you can submit your draft for review by clicking on the blue 'submit' button. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:08, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for moving the page to the draft space and adding the AfC submission tag. I’ll work on improving the article and submit it for review once it’s ready. Thunderlionhhh (talk) 08:56, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thunderlionhhh: Per WP:CATDRAFT, drafts normally should not exist in article categories, as they are not (yet) articles that are ready for our readers. I have invalidated the category syntaxes by converting them into internal links, check changes in revision 1305145292. They will be automatically converted back into valid category syntaxes upon acceptance. Cc @DoubleGrazing. 1F616EMO (talk) 09:19, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:14, 10 August 2025 review of submission by 1F616EMO

My draft, which was translated from the Chinese Wikipedia, was declined because it did not meet the WP:GNG standards. After a while, a Chinese Wikipedia contributor added two sources to the source article. I asked about whether the newly added sources would make this draft suitable for expansion on the English Wikipedia, but got no response. Can someone join the discussion at User talk:1F616EMO § Your submission at Articles for creation: SaiDorSi (April 6) and give some advice? 1F616EMO (talk) 09:14, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:30, 10 August 2025 review of submission by Jacquelinelove

Please review the changes that have been made. Thanking you in advance for your time . Jacquelinelove (talk) 10:30, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacquelinelove If you feel you have addressed the concerns of the previous reviewers, press the blue Resbumit button to re-submit the draft for review. qcne (talk) 10:32, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see it was just declined a few hours before I wrote this. Have to agree with the reviewer; the sources are quite lacking. The Qobuz, Deezer, and Spotify links are simply places to listen to her music, not reliable, independent sources that provide significang information about Mackay.
The Artist Recap citations also fail any test; they're both written by "Artist Recap Contributor" which the site itself says This article features branded content from a third party. Opinions in this article do not reflect the opinions and beliefs of Artist Recap. I don't have sufficient knowledge to say for sure about HipHipSince1987, but even assuming that's reliable for fact checking, that only leaves us with a single usable source, which is insufficient. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:51, 10 August 2025 review of submission by 114.10.152.110

Tell us why you are tequesting assistance 114.10.152.110 (talk) 10:51, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor. Do you have a question? qcne (talk) 10:57, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:20, 10 August 2025 review of submission by Mollymcc

Google is indexing the "Talk" page, not the Article. I removed the following text 

{{WikiProject Articles for creation |ts=20250601071935 |reviewer=GraziePrego |oldid=1293187954}}

from the talk page as the article was rated, and no longer a draft (I think?). But it did not change Google's indexing practice. I haven't had this problem before, and despite searching "how to" pages, I wasn't sure what to do. I am not an editor. Sorry for the bother. (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Search engines are indexing the Talk page rather than the Article page. Could you help me with this? Is there some text missing? I'm not an editor. (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mollymcc Please see Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing. qcne (talk) 14:46, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, added no index to Talk page. Is there anything else I need to do? (talk) 14:56, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:15, 10 August 2025 review of submission by Yadlappalli Mohan Rao

hi team, this is Yadlapalli Mohan Rao i have wikipedia page in telugu and i want to be in english also. i submitted the same matter from telugu language to english page for review but unfortunatley my submission is cancelled. can u help me in this page publishing Yadlappalli Mohan Rao (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Yadlappalli Mohan Rao. Each Wikipedia language project is entirely separate and unaffiliated, with different policies and guidelines. What may be acceptable on one may not be acceptable on this one. The English language Wikipedia project generally has the strictest notability, referencing, and content requirements of any of them.
Your draft was deleted.
If you want to try to create another draft on the English Wikipedia, please carefully read our policies and guidelines which are different from the Telugu Wikipedia. qcne (talk) 15:20, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Yadlappalli Mohan Rao. In addition to what qcne said, please note that writing about yourself is very strongly discouraged on English Wikipedia, because almost nobody can do so successfully.
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. This applies equally to most translations. ColinFine (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:51, 10 August 2025 review of submission by R-paths

i actually dont understant the reason for the reject 

R-paths (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@R-paths: for events to be notable, they must have either widespread geographic and/or time-wise sustained noteworthiness, or some sort of lasting impact that extends beyond the event and its immediate aftermath. In this case, the helicopter crash may have been notable, and perhaps some of the people involved were notable, but it's difficult to see how their funeral would be notable in its own right. If the subject touches on any existing articles, perhaps you can incorporate the salient points from this draft into those? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is an article for the crash: 2025 Ghanaian Air Force Z-9 helicopter crash. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:08, 10 August 2025 review of submission by Googlealt

BRUHHHHHHHHHHHH Googlealt (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Googlealt That isn't a question. Do you have a question about a specific draft article? qcne (talk) 19:17, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:57, 10 August 2025 review of submission by Santanu puzari

Hello, I created an article at User:Santanu_puzari and would like it moved to Draft:Santanu_Puzari for Articles for Creation review. I am unable to move it due to the autobiography filter. Could an experienced editor please assist with the move? Santanu puzari (talk) 19:57, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Santanu puzari Using the whole url in the headers on this page breaks the formatting that provides a link, I fixed this. 331dot (talk) 20:09, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "autobiography filter"; new accounts cannot move pages generally. I've moved it for you to Draft:Santanu Puzari, but is extremely unlikely to be accepted. It is poorly sourced and shows no indication that you are a notable person. Please see the autobiography policy as well as why an article is not necessarily a good thing.
You also claim to have personally created and personally own the copyright to the image of you, but it appears to be a professionally taken portrait, typically the photographer owns the copyright, not the subject. Please clarify. 331dot (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:55, 10 August 2025 review of submission by 24.1.110.112

I feel like this is important to education and more people should have access to this information. I am not sure what I need to do next. Any advice would be appreciated. 24.1.110.112 (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing you can do, it has been rejected. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell the world about something. It's the last place to write about a topic, not the first- independent reliable sources need to on their own first write about a topic. 331dot (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:37, 10 August 2025 review of submission by 173.94.128.206

Hello, I am trying to make corrections to ensure Im following the guidelines to have this article published. I welcome any constructive criticism and solutions. Thank you so much for your time and consideration. 173.94.128.206 (talk) 21:37, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you’ve been given quite a bit of feedback in the comments on the draft, is there something specific you are unsure about? -- NotCharizard 🗨 04:21, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 11

00:16, 11 August 2025 review of submission by Nflicks

I am currently working at ECOUNT and am in the process of trying to get ECOUNT listed on the English Wikipedia. I have encountered some challenges in this regard, and I would appreciate your guidance. Below are my questions:

The Draft:ECOUNT was rejected due to insufficient references. It seems the rejection is primarily due to a lack of demonstrated notability. Could you kindly provide advice on how to better prepare the necessary references? Specifically, I am wondering if I should approach journalists to conduct in-depth coverage of ECOUNT. ECOUNT currently operates global offices in South Korea, China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, and the Philippines, and serves over 80,000 customers worldwide. I do not believe ECOUNT lacks notability compared to other listed software, but it seems there is a shortage of supporting materials to prove this. If I arrange for journalists to write comprehensive articles, could I use those as references? Alternatively, any other suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

While reviewing other references, I noticed that ERPNext also seems to have a lack of references. Did the investment funding they received play a role in their successful listing? The remaining references come from their GitHub repository and official website. I am curious as to why ERPNext was listed despite seemingly having limited references, whereas ECOUNT was rejected. Understanding this could help me align my preparation to meet similar criteria.

Thank you in advance for your time and assistance. I look forward to your valuable advice.

Best regards, Nflicks (talk) 00:16, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you are connected with the company, any journalists who wrote about the company because you asked them to would not be creating independant sources, and so they would not help with notability. Note that sources do not have to be online.
In regard to ERPNext, it is indeed a poorly sourced article. Unfortunately some things sneak through, and standards did not used to be as high as they are now. See other stuff exists.
Sometimes, as frustrating as it is, you have to accept that a subject is not notable by Wikipedia standards even though you know it is very popular and well known. I have had to abandon some drafts for this reason, and it can feel really frustrating, but it is how Wikipedia works. -- NotCharizard 🗨 04:14, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:06, 11 August 2025 review of submission by George J. Gatgounis

Please explain how I may correct or add what is required to earn your approval please. Thank you! George J. Gatgounis (talk) 01:06, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the draft was speedily deleted for being unreviewed LLM content. It is best not to use LLM at all on Wikipedia, but it is very silly to not even check what you are copy and pasting before publishing. -- NotCharizard 🗨 04:19, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:06, 11 August 2025 review of submission by DallasNZ

Hi there, I rewrote this article before submitted but it was declined because it has it used an LLM. Even if I used it to assist me with a few sentences I don't think this should have been declined as it's mostly written by mean in a very professional format. DallasNZ (talk) 01:06, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:43, 11 August 2025 review of submission by Sachin.Beedigital

Hello Experience Wiki Authors,

I am trying to create a page for a brand, but each time I submit it for review, it gets rejected with the feedback that “the draft needs multiple published sources.”

I have already included references from trusted publications such as Reuters, Hindustan Times, The Economic Times, Mint, Fortune India, and Moneycontrol. Could you please review and guide me on what specific changes or additional references are needed to meet Wikipedia’s notability and sourcing requirements?

Thank you for your time and assistance. Sachin.Beedigital (talk) 06:43, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sachin.Beedigital: please read the decline notice fully, it doesn't just say "needs multiple published sources", it says published sources that are in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements), reliable, secondary, and strictly independent of the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:58, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:42 to understand what criteria the sources must meet. ColinFine (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:57, 11 August 2025 review of submission by Momosnep

Hello,

My draft Draft:HexaHealth was recently declined by reviewer Qcne on 9 August 2025. The decline reason stated that my draft’s references do not demonstrate that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article, and that I should add multiple sources that are:

In-depth (not just brief mentions or routine announcements)

Reliable

Secondary

Strictly independent of the subject

The reviewer also mentioned: "I'm not seeing the WP:ORGCRIT."

I’ve read the WP:ORGCRIT guideline but I’m still unclear on exactly what kind of sources I need to add to meet this standard.

Could you please help me understand:

What kind of published coverage would meet WP:ORGCRIT for a company like HexaHealth?

Do press releases, interviews, or features in trade publications count if they are about the company?

How can I tell if a source is truly “secondary” and “independent” for Wikipedia purposes?

If such sources are scarce, does that mean the subject is not currently eligible for an article?

Any guidance or examples would be really helpful before I attempt a resubmission.

Thank you! Momosnep (talk) 06:57, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Momosnep: the draft currently cites mostly routine business reporting (funding rounds etc.) which is usually neither secondary nor independent, because it is based on press releases and similar material supplied by the subject, and is also not significant coverage, because it usually just covers a specific issue like the appointment of a new CEO or the opening of a new market. We need to see coverage that goes far beyond that, where eg. a journalist has on their own initiative said "hey, this HexaHealth seems to be doing really interesting and innovative things which are going to 'move the needle' in its sector – I should dig deeper into that and prepare a report for my readers/viewers". This is in distinct contrast to someone at the same publication monitoring their incoming e-mail and saying "oh, here's yet another press release from HexaHealth, something about getting $2m from a VC, ho hum". See the difference?
So no, press releases do not count, or interviews (again, neither independent nor secondary), and trade publications are notorious for having very low news thresholds and accepting press materials unquestionably.
And yes, if you cannot find sufficient sources to satisfy the WP:ORG / WP:NCORP notability guideline, then the subject is unlikely to be notable enough, and wouldn't therefore justify its own separate article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:15, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing again thank you for taking the time to explain this in detail. I now understand the difference between routine business coverage (such as funding announcements and press releases) and the kind of in-depth, independent reporting that meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. I appreciate the clarification on why press releases, interviews, and certain trade publications don’t count as sufficient independent sources. I’ll review the available coverage to see if there are truly independent, in-depth sources that meet WP:ORG and WP:NCORP, and if not, I’ll reconsider whether the subject is ready for a standalone article at this time. Momosnep (talk) 07:48, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:08, 11 August 2025 review of submission by NozzleMaster

It says [ Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. Their outputs usually have multiple issues that prevent them from meeting our guidelines on writing articles. These include: Promotional tone, editorializing and other words to watch Vague, generic, and speculative statements extrapolated from similar subjects Essay-like writing Hallucinations (plausible-sounding, but false information) and non-existent references Close paraphrasing Please address these issues. The best way is usually to read reliable sources and summarize them, instead of using a large language model. See our help page on large language models. ] i'm scared to submit it again and getting hours of work deleted forever, what do i need to change? A previous person told me i needed references and i added references, do i delete all references that aint doi articles or science articles? Please i need feedback. i also put the links under a "References" heading but im scared to click submit changes yet. NozzleMaster (talk) 10:08, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NozzleMaster,
It can be discouraging to see that message but it’s not meant as a threat that your work will be “deleted forever.” It’s simply a flag that your draft still has issues that need attention before it’s likely to be accepted. Pages in the Draft namespace are not deleted for having problems they remain there until improved.
You need to use reliable independent sources like news, books, reputable websites not blogs, press releases or self published pages except for basic facts. And also rewriting in your own words with a neutral tone no promotional language. Citing each fact with an inline ref tag not just a list at the bottom and removing weak or unused references.
Take your time drafts stay in place until improved. Once cleaned up resubmit confidently. 🐍 Thilio🤖 🐍 Thilio🤖 10:24, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:26, 11 August 2025 review of submission by Ljverbakel

Dear editor, I have been struggling with this draft page for some while now, I feel that the sources do qualify and that I have quite a lot of them, and a few really good ones (i.e. the one from the European Parliament). What is still missing before it gets accepted? And are there any sources now that are really problematic? Thank you very much! ~ Leon Ljverbakel (talk) 10:26, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have documented the existence of the organization and its activities- this is not what is being looked for. 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. We want to know what others wholly unaffiliated with the organization choose to say is important/significant/influential about it.
If you are affiliated with this organization, that must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. Note that in this context "paid editing" includes employment even if you weren't specifically directed to edit. 331dot (talk) 10:32, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:57, 11 August 2025 review of submission by 2A01:5A8:307:F5D7:E425:81B2:2FC1:5B59

Hello,

I recently submitted my first Wikipedia article, about the company Scalefocus, and it has been declined twice. The reason given both times was that it reads more like an advertisement and lacks sufficient independent, reliable sources to establish notability.

After the first decline, I revised the draft to remove promotional language and add independent references in line with Wikipedia’s neutral point of view and verifiability guidelines. However, it was still declined for the same reason.

As this is my first article, I would appreciate specific advice on:

What aspects of the draft still appear promotional.

Whether the sources I have included are adequate, and if not, what type of sources would be acceptable.

Any other changes that would make the draft more in line with Wikipedia’s standards.

Thank you in advance for your guidance. 2A01:5A8:307:F5D7:E425:81B2:2FC1:5B59 (talk) 11:57, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve reviewed your draft, well....there are sentences that read more like marketing copy than encyclopedic content. For example:
1. "Scalefocus provides custom software solutions and nearshoring services that cover the entire software development lifecycle: Data and AI, Digital Engineering, Cloud and Operations, and Enterprise Platform Implementations.
2. "The company works with Fortune 500 enterprises and start-ups across various industry verticals, including IT, Financial Services, Energy & Utilities, Healthcare, iGaming, Aviation and others."
2. "Scalefocus is recognized by international organizations such as the International Business Awards, Forbes the Globee® Awards, Financial Times, and Deloitte." and so on..
I suggest you to rephrase these into a neutral fact based style that simply states what the company does or has received without implying prestige or making broad qualitative claims. Avoid marketing terms like "recognized by” “cover the entire lifecycle,” or name dropping “Fortune 500” unless the association is independently verified and relevant. Also see WP:NOTPROMO , WP:NPOV and WP:WTA. 🐍 Thilio🤖 12:46, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, IP editor. Like most people who try to create an article without first spending considerable time learning about what Wikipedia needs, you have made the mistake of writing either what you know or think about the subject, or what the subject wants people to know.
Wikipedia isn't interested in either of these. 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.
So, having found several sources each of which is independent, secondary, reliable, and contains significant coverage of the subject (see [[WP:42}}, you then need to forget anything you may know or think about the subject, and write a netural summary of what those sources say.
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) 16:10, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:32, 11 August 2025 review of submission by Tedysh

My submission has been declined with the note "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article". This submission includes references to a Suisse website SikArt and also to "Wikidata". I believe that both are already listed on Wikipedia itself. I do not understand why these have not been excepted as reliable references. Could you please clarify this beyond the online help that I have already studied. Thank you. 

Tedysh (talk) 14:32, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Tedysh. Let's go through your sources:
  1. SikArt is just a database entry with no critical coverage.
  2. Wikidata cannot be used as a reference, as it is a user generated Wiki-website.
  3. viata-medicala.ro is an okay source, being a detailed obituary in a mainstream newspaper.
  4. hommages is just a place to put remembrances.
  5. targulcartii is a place to buy his artwork.
So we have one okay source, but a Wikipedia article needs in-depth critical coverage of the person in multiple independent reliable sources. qcne (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:13, 11 August 2025 review of submission by Apurba03

Suggest me Apurba03 (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Apurba03. I suggest you publish your essay elsewhere, not on Wikipedia. We do not host essays of original thought. qcne (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:43, 11 August 2025 review of submission by 15.220.16.220

Hello, I am new to the Wikipedia and need some guidance. We paid a company to submit a Wiki page entitled Project Santa Fe Foundation. We were informed that the page had gone live, but it appears the page as of this time is a "draft" and the company/person has not responded. How do we get this page moved from draft status to LIVE? It looks like a BOT moved the page into a certain format on August 5. 

15.220.16.220 (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am really sorry, you have been scammed out of your money. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning. qcne (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we were concerned about this but it was too late. Two questions: 1. How do I get information on how to have the page submitted correctly? 2. Where can I report the scammer and email address. 15.220.16.220 (talk) 22:32, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please use the email address described at WP:REPORTPAID to send a copy of the email. My advice is that you go on about the work of your Foundation as if Wikipedia did not exist; if your Foundation is truly a notable organization as Wikipedia defines one, someone independent of your organization will write about it. Please see about how the presence of an article is not necessarily a good thing.
Do you have an account? Remember to log in if you do. 331dot (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, we are trying to get the Project Santa Fe Foundation listed on Wikipedia. We paid a company to assist but they are not responding. We have a "draft". Can you please tell me what your comment means below and can we request this go LIVE or what is needed to have it published? Thank you. Revision as of 23:38, 5 August 2025 edit Marksteven019956 (talk | contribs) This draft is not yet complete; more details about the foundation will be added so people will get more benefit. Tag: Visual edit 15.220.16.220 (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:30, 11 August 2025 review of submission by ICNTsurfer

My draft has been declined over issues with three photos. Do I have to delete those photos from Wikipedia Commons to be on the safe side? ICNTsurfer (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Photos are an enhancement, not a requirement, in terms of the draft process, which only considers the text amd sources. Photos can wait until the draft is accepted. 331dot (talk) 23:06, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 12

01:23, 12 August 2025 review of submission by CookieAnn Song

The reviewer said that my references were not up to standard. I would like to know if this refers to all the references or just some of them. Are the following two references acceptable？ "DSIM - World's Fastest Simulation for Power Electronics". caeexperts.com. Retrieved on 2025-08-11. Zhao, Zhengming; Tan, Don; Shi, Bochen; Zhu, Yicheng; Jin, Hua (September 2020). "A Breakthrough in Design Verification of Megawatt Power Electronic Systems". IEEE Power Electronics Magazine. 7 (3): 36-43. doi:10.1109/MPEL.2020.3011775. ISSN 2329-9215. CookieAnn Song (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CookieAnn Song: Every dsimtechnology.com source needs to go. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 01:31, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that some of the references in PSIM also come from its official website. Is this acceptable? CookieAnn Song (talk) 01:41, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most information should be sourced to independent sources, but a small amount of information sourced to primary and non-independent sources is acceptable if you have established the product's notability. However, almost all of the draft's information is sourced to the product's official website and its official reseller caeexperts.com, which are not independent sources. The academic paper is also non-independent, having been written by the developers of DSIM.
Do you have a connection to DSIM Technology or CAEEXPERTS? Any connection must be disclosed, per WP:Conflict of interest and WP:PAID. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:19, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your reply! I would like to know if it's possible to use some independent Chinese websites as reference materials? CookieAnn Song (talk) 01:53, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources do not have to be in English, but to demonstrate notability they should satisfy all three criteria in WP:42. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:20, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but how can I prove that we have connection? CookieAnn Song (talk) 01:56, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
State your connection on your userpage, User:CookieAnn Song, by following the instructions in WP:PAID. This is assuming you work for the company or otherwise have a financial connection to them. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:18, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:19, 12 August 2025 review of submission by CookieAnn Song

Hi editors I noticed that some of the references in PSIM also come from its official website. Is that also acceptable for the term DSIM? CookieAnn Song (talk) 03:19, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see other stuff exists. That one article has similar content is not relevant to this draft- it could be that the content is inappropriate for the other article as well and just has not yet been addressed by a volunteer. There are many ways to get inappropriate content past us, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. 331dot (talk) 08:13, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Thank you for your reply CookieAnn Song (talk) 01:59, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:07, 12 August 2025 review of submission by BihariEditor

@User:DoubleGrazing is right, it's looking like spam. And incorrect information. BihariEditor (talk) 04:07, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're telling us that you agree with the rejection of this draft- why? 331dot (talk) 08:12, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:12, 12 August 2025 review of submission by Plmoin2514

Hello this is the 3rd time I have added this request for help. The last 2 have expired without resolution. I would like to nominate this article for community approval since it was permanently blocked by a previous reviewer which I believe was erroneous. Thank you. Plmoin2514 (talk) 05:12, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't gotten a resolution because there is nothing to resolve. You have given no reason why the determination of the reviewer should be overturned other than that you disagree with it, which is understandable as most people want to see their work in the encyclopedia. You got several replies on the first discussion you started and were told why the rejection was not erroneous- and a commenter said that the version you claimed to have changed did not appear to be any different from the rejected one. The second discussion only told you why the first was archived.
Is there a particular reason you have such a strong personal investment in this draft? 331dot (talk) 08:30, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello thanks for replying. I was told to improve the draft, which I did. However it cannot be re-submitted as it has been permanently rejected. At minimum, I request this ban to be lifted. There are millions of travelers every day landing on scam websites and getting wrong information about the SG Arrival Card. I have already submitted the Malaysia Arrival Card article too using a similar format which was immediately approved, I'm not sure why @Thetechie feels this is not appropriate for Wikipedia as they haven't engaged very much in this discussion so far, it surely seems notable and important. Plmoin2514 (talk) 05:28, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:40, 12 August 2025 review of submission by Turkiyelegend1

The last time Verdis was mentioned was in 2022. It has since been on Fox News, Firstpost, and other major news companies. It should be considered notable Turkiyelegend1 (talk) 08:40, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mere appearance in media does not make a topic notable. You need to show that this micronation is a notable organization. That you haven't is why the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. If you can later fundamentally change the draft to address the concerns of the rejecting reviewer, the first step is to appeal to them directly. I would suggest you look at some articles on micronations that do merit articles, like Republic of Molossia or Principality of Sealand. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:30, 12 August 2025 review of submission by YAKSH75

What can i do now let me know the proper info.I apology if is there any miss behave from my side. YAKSH75 (talk) 09:30, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing you can do is wait for this TV show to be notable. Once it is, and there are sufficient independent reliable sources to summarize in an article, you should first appeal to the rejecting reviewer. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:46, 12 August 2025 review of submission by 146.200.138.208

My submission was rejected with the following comment: "With the possible exception of the SDUT piece, none of the sources contribute towards notability per WP:NCORP."

Would it be better to submit the content without sources then? Our parent company has a page and many of the statements about the organization do not have sources such as the opening statements: Idera, Inc. (/aɪˈdɪərə/) is the parent company of a portfolio of brands that offer B2B software including database tools, application development tools, test management tools, and DevOps tools. It is headquartered in Houston, Texas and has offices in Australia, Austria, and the United Kingdom. It is owned by the private equity firms HGGC, Partners Group and TA Associates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idera,_Inc. They also cite businesswire ten times. It seems our own Businesswire source and comparable sources (geekwire, venturebeat) are not considered permissible in our case, but are in Idera's. Our parent company's page also uses a source from organizations that it has acquired, when speaking to the acquisition of said organization. I.e. "Froala is now part of Idera". Froala. 2019-08-04. Retrieved 2020-03-11. In our case, we have referenced Idera, Perspectium's parent company and information they have published about their acquisition of Perspectium as a source. Why is our version of this not permissible but Idera's is? Trying to understand how we can get this over the line as we've failed a few times now and feedback is inconsistent with other wiki pages. 146.200.138.208 (talk) 09:46, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need the "Draft:" portion of the title when linking, I've fixed this. 331dot (talk) 10:27, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you are Zak.cole, remember to log in when posting. The content of the encyclopedia is generally referred to as articles, not the broader "pages". This is not just semantics, but an important distinction. Your parent company does not "have a page" here that it owns and controls; Wikipedia has an article about your parent company, no different than if the New York Times wrote about your company.
That another article exists or has certain content does not necessarily mean that such content is permissible or was "approved" by anyone. Please see other stuff exists. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, there are many ways for inappropriate content to exist, this cannot justify adding more. This is also the reason for the appearance of inconsistency- we'd love for everything to be consistent, but the nature of a volunteer project means that we are only as consistent as the time people have to invest in making Wikipedia so.
Most of your sources merely document the routine activities of your company, this does not establish that your company is notable. It could be that your parent company isn't notable either(I don't know, I haven't looked yet), or that its child companies aren't even if it is itself.
I fear that you are too close to your company to be able to write about is as Wikipedia requires. You need to be able to set aside everything you know about your company and all materials it puts out, limiting yourself to summarizing what independent sources choose on their own to say about a topic. Most people have great difficulty doing that. Please read WP:BOSS, and have your superiors and colleagues read it, too. Also know that an article is not necessarily desirable. 331dot (talk) 10:36, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:48, 12 August 2025 review of submission by 2A02:8071:6420:DFA0:C898:7621:A6CA:A8FC

Hello Wikipedia Community! 😊 I’ve recently made some updates to the "Andi Krush" Wikipedia page.

I would really appreciate it if someone could take a look and consider accepting the page.

Thank you so much for your time and support! 2A02:8071:6420:DFA0:C898:7621:A6CA:A8FC (talk) 10:48, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have resubmitted the draft, it will eventually be looked at. Asking for a review will not speed the process, as everyone would like their draft reviewed quickly. Please be patient.
I would be very surprised if he created and personally owns the copyright to the professionally taken image of him that was used in the draft. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:24, 12 August 2025 review of submission by Theeshamarketing

Please advise us how to post this articles Theeshamarketing (talk) 11:24, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Promo piece deleted, user (soft-)blocked. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:31, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:30, 12 August 2025 review of submission by Silvia Dalle Montagne

Can anyone help me on this draft? I thought I did a good job on my latest submission and yes, I've been using AI as assistance on formatting and translating but all contents are coming from reliable sources and have been written by myself. Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 11:30, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Silvia Dalle Montagne: what help do you need? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:32, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Silvia Dalle Montagne Rather hilariously, your use of ChatGPT included a broken bit of code that automatically declined the draft. It was never submitted for review, and a reviewer has never reviewed it, but because you used ChatGPT and it included some broken code it declined the draft immediately.
I've removed the broken code so you can actually submit it for review. qcne (talk) 11:51, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thank you so much for your help, very kind from you, and very helpful to help me understand how to make my contributions useful and smooth!
Will submit the draft now. Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 06:52, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:17, 12 August 2025 review of submission by Dhe4computer

Requesting feedback on moved draft

Hi editors,

My draft User:Dhe4computer/DheReckahsTeam Web Security Investigation was declined at AfC due to notability concerns. I’ve since revised it with independent, reliable sources (Forbes, ZDNet, SlashNext) that analyze the project’s MFA bypass techniques and contest recognition.

I’d appreciate any feedback on whether it now meets Wikipedia’s notability and sourcing standards.

Thanks! — Dhe4computer Dhe4computer (talk) 12:17, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dhe4computer Using the whole url in the header breaks the formatting that provides a link, I've fixed this for you. 331dot (talk) 12:24, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh thanks Dhe4computer (talk) 12:40, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't do pre-review reviews. The best way to get feedback is to resubmit. 331dot (talk) 12:25, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dhe4computer Oh- the draft was rejected. If you believe that you have fixed the problems that led to the rejection, the first thing you need to do is ask the rejecting reviewer to reconsider. 331dot (talk) 12:47, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:18, 12 August 2025 review of submission by Alex.Veliaon

I am creating an article about the Kocha Rabha community but need help improving the draft to meet Wikipedia’s guidelines. Specifically, I want to ensure the article uses reliable sources, has a neutral tone, and follows proper citation and formatting standards. I would appreciate guidance on how to address reviewer feedback and improve the draft for successful publication.

Thank you 

Alex.Veliaon (talk) 15:18, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alex.Veliaon: don't use AI to generate your drafts. And make sure that the sources you're citing are actual sources, not just editing comments like "Reliable source needed here", or URLs that return 'page not found' errors. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you sir Alex.Veliaon (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alex.Veliaon. Writing an article without first finding the absolutely essential reliable independent sources (see WP:42) is like building a house without bothering to survey the land or build foundations: it will probably fall down, and will be mostly wasted effort.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:32, 12 August 2025 review of submission by Maethegreat

My draft was declined. I have addressed the concerns mentioned but do not know how to resubmit my article. Maethegreat (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maethegreat You just need to click the blue "resubmit" button, at the bottom of the last review.
What is your connection to this person? You took a picture of her where she posed for you. 331dot (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:26, 12 August 2025 review of submission by Tintin007b

If I correct the reference to Tseytlin, it was actually a paper by Medvedev and Tseytlin, do I need to do anything else to validate this page? Tintin007b (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:47, 12 August 2025 review of submission by JASCbd25

I have a photo I would like to use in the Wikipedia article for Al Siniscal. It is a photo of him appearing with the singer Paul Anka at an awards ceremony in 2010. The photo copyright owner, Front of House Magazine, has given me written permission to use the photo in the Wikipedia article provided they are attributed as the copyright owner. They do not want to grant a Wikimedia Commons open license for use by anyone anywhere. How can I use this photo in the article with this limited usage right? JASCbd25 (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JASCbd25: You can't, full-stop. Also, you having permission means nothing as you are not the one hosting the image. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:58, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Photos are not relevant to the draft process, which only considers the text and sources. 331dot (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:52, 12 August 2025 review of submission by 2409:40E2:2001:B3D3:8000:0:0:0

Kanutfilms is an Indian film production and distribution company based in Odisha, India. It was founded in 2025 and produces films in multiple languages. The company 2409:40E2:2001:B3D3:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is completely unsourced and has no indication the organization is a notable organization. This is why it was rejected. 331dot (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:09, 12 August 2025 review of submission by ArynahParis

Someone indicated that a big portion of my article lacks reliable sources. How am I supposed to know the exact portion that lacks sources ? Secondly, why is it that there are thousands of articles on Wikipedia that are so brief (with less than 200 words) but, they are already published on Wikipedia? Check this article Hannz Tactiq and this too DJ Shiru ArynahParis (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ArynahParis. In a biographic article, every single statement must be sourced to a reliable, published source. You have several unsourced sections which read more like promotion than a neutral article.
Each draft must stand on it's own merits, and we don't compare them to existing articles. Wikipedia has many millions of articles, tens of thousands of which are poor quality and should be improved or deleted. We don't want to add more poor quality articles to the project. Did you not notice the big This article has multiple issues on DJ Shiru? I would not have accepted that had it came through the Articles for Creation process. qcne (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne: I actually gutted that article in responce to this user asking for help on -en-help yesterday, and I explained literally everything you just brought up to them in as much detail as I could. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:31, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:11, 12 August 2025 review of submission by Moodytoo

thank you request Moodytoo (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Moodytoo: Find somewhere else to host this, maybe Wikitubia? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:43, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:17, 12 August 2025 review of submission by FernCurator

The submission was rejected because "There is already a redirect from Neobladder to Urinary diversion. Subject doesn't seem to be notable enough to warrant an article by itself.". While it is accurate that the redirect exists, it is important to note that the Neobladder is the only Type of Urinary Diversion listed that does not have a corresponding page. Futhermore, there is no information on the Urinary Diversion page describing what a Neobladder is. The existence of the page not only serves to provide such a description and citations, but could also be used to note advantages and disadvantages. and well known people with such a diversion (e.g., Deion Sanders). Thanks for your help and guidance. FernCurator (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @FernCurator. Your draft has two citations, both of papers authored or co-authored by Hautmann. Two sources from the same person are rarely enough to establish that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability.
I further suspect that Hautmann was involved in originating the technique. If this is the case, the papers are both primary sources, and do not contribute to establishing notability. Wikipedia articles should be almost entirely based upon secondary sources.
Unless you can find several sources that meet all the criteria in WP:42 (including the more stringent criteria in MEDRS), this subject will not merit an article. I too suggest you add to Urinary diversion. ColinFine (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. I'll work on making improvements. I had assumed (incorrectly) that primary sources were preferred. FernCurator (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:50, 12 August 2025 review of submission by ᖻᒪᓱ ᒋᔈᒪ

Hello, i need help. My article got rejected again. ᖻᒪᓱ ᒋᔈᒪ (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ᖻᒪᓱ ᒋᔈᒪ: Not to be rude, but if this is unique to the Blackfoot language wouldn't it be better to just put something about it in that article? This may very well be too narrow for a standalone article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:52, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:09, 12 August 2025 review of submission by Tony Holkham

I am autopatrolled and I have helped the creator develop this draft article (elsewhere) to the point where it can be put into mainspace. Do I do that by pasting the new text over the draft text and submitting it, or can I just publish the article as if it was my own creation? I don't want to compromise the draft article or upset any process. Thanks. Tony Holkham (Talk) 21:09, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony Holkham: Replace the text of the draft, then either submit the draft or (if you think it'd stand up to NPP scrutiny) move it to mainspace. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 22:52, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant, thank you. Tony Holkham (Talk) 22:54, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:56, 12 August 2025 review of submission by EvanBlumenfield

hey,

How many more articles and sources do I need to make Hyim Shafner qualify for a Wikipedia article? I added many different sources. Let me know if you have any advice. EvanBlumenfield (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EvanBlumenfield: I'll go down your prose in order:
Note that every claim a reasonable person could challenge has to get sourced or get out. This is a hard requirement and isn't negotiable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:03, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you take a look now! I believe I updated it all specifically the sources EvanBlumenfield (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the notability there, and it was suggested that this was AI-produced? Drmies (talk) 01:40, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 13

01:47, 13 August 2025 review of submission by 154.92.130.89

how do i like edit it to be wikipedia notable? i mean its a rly cool game and a lot of ppl dont know 154.92.130.89 (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can't - notability is a measure of how many sources there are to summarise for a subject. If there aren't any sources, there's nothing to work with. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 03:09, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:50, 13 August 2025 review of submission by AndeHuang

My draft has been declined twice, and I’m seeking guidance on how to address the issues. AndeHuang (talk) 03:50, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a publicly traded company listed on the Taiwan Stock Exchange, Winmate probably is a notable company. The article does not demonstrate this. It reads like an advertisement. I quickly found this source, which may be of use, but first I would remove all of the promotional material and information sourced directly to press releases, such as the "list of products and solutions" which is not useful unless their products as a list are described in depth by independent publications. -- Reconrabbit 14:56, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @AndeHuang. If it says what the company wants people to know, it's probably promotional.
The thing to realise is that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:54, 13 August 2025 review of submission by Anandrajdel

Dear Sir/Madam, Dr. Pradeep Rai Mehendiratta has made significant contributions in promoting Indian languages to a global audience. His work has helped many foreign learners understand and appreciate various Indian languages, thereby strengthening cultural exchange and preserving linguistic heritage.

He has dedicated his career to serving the nation through his efforts in language education and cultural promotion. We wish to create and publish a Wikipedia article about Dr. Mehendiratta as a tribute to his dedication and service, and to ensure his contributions are documented for future generations.

We request guidance on how best to present reliable sources and meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria so that the article can be accepted. Anandrajdel (talk) 03:54, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Before you can present reliable sources, you have to find them - and most of them should also be independent (not connected with Mehendiratta or any institution or organisation he was associated with).
Sources that only mention him in passing are of limited use - they may possibly verify a particular claim about him. Sources that don't even mention him (like the top-level webpages about various institutions) do not belong in the reference list, period.
I suggest you review each one of your sources against all the criteria in WP:42. If it does not mention him, or is not reliable, take it out. If it is not independent of him, or only has a passing mention of him, it may be useful, but will not contribute to establishing notability, and can only be cited for limited information. ColinFine (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:23, 13 August 2025 review of submission by VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004

Is there any way to improve the page, Tatsunoko considers it a separate show from Dashing Warrior Muteking (known as a reboot of the show) and said page was created on the Japanese Wikipedia? But, how can this page be improved? There's a lot of concerns here… VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004 (talk) 05:23, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004: I'd discuss this with the reviewer and point out the situation. They may not have realised this is an entirely separate series. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:35, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ghatail Cantonment English School and college

I genuinely want to contribute for my School that why i gather so information to write it in Wikipedia but as a new person in Wikipedia i am facing problem to publish it in Wikipedia. How to publish it by solving those problem. It is in draft section of Wikipedia. And declined already for Conflict of Interest. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ghatail_Cantonment_English_School_and_College ArafatImran (talk) 06:51, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ArafatImran Welcome to Teahouse
I can see you’re eager to contribute your draft for Draft:Ghatail Cantonment English School and College Since your submission was declined due to a Conflict of Interest (COI) and a lack of independent sources....
  • I suggest you review reliable sources guidelines to find strong third party references such as news articles or education board publications to show the subject’s notability
  • Focus on adding solid third party sources news articles education board publications to show the subject’s notability
  • Keep working in the Draft namespace or your user sandbox until it is well-sourced and written in a neutral tone.
  • Once improved resubmit through Articles for Creation or ask a neutral editor to review. With clear disclosure and reliable sources there’s a much better chance your draft will be accepted.🐍 Thilio🤖
🐍 Thilio🤖 07:31, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ArafatImran: nowhere does it say that this draft was declined because of COI; in fact, I declined it before I even queried whether you have a COI in this subject. I declined it for two reasons:
  1. The draft is almost entirely unreferenced.
  2. The only source it cites is the school's own website, which contributes nothing towards notability per WP:ORG.
(As an alumnus of the school you probably also have a COI, but that's just by-the-by.)
Wikipedia articles should be composed (by yourself, not by AI) by summarising what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about the subject, and then citing those sources against the information they have provided. See WP:GOLDENRULE for more on this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:49, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @ArafatImran. I hear that you want to create an article on your school. But most schools are not notable, and if they are not, then trying to create an article is a waste of everybody's time.
In order to show that your school is notable (and, I repeat, most schools are not) you need to find several places where people who have no connection whatever with the school have chosen to publish material about the school in some depth, and been published by a reliable publisher (unconnected with the school). If you cannot find several such sources, you should give up.
If you have found several such sources, then the next step will be to effectively forget everything you know about the school, and write a summary of what those sources say.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 19:56, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:10, 13 August 2025 review of submission by Montezde

This page was declined because it reads too much like an advertisement. I feel the information presented is factual and written from a neutral point of view. It is also based on independent, reliable, published sources and not material published by MedWheel. Can you help me better understand how it should be revised in order to comply with wikipedia's requirements? Montezde (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Montezde. I have had a look at the draft and it appears that although the draft is referenced, these references are either primary (ref 1-5) or are just pages that advertise the company (ref 6). The other references (such as those from gazette.com), I don't think add anything to help with proving notability. The first line of the draft reads the same as what is present on [this webpage] (which is also ref 1). The rest of the draft reads much the same way. I think that the information on this page WP:NORG will help you determine whether or not the company in this draft is notable! Happy editing and thank you for partaking in AfC! 11WB (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Montezde: We don't need mission statements, visions, or anything else MWTA wants to put out to the world. As for the sources...
None of your sources are any good. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:30, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:43, 13 August 2025 review of submission by 2A01:E0A:D30:1FA0:5048:1384:1018:A192

I would like to know where to note on the page that I am the maker of the film that I am writing about, and am asking is this contribution is considered to be a conflict of interest. I have included the URL of the distributor as the reference for the information written. 2A01:E0A:D30:1FA0:5048:1384:1018:A192 (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Writing about something you are involved in is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. There is a link on the AfC banner on your draft that links here. That section will guide you on how to declare a COI on your draft! Happy editing! 11WB (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply, since it is strongly discouraged to write about something I am involved with, how do I delete the draft, Sisters of the Screen, African Women in the Cinema. Thank you Doing womanist work (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Doing womanist work You don't have to delete the draft: it's discouraged not banned. But since you are requesting a deletion, I will mark this for speedy deletion for you. qcne (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'd rather not do anything that is strongly discouraged. Perhaps I should have asked this question beforehand, but it was only after I was ready to send for review that I came across the topic of conflict of interest. Could you let me know when it is deleted. Thank you very much. Doing womanist work (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:01, 13 August 2025 review of submission by 76.126.75.28

Hi Charlie,

Can you let me know what is wrong with my submission? I've never done Wikipedia pages before, but I've tried to emulate those I've seen that have been approved. I've used third party articles and non-advertising language. This is a page for the JuliaHub company - just like Apple and others have.

I appreciate any advice you can give!

Best, Courtney 

76.126.75.28 (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @User:CharlieMehta qcne (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Are you @Hurley.cour? Please remember to log in.
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.
What I will say is that your draft looks to me like what the company wants to say. 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) 20:00, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@IP 76.126.75.28 I believe it would be more meaningful to expand the existing article on the Julia (programming language), rather than creating a separate page for its proprietary variant. The open-source version of Julia is widely known, recognized, and generally more accepted in the programming community. You may differ from my notion, and I completely respect that. Charlie (talk) 03:03, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:17, 13 August 2025 review of submission by SeaPoint18

I had submitted news article links as references at the bottom of my article. I received a message saying my article was rejected. Could you kindly tell me what I need to do to fix this? I thought I had added enough reliable sources. Please help. Thank you! SeaPoint18 (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SeaPoint18 your draft has no references at all? Are you sure you pressed Publish Changes to "save" the version with references? qcne (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:19, 13 August 2025 review of submission by B0b3rp4ws

Hi,

I'd like to ask for some more direction regarding this draft. I decided to work on it because I've noticed this company's connections to major aviation associations, and found some secondary sources related to the subject. I'm trying to figure out what exactly makes it look like an advertisement - are the sources not good enough? Is the language I used not neutral? (While I've been using English for years and consider myself to be on the level of a native speaker, perhaps since it's my second language something could be escaping me) Is it simply not notable enough? Is it a combination of these?

While it would be a bit disappointing not to be able to successfully submit my first article, and I'd much rather prefer to be able to correct it, I'd still appreciate feedback even if the ultimate decision would be to delete it, since hopefully, it'd help me in the future.

Thank you in advance. B0b3rp4ws (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank, I didn't have to get past the first line. "Solutions" is just marketing speak. 331dot (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @B0b3rp4ws. Generally, what makes a draft look like an advertisement is that it reads as what the company wants to say about itself. 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) 20:02, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:18, 13 August 2025 review of submission by Zackerman721

This is not an autobiography, but it was not allowing me to add the links to Mojica's, nor the combined channel, I am wondering what links I could add for a chance to have it accepted. Any response would be greatly appreciated.

Kind regards, Zac and Daewon Zackerman721 (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Zackerman721. 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 publication, and not much else.
It follows that unless you can find several independent reliable sources which talk at some length about Mojica, no article on him is possible at present. Nothing that he has said, written, or published, or that is based on his words, is relevant at this stage.
@Cyberdog958's comment strongly implies that they have gone looking for such sources and been unable to find any, which is why they have rejected (not just declined) the draft.
If you believe there are such sources (make sure each one meets all the criteria in WP:42), you will need to approach Cyberdog directly, and ask them to rescind the rejection. But please be very sure that your sources are adequate before you do this.
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) 22:25, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 14

00:41, 14 August 2025 review of submission by Butcan

The text for my article "Leon & Malia" is ready to submit, except that it does not have the photos intended to be used. All the photos have been uploaded in Commons. However, I cannot find instructions for how to import these photos into the article. Please, some help/ Butcan 00:41, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Butcan: Adding images from Commons isn't too difficult, this is detailed at Help:Pictures. But I must ask you a few questions.
First, the copyright of the pictures you uploaded. You claimed that the works you uploaded were authored by "Leon & Malia Productions Inc.", and that the business has released the works under public domain. Copyright of a photograph typically belongs to the photographer; did the original photographers of these pictures explicitly transfer the copyright to the corporation? If so, has Leon & Malia Productions Inc. agreed to relinquish their copyright? It seems unlikely that the corporation would do that.
Finally, do you have a connection to Leon & Malia? If you do, this must be disclosed, per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:PAID. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:06, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Helpful Raccoon for your reply. All the photos submitted, as I understand, were "works for hire," the photographers being hired and paid by Leon & Malia Productions Inc. for their work. In the U.S. that makes Leon & Malia Productions Inc. the copyright holder. Since there have been many photos taken over the years no single one is of particular value, as I understand. Malia did not seem to hesitate in doing the License Agreement for Wikipedia a few days ago.
Now, my relationship with Leon Siu and Malia Elliott: I have been a fan of theirs over many decades starting in 1970. While living in San Francisco I took in their show at The Purple Onion. I bought their records and was especially impressed with the Varese Sarabande "...Goldfish" recording. It awakened my life's interest in the small but growing repertory of classical (Art) music on Hawaiian/Polynesian subjects which progress I have followed ardently since then. I have spoken with Malia and Leon from time to time at their performances. I approached Malia this past March to propose to her doing this article for Wikipedia, and she agreed to cooperate with me. We've met from time to time since then when I've had questions or needed more detailed material, more over the last few weeks. I am not being paid for this article, nor would I say the Duo are exactly friends. I just respect them greatly for their many accomplishments.
Butcan 19:54, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Butcan Thanks for clarifying! Can you have Malia contact commons:Commons:Volunteer Response Team to confirm to Commons that the company has released the photographs into the public domain? I note that the copyright of this letter likely belongs to Dr. Stockham. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Butcan. As well as the issues Helpful Raccoon raised, I would point out that images will not affect whether your draft is accepted or not: this depends on the sourcing and text only. You can worry about images later. ColinFine (talk) 10:21, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:26, 14 August 2025 review of submission by CookieAnn Song

Hello, editors, the reason why my entry was not approved is that it "reads like an advertisement". Could you please specify which part of the content contains an advertising tendency? The editor also said, "It is not merely about the materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed." In fact, none of the cited references were created by the DSIM creator. Could you tell me more details about that? CookieAnn Song (talk) 01:26, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:46, 14 August 2025 review of submission by 2600:4040:745A:5000:5121:2A8E:4F5E:42F

This is my first attempt at creating a page on Wikipedia. I received the following decline submission (listed below) but am not sure how to proceed and have no experience creating references. Any insights you can provide would be much appreciated. Thank you!

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are: in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements) reliable secondary strictly independent of the subject Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. 2600:4040:745A:5000:5121:2A8E:4F5E:42F (talk) 01:46, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are User:Sgraci? Remember to log in when posting. You have not shown that the company meets Wikipedia's special notability criteria for corporations. There need to be sources that satisfy all the criteria in WP:42, which your current sources do not; a Wikipedia article should summarize what these sources say about Loaded Pixel. What Loaded Pixel has to say about itself is almost completely irrelevant to Wikipedia.
Please disclose your connection to the company Loaded Pixel, per WP:Conflict of interest and WP:PAID. Are you the same person as User:LoadedPixel? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:59, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:13, 14 August 2025 review of submission by Cacodemonwiki

The references I have taken are all either government or public news items which can be very well reliable. The institute is liable to the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 of government of India and hence there is no change of wrong information to be included.

But article is still rejected. How do I deal with this? Cacodemonwiki (talk) 10:13, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cacodemonwiki: I'm sure gov't sources are reliable (well, within reason), but that's not the point. The point is, they are primary sources, and as such cannot establish notability per WP:ORG.
And on a different point, you must stop tendentiously resubmitting your draft without any real attempt at improving it, or it will eventually be rejected outright without the option to resubmit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:17, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazingI have used a mix of primary and secondary. I had resubmitted after removing Vision and Mission which was flagged to be removed by @331dot It was not submitted without any change. Cacodemonwiki (talk) 10:21, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cacodemonwiki: as I already said in my decline notice, the 'vision and mission' was just an additional comment, the actual decline was for insufficient evidence of notability, and you did nothing to address that, you only removed the 'vision and mission' (Special:diff/1305827146) before resubmitting. And shortly afterwards, you resubmitted again, with no changes (Special:diff/1305828768). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:29, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazingdoes that imply by default wikipedia consider government/public institutions as not notable. This is my first article, i assumed that adding profile of a government institutions would be a good contribution. Cacodemonwiki (talk) 11:13, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cacodemonwiki: I didn't say, or imply, that "government/public institutions [are] not notable". I said they are primary sources, and thus do not contribute towards notability per the relevant guideline WP:ORG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:19, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cacodemonwiki Government institutions are not inherently notable- they are treated like any other organization. You must show that it meets WP:ORG. It doesn't merit an article just because it exists. We don't have "profiles" here, we have articles. 331dot (talk) 11:20, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazingOkay. So being government doesn't mean it is relevant. I had been hunting for other sources also but there it is mostly passing remarks. So should I withdraw this article? Yes, articles terminology error being a newbie. Cacodemonwiki (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there is only passing remarks, then it doesn't yet merit an article. That doesn't mean you need to abandon the draft permanently; drafts remain active as long as they are edited at least once every six months(and even if deleted can be recovered). You are welcome to sit on the draft until you see more significant coverage. 331dot (talk) 11:29, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://knnindia.co.in/news/newsdetails/msme/ministry-of-msme-acknowledges-aiia-to-launch-incubation-centre-for-entrepreneurship - is this a relevant reference? Cacodemonwiki (talk) 11:35, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be a press release(no author is identified that I see) so it's not independent, and it just reports a routine activity(its establishment). 331dot (talk) 11:42, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I was trying to understand what is reliable and not reliable. All sources which I had given was from government itself. So this being a government organisation, I cannot quote anything from government source (as it become primary reference) but will have to get from any other sources, i thought press would be fine. Cacodemonwiki (talk) 11:55, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you employed by this organization? 331dot (talk) 11:22, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. I am not employed by this organisation. At present I came to visit this organisation and I thought I would write about this as my first wikiarticle. Cacodemonwiki (talk) 11:29, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. 331dot (talk) 11:30, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:24, 14 August 2025 review of submission by AlaNuseibah

I do not see the issues that I am supposed to resolve. The page is getting automatically declined. AlaNuseibah (talk) 10:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AlaNuseibah: nothing has been declined, automatically or otherwise. You've created your draft, presumably using AI, with a faulty ('declined') AfC template in it. I'll go remove that for you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:30, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I received a page saying "submission decline" the moment I submitted. And yes, you are right, there were some additional citations which were suggested by the AI tool I used. Got it now fixed and the article is in review. Thanks a lot for your response. 83.109.122.42 (talk) 11:00, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @AlaNuseibah (Please remember to log in). You have not submitted your draft for review. The "page that said submission declined" was the very first version of the draft that you created. But because you used an LLM, which are notorious for making things up, it made up that your draft had been declined - even though you had never submitted it. That is an indication how very very very unhelpful LLMs are in creating Wikipedia articles.
Since you have used one, it is your responsibility to check that all the references are valid, and every word of the text is backed up by the references. (If you had written the draft yourself, you should already have done this anyway).
DoubleGrazing has now removed the bogus decline message, so you can submit it for review when it is ready - when you have meticulously checked that everything that your LLM put into it is valid. ColinFine (talk) 11:34, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:34, 14 August 2025 review of submission by Mkellyecocem

Hi there,

I'm looking to publish a page on behalf of my company, and the first draft has been rejected due to needing more of a neutral tone.

I'm wondering if I could get help please to review and highlight what parts might be causing an issue.

Appreciate any help that can be provided,

Mark Mkellyecocem (talk) 10:34, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mkellyecocem: you need to fundamentally rethink this. What you've created is a company presentation or online brochure. We have no interest in that; you can put that on your own website, plus use whatever other channels you wish – bar Wikipedia – to tell the world about your business. What we want to see is what third parties have said about your business and what in their opinion makes it worthy of note. And by 'third parties', I mean secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of you; independent in terms of ownership and control, independent in terms of content, and independent in terms of freedom of any financial or other inducements or rewards. Your job is then merely to summarise what they have said; see WP:GOLDENRULE for more on this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that you should read WP:BOSS, and have your superiors/colleagues read it, too- what you are attempting is unwise for several reasons, and while success is possible, it's rare and not likely. Most people in your position have great difficulty in doing what you are trying. Are you the rare person who can do it? Possibly, but the odds are against it. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:06, 14 August 2025 review of submission by Catty Nik

I am receiving Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified, but all sources are ok. Catty Nik (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Catty Nik: this draft hasn't been reviewed yet, so no one has declined it on that or any other basis. You created this with a decline template already in it (I'm guessing some AI tool told you to do that?); I'll go and remove that. As for whether the sources are okay or not, let's leave that for a reviewer to determine in due course. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you, is it possible to move it back to draft? Catty Nik (talk) 12:16, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Catty Nik: it is in drafts, both in the sense that it is a draft (ie. not yet published in the main encyclopaedia), and it is now in the draft name space (which is the preferred location for pending drafts). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:19, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! Catty Nik (talk) 12:21, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I've also moved this into the draft namespace, at Draft:Valeria Docampo. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:15, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
one last thing, is it possible to remove the article (delete)? Catty Nik (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Catty Nik: may I ask why?
But yes, since you are the sole author of this draft, you may request that it be deleted. Please confirm if this is really what you want? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:10, 14 August 2025 review of submission by Akhara2025

Hello, I am not sure if this was accepted, I did not ger any notification or email/ Thank you Akhara2025 (talk) 12:10, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Akhara2025: it was not accepted. The reason you didn't get any notification is that the draft was submitted by someone (presumably you?) from an IP address, and therefore the notification went to that IP user's talk page at User talk:2606:9400:B7A0:36:41F5:4E65:8229:5AE7. (If that was you, please remember to log into your account whenever editing, to avoid this and many other potential issues.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:18, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:20, 14 August 2025 review of submission by Gpnewman

I was wondering what sources are incorrectly added. Thaks Gpnewman (talk) 12:20, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gpnewman: I'm not sure what you mean by "incorrectly added"? This draft was declined because of insufficient evidence of notability. See WP:NCORP for the relevant guideline which you need to meet. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:25, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:19, 14 August 2025 review of submission by Adilya A

Hello, Wikipedia community! I have prepared a draft article about the Kazakh Film Festival in France, but unfortunately it was declined. I would like to get some advice on how to make it more neutral in tone. I am interested in cinema and Kazakh culture, and I would like more people to learn about the festival. It is a valuable opportunity to discover Kazakh cinema in Europe, and since English is an international language, I thought it would be useful to have an article about it in English in addition to French. Regarding the references, I have added sources from both the French and Kazakh press. Thank you for any comments and suggestions! Kind regards, Adilya A (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adilya A You need to provide the full, exact title when linking to your draft, I fixed this for you. 331dot (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, I noticed it only after I had published the request and didn't know how to fix it myself. Adilya A (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The draft reads like the Festival website, and not a summary of what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the festival, showing how it is a notable event. The sources you provided just document the festival and its activities.
If you are associated with this event, that must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Adilya A. "I would like more people to learn about the festival" is a very very bad reason to write a Wikipedia article, because (in Wikipedia terms) what you are doing is promotion, which is forbidden anywhere on Wikipedia. (It doesn't matter whether or not you have a commercial intent: "telling the world about" is pretty well what we mean by "promotion").
Only once the festival has been written about by several people completely unconnected with it, at length, in reliable sources, will Wikipedia consider having an article on it.
Any such article should be essentially a summary of what those independent sources say: Wikipedia has pretty well no interest in what the festival says or wants to say.
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 know you created your account five years ago, but you have made almost no edits, so you are still a "new editor"). ColinFine (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, 331dot and ColinFine, for your feedback and guidance. I understand that the sources I provided mainly document the festival’s activities and do not establish notability according to Wikipedia standards, but unfortunately, the articles I added are the only mentions of the festival so far.
I am not associated with the festival, but I appreciate the reminder to disclose any potential conflicts of interest. I also understand that Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion and I regret that my draft came across that way.
I will take your advice and spend more time contributing to existing articles to better understand Wikipedia’s core policies before attempting to create a new article (or to edit this draft). Thank you again for your guidance! Adilya A (talk) 14:59, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A good intention, @Adilya A. If you decide to come back to this subject, start by looking for sources that meet all the criteria in WP:42. If you can't find any, you'll know not to spend any more time on the festival. ColinFine (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:43, 14 August 2025 review of submission by Nouri Navid

Hello,

I’m a first-time contributor, and I recently attempted to write a neutral article about someone I found online. I’d appreciate any tips you can offer.

Could you clarify what counts as a reliable source? I tried using government documents and sources not affiliated with the person, but I’m not sure if that was sufficient.

Also, during review, I was told my draft “reads like a résumé.” In response, I removed many news items to reduce bias—but now I’m wondering if I went too far. How can I keep neutrality without stripping out too much context?

Thank you very much for your help! Nouri Navid (talk) 14:43, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nouri Navid: the concept of reliable sources is explained at WP:RS, and you can find some information on specific media outlets at WP:RSP.
You say you "found online" this person... yet you managed to take a photo of him at close quarters? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:50, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for fast reply
sorry about that image info, trying to change it since i found it ia google image search and is available at instagram. trying to change it when the filter problem ticket is resolved.
are the sources about the subject in Reuters and UK official webiste and the book i referenced not enough as resources? Nouri Navid (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nouri Navid: okay, for future reference, do not upload someone else's image as your 'own work', if they aren't your own work. You're violating someone's legal rights as the owner of that image, and this can get you into trouble (including but not only on Wikipedia).
The Reuters piece is just routine business reporting, and only quotes Salemi commenting on the deal.
If by "UK official website" you mean the Companies House record, then all that does is confirm that this person is a director of JTA International Investment Holding Ltd. This doesn't contribute anything towards notability, and barely even verifies any information in the draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Nouri Navid. It looks to me as if most of the sources you cite in Draft:Amir Ali Salemi are routine business announcements about the company, not even about him. The government document will be primary, and probably doesn't contain significant coverage of him. The book (which I don't have access to) might be satisfactory, but my guess is that it contains a potted biography which is both short, and derives from Salemi or his associates, and so is not independent.
Writing an article begins with finding several sources which are a) reliably published, b) secondary (not primary), c) wholly independent of the subject, and d) contain significant coverage of the subject specifically (not of a company etc if the article is about a person). See WP:42 for details of the criteria the sources must meet.
If you cannot find several such sources, you will know that there is no point in spending any more time on this, because the subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. If you can find some, then you need to put aside anything else you know or may have heard about the subject, and write a summary of what those sources say.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:47, 14 August 2025 review of submission by TDM Writer

The submission has been declined twice and after the first decline a new version was submitted with the link to a UK Registered and incorporated company. I have been enlisted to help the business form the initial entry. I have been reading and using Wikipedia since it started and have hefty experience in the luxury, fashion and music sector and have seen similiar small entries on the site which begin with a starting text. The entry is the first phase of the unravelling of the business and will be updated progressively to include the company weblinks, website and the logo created by one of the most famous fashion designers in the world on behalf of the business. This is their first attempt at using the platform and the business is a verifiable UK Business Entity and information related to it should not be interfered with. We kindly ask you to reconsider the submission and post it online at your earliest convenience. The organisation is experienced and will reveal more information as the launch plans commence. The submission was also edited by a notable luxury writer. Thanks, TDM Writer. TDM Writer (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TDM Writer: firstly, you must disclose your paid editing status without delay. I've posted instructions on your talk page.
This draft, such as it is, consists of a single sentence, with no referencing, and therefore no evidence of notability. This does not add up to a viable encyclopaedia article draft.
The link that you mention leads nowhere, it is only a 'link' in name. And even if it did point to the website of the company (presumably?), that would contribute nothing in terms of notability, either.
The notability guideline you need to satisfy is WP:NCORP, and WP:GOLDENRULE explains the process you need to follow. Meanwhile WP:YFA gives you pretty everything you need to draft an article. All that, after you've disclosed your paid editing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Oh, and if this business is only launching next year, then it clearly has no chance whatsoever of being notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(I realise you have been blocked, @TDM Writer, but it's worth making this point in case you,or your principals, come here looking). I'm not sure who you are trying to impress with your "hefty experience", but you are showing us clearly that you have zero experience of how Wikipedia works.
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) 16:35, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:00, 14 August 2025 review of submission by AAHW

Can you guys expand this article and add reliable sources please AAHW (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @AAHW. The answer is almost certainly No - unless your draft happens to engage the interest of one of the people who give their time voluntarily to working on Wikipedia.
If you think this is a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article, it is up to you to find the sources, and write the article.
You have stated that something happened on 13th August. Which reliable independent sources have written at length about this? Unless the answer is "several", you are wasting your time trying to create an article in Wikipedia.
I strongly suspect that you are doing this to try and tell more people about the project: if so, please note that "telling the world" is the very definition of promotion that we use in Wikipedia, and that is forbidden. Only after the world has already noticed, in the form of substantial reliable independent reporting, will Wikipedia take any notice.
Please use another outlet for your campaign. ColinFine (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We can't divine independent reliable sources for you, you should have them in hand before you begin writing, see WP:BACKWARDS. 331dot (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:00, 14 August 2025 review of submission by Theedecemberblues

My Monica Hernández draft was denied a bit ago, but I believe she is notable in her own right for a standalone article. Not only as a painter, but primarily as a content creator online. She has had several reliable, independent articles report on her, her work, and social media presence. If you are interested in taking a look, please do not hesitate to weigh in with your opinions, suggestions or concerns. Thanks! Theedecemberblues (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:05, 14 August 2025 review of submission by GozlerScruz

hello everyone. how to i get apply from wikipedia for uncoverit.org page i need help what can i add to apply GozlerScruz (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where have people wholly unconnected with the website written at length about it and been published in reliable publications? If the answer is "nowhere", then there cannot be a Wikipedia article about it, and you are wasting your time.
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) 16:44, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:14, 14 August 2025 review of submission by Rehmanta

The above stated articles have been submitted many times, but unfortunately it was rejected by the Wikipedia review committee. The above stated legendary person was a great historic person for the renaissance of muslim community in Kerala, India. In several texts and journals clearly mentioned his contribution for the upliftment of the dipressed muslim community in Kerala, i have one request to the review committee, kindly check "the muslim mirror' for getting more details about Parappur Abdu Rahman Moulavi. Kindly accept this article and give permission to the public read the same content. Regards Rehmanta (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Rehmanta. There is no "review committee". There are only individual reviewers. Six of them, independently, have looked at your draft, and @Thilsebatti has decided that your inability to improve the draft to an acceptable state indicates that it is not worth spending any more time on.
A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what independent reliable sources have published about a subject, and very little else. Your draft reads like your thoughts on the subject, not a summary of what the sources have said.
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) 16:49, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]


This article is about my great grandfather Parappur Abdurehman Moulavi who has played an unnegotiable role in the renaissance movement of Islam especially in the Malabar region. To prove the legitimacy of the given article of this person, references from Muslim Mirror, "History of Religious Organisations and Ideological Conflicts Among The Muslims of Malabar from 1921-1989" a thesis by Sharafudheen K.V, "Colonialism And Community Formation in Malabar: A Study of Muslims of Malabar" thesis by P.P Abdul Razak, "The History of Kerala Muslims" a history book by Dr. N A Kareem could be checked. I humbly request you to approve this article after further checking and not let the lifestory of such an emminent person go unknown. Rehmanta (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rehmanta, I suggest you get more experience editing other parts of Wikipedia, then return (much) later and have another look at your draft. At present it really isn't very much like a Wikipedia article, so it's very unlikely that any reviewer would ever accept it. If you can't see why yet, that's fine - you will eventually, once you've had more practice editing articles that already exist. Good luck! -- asilvering (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:18, 14 August 2025 review of submission by 2601:152:203:CD60:CCCA:A786:CE74:193

According to the comments "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 (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia." However, we have so many sources that highlight that Brianna Wiest shows significant coverage. What are we missing here and how does this international best-selling author not qualify for a Wikipedia article? 2601:152:203:CD60:CCCA:A786:CE74:193 (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the creator of the draft, remember to log in when posting.
Most of your sources are interviews with her, or serve to document her work. Interviews are not an independent source. You need to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about her, showing how she is a notable creative professional. For writers that usually is independent reviews of her writing style by professional critics(not just her books themselves, which might merit the books articles but not her personally). 331dot (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:54, 14 August 2025 review of submission by Jrdemers

I can not find a solution to this error in the Faqs nor anywhere. I can not upload an image that I took and am being told that "We could not determine whether this file is suitable for Wikipedia Commons." I tried several different ways. Is this because of the newness of the account? If so the error description needs to change. Jrdemers (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jrdemers: if you're trying to upload something to the Commons, be advised that it is a separate project from us (the English Wikipedia), therefore you should probably ask them for advice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:32, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding. I am writing an article and trying to upload an image related to the article by clicking the image icon in the editor. I am not sure how this goes to the Commons? Can you please point me to the instructions on how to upload an image for an article if clicking on the editor icon isn't the correct way to do it? Thank you. Jrdemers (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jrdemers: This is likely because of an automated filter on Commons that is designed to detect copyright violations when a new user uploads a small picture. If you photographed the image yourself, and didn't copy/screenshot it from the internet, this error is a false positive. You can avoid this by using commons:Special:UploadWizard instead, and the image can be inserted into a Wikipedia page by following the instructions at Help:Images. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 18:51, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all! I will give it a try. Jrdemers (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That worked. Thanks again! Jrdemers (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Jrdemers. Note that images will not make any difference at all in getting a draft approved. If you are talking about Draft:CoolShims, then the only thing you should be concentrating on at this stage is finding better sources.
In order to establish notability, you need several sources which are wholly independent of the company, reliably published, and have significant coverage of the company (not just its products): see WP:42 for more.
At present you have a patent, which is a primary source, the company's own website, which is not independent, and one article about the products, which may be OK (I'm not clear whether Autopian is what Wikipedia regards as a reliable source or not; and the article is mostly about the products, not the company) - but even if it is, one source is rarely enough to establish notability.
If you can find such sources, then you need to make sure that almost everything in the draft comes from what one of those sources say, not from what CoolShims say.
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 recognise that your account has been around for fifteen years; but with an edit-count of 16, I think you're still a new editor). ColinFine (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Currently I am not working on Coolshims, but on Bakman Technologies. I will return to Coolshims once I have Bakman Technologies working. Jrdemers (talk) 04:04, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Similar points apply. The first three sources are all authored or co-authored by J R Demers (you?) and so are not independent, and will contribute nothing to establishing notability.
I don't know whether the other sources are independent or not (I haven't looked at them) but it seems unlikely that any of them contains very much information about the company (as opposed to its products): if not, they will also contribute nothing towards establishing notability. ColinFine (talk) 21:20, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, so it isn't if it is about the products but if the company itself is notable. What about acquisition announcements? Or government grant announcements? Are those acceptable? Jrdemers (talk) 21:59, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:56, 14 August 2025 review of submission by K8t B

Request move from sandbox to Draft:Madushin Amarasekera for AfC review Hi, I have drafted an article at User:K8t_B/Madushin Amarasekera.

I have a declared conflict of interest (employed by Construkt Architects), so I will not move it myself. The draft has been written with references from reliable, independent sources and is intended to meet Wikipedia's notability, neutrality, and verifiability standards.

Could an uninvolved editor please move it to Draft:Madushin Amarasekera and submit it to Articles for Creation for review? Thank you! 

K8t B (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@K8t B You are a paid editor. You do not have a simple conflict of interest. Please read and abide by WP:PAID.
The draft can stay in your sandbox and be submitted for a review. The material declaring your conflict is not to appear on the draft, but on the draft's talk page. The template you require is {{Connected contributor (paid)}}. You have used a similar template for declaring a simple WP:COI. Even so, the parameters needed to be filled out
Another editor has moved it for you. IT is at Draft:Madushin Amarasekera now. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:33, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
K8t B (edit conflict) I edited your header so that you don't create a link to a nonexistent page entitled "Request move from sandbox to Draft:Madushin Amarasekera for AfC review". I edited it to include the new location of your draft. However, if you were to submit it now, it would be declined quickly, as it is little more than his resume. You need to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about him and how he is a notable person as Wikipedia uses the term. 331dot (talk) 23:34, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@K8t B no Declined although it has been edited down it is still a resume. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 00:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you are employed by his company, you are required by the Terms of Use to make the stricter paid editing disclosure. 331dot (talk) 23:34, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited again with a reliable secondary source with significant coverage (Sunday Times Sri Lanka) K8t B (talk) 00:38, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what is going on here or who Madushin Amarasekera is. Jrdemers (talk) 04:02, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He is a New Zealand Architect as written in the text K8t B (talk) 05:35, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jrdemers You appear by accident, to be participating in the wrong thread. Your thread is above. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:49, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah,now I see it. No wonder I was confused! Jrdemers (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:43, 15 August 2025 review of submission by Fivelidz5lidz

I'm not sure how to go ahead with editing this page. I'm trying to be as transparent as possible. I made edits to alleviate concerns of "borderline notability". These in turn resulted in issues raised as the formatting in the talk discussion was like that of an LLM. For the article itself everything is properly sourced and verified.

I am very happy to go through and make more edits to the article further if this helps? I just don't know how to pass this test going forward.

Thank you in advance for your time reviewing this. 

Fivelidz5lidz (talk) 04:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“as the formatting in the talk discussion was like that of an LLM” do you mean you used an LLM to generate it? If so, please just say that. Clear communication is much more effective when you are asking for help.
Some of the language is still promotional (see WP:YESPROMO) things like “This partnership expanded Sahha's reach into the international fitness technology market, demonstrating adoption beyond regional boundaries” are completely inappropriate.
Regarding sources, can you give three of them that pass all the criteria of in-depth, independent, and reliable? -- NotCharizard 🗨 05:36, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:35, 15 August 2025 review of submission by Sanar Mammadov

Wikpedia existing page in English Hi, I have recenently received the rejection about my new page article in Wikipedia. May I know the reason for the rejection. I would like to inform you that the page in wikipedia https://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabir_G%C9%99nc%C9%99li was created by me 5 years ago. Sabir Ganajli is the famous writer and journalist of Azerbaijan. He is my deceised father. He left us a month ago. To spread his legasy for a wide auditoria I decided to creat his page in English as well. Could you please help me in this. Or should I proceed other way to complete the same page in Azerbaijani as well as in English. Thak you in advance! Sanar Mammadov (talk) 09:35, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sanar Mammadov I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft as intended(it's not for a header title).
You draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
I am very sorry for the loss of your father. The draft is written more like an essay and less like an encyclopedia article. Please know that the English Wikipedia is a separate project from the Azerbaijani Wikipedia, with different policies. What is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here. If Azerbaijani is your primary language, you may just wish to edit the article there. 331dot (talk) 09:41, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your prompt reply and your condolences. As I undarstand I need to edit some some text and add some more evidences, links. Could you please guide me in edition? Sanar Mammadov (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sanar Mammadov: my condolences.
 Courtesy link: Draft:Sabir Ganjali
This draft is written in quite a promotional tone. In addition, it is insufficiently referenced, and probably also does not provide enough evidence of notability.
Please note that each language version of Wikipedia is a completely separate project with their own rules and requirements. Just because an article exists in one version does not automatically mean that it will be accepted into another.
Lastly, you have an obvious conflict of interest (COI) in this subject on account of your relationship. This needs to be disclosed. I have posted instructions on your talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:42, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:38, 15 August 2025 review of submission by 41.83.33.244

The ingenious maestro BJ Sam has achieved the extraordinary, assembling a stellar ensemble of vocalists and instrumentalists from across the globe in a resplendent ode to unity, serenity, and sonic purity. In a landmark achievement, the GRAMMY Awards extended an official invitation to BJ Sam to submit this cross-cultural jewel for GRAMMY® consideration, a testament to its profound global resonance and artistic excellence. 41.83.33.244 (talk) 09:38, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This help desk is for questions regarding the drafting and review process, not for spamming with your promo blurb. If you have a question, feel free to ask. That said, this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice to hear- once he is officially nominated for, or awarded a Grammy, he would likely meet the notability criteria, but he doesn't right now. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:38, 15 August 2025 review of submission by Kanilasilambam

Why this page is declined Kanilasilambam (talk) 10:38, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kanilasilambam Using the whole url breaks the header formatting that provides a link to your draft, I fixed this. Usually it is unnecessary to use the whole url.
The reviewer provided an explanation, do you have a more specific question? 331dot (talk) 10:44, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't think you ever submitted the draft. I provided you with the information to.
How did you obtain the image of Dr. Ravichandran? 331dot (talk) 10:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I got that Image from Dr. Rajan. Now I have submitted the draft. Kanilasilambam (talk) 03:39, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:24, 15 August 2025 review of submission by James410JP

I'm looking for reliable references and external links. Please give me a few days. 

James410JP (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Review – Draft:2FABypass (2)Two Factor Authentication Bypass

Hi there,

I’m reaching out as the editor behind User:Letscontributes. I’ve been working on my draft article titled Draft:2FABypass (2)Two Factor Authentication Bypass for several days now, and I’m really hoping to get it approved. I understand it was recently declined with concerns about AI-generated content, and I want to assure you that I’ve gone back through the article carefully and rewritten key sections in my own words using reliable sources.

I’ve added citations from FBI alerts, cybersecurity news outlets, and industry reports to support the notability and relevance of the topic. I’ve also removed vague or speculative language and focused on verifiable facts.

If you have time to take another look, I’d be grateful for any feedback or suggestions. I’m committed to improving the draft and making sure it meets Wikipedia’s standards.

Thank you for your time and consideration, User:Letscontributes Letscontributes (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have resubmitted the draft; the reviewer will leave feedback if not accepted. 331dot (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply, 331dot.
I understand the draft is in the queue, but I wanted to follow up because I’ve spent a lot of time revising it based on previous feedback. I’ve made sure all content is written in my own words and backed by reliable sources like FBI reports and major cybersecurity publications.
If you or another reviewer could take a moment to look at it again, I’d really appreciate it. I’m happy to make any further changes needed to meet Wikipedia’s standards I just want to make sure the effort I’ve put in gets a fair review.
Thanks again for your time,
User:Letscontributes Letscontributes (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft is in the pile (which is not a queue). Please be patient.
(Almost) everybody who tries to write an article without first spending a lot of time learning about how Wikipedia works, ends up spending a lot of time revising and reviewing their drafts, and probably feeling frustrated. ColinFine (talk) 21:31, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes i feel frustrated please assist me if you can Letscontributes (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:29, 15 August 2025 review of submission by Ghazalehgh

Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I’m seeking guidance on improving the draft for Daryoush Gharibzadeh to meet Wikipedia’s notability and sourcing standards. He is a famous director and writer in Iran. Could you clarify:

Specific sourcing issues: Are the current references insufficient, unreliable, or lacking independent coverage?

Required changes: Should I focus on adding more secondary sources (e.g., reputable news outlets, News ) or reorganize content to better reflect notability?

Other gaps: Does the draft fail to demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources unrelated to the subject’s work/affiliations?

I’d appreciate actionable advice to address these concerns. Thank you for your time!

Best regards, Ghazaleh. Ghazalehgh (talk) 13:29, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Referencing for beginners, references need to be in line next to the text that they support.
Note that "famous" is not the same as notable. You need to show he is a notable creative professional. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:48, 15 August 2025 review of submission by SR75385

Hi there, this article draft was declined, and the reason given was that its references are not all 4 of these things: in-depth, reliable, secondary, and strictly independent.

Please could someone advise how I appeal the decision, or why exactly the references don't meet the criteria? The article was written in a neutral tone about Heidi, one of the largest ski holiday operators in the UK, which bought the heidi.com domain name after a previous Swiss fashion brand - called heidi.com - went into liquidation in 2021.

The confusing thing is there is still a heidi.com Wiki page for the defunct brand (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidi.com). Why is that page allowed to remain, but a Wiki page about the currently trading company that now owns the heidi.com domain name has been declined? The references on the current heidi.com Wiki page don't seem to be any more fulfilling of the Wiki criteria in nature.

Likewise, on this Wiki page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidi_Health - the references don't look any more in-depth either.

Please could someone advise why the references below are not acceptable? They are all in-depth about the company (rather than just a mention) and the articles are written by reputable UK news sites.

1) This is a news site and the article is solely about Heidi: https://www.business-live.co.uk/enterprise/bristol-ski-holiday-operator-heidi-29436570

2) This is in-depth about Heidi and The Times is a UK national news site so that should make it reliable, secondary and strictly independent? https://www.thetimes.com/business-money/entrepreneurs/article/setting-up-a-ski-company-is-all-downhill-if-you-do-your-research-enterprise-network-fptww5zz9

3) Is this one not acceptable because it's not purely about Heidi? https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/nov/27/how-to-save-on-winter-sports-holidays-ski-deals

4) I don't understand why this one wouldn't be acceptable - The Sunday Times Fastest Growing Companies List is very well recognised and independently decided, so this is not promotional by Heidi itself:https://www.thetimes.com/sunday-times-100-fast-growth/company-profile/article/heidi-fastest-growing-sunday-times-100-fmt0kmm78

5) I also don't understand why this one isn't acceptable as it's entirely about the company (rather than a brief mention in a wider piece): https://planetski.eu/2024/06/29/ski-operator-heidi-secures-5-6m-in-funding/

8) Again, this one is entirely about the company (rather than a brief mention in a wider piece): https://www.snowmagazine.com/news/get-to-know-heidi-ski-from-spreadsheet-to-ski-slope-success

9) Trustpilot is a completely independent customer review site that Heidi has no control over: https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/heidi.com

I'd really appreciate further advice on the above.

Many thanks! SR75385 (talk) 14:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To establish notability, sources should in general meet all three criteria: independent, in-depth, and reliable. Your defence of most of these sources seem to be that they fit at least one of the criteria. Do any of them fit all three? -- NotCharizard 🗨 18:18, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The first sources is basically just reporting on a funding round. That's explicitly WP:CORPTRIV.
  2. Not the worst source ever, but can't really use the huge chunk that is interview material.
  3. There's only a single passing reference to Heidi outside of quoting the co-founder.
  4. We don't use these spammy Top X listicles, again, see WP:CORPTRIV
  5. Again, it's a funding round. WP:CORPTRIV
  6. (8.) There's a crucial phrase at the start of this article. "Sponsored content."
  7. (9.) TrustPilot uses WP:USERGEN content and the only coverage here about Heidi is a "review summary" that is "created with AI."
There's maybe one-half of one usable article here. That's extremely thin, and I'm not finding much else that's usable. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:29, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:51, 15 August 2025 review of submission by Ricktheelectric

Hello,

I can see that this submission for Andy Gates was rejected. I was wondering if I could request some assistance with the draft. Can you please give me another chance to submit it in some way? I think I might have some better sources this time. Ricktheelectric (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have not edited the draft since the last rejection. If you genuinely think you have proof of notability, it would be best to edit the article to show that before requesting this, as people are unlikely to re-open the submission only to have to reject it again. -- NotCharizard 🗨 05:27, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:59, 15 August 2025 review of submission by Cogito, Ergo Sam

I feel that this is a topic worthy of Wikipedia, an English Youtuber with over 100,000 subscribers and consistently popular uploads, with media coverage in relation to his work. How can it specifically be made to meet Wikipedia standards? Cogito, Ergo Sam (talk) 15:59, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For a subject to be wikinotable, views and subscribers do not really matter. The primary thing is independent, reliable, in-depth sources. It can be very frustrating when you know something is well known, I have met the same challenge before as well. But if the sources do not exist, there can not be an article. -- NotCharizard 🗨 18:22, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cogito, Ergo Sam Subscriber numbers can be gamed; is it one person woth 100,000 accounts, 2 with 50,000 each, 100 with 1,000 accounts each, etc. That's partly why they don't contribute to notability- only significant coverage in independent reliable sources can do that. 331dot (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:34, 15 August 2025 review of submission by Cman81

I made some edits. Is this how I resubmit for review? Cman81 (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Cman81. I rejected this draft a few months ago but I see it has substantially changed since then, so I will undo my rejection and it will allow you to re-submit. However: please remove all the IMdb citations - they are not used. See WP:IMDB. qcne (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:43, 15 August 2025 review of submission by UnforgivingDolos

What does this notification mean: Topic Prem Poddar was archived or removed from Wikipedia: Requests for Undeletion. You might no longer receive notifications about this topic.

Changes were made as per suggestions. Why is still being removed? UnforgivingDolos (talk) 16:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @UnforgivingDolos. I don't know what messages you are talking about. I see nothing on your user talk page, and I see nothing on the draft saying it will be removed. ColinFine (talk) 21:38, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay! Thank you for the assurance! UnforgivingDolos (talk) 02:01, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:05, 15 August 2025 review of submission by Indiansocialwork

I would like to edit and improve this article Indiansocialwork (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Indiansocialwork. A rejection usually means the draft is fundamentally not compatible with Wikipedia. If you think sources have now come to light that prove this person meets our criteria for inclusion, I would recommend re-writing it from scratch. Make sure to keep the history of the decline and reject notices. Then when you're ready ping the rejecting reviewer @TheBirdsShedTears or post here. qcne (talk) 18:34, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:23, 15 August 2025 review of submission by 2607:FEA8:C2:C500:DC8F:6686:47D5:62C7

you do not have this posted as the first recorded championships for men when it was held in Calgary against a BC college 2607:FEA8:C2:C500:DC8F:6686:47D5:62C7 (talk) 20:23, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this question related to a draft, or an article? 331dot (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:31, 16 August 2025 review of submission by Momlumbee

I am requesting guidance on submitting a new Wikipedia article about Sondra Sampson, a Deaf Lumbee author. I want to ensure the draft meets Wikipedia’s notability and sourcing requirements (WP:NAUTHOR) before submission. The draft currently includes coverage from The Robesonian, Native News Online, and Publishers Weekly via BookLife. Momlumbee (talk) 04:31, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As this is a BLP, all statements need to be sourced. There are currently whole paragraphs with no citations. This appears to be an autobiography that you have written backwards. Writing an article is very difficult to do without first gaining experience with general editing, and autobiographies by editors with no experience will almost never work. It would be like me trying to publish a novel after starting writing only a few days prior and never studying creative writing. If you are genuinely notable, someone else will write an article on you eventually, which will also reflect much better on you than writing your own, which people tend to think poorly of. -- NotCharizard 🗨 05:24, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Momlumbee, you have a few things to work on. As NotCharizard says, the most important thing is going to be making sure everything is sourced and that you're citing it correctly - inline citations are usually the way to go. See WP:INLINE and Referencing for beginners for more information. Every statement you make needs to be backed up with a citation. If you don't have a source for a statement, you'll need to remove it. It's also best to focus on what makes her notable rather than going into details about her personal life - I think the four obituaries of her father are not helping your case here, for example. They tell us nothing notable about Sampson, who should be the main focus of your sources.
You will also need to make sure that the sources you are relying on to establish notability meet WP:42, the golden rule. Usually you will need a minimum of three sources, each of which must meet all three criteria in WP:42. Sampson's books and interviews given by her are not independent, so discount those immediately (you can still cite them for general personal information like her birthdate, but they don't count towards notability).
I hope that helps, and happy editing! Meadowlark (talk) 07:06, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:31, 16 August 2025 review of submission by Mr.Gabzy

What are the things needed for this article to be accepted Mr.Gabzy (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:03, 16 August 2025 review of submission by Jhalnath Sapkota

i am confused will my bros wikipeda get accepted hes a great guy woking for nepals's education world record holder Jhalnath Sapkota (talk) 16:03, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:16, 16 August 2025 review of submission by The27thAlphabet

kindly advice, how can i publish this page The27thAlphabet (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:01, 16 August 2025 review of submission by Harborsparrow

Can someone please tell me what to do to get this article accepted? I think I have cleaned up any language that reads as advocacy. It is description of a place that is unique, is a traveler's destination, and it has existed for 55 years and has been covered by local press several times (see the references). Can you please think of anything to do to make this article acceptable? I see that some restaurants in Princeton, which are fully commercial and not non-profit, has gotten articles in Wikipedia, so why not a treasure such as this unique organic food store that gives so much back to the community? Harborsparrow (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How to find things and start a new entry in sandbox

I am very confused as to how to move around in this interface. I have an entry I started for CoolShims, which I now can't find, I have one for Bakman Technologies, which I can find, but I can't figure out how to start a new one in sandbox. Is there a list of everything I am working on somewhere and a way to start a new project? Thanks, Joe Jrdemers (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1306236058"