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 Thehistorianisaac (talk | contribs) at 13:30, 18 September 2025 (→11:38, 18 September 2025 review of submission by AnkushBharadwaj: Reply). 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


September 12

08:07, 12 September 2025 review of submission by MeComp2025

I created the page NOSA-ITACA a free software for finite element structural analysis that is freely downloadable at its website. It seems to me that the page is written in neutral form with external references. In particular, the references I included consist of peer-reviewed scientific papers that describe the code in depth. Moreover, as articles published in scientific journals, they are reliable, independent, and secondary sources. Some of the cited papers are written by the Authors of the code and others are written by Authors not involved in the software development. I also included references in which the code is compared with similar software available in the literature, both commercial and open-access. Please help me to understand why the page does not satisfy the Wikipedia requirements. In the creation of my page I was inspired by other pages of Wikipedia describing similar packages, as Opensees, FreeFem++, Z88 FEM and so on. I submit to your attention a new version of the page with some improvements. Please let me know your opinion, and suggestions are welcome. MeComp2025 (talk) 08:07, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have resubmitted the draft and it is pending; the reviewer will leave you feedback. 331dot (talk) 08:39, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:56, 12 September 2025 review of submission by FactThread

Hi, my draft Draft:Flowbox (software) was declined on 11 September 2025 by User:Ktkvtsh with the note that it reads like an advertisement and lacks a range of independent, reliable sources.

I’ve reviewed WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:GNG, and WP:NCORP, but I’m still unsure what concrete changes are needed. Could someone please advise on:

  • Promotional tone: Which exact sentences/sections should be trimmed or rewritten?
  • Sources: Do the independent sources currently cited meet “significant coverage”? If not, what type of sources would be sufficient?
  • Primary vs secondary: Which statements should be removed unless supported by independent, secondary sources?
  • Structure/lead: Is my current lead and sectioning appropriate for a neutral company article?

If consensus is that the topic isn’t yet notable with the present sourcing, I’ll hold off on resubmitting until stronger coverage is available. If helpful, I can provide the list of sources I’m currently using.

Thanks for any guidance. FactThread (talk) 09:56, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You posted a template meant for article talk pages on your user page, I removed this as the text you have on your user page is sufficient as a disclosure.
You are making a common, though fundamental error; you are telling us what you want the world to know about your company, like its offerings and activities. This is the wrong appproach. Instead, you need to be summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about your company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Pay special attention to this portion of the definition; coverage must be indepth, going beyond just documentation of the company's activities and going into detail about what the source sees as important/significant/influential about the company. Press releases, staff interviews, brief mentions, and the reporting of routine activities(like acquisitions of competitors or the raising of capital) do not establish notability.
If you have no sources with significant coverage, your company would not merit an article at this time. The vast majority of companies on this planet do not. Please see WP:BOSS, and have your colleagues/superiors read it, too. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would also encourage you to read WP:SCAM; scammers monitor this page for declined drafts and COI editors having difficulty with writing about their companies, and they may try to contact you or others at your company since they can see that you are having trouble. 331dot (talk) 10:06, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:46, 12 September 2025 review of submission by HoodedBeast09

Hi, my article was recently declined for reading too much like an essay rather than an article. What key aspects and wording would you chance to make it more worthy of Wikipedia? Thanks! HoodedBeast09 (talk) 10:46, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the draft is still unsourced. The impact section is unsourced, making it seem like that is your personal conclusion(which would be original research). 331dot (talk) 11:38, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if this needs a standalone article period, I would first put information about its logo in the article about the company itself. 331dot (talk) 11:38, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HoodedBeast09 Are you using an AI chatbot to write this draft? Your draft claims In September 2025, several outlets, including Yahoo News and CBS, reported that Cracker Barrel ended its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs and removed LGBTQ+ messaging from its website, but neither of the following references confirm that. A previous version of the draft wrongly stated Cracker Barrel confirms that they do not intend to revert the 660 nationwide restaurants' decor back to its original state even after major backlash. when the exact opposite was true. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:05, 12 September 2025 review of submission by NoshinNavedCK

My draft article about Dr. Koya Kappad has been declined/rejected for promotional tone and insufficient reliable sourcing. I would like help rewriting the draft to follow Wikipedia’s neutral point of view and to better demonstrate notability through independent, reliable sources. Could an experienced editor please review the draft and suggest how I can improve the sourcing, structure, and neutrality so that it meets Wikipedia’s inclusion standards? NoshinNavedCK (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please disclose your connection to him, you had access to him to take a very professional looking image of him where he posed for you. See WP:PAID and WP:COI.
The draft was rejected, typically meaning that it will not be considered further. The draft mostly describes his activities, and not what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about him, showing how he is a a notable person. A good chunk of it tells about his organization and not him personally- it could even be that the organization merits an article but not him personally. For him personally to merit an article the sources need to be discussing him.
If you can fundamentally change the draft to address the concerns of the reviewers, you should first appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 16:13, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my draft about Koya Kappad was recently rejected as contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. I would like advice on how I can improve it to meet Wikipedia’s standards.

Could you please clarify:

Whether the subject meets notability guidelines (if enough reliable independent sources exist).

If the issue was with tone (too promotional) or mainly with lack of sources.

What type of sources I should add (e.g., news articles, academic references).

I want to improve the draft to align with Wikipedia’s purpose and would appreciate guidance. Thank you. 103.162.211.78 (talk) 09:20, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not create additional threads, just edit this existing thread; also remember to log in when posting. These questions have already been answered, see the reply above. You must disclose your connection to him as well. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:22, 12 September 2025 review of submission by 2001:FB1:10F:55FB:5846:91DF:B916:15A

How do I fix this? What do I need to have to be outstanding? 2001:FB1:10F:55FB:5846:91DF:B916:15A (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Disregarding the copypasta from a rejection notice of some sort, this draft has one malformed citation - which wouldn't be enough even if the source was properly-formatted and acceptable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:21, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:51, 12 September 2025 review of submission by Arty ATipat

why is rejecd? Arty ATipat (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because you have shown absolutely no indication that this YouTube channel is notable in a Wikipedia sense. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:33, 12 September 2025 review of submission by Sdsds

This appears to be an obsolete draft of Macintosh 512K article. Is there a process for removing drafts like this? (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 17:33, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Following up, WP:PROD doesn't seem to apply since the article for deletion is in the draft namespace rather than article namespace. Again, is there process in place for non-controversial draft deletions? If so, please provide a pointer to that. If not, please accept this as a suggestion to create one. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 22:43, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've replace the text of the draft with a redirect to mainspace. It appears WP:OLDDRAFT and WP:G13 apply. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 18:11, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:44, 12 September 2025 review of submission by 82.42.52.108

Hi there, My article has been declined, but I note other less significant organisations have a very lengthy Wikipedia page, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMH%26I From the angle of wanting to represent influential design in London, could I please understand how Lewis Moberly and Mary Lewis are not deemed significant, yet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMH%26I is deemed acceptable? Mary Lewis is one of the most significant names in British graphic design. Many thanks. 82.42.52.108 (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All articles are evaluated individually, not in relation to other articles. We have more than seven million articles and many of them are terrible, and many ought to be deleted. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you must evaluate compared to another article, then evaluate it compared to a WP:GA or WP:FA, not a C-class article that's already tagged for serious problems. If we simply approved every article that was better than our worst articles, then Wikipedia would be in a constant death spiral of quality. Successfully bringing this article to publication will consist entirely of making this article better, not searching for articles that are of similar or worse quality. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, IP user. Nobody has said that they are not deemed significant. What has been said is that your draft does not establish that the company is notable, in the special sense that Wikipedia uses that word: it does not mean famous, or important, or popular, or influential: it means, roughly, that there is enough independent reliably published material about the subject to base an article on, remembering 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. . Please see Golden rule.
You seem a bit unclear whether you are writing an article about Lewis Moberly, or about Mary Lewis. You can't do both at the same time.
And "wantingf to represent influential design in London", sounds rather close to what Wikipedia means by promotion, i.e. trying to tell the world about something. Unless the world has already been told about the subject, in suitable publications, Wikipedia isn't interested. ColinFine (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:47, 12 September 2025 review of submission by MdRaisHossain

No MdRaisHossain (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MdRaisHossain. "No" is not a question. Do you have a question? qcne (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @MdRaisHossain. Please read the messages on your User talk page. Trying to write about yourself in Wikipedia is almost never successful (see autobiography), and represents a waste of your time and the time of reviewers who look at your draft. Please use a different outlet to tell the world about yourself. ColinFine (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:48, 12 September 2025 review of submission by PawsFC-GM

I have included a link to an article in The Times, and have some PDF files for other newspaper articles. These were provided by the British Library, and I don't think they are available on the internet (at least, not on websites that can be accessed without paying a fee), so I can't add URLs for them. Please can you advise if I can attach newspaper articles as files rather than URL links? I'm not sure if this is appropriate for a Wiki page, or if it will infringe copyright of the newspaper article. PawsFC-GM (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot host copies of newspaper articles; they don't need to be online, you just need to provide sufficient information that someone could locate them; publisher, publication date, author, page numbers, etc. See Referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:07, 12 September 2025 review of submission by SYED MUHAMMAD BILAL786

SYED MUHAMMAD BILAL786 (talk) 21:07, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SYED MUHAMMAD BILAL786. You don't ask a question? What is your question. qcne (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @SYED MUHAMMAD BILAL786.
A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have separately chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else. Infoboxes and images are not essential.
Writing a draft with only an infobox is like putting a window on a house before you have started building the house.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:17, 12 September 2025 review of submission by SYED MUHAMMAD BILAL786

}} SYED MUHAMMAD BILAL786 (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SYED MUHAMMAD BILAL786 That still isn't a question. Please ask your question. qcne (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:19, 12 September 2025 review of submission by Cristian9343

I’ve written this article on a lesser-known, yet important Romanian proto-fascist interwar party, which heavily borrowed ideological elements from the German Völkisch movement and essentially introduced organized antisemitism to Romania, founded by the notorious antisemite A. C. Cuza and physiologist Nicolae Paulescu.
(The article is a translation and expansion of an existing page on the Romanian Wikipedia. Once and if it is accepted, I will also rewrite the Romanian version. See here.)

I’d like to hear opinions on its redundancy, readability, and overall structure; and, if you are knowledgeable on the subject, your thoughts regarding its content and accuracy. Cristian9343 (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 13

00:20, 13 September 2025 review of submission by John.leibacher

I have a reference to a section in a WikiPedia entry

Low-Frequency Array#NenuFAR

and would like it to appear without the # symbol. Is that possible?

Thanks you! John.leibacher (talk) 00:20, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the previous question, my eyes are crossing trying to get the references and citation straight. ChatGPT set me straight. Issue resolved.

thank you John.leibacher (talk) 00:26, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@John.leibacher: I'll still answer this: The # in a wikilink is used to directly link to a section on a specific page. (As an example, Cloud would link to the page about clouds, while Cloud#Formation would link you to the page and take you directly to the "Formation" section on that page.) With that said, we do not accept Wikipedia as a cite unless the article is about Wikipedia in the first place. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:14, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:15, 13 September 2025 review of submission by Bstuckel

Hello,

I recently submitted a draft article about Peter Temple Murray Barott (Draft:Peter_Barott), which was declined on May 2, 2025 for not demonstrating sufficient notability through reliable, secondary, independent sources.

I understand that Wikipedia requires significant coverage in such sources, but I am having difficulty identifying which of the materials I currently have—or could still locate—would best meet these requirements. The existing draft includes references such as:

An obituary and feature in the RAIC Journal (March 1965), covering his architectural work, professional roles, and contributions to Expo 67.

Mentions in The Colditz Story and other prisoner-of-war memoirs where Barott appears as a figure of note.

A condolence letter and public recognition from architect Moshe Safdie.

Records of professional leadership positions, including as Fellow of the RAIC and National President of the Specification Writers Association of Canada.

His role in co-founding the architectural firm David, Barott, Boulva, attached to Expo 67 and projects such as the Telephone Pavilion and Habitat 67.

Could you please advise me on the following?

Do the above qualify as significant secondary sources, or do I need to find additional independent newspaper or journal coverage to make the draft acceptable?

Are published memoirs, professional journal tributes, and mentions by other notable figures (such as Safdie) considered valid notability sources?

Would citations from architecture histories or Expo 67 retrospectives strengthen the submission, and if so, what kinds are most appropriate? I have boxes full of newspaper clippings, magazine articles, obituaries, professional society records, and some letters from notable figures (including Moshe Safdie). I am not sure which of these materials Wikipedia wants, or how to use this evidence correctly.

I would greatly appreciate any guidance on how to improve this draft so that it has a realistic chance of being accepted.

Thank you for your time and advice. Bstuckel (talk) 04:15, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bstuckel: In order:
  1. The RAIC Journal feature might help, but you will need to properly cite it as an offline source.
  2. Mere mentions won't cut it.
  3. We cannot cite personal correspondence as it has not been formally published, and even if it had it wouldn't be considered a reliable source in any event due to lack of editorial oversight.
  4. Records are going to be too sparse, written by him or his proxies, or government sources; none of them would be usable.
  5. An in-depth book or article that discusses his efforts on those projects in significant depth would be acceptable sources.
  6. Anything written by someone associated with the subject is generally a poor source; we consider them to be proxies for the subject.
  7. See answer number 5 as it answers this question.
—Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:05, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Bstuckel. I think you might find it helpful to read No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. (I'm not saying that Barrott does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability; but it is perfectly possible that, however important you think he was, there has simply not been enough independent secondary writing about him to establish 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) 18:28, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:35, 13 September 2025 review of submission by Gsrtech2025

Hello, My draft [Draft:Gudipati Srilalitha] was recently declined at Articles for Creation. The reason given was that the subject may not be sufficiently notable, and that the sources I included do not show significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.

Gudipati Srilalitha is a Carnatic and playback singer active in Andhra Pradesh and India. I would like guidance on:

What kinds of sources would meet the notability requirement under WP:MUSICBIO ?

Would coverage in publications like The Hindu (Friday Review), Eenadu, or Sruti Magazine be considered sufficient secondary sources?

Before I try resubmitting, how can I strengthen the draft to meet Wikipedia’s standards?

I am new here and want to make sure I am following the right process. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you!

— Gsrtech2025 Gsrtech2025 (talk) 10:35, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gsrtech2025. I am afraid the draft has now been rejected, which usually means you cannot submit it for review again: the person simply does not meet our criteria with the current sources.
You will have to convince the rejecting reviewer if the draft's sources have substantially changed since the rejection and that there is now clear evidence of notability. qcne (talk) 10:39, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:44, 13 September 2025 review of submission by Artythailand99

Reason for requesting assistance: I would like help to improve the draft to ensure it meets Wikipedia’s neutral point of view and sourcing standards, as it currently lacks sufficient citations and may appear promotional. --Artythailand99 (talk) 10:44, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do co-editing here at this belp desk. Your draft was unsourced promotion and has been deleted. We cannot provide citations for you; it's up to the writer to have them in hand before they begin writing, see WP:BACKWARD. 331dot (talk) 10:59, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:06, 13 September 2025 review of submission by 2604:3D09:B977:1800:2FDB:E1E9:92ED:D46E

I reason do something else a popular creator for Canadian for Nathan Delmo 2604:3D09:B977:1800:2FDB:E1E9:92ED:D46E (talk) 12:06, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor. I have rejected the draft, because you provided zero sources. qcne (talk) 12:10, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This post makes no sense- but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further, because it is completely unsourced with no indication that this person is notable in a Wikipedia sense. If you just want to tell the world about this "creator", you should spread the word on YouTube. 331dot (talk) 12:11, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:45, 13 September 2025 review of submission by RakibRik

I submitted this draft but for of the reason mentioned It got declined, Can anyone check the mistakes out please ? I'm awaiting for some advises for this draft, Thank you RakibRik (talk) 12:45, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RakibRik Using the whole url in the header breaks the coding that provides a link to your draft; only the title itself is needed. I've fixed this. The whole url is not normally needed when linking.
Can you elaborate on what advice you are seeking, that the reviewer did not provide? 331dot (talk) 12:49, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Helped on #wikipedia-en-help. qcne (talk) 12:50, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:46, 13 September 2025 review of submission by Dubaibaseball

Hi - I made some changes, based on the reviewer's feedback. Sorry, this is my first time publishing an article. Is the article OK now? I used 50+ third party media sources. Could you review before I resubmit it?Please let me know. Thank you. Dubaibaseball (talk) 13:46, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dubaibaseball: I can't tell you if this is okay now, without reviewing it. You get a new review when you resubmit it.
I can tell you, though, that 56 sources is way too much, especially as most of them seem to be rather poor quality. It is much better to cite 5 solid sources that establish notability of this person, than 56 flaky ones that don't.
What is your relationship with this subject? Judging by your username you may have a conflict of interest, which needs to be disclosed. I have posted instructions on your talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:55, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing thank you for the info. I will clean up the sources. I tried to list as many as I could, because there are a lot of articles about Baseball United and Kash Shaikh.
In terms of potential conflict, I am a former volunteer for Baseball United (unpaid). But now I am honestly just a big fan and part of Dubai Little League (assistant coach). Dubaibaseball (talk) 14:04, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dubaibaseball: the sources need to meet the WP:GNG standard, ie. be reliable and entirely independent secondary sources, with significant coverage directly of this person, not of any indirectly related matters. This excludes anything where he is commenting or being interviewed, passing mentions, anything based on press releases or other material by him or by BU, routine business reporting such as appointment news etc.
If you are a current volunteer for BU, even unpaid, you come under our paid-editing rules. If you are no longer affiliated with them, you still have a conflict of interest. Either way, this needs to be disclosed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:18, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
got it - can you please tell me how/where I can disclose this potential conflict? or should I just give up on the submission? Dubaibaseball (talk) 14:22, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The message I posted on your talk page has the instructions for disclosing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:10, 13 September 2025 review of submission by Sam.S.Welch

Hi, I posted a draft page on the 9th of June. It seems it has not been reviewed by anyone. Just wonder if you know if I have done something wrong or how I can get it reviewed? Here is the page:

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

Best regards, Sam Sam.S.Welch (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sam.S.Welch. You have not submitted the draft for review. I will add the code to allow you to do so. qcne (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! :) Sam.S.Welch (talk) 12:46, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for early feedback on Draft:Kalirao (surname)

Hello, I have recently created and submitted Draft:Kalirao for review.

I have a declared conflict of interest (COI) because the subject relates to my own surname and family/clan history, and I have disclosed this on my user page using {{UserboxCOI}} in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines.

The draft is written in a neutral tone and cites multiple reliable, independent sources, including ethnographic surveys and historical works. I would greatly appreciate it if an uninvolved editor could take an early look and provide any suggestions for improvement before or during the formal Articles for Creation review.

Thank you for your time and assistance. KaliraoLegacy (talk) 22:44, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I must disappoint you in that you are not permitted to edit in this topic area until your account is 30 days old with 500 edits. Please see your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 22:58, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't use ChatGPT or other LLM to write articles for you. Rewrite in your own words. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. I understand Wikipedia’s expectations around original writing and editorial responsibility. I’ve used tools only to assist with structure and sourcing, but I take full ownership of the content and will now revise the draft in my own words to ensure it aligns with Wikipedia’s standards.
I appreciate your guidance and will work to improve the draft accordingly.
KaliraoLegacy (talk) 03:37, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:02, 13 September 2025 review of submission by 184.147.190.184

Pueden guiarme en como corregir los errores para que Grupo Consultor Empresarial aparezca en Wikipedia? 184.147.190.184 (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Esta es la Wikipedia en inglés, quizás estés buscando la Wikipedia en español.(this is the English Wikipedia, you may want the Spanish Wikipedia) 331dot (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:41, 13 September 2025 review of submission by LouisWal

I found sources of books and films and tried to add them to the draft why are they not being accepted and how do i fix this. these are all published and we have obtained copies of them. They are publically available and most are online. I NEED HELP TO EITHER REFERENCE THEM OR CITE THEM some how. LouisWal (talk) 23:41, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LouisWal: see WP:REFB for advice on referencing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:35, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 14

05:28, 14 September 2025 review of submission by Waleedjamshid

I want to resubmit my page I am not sure how to Waleedjamshid (talk) 05:28, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Waleedjamshid: I assume you mean Draft:Kashish Kapoor? I've added the submission template, it has a blue 'submit' button. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:33, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:32, 14 September 2025 review of submission by Mokarapedia

Hello. Thank you for helping me in this article. I read and read again the helping articles but I can't realize what my mistakes are . Could you please tell me where did i made mistake in this article. Thank you 

Mokarapedia 06:32, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mokarapedia: the draft provides no evidence that this person is notable enough to justify an article. You need to show that they meet either the general WP:GNG or the subject-specific WP:NACADEMIC notability guideline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:43, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! So that is the only problem? No citing or formatting issues? It's good news cause I did a lot of practice to make an acceptable article and I get dissapointed when I saw the rejection. Thank you very much for the guidance. I probably delete it. Mokarapedia 06:48, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There may be some minor formatting issues as well, but those wouldn't be a reason to decline. Notability is the big one, because it's a hard requirement for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:52, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Mokarapedia.
If writing a Wikipedia article was building a house, then the sources would be the foundations and the frame or walls, and the formatting would be the decoration: important for the finished product, but not worth spending any time on until the basic structure has been solidly built.
None of your three sources is independent of Nobari, and so none of them contributes to establishing that he meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. (To continue the house-building analogy, you haven't even surveyed the building site to make sure it is suitable to build on). ColinFine (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:55, 14 September 2025 review of submission by Creativeinfo

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 .. What can I do already submitted valid links but still getting this response. Help me in this matter Creativeinfo (talk) 09:55, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Creativeinfo You need to disclose your connection with this man, see WP:PAID and WP:COI. I see that you took a picture of him(within the last 24 hours, it seems).
The awards do not contribute to notability unless the awards themselves merit articles(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). Other than that you have not summarized what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about him and what makes him a notable creative professional. If you have no other sources, he would not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How to disclose my connection with him …and I want to know should I delete award section ..? Creativeinfo (talk) 10:05, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is the general nature of your connection to him?
You don't have to actually remove the awards, but they do not contribute to notability. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nature of connection is relative..give me best way what should I do? Creativeinfo (talk) 10:10, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a template that you can use at WP:COI, but it is sufficient to just write a statement on your user page(User:Creativeinfo) that you have a conflict of interest with Mr. Baviskar. 331dot (talk) 10:18, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should I start with new draft as user:creativeinfo ..and put all my previous draft with new username ? Creativeinfo (talk) 11:09, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, you may continue to edit the existing draft. You don't need to create a new username. You just need to click on User:Creativeinfo and edit it to write your status as having a conflict of interest 331dot (talk) 11:36, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am beginner here ..I clicked as per you told me and then user page new draft created ..where can I get status having a conflict of interest ? Creativeinfo (talk) 12:09, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I took the liberty of posting a disclosure for you. You may now expand the draft with a summary of what independent reliable sources say about your relative, to show how he is a notable creative professional. Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia, and it's even harder with a conflict of interest. We usually recommend that new users not dive right in to article creation and first gain experience and knowledge by editing existing articles and using the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 12:27, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ...so now what should i do about that draft or more information gather, give me stepwise suggestion. Creativeinfo (talk) 12:43, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Creativeinfo. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 18:44, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:45, 14 September 2025 review of submission by Chendii

What Do I Need to Do To Get My Article Approved?? Hello.

So I keep getting rejection for my draft of Cavista Holdings, all for the same reason. But I fear that it keeps getting declined because the previous reviewer rejected it.

Page: Draft:Cavista Holdings

I substantially revised the draft to address prior reviewer concerns about notability, sourcing, and promotional language. I removed or toned down promotional claims and tied each factual statement to independent, secondary sources. Key claims are now supported by inline citations to reputable Grade 1 national media outlets.

The article’s main sections (History, Agriculture, Hospitality, Technology, International expansion) each cite reliable sources.

Don't know what else to do and I welcome any further guidance Chendii (talk) 12:45, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chendii I fixed your header so it links to your draft as intended, and not a nonexistent article with the title "What Do I Need to Do To Get My Article Approved??". I also edited the link you provided, the whole url is not needed.
The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted. 331dot (talk) 12:50, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the providing more clarity on this. Fairly new user so still learning the terms. Chendii (talk) 12:57, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you claim you personally created and personally own the copyright to the company logo; is that the case? If you are a company employee, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID.
Wikipedia is not a place fo just tell about a company, its offerings, and its activities. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 12:52, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the speedy response. I didnt know I claimed to be the owner of the copyright to the company logo. That must have been an error. Please how can I change that? Chendii (talk) 12:56, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You must immediately without delay request deletion of the logo from Commons. Leaving aside incorrectly claiming it's your personal work, Commons can only host images that have a copyright compatible with Wikipedia. Logos are not typically uploaded to Commons(though there are circumstances where they can be) as by doing so you are releasing the image for use by anyone for any purpose with attribution; that includes competitors.
Images are actually not relevant to the draft process, which only considers the text and sources. Images can wait until the draft is accepted into the encyclopedia. Images are an enhancement, not a requirement. 331dot (talk) 13:00, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You also need to disclose your relationship with the company(if you are an employee or other representative/agent). 331dot (talk) 13:01, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you did so, writing " I would like to disclose here that these contributions are made on behalf of Cavista Holdings and in consultation with them", and then removed it- why? 331dot (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Chendii. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:18, 14 September 2025 review of submission by Flashthomsom

I already gave enough citations but it still got declined. Can someone tell me what changes I should make so that it can meet the notability ? Flashthomsom (talk) 13:18, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer left you a detailed message at the top of your draft explaining what was needed. Do you have questions about that? 331dot (talk) 13:20, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:30, 14 September 2025 review of submission by Jitheshcr7

I have added very reliable and trusted sources as references such as manorama online , Indian Express and The Hindu. There are almost references I have given. The details given are as per the standard guidelines of Wikipedia. it doesnt mean promotional. Only the history , courses and notable alumni of the college is given in the details. Jitheshcr7 (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jitheshcr7 I am afraid the draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. qcne (talk) 15:34, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
oh my god. this is not a promotional attempt. its a well known college in kerala, India. when I checked the nearby college's wiki pages, they dont event have single references. Im so disappointed that my submission have been rejected continuously when given the details in class wiki page format. I have included references from The Hindu, Indian Express and online manorama. Still it was getting rejected saying no notable references. Jitheshcr7 (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You also used an AI to generate it. That isn't acceptable. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Jitheshcr7. Like many people, you misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia.
A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject (and not commissioned or fed information on behalf of the subject) have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and not much else. What the subject says or wants to say about itself is irrelevant - and an article which is mainly what the subject wants to say about itself is inevitably going to be promotional.
So writing an article begins with finding sources which meet all the criteria in WP:Golden rule: that way, if you are unable to find suitable sources, you will know not to waste any more time trying to write an article on the subject.
Sources that have just a passing mention of the subject will not contribute to establishing notability (for example, most articles about what a particular student or group of students have done, will not usually contain significant coverage of the college).
As for artices about other colleges: we have seven million articles, and many thousands of them are terrible, and should be improved or deleted; but not many volunteer editors want to spend time doing that, so they stay around. But we review a new draft on its own terms, not by comparison to something inferior. If you want to point out some of those dreadful unreferenced articles, it may be that somebody will be willing to look at them, and perhaps delete them.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. (And that is even with a COI) ColinFine (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:50, 14 September 2025 review of submission by Jitheshcr7

have added very reliable and trusted sources as references such as manorama online , Indian Express and The Hindu. There are almost references I have given. The details given are as per the standard guidelines of Wikipedia. it doesnt mean promotional. Only the history , courses and notable alumni of the college is given in the details Jitheshcr7 (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:03, 14 September 2025 review of submission by SteveTexas1964

Hello, and thank you in advance for your time. I’m reaching out regarding the draft article for Texas Consilium Inc., a nonprofit organization focused on advancing business excellence and civic renewal across Texas. The draft has been submitted through the Articles for Creation process but has not yet received feedback or review. I understand that delays can occur due to volunteer capacity, but I’d appreciate any insight into whether the current draft meets Wikipedia’s notability standards or if additional revisions are needed.

Texas Consilium has been recognized for its strategic partnerships, statewide initiatives, and public impact, and I’ve worked to ensure the draft reflects a neutral tone and includes independent citations where available. If there are specific areas—such as sourcing, structure, or comparative examples—that would strengthen the submission, I’d be grateful for your guidance.

Thank you again for your support and for the work you do to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia. SteveTexas1964 (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SteveTexas1964 You need the full, exact draft title in the header for the header to link to your draft. I've fixed this for you.
I'm not sure why you're saying it wasn't reviewed, it was reviewed on August 28th. 331dot (talk) 16:11, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification and for fixing the header link—I appreciate your help. I wasn’t aware the draft had been reviewed on August 28th, as I didn’t see any specific feedback or action taken. I’m working to strengthen the sourcing and ensure the draft meets notability standards. If you have any suggestions or examples of similar accepted articles, I’d be grateful. Thanks again for your time and support. SteveTexas1964 (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:19, 14 September 2025 review of submission by Creativeinfo

Why again and again rejected my article ..give me guidance in this matter what should i change Creativeinfo (talk) 16:19, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has not been rejected- it has been declined. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
I left a clear message at the top of your draft as to what is needed- you need to show how he meets at least one aspect of the definition of a notable artist, through summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about him. 331dot (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:18, 14 September 2025 review of submission by MaximoTeixeira3

I'm the most famous person on earth! Don't delete this page! Please! MaximoTeixeira3 (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not social media for people to tell about themselves. Please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:25, 14 September 2025 review of submission by Rajnishwikifreak

Please tell mistakes and improve the article Rajnishwikifreak (talk) 18:25, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have submitted it for review; the reviewer will leave you feedback. It's unnecessary to ask for a review and then ask for comment here. 331dot (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:43, 14 September 2025 review of submission by Justinblayney

I do not under stand the feedback I am getting, The person in question has published multiple books, is considered a leader in his field and is referenced by major newspapers constantly Justinblayney (talk) 18:43, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Justinblayney.
Just looking at the titles of the sources you cite, it does not look to me as if a single one of them contains significant coverage of Wigmore.
A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and little else. Unless you have several sources that meet all the criteria in the golden rule, there can be no article.
Note that the word notability is used in a special way in Wikipedia: it doesn't mean fame, or popularity, or influence, or importance. It means, roughly, that there is enough indpenedent reliable material about the subject to base an article on.
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 your account has been there for some years, but with only 11 edits in your history, I think you are still a "new editor".) ColinFine (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I added more references from major newspapers, he is not someone who is written about except for book reviews, but he is considered the leading witness and authority in DUI cases so is constantly mentioned.
My goal here is to get this article up, I don't have the time or interest to just edit wikis. If you are saying he just doesn't qualify, then I have to accept that. I just posted a bunch more top newspapers that mention him as an expert, hopefully that is enough Justinblayney (talk) 14:50, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, @Justinblayney. The answer is, probably not. "Mentions" don't cut it - we need the bulk of the sources to meet all the criteria in golden rule. (I haven't looked at the sources by the way - I'm just responding to what you said above). ColinFine (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:36, 14 September 2025 review of submission by Ashequrrahmanresearch

I have invented this concept and I'm the author of the article. Why submission rejected ? Ashequrrahmanresearch (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashequrrahmanresearch Wikipedia does not host original research: Wikipedia:No original research qcne (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:08, 14 September 2025 review of submission by DRUMERBOI1

How can i get more sources even tho there are none DRUMERBOI1 (talk) 20:08, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DRUMERBOI1 you can't so it sounds like an article is not possible. Read WP:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. S0091 (talk) 20:13, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And next time, don't write the article WP:BACKWARD. You would have saved yourself, and others, some time. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The draft has been rejected, twice now. Once should have been enough. When a draft is rejected, that means STOP, don't waste a reviewer's time by resubmitting it, don't continue working on it, move on to some other topic. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User has repeatedly moved the rejected article to mainspace. Now indef-blocked as WP:NOTHERE, and mainspace article A7-deleted and salted. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:39, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:04, 14 September 2025 review of submission by Praj9289

Why was the publishing declined by teahouse Praj9289 (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Praj9289 I fixed your header so the link to the draft works, the full, exact title is needed.
The Teahouse did not decline the draft, a reviewer did, they left the reason at the top of the draft. Do you have a more specific question about it? 331dot (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any other changes required ? Praj9289 (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Praj9289 you can resubmit the draft by clicking the blue "Resubmit" button and another reviewer will take a look. S0091 (talk) 21:41, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:21, 14 September 2025 review of submission by Butcan

In the Hawaiian language the correct spelling of the word "Hawai'i" includes the glottal-stop symbol [']. Speakers of the language are now insistent on correct spelling whenever written Hawaiian appears in public media. This, too, includes its appearance in Wikipedia. I am sympathetic to their crusade and will do everything I possibly can to comply. Consequently, I will restore the glottal-stops where they have recently been removed in the "Leon & Malia" article. I also ask potential editors of this article to respect the conventions of the Hawaiian language and in future not remove the ['] symbol from the word. Much thanks. Butcan 22:21, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an article yet- and future editors aren't likely to see this posting. I will point out that the state article is at Hawaii and has had repeated discussions establishing that it is at the proper title. See Talk:Hawaii. 331dot (talk) 22:46, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 15

06:48, 15 September 2025 review of submission by HalfManLife

I believe User:SafariScribe has provided an invalid reason for declining the article Mauricio Jorge Yattah. They are not fluent in the subject, nor in the required Spanish language to check the references. They argue: 

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)

as : Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians_and_judges

Yet this is demonstrably false. The article shows several *full features* published *in the most important national press* which are *specifically about the subject in question*, for example: Perfil, Clarín (most important national newspaper), (the links themselves are in the draft). There is also a feature in La Nación, the "newspaper of record". These are full articles, published multiple times in national newspapers, which are fully and alone about the article's subject, and are completely independent. This completely fulfills the notability guidelines, from Notability (people):

A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists

The requisite has been more than fulfilled, there is over half a dozen in depth articles exclusively about the subject. HalfManLife (talk) 06:48, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HalfManLife: subsequent to the decline, you have edited the draft, added another source, and resubmitted. What assistance do you seek now, or what would you like us to do? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:20, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I replied here. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 07:22, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:22, 15 September 2025 review of submission by TadejM

User:SafariScribe declined Draft:Ljubljana Graphic School as 'improperly sourced', yet the draft includes seven independent sources that contain in-depth material on this art movement. Could someone please check this and provide some advice? TadejM my talk 09:22, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've pinged them, so they may come here to answer your question- if you have specific concerns about another user's actions, you should ask them directly on their user talk page, for future reference(though don't do so now). 331dot (talk) 09:28, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that you already have. Please do not ask for advice in multiple forums at a time, this duplicates effort. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I'd say this draft should have been declined, but probably for a different reason, namely lack of evidence of notability (rather than poor referencing). The sources are mostly primary. One is secondary but covers a specific exhibition, rather than the school. The best of the lot, with significant coverage directly of the school, is the Celebrating Print article (assuming that the 'Ljubljana School of Graphic Art' it talks about is the same as 'Ljubljana Graphic School', which it may or may not be?), but it alone isn't enough to satisfy WP:ORG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. Yes, the article Celebrating Print discusses the same topic. I'll recheck the sources and will try to find some additional secondary ones. Some of them are available at [1] --TadejM my talk 10:19, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TadejM, I have replied here. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 11:49, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I have moved the page to mainspace after some clarifications with the submitter on my talk page. I also fully accept it was my bad. Thanks. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 12:12, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:42, 15 September 2025 review of submission by Sonkarkal

Thank you for your detailed feedback on my draft, "Independent Counter-Strike Tournaments." I have read your comments carefully and would appreciate some further guidance to help me improve the article.

I understand the concerns you've raised about the draft resembling an essay and showing characteristics of AI-generated text. I want to clarify that I have been writing and revising the draft myself. However, I see now that my writing style might have unintentionally included the issues you pointed out, such as a promotional tone or speculative statements.

To help me correct this, could you possibly point to one or two specific sentences or paragraphs that you feel are the most problematic?

An example of what you consider "essay-like writing" or "editorializing" would be incredibly helpful for me to understand the required neutral, encyclopedic tone.

Similarly, an example of a "vague" or "generic" statement would help me make the language more precise and fact-based.

I will re-examine my work based on your advice and focus on strictly summarizing information from reliable secondary sources to avoid any close paraphrasing or original research.

Thank you again for your time and for helping me learn the standards. Sonkarkal (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sonkarkal: The "list of bulleted lists" style of the draft is not what we're looking for in a Wikipedia article; we prefer prose. The sections about missions and significance/importance need to be removed as editorialising (if they are to be kept, the latter significance-related claims must be attributed with quote and citation). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:46, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:48, 15 September 2025 review of submission by Marghe45L

Good morning, At present, the revised text seems to maintain a neutral and encyclopedic tone, without promotional references. All the information included in this entry is supported by external references as sources.

I am unsure how to further improve this entry so that it meets your standards. Therefore, I kindly ask for your help in identifying which parts may be outside of your policy and how to improve them—or, if necessary, remove them entirely.

I look forward to your feedback. Thank you. Marghe45L (talk) 12:48, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!!! I am not a AFC reviewer but, just looking at the page it seems a bit promotional, and the headers in my opinion make this seem more like a resume, not a article that would be on wikipedia. I would like remove a couple sections and rename them, but also, please do not bold the headers. Thank you :D shane (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done, but it seams it's not enough to be approved. :( Marghe45L (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Marghe45L. 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) 09:32, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So do you think there are few sources to support the written text? The tone of voice of the entry seems neutral to me, what do you think? Marghe45L (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:40, 15 September 2025 review of submission by 2A02:8388:1809:FF00:8035:FBD2:2DF7:54F0

Is the source sufficient? 2A02:8388:1809:FF00:8035:FBD2:2DF7:54F0 (talk) 14:40, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, all it shows if they wrote a Diplôme d'Ingénieur not that they are notable. All new articles on Wikipedia have to show the subject is notable (See WP:N) which in most cases requires significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) in multiple independent (WP:INDY) reliable sources (WP:RS). Your source is not independent and only shows they were at the Vienna University of Technology nothing more. KylieTastic (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:18, 15 September 2025 review of submission by 159.48.94.69

I do not understand why that was denied. I haven't edited WIkipedia yet, but I am very smart and tracked this whole event in every warning.

Can you clarify which parts need more help? (the tiny url was because some weird glitch happened) 159.48.94.69 (talk) 17:18, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor. We need sources that specifically discuss the tornado outbreak as it's own distinct event. We also do not allow any kind of original research, even if you are very smart; please see Wikipedia:No original research. qcne (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne: My name is Luna, for your information ... but do you want news reports integrated into it (analysis, not just confirmation of the miniscule article?)
Hi Luna. Yes, we need to prove that this outbreak meets our criteria for inclusion at Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion (events): in this case I am imagining reports from mainstream weather organisations that discuss and analyse the outbreak and it's effects. qcne (talk) 17:45, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne: I have massively reformatted it to fit MOS and match our usual style; why don't you look? Also, this outbreak sets North Dakota state records 5 times over. 159.48.94.69 (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it meets Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Lasting effects? qcne (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
let me think and look... 159.48.94.69 (talk) 20:04, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because there was severe damage after the outbreak, which caused some injuries. In other words, it completely meets the Lasting effects part of the MOS. 159.48.94.69 (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should add those details in, with appropriate sources. qcne (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Right now, it should be moved for now into article space, as I am busy after 3:15 PM, and I will add all the tornado ratings tomorrow morning at 7:30.
-Luna 159.48.94.69 (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's leave it in draft, and then we can expand and review when you're free. qcne (talk) 20:16, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
just created a user account ... There is a report part which needs lengthening and help at the bottom (copyedited onto Tornadoes of 2025) Luna.t5 (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Luna.t5. You can re-use citations from Tornadoes of 2025 if there are relevant ones, but we do need a source for every statement in the draft. qcne (talk) 15:15, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Am I allowed to write about the Las Vegas, NM wet microburst from yesterday? If so, what are the criteria? (81 mph from SSE) Luna.t5 (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again @Luna.t5. Wikipedia only summarises what reliable published sources have said. So, you'd need to find some sources that discuss the microburst then summarise those sources in your own words, and then cite the sources you used.
Wikipedia doesn't allow original research or unsourced content. We also are not an indiscriminate collection of (in this case) every weather event to have ever occurred: the cloudburst would need to be somehow remarkable and noted in sources for it to quality. qcne (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:42, 15 September 2025 review of submission by 2605:A601:AA59:7A00:F4A7:84ED:554A:9939

The most recent submission was declined because of a note that "Restream lacks notability," however, this is incorrect. Restream is an active company, and according to statistics collected by SimilarWeb, its monthly traffic is 1.4M. It is also unclear why the article was removed in February 2022, as the company has been active and notable for almost a decade. 2605:A601:AA59:7A00:F4A7:84ED:554A:9939 (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor. How, specifically, does the company meet the criteria which you can find at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)? That is what we mean by "notable". Not how much traffic it has, or how famous it is. qcne (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see, understood! I will edit the draft and resubmit. Thank you! Lzeugin (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:53, 15 September 2025 review of submission by Snaretechnical

hello!!! i was trying to make a Article, but for some reason it got declinde for use of a llm or AI but i didnt use ai what do i do??? Snaretechnical (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Snaretechnical. Your draft, Draft:Prismatic Eye (Band), shows zero indication it meets our criteria for inclusion. qcne (talk) 18:57, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Snaretechnical: I assume you mean  Courtesy link: Draft:Prismatic Eye (Band)? In which case, I don't see anything about AI. By which I mean, it probably was created using AI, but it was declined for being unreferenced and therefore providing zero evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:57, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:03, 15 September 2025 review of submission by 159.48.94.69

The page has been clarified tons, and has a good start. Can you add it to article space? Also, to answer you, mainsteams like AccuWeather, The Weather Channel, and the NWS have called it "historic" and one in Bismarck called it "more of a Southeast setup" (referring to Dixie Alley).

Can you add this to articlespace after my review? (Luna) 159.48.94.69 (talk) 20:03, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have submitted it for review, and in time a reviewer will get to it. Please be patient. ColinFine (talk) 12:12, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Technical issue displaying tornado image on the bottom of the page.
-Luna 159.48.94.67 (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:49, 15 September 2025 review of submission by NQh71RH45mGeo

Why is my draft rejected for "lack of reliable sources"? What exactly should I improve?

I’ve submitted a draft article about the Japanese music production unit Face 2 fAKE. The draft has been repeatedly declined with the reason “lacks reliable sources.”

Currently, I have included citations from:

Oricon News (major Japanese music industry news)

Billboard Japan

NHK (ステラnet, official NHK service)

eiga.com (Japanese movie database)

Real Sound (Blueprint, major media outlet)

The official Japan Academy Prize site

Rambling Records (soundtrack publisher)

FANY Magazine (吉本興業 official)

My understanding is that these are all considered reliable in Japan, but perhaps they are treated as insufficient on English Wikipedia?

Questions:

Are these Japanese-language sources considered reliable for establishing notability?

Do I need English-language secondary sources (e.g. Variety, Anime News Network, etc.) to pass review?

Is the issue the type of source (primary vs. secondary), the language, or the way I structured the article?

I would appreciate specific guidance on what kinds of sources or improvements would make the draft acceptable.

Thank you! NQh71RH45mGeo (talk) 22:49, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @NQh71RH45mGeo. The draft has been rejected, which is the end of the road.
I'm not going to put your sources through Google translate to see what the problems are, but I can assure you the reviewers will have done so. The problem is usually that the sources do not meet all the criteria in golden rule - some of them are only brief mentions, and the ones with more coverage are not independent (and note that "indepedendent" does not mean "published somewhere that is generally independent", it means "the particular article etc. cited was compiled without any input whatever from the subject or from people or organisations associated with the subject"). ColinFine (talk) 12:17, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ColinFine: Automated translation tends to be a "blind idiot" translation on most East Asian languages due to them being heavily context-dependent. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:03, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:06, 15 September 2025 review of submission by Mattmeir

Hi all, feedback received on this article suggests it's missing the notability criteria (per Wikipedia:Notability (people) ) due to the depth of the coverage in each article referenced. The notability criteria, however, states that multiple independent references may be used if significant coverage isn't sufficient. Nonetheless, I'd argue that the references listed do provide significant coverage, especially where they are articles talking only about the subject person? Would appreciate any feedback and guidance. Many thanks. Mattmeir (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mattmeir The whole url is not needed when linking to another Wikipedia page or article, I fixed this for you.
You have just documented his activities, not what independent sources with significant coverage say is notable about him. 331dot (talk) 12:46, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, @Mattmeir. Every source which is to be used to establish notability needs to meet all the criteria in golden rule. Sources with passing mentions may be usable to verify particular pieces of information once notability is established, but they do not contribute to it, however many there are.
One thing that people often misunderstand is independence: if the subject, or their associates, had any input into a source, then it is not independent, and doesn't count towards notability. (I'm slightly overstating the case: it occasionally happens, for example, that a journalist will precede an interview with a significant and independent introduction; but it's rare). ColinFine (talk) 13:12, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:22, 15 September 2025 review of submission by IC 9612

Hello, I want to know where in my article that has been generated by AI, because I don't remember using it... Thanks! IC 9612 (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @IC 9612. Indeed, GPTZero says the draft is 100% human. Care to comment, @Pythoncoder? ColinFine (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was a lot of bold text and the previous reviewer said it was AI. While I am generally skeptical of automated AI-detection tools, I think it’s right that this was a false positive on my part. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 13:58, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My draft was declined again for the same reason due to the previous reviewers. I have changed everything this past week, and it's still being declined. IC 9612 (talk) 03:07, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 16

02:20, 16 September 2025 review of submission by Ivanofjonas

Hello, I recently created https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Novelship

It was declined for sounding promotional, even though I tried to keep the tone neutral and used independent sources such as South China Morning Post, Nikkei Asia, and The Business Times. Could you please advise which parts of the draft still appear promotional, or what specific changes would make it more in line with Wikipedia’s neutrality and notability guidelines?

Thank you very much for your time and guidance. Have a nice day. Ivanofjonas (talk) 02:20, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanofjonas: "It reads like an advertizement" is an indictment of the writing and has nothing to do with the sources used. As written, the draft basically summarises what the company does and has sourcing to match; you need to show how this company is more than just another firm in a sea of them. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 02:31, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:08, 16 September 2025 review of submission by MangeshKumarSahoo

How can I fix all this MangeshKumarSahoo (talk) 03:08, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MangeshKumarSahoo: I left a reply on the draft, but you have to demonstrate the subject is notable to have any article. You show that someone is notable through documented significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. See this page to see exactly what is required to establish notability. I suggest not resubmitting before adding these sources, or it may be rejected. cyberdog958Talk 06:37, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:56, 16 September 2025 review of submission by 217.63.113.61

Hi, can someone please help explain why this English page for Novonesis har not been approved: Draft:Novonesis. It is almost a direct translation of the Danish version already public on Wikipedia. I even made sure that the sources are from independent places, and not from the company's official website. I need to have the English version up and running asap, so any help will be very appreciated! :-) 217.63.113.61 (talk) 06:56, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are BernamC, please log into your account when editing.
The reasons why this draft was not accepted are given in the decline notice.
Whether or not an article on this subject exists in another language version of Wikipedia is neither here nor there. Each version is totally independent with their own policies and requirements.
Saying that you need to have this "up and running asap" suggests you have some sort of external relationship with this subject. I've posted a paid editing query on your talk page, please read and respond to it "asap". Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:03, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you "Need to have [this] up and running", it is hard to see how your purpose can be anything other than promotion, which is forbidden anywhere on Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 13:20, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the serious WP:COI questions, I think this article isn't even close to being ready for publication (and certainly concerning if this is what's up at Danish Wikipedia, though that's their problem nor ours).
First, you have the LLM concerns, and like the COI question, these are serious. I think extensive LLM use is patently obvious, and there's a great deal of promotional language. Far too much is sourced to either an interview -- interviews are not independent -- a top 100 list, and a company page. And several of the cites don't necessarily have supporting text in that interview or top 100 list. And way too much of this is tied to the merger.
I think there's a decent chance this company is notable, but the article makes a rather poor case for it. I think large parts of this article would need to be fundamentally rewritten to fit English Wikipedia policies and guidelines. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:31, 16 September 2025 review of submission by Troy Ribeiro (Goa)

I don't understand as to why my article was rejected. I had resubmitted my article along with the requisite citations and reliable references. References from reliable media and University links... please reconsider my submission Troy Ribeiro (Goa) (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't start multiple threads. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:48, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:35, 16 September 2025 review of submission by Troy Ribeiro (Goa)

Could you please explain, as to why my submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia? Troy Ribeiro (Goa) (talk) 09:35, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Troy Ribeiro (Goa): this is basically you telling the world about yourself; it is a CV/resume. If you wish to promote yourself, you need to find a different platform for that, such as LinkedIn. We publish encyclopaedia articles which summarise what reliable and independent secondary sources have said about a subject, not what the subject itself wants to say. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:47, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand and fully support Wikipedia’s mission to maintain a neutral, encyclopaedic tone that is strictly supported by independent, reliable secondary sources. I revised the article extensively to focus only on what independent sources say about me, rather than presenting it as a personal CV. For example: My role as a founding member of the Film Critics Guild is supported by coverage in ImpactonNet and Exchange4Media. My novel Samina is referenced in major publication listings like Amazon India. My work as a film critic is verified by my Muck Rack profile and published articles in Free Press Journal and IANS Life. My textbooks are prescribed in Goa University’s official syllabus and SIA College Annual Report. I have structured the article with proper inline citations so that every factual statement is verifiable. If there are specific parts where independent secondary sources are still lacking, I would appreciate detailed guidance so I can prioritize improving those sections. Troy Ribeiro (Goa) (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of this doesn't really help notability. Five good sources would be far more helpful than two dozen unhelpful ones. Listings in databases are not useful, nor is simply having a book for sale on Amazin India. There's too many sources that are at best passing mentions, and in more than one instance, reference the identical event. You may qualify under WP:JOURNALIST, but haven't made the case for fulfilling that set of criteria. Just being a founding member of the Film Critics Guild only has the potential to establish notability if it's written about significantly, not just noticed as being accurate.
So let's simplify. What are the three best sources that you believe establish your notability? They should be independent, from reliable sources, and provide significant coverage about you (which means no database listings, passing mentions, user-generated sites, press releases, listicles, or interviews). CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this clarification, but I see my peers who have been written about in the same manner that I have submitted my article... 103.79.252.33 (talk) 11:36, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's doubtful that they were also written by your peers. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:35, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't make WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments, they are not convincing. Each article is evaluated independently of any others. Other substandard articles that happen to exist should be deleted or improved; we don't want to add to the problem by publishing another such article. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:36, 16 September 2025 review of submission by Ali olomi

Hello, I am a new Wikipedia editor and cannot see the “Submit draft” button. I have prepared a full draft for Ali Olomi, an Afghan-American actor, but cannot submit it myself.

Draft content (or sandbox link): User:Ali_olomi/Ali Olomi 2025

Reliable sources: Variety, Deadline, AFI, Rotten Tomatoes, IMDb, TV Guide.

Could an experienced editor please create the AfC draft and submit it for review? Thank you! Ali olomi (talk) 09:36, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ali olomi: I will add the submission template in a moment, but just to say that you shouldn't really be writing about yourself, see WP:AUTOBIO. Also, there is no evidence in that draft that you are notable, so it will be declined. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:43, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ali Olomi I fixed your header so that you don't link to a nonexistent page with the title "Help submitting AfC draft for Ali Olomi". The whole url is not needed when linking. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:10, 16 September 2025 review of submission by KMR PM

Hello, Could you please provide me more details to understand why the submission of that page was rejected ? That will greatly help me to complete the page. KMR PM (talk) 10:10, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @KMR PM. It doesn't look to me as if any of your sources meet the requirements in golden rule, of being reliable, completely independent of Pierre, and containing significant coverage of him. Without several such sources, no article is possible.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 23:31, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:27, 16 September 2025 review of submission by Bendahanp

Hello, I am very new to Wikipedia editing though have been a longtime fan and user. I wrote this page on my employer, a French family office founded by Ms Meyer and her children, to improve our visibilty with founders of midmarket firms interested in teaming up with a long-term, patient shareholder (unlike very large private equity shops, we do not have investor relations teams or big PR budgets). I would love to know if you are expecting other changes for the page to get published. Many thanks in advance for your help! Kind regards, Patrick Bendahanp (talk) 10:27, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bendahanp. I am afraid that "to improve our visibilty with founders of midmarket firms interested in teaming up with a long-term, patient shareholder" is the very definition of promotion, which is absolutely prohibited on Wikipedia. You have declared your paid editing status and conflict of interest, but that does not give you the permission to use Wikipedia as a vehicle to try and get further investments for this company.
But, if we were to look past that and examine the current version of the draft: it is just a list of acquisitions and investments with no encyclopedic value. On Wikipedia, you need to prove that a company meets our criteria for inclusion at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations). Does your draft prove that? I do not think so. Your sources are all routine business coverage, database listings/profiles, and press releases. qcne (talk) 10:43, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:50, 16 September 2025 review of submission by Artloverk

Hi, The majority of the text comes from books about Eric Massholder. He had more than 14 books published about him. I have added the references to the books. I can also send their photos as a proof, also send his CV. I don't know how can I improve the references since the majority of the information is from a book. I'd be grateful for your help. 

Artloverk (talk) 12:50, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would adding photos of all the books for Eric Massholder help? Or can I transfer the evidence of the books internally (to Wikipedia)? Artloverk (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Artloverk: Presuming you've properly cited the books (i.e., using {{cite book}} and providing the title, author, year of publication, publisher, page(s) cited, and the ISBN or OCLC #) you should not need to add (useless) photos of the books. We generally give offline citations the benefit of the doubt provided the ISBN/OCLC # is accurate and the other metadata is present. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:33, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Can I add the book as a reference or can I add it only as {{cite book}}: Empty citation (help) ?
If I add it as cite book the title shows in the text. Artloverk (talk) 12:58, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:47, 16 September 2025 review of submission by MangeshKumarSahoo

Right now I've got everything fixed MangeshKumarSahoo (talk) 13:47, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MangeshKumarSahoo: this draft has been rejected, meaning it won't be considered further. And a quick glance at the sources suggests there is still no real evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:54, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:34, 16 September 2025 review of submission by SecondBiscuit

Hello,

I submitted this draft for review a few days ago and would kindly like to follow up.

Draft: Draft:Laura Luu

The article includes multiple independent and reliable sources such as CBC, CityNews, La Presse, and the official Canadian Screen Awards site.

Could someone please take a look and let me know if it meets notability and neutrality guidelines before moving it to the main space? SecondBiscuit (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SecondBiscuit: This has not been submitted for review. Add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft to submit it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:58, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:09, 16 September 2025 review of submission by Rajuskofficial

Raju, popularly known as RRRS Gaming, is an Indian YouTuber and content creator. He creates roasting and exposing videos related to Free Fire and other gaming content. His YouTube channel has gained more than 65,000 subscribers as of 2025 Rajuskofficial (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to suggest that you are notable in Wikipedia terms, I have rejected your draft. Theroadislong (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rajuskofficial: No sources, no article, no debate. You are also obligated to DISCLOSE and change your username. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:11, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 17

01:08, 17 September 2025 review of submission by Lunayin1996

Hello, what should I add to make this more eye-catching?

Thank you Lunayin1996 (talk) 01:08, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lunayin1996: "eye-catching" is not a requirement for publication.
This draft has been rejected twice at two different titles. That is the end of the road. (Also, do not resubmit rejected drafts.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:50, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I rejected the initial draft page after six declines, nearly all citing a lack of references from reliable sources. Each time you resubmitted the draft, you did not address any of the reasons why it was declined. As mentioned in my rejection, I believe there's a fundamental lack of understanding in the process and what's needed. Please read WP:Your first article, specifically the sections regarding sources and notability. – haj ☘ (talk) 11:06, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:48, 17 September 2025 review of submission by MangeshKumarSahoo

Approved MangeshKumarSahoo (talk) 02:48, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MangeshKumarSahoo: I don't know what you mean by "approved", but your draft has been submitted and will be assessed when a reviewer gets around to it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:48, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:09, 17 September 2025 review of submission by 14.194.177.90

enough references were given, those are third party sources, still not published 14.194.177.90 (talk) 06:09, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are Eva78dubai, please log into your account whenever editing.
Also, it would help if you could provide the correct link to the draft, so I don't have to go looking for it.
 Courtesy link: User:Eva78dubai/sandbox
Your draft is mainly supported by an interview of Müller-Stüler. Interviews are primary sources, and therefore not independent, and also not necessarily reliable. The other sources are her own website, and a speakers bureau. All sources are therefore close primary ones, none contribute anything toward notability per WP:GNG, and none can even be used properly to verify information in the draft.
I also posted a message on your talk page explaining why autobiographies are very strongly discouraged. I don't know if you read it, but here is a link again: WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:47, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:47, 17 September 2025 review of submission by AMGverified

Hi, I've reviewed my draft - it reads without promotional context just facts found online, I have compared it with other brands in the same industry - how do I improve it further as it keeps getting declined. AMGverified (talk) 07:47, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AMGverified Each article or draft is judged on its own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate, see other stuff exists. That another article exists does not necessarily mean that it was approved by anyone, or that it meets current standards. There are many ways to get inappropriate content past us, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can, when they can, it is possible for inappropriate content to exist for years, even. We're only as good as the people who choose to help us; if you want to help, you can identify these other similar articles you've seen so action can be taken and others do not do what you did- use a poor article as a guide. If you want to use other articles as a guide, use those that are classified as good articles, which have received community vetting.
Your draft does little more than document the routine business activities of the company. Instead, you need to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. "Significant coverage" is that which goes beyond just telling what the company does, and goes into detail about what is seen as important/significant/influential about the company as the source sees it, not as the company itself might see it.
If you are associated with this company, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID and WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 07:55, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:56, 17 September 2025 review of submission by LuciaScotti

Hello. I'm trying to create a valuable page for Saily. I truly believe it would be beneficial for readers around the world as this company is quite well known. My current draft has been declined and I want to ask for suggestions and recommendation of what kind of information I should look for and include here to make this page worthy to be created here. Your help will be very appreciated! LuciaScotti (talk) 07:56, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I provided you with advice on your user talk page; please also respond to the question posed there. 331dot (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
done, thanks LuciaScotti (talk) 08:23, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:06, 17 September 2025 review of submission by 92.40.215.52

WHAT? contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia??? Preventing the Mouse Trap page from being created is unfair and unjust, because it's an obscure legitimate avant-garde music genre. you all just have too normie tastes and ears to enjoy such music. And dont say ship like "its a meme genre" because on the Flex Entertainment Wiki page for Lil Staurt Little, it has the category "Serious Artists" so its serious. "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia" my mother forking bass cheeks, you cant censor ship because its ship or you hate it. we all hate Hatler (at least i hope so) but we have an lengthy article for him, so Mouse trap should have an article even if you hate it or its "unlistenable". 92.40.215.52 (talk) 12:06, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has articles on notable topics, period. Not obscure topics. The topic must rise out of obscurity before it merits an article here. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:28, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:10, 17 September 2025 review of submission by IBwaltz

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing in regard to the rejection of the draft article "Klemens Fischer".

The draft was declined with the following reasoning: "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies."

I am unsure how best to proceed based on this feedback, as the draft is a direct translation of the corresponding German Wikipedia article. Furthermore, I do not fully understand how the impression arose that the sources cited were produced by the subject or their affiliates. For instance, the awards and honors mentioned can be independently verified through official and reliable sources, and are clearly not authored or influenced by Mr. Fischer himself. I would appreciate any further guidance on how to revise the article to meet Wikipedia’s standards, particularly with regard to tone and sourcing.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response.

Kind regards, IBwaltz IBwaltz (talk) 12:10, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IBwaltz: this draft was declined (not 'rejected', which would mean the end of the road) for its promotional tone, with terms like "pivotal", "prestigious", etc.
Additionally, it could/should have been declined for very sparse referencing, with several paragraphs and even entire sections without a single citation. Articles on living people have particularly strict referencing requirements, with pretty much every statement needing to be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources, or else removed.
I also didn't see any obvious evidence of notability, although I'll admit I didn't check it particularly carefully. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@IBwaltz: Direct translations from one Wikipedia to en.wp generally do not work since different Wikipediae have different standards and practices, and English Wikipedia tends to have the strictest standards. Your sourcing doesn't cut it:
We need better sourcing in general; see WP:NACADEMIC. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:28, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also add that it isn't entirely true to say that the content is "clearly not authored or influenced by Mr. Fischer himself", given that the de.wiki original de:Klemens Fischer has been heavily edited by someone with the username 'KHFischer', whom, I would hazard a guess, is indeed the very "Mr. Fischer himself". -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:33, 17 September 2025 review of submission by SimasAcademy

I Will Like To Know The Reason Behind Rejection SimasAcademy (talk) 12:33, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SimasAcademy: there is nothing in this draft so suggest the subject is in any way notable.
And you need to change your username before you get blocked. I'll post some instructions on your talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:35, 17 September 2025 review of submission by 196.188.33.147

You can check any social media for this information gunienes and I can send you any relevance document regarding to this 196.188.33.147 (talk) 13:35, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not up to others to check social media. It's up to you to cite your sources and demonstrate notability. You haven't done that, so the draft was rejected. Wikipedia does not host resumes or CVs. 331dot (talk) 13:37, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And that's completely separate from the point that we don't cite social media in the first place. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:15, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:24, 17 September 2025 review of submission by MangeshKumarSahoo

Whatever reference I have given is correct, if I have made any mistake then please correct it. MangeshKumarSahoo (talk) 14:24, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MangeshKumarSahoo: there is absolutely no evidence that this person is notable, and after six previous reviews I have now rejected it outright. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:04, 17 September 2025 review of submission by 163.252.200.172

My page got declined because the draft needs multiple published sources that are: in-depth, reliable, secondary, and strictly independent of the subject. However, a similar company is using almost the same sources as my draft. And yet, they got approved. Why would it be okay for one article to use certain sources but not this one? 163.252.200.172 (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Each article must stand or fall on its own merits regardless of what other crap may be on Wikipedia. If unacceptable articles exist in mainspace, that's a reason to delete them, draftify them, or improve them. It emphatically isn't a reason to compound the problem by promoting another substandard draft. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you are Dmorin GoFormz, remember to log in when posting, That another article exists does not mean that it was written by the company; our articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the topic. If you have evidence that company employees have edited the article about their company and not disclosed their status, we want to know. For that matter, you need to formally disclose your status, please see your user talk page(or WP:PAID). 331dot (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:09, 17 September 2025 review of submission by Dalal Zamindar

Hello, is there a way to request someone to create a page on this topic? My submission was declined since I do not have 500+ edits. But I believe the content itself was fine. Dalal Zamindar (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dalal Zamindar see the note I just left on your talk page. S0091 (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you. Dalal Zamindar (talk) 21:37, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:23, 17 September 2025 review of submission by Guylaen

How do we go through the unsalting process and have me still be alive at the end of the process? I am trying to apply for a scholarship to Paris and I don't want this ordeal biting my ass. Full disclosure: I have been his student, but I am not hiding that fact. My affiliation with MIIS is the biggest text block on my userpage.
I have NO IDEA what the original article looked like, but I can tell you that I'm pretty friggin sure that I've done the work to make sure I made a decent article here.
Why do I care so much? Because of what this man's job was for the government: His job was literally to decide who could be called a terrorist. That's a simplified version, but still, he was THE DUDE who decided whether or not someone or something was a terrorist, according to the US Government.
In the field of terrorism studies, after Martha Crenshaw and Bruce Hoffman, he is probably one of the most important scholars alive. That's not hyperbole. I don't know how to say it other than that. Guylaen (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It ain't gonna get reviewed unless you submit it for review, and something that has been repeatedly deleted and recreated would require review. I have looked at the deleted version, and it's much shorter with a lot of unwanted edits by Blazakis himself as well as an editor blocked for promotion. The current draft is much better. Improve it, address the reviewer concerns, then submit it for review rather than unilaterally moving it to mainspace. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have different definitions of who is a terrorist depending on which part of the world you are in, and Wikipedia is international and not connected to any particular English speaking country. (The servers are in the US which affects some things such as rules around copyrights, but doesn't affect what is important or relevant to the encyclopedia's content). --bonadea contributions talk 09:53, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:44, 17 September 2025 review of submission by ImTripelz

Just Wondering On Why My Page Was Deleted, So I Can Approve Upon It. ImTripelz (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ImTripelz: Draft:Embark Studios AB was not deleted, but rather declined. Have you read the explanation at the top of the draft? jlwoodwa (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:08, 17 September 2025 review of submission by Nironics

I feel like I understand the requirements around notability and reliable sourcing, and I’d like to clarify why I believe this subject does meet the guidelines for Wikipedia inclusion

1. In-depth coverage: AssistivLabs is not just briefly mentioned. It is described in detail in: The Asana blog post, where Asana explains how they integrated AssistivLabs’ tools into their CI pipeline, test automation, and broader accessibility strategy. This is not a trivial mention but a comprehensive case study from a notable third party. The GOV.UK Service Manual references AssistivLabs directly as part of its official guidance for testing with assistive technology. Inclusion in public government documentation suggests significant utility and public relevance.

2. Reliable sources: Both Asana and GOV.UK are considered reliable, established institutions with editorial oversight. Asana is a well-known B2B software platform; GOV.UK is the official UK government digital service portal.

3. Secondary sources: These are secondary sources discussing AssistivLabs’ product and usage within their organizations — independently of AssistivLabs itself. The Asana piece is written by their team, but it is not promotional for AssistivLabs — it explains internal engineering practices and includes context on how AssistivLabs enables those workflows. Similarly, GOV.UK’s manual is a public-facing government resource, not influenced by AssistivLabs.

4. Strict independence: Neither Asana nor GOV.UK is affiliated with AssistivLabs. These are independent, high-profile adopters of the product, not partners or investors.

Additional supporting sources include:

- PR Newswire funding announcement (acknowledged as primary but supports funding notability)

- Silicon Florist coverage, a regional tech blog covering startup milestones

- Inclusion in accessibility review directories such as InclusionHub and WhoIsAccessible.

- https://practical-accessibility.today/ references AssistivLabs as an additional benefit to Sara's course

I recognize some of these sources may be borderline, but the Asana and GOV.UK references, in particular, provide meaningful, independent, reliable coverage that I believe satisfies Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines for organizations.

I’d greatly appreciate additional feedback or direction to further strengthen the draft. Nironics (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly do NOT understand the requirements around notability and reliable sourcing! Press releases, blogs and their own website are of no use in establishing notability. Theroadislong (talk) 21:21, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't use an AI to write your words for you. Especially if you're trying to convince the community of something. An AI has no awareness of how Wikipedia works. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:37, 17 September 2025 review of submission by SadieBugg29

My article was not approved saying I'm not notable. I have been in several well known magazines and television but maybe I didn't reference correct? I didn't say I was super famous but I have been in newspapers and magazines and television and I have seen people on here with less. Also, I know that yes, I created the article but I thought I was objective and I mentioned on the talk page that it was me. Can someone please help me because I am so clueless to this. Please? Thanks. SadieBugg29 (talk) 21:37, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Though not forbidden, it is inadvisable for you to write about yourself, please see the autobiography policy.
YouTube is generally not an acceptable source as it is user-editable. The article just tells about your activities, it does not summarize what independent reliable sources say makes you a notable person.
Do you really want to tell the world that you were fired from your job? See why an article is not necessarily desirable. 331dot (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 18

09:20, 18 September 2025 review of submission by Edward James Gay

Hi there, I’ve recently resubmitted my draft article on George Schmidt (artist) for review: Draft:George Schmidt (artist)

It was previously declined for not showing sufficient coverage in independent, reliable sources. Since then, I’ve:

Added citations from independent and reputable sources (including The Times-Picayune, 64 Parishes, and university/museum websites)

Condensed the article and restructured the sections for clarity and better flow

Focused on meeting the WP:NARTIST notability criteria (e.g., museum exhibitions, international shows, public commissions)

I'd be very grateful for feedback on whether the draft now meets notability and sourcing standards, or if anything further should be addressed before it can be accepted.

Many thanks in advance! 

James Gay Edward James Gay (talk) 09:20, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Edward James Gay: we don't do pre-reviews here at the help desk. In any case, since you're resubmitted the draft, you will have an assessment once a reviewer gets around to it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:29, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for the clarification and the quick response.
I’ll leave the previous reviews in place and appreciate the help with formatting.
Looking forward to the full review when it comes through. Edward James Gay (talk) 09:40, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Edward James Gay I fixed your links; the whole url is not needed, and the header needs the full, exact title.
Prior reviews must remain on the draft until it is accepted. 331dot (talk) 09:33, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for the clarification and the quick response!
I’ll leave the previous reviews in place and appreciate the help with formatting.
Looking forward to the full review when it comes through. Edward James Gay (talk) 09:40, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:58, 18 September 2025 review of submission by Hrangkhawlpreety9889

Most of the article is not sourced and nearly all of the sources seem to be passing mentions. The article might need some fixing on the sources. this is the response we got. Tell us what kind of fixing it requires. Hrangkhawlpreety9889 (talk) 10:58, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hrangkhawlpreety9889 You need add reliable sources.
Though images are not relevant to the draft process, I would add that instead of having an image censored with text, once where the person's face is blurred would be better, or crop the image to focus on the clothing and leave out the person's face entirely. 331dot (talk) 11:21, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]


11:18, 18 September 2025 review of submission by Dorset Dweller

How to insert photographs Dorset Dweller (talk) 11:18, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Images are not relevant to the draft process, which only considers the text and sourcing. Images can wait until the draft is accepted into the encyclopedia. They are an enhancement, not a requirement. 331dot (talk) 11:22, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:38, 18 September 2025 review of submission by AnkushBharadwaj

Hello, my draft (Draft:World_Designing_Forum) has been declined multiple times due to a non-neutral tone and promotional language.

I have completely rewrote the article, following the feedback and Wikipedia's Manual of Style to maintain a formal, encyclopedic tone and proper sourcing.

Before I resubmit it for review, could an experienced editor take a quick look at the current version? I would appreciate any feedback on whether it addresses the previous issues. Thank you. AnkushBharadwaj (talk) 11:38, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AnkushBharadwaj
Please don't paste the page here. This isn't the place to pre-review. You can, however, ask for help on relevant wikiprojects Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:30, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
{{Infobox organization
| name = World Designing Forum
| abbreviation = WDF
| formation = 2017
| founders =
  • Ankush Anami
  • Srashti Kulshrestha
| location = Uttar Pradesh, India
| key_people =
  • Ankush Anami (Founder & CEO)
  • Srashti Kulshrestha (Director)
}}
The World Designing Forum (WDF) is an Indian organization for the fashion industry, founded in 2017.[1] Its stated purpose is to promote Indian handloom and handicraft traditions in contemporary design.[2] The organization's activities are aligned with the Indian government's "Vocal for Local" initiative.[3]
WDF holds industry events, including an annual awards ceremony and fashion showcases at cultural festivals such as the Taj Mahotsav.[4] It also collaborates with academic institutions and government bodies.[5]
==History==
The World Designing Forum was founded to create a network for designers working with Indian craft traditions.[6] By the mid-2020s, the organization reported its network included over 25,000 designers.[7] Through its initiatives, WDF has advocated that the handloom industry can contribute to India's economic goals.[8]
==Governance==
The WDF is led by Founder and CEO Ankush Anami and Director Srashti Kulshrestha.[9] The organization has also formed an advisory board composed of figures from the fashion and business sectors.[10]
==Activities==
===National Designer Awards===
The National Designer Awards is the main annual event of the WDF. It presents awards for fashion design with a focus on Indian textiles.[11] The 2023 event was held in New Delhi, where awards were given to designers such as Neeta Lulla, Anamika Khanna.[12] The 2024 event in Goa featured approximately 300 designers and highlighted fabrics such as Kashmiri pashmina and Kanchipuram silk sari.[13] The awards platform is used to promote Indian handloom to a global audience.[14]
===Events and Collaborations===
WDF organizes fashion showcases at cultural festivals. In 2025, it held the "Heritage" program at the Taj Mahotsav in Agra, which presented traditional attire from 27 Indian states.[15] The organization also holds annual programs for India's National Handloom Day.[16]
In 2024, WDF announced plans to establish a handloom cluster and apparel design park in Agra.[17] It has also launched initiatives like the Indian Couture League to promote weavers and artisans.[18] WDF has partnered with academic institutions, including Lovely Professional University, for programs and workshops.[19]
==References==
  1. ^ "Woven Wonders: How The World Designing Forum Is Turning Handloom Into Haute Couture". ET Now News. 14 September 2025. Retrieved 2025-09-18.
  2. ^ "Reviving Indian handloom: Tradition meets modern innovation at World Designing Forum". Financial Express. 25 October 2024. Retrieved 2025-09-18.
  3. ^ "World Designing Forum embraces 'Vocal for Local' vision". India Today. 24 November 2023. Retrieved 2025-09-18.
  4. ^ "Taj Mahotsav 2025 will showcase entire India in Heritage program of World Designing Forum". Navbharat Times. 28 February 2025. Retrieved 2025-09-18.
  5. ^ "World Designing Forum Celebrates The Rich Heritage Of Indian Handloom And Handicrafts At Lovely Professional University". Financial Express. 8 May 2025. Retrieved 2025-09-18.
  6. ^ "World Designer Conclave 2023 unites India's top fashion-makers in support of handmade fabric artisans". Zee News. 12 April 2023. Retrieved 2025-09-18.
  7. ^ "World Designing Forum embraces 'Vocal for Local' vision". India Today. 24 November 2023. Retrieved 2025-09-18.
  8. ^ "Handloom industry can help India achieve $5 trillion GDP mark: Experts at World Designing Forum". Zee News. 9 August 2024. Retrieved 2025-09-18.
  9. ^ "Agra hosts 10th National Handloom Day by World Designing Forum". The Times of India. 10 August 2024. Retrieved 2025-09-18.
  10. ^ "World Designer Conclave to support Indian handmade clothes". CNBC TV18. 21 April 2023. Retrieved 2025-09-18.
  11. ^ "World Designer Forum announces National Designer Awards 2024". India Today. 3 January 2024. Retrieved 2025-09-18.
  12. ^ "World Designer Forum 2023: Neeta Lulla gets the Best Ethnic Elegance Award, these stars attended the event". NDTV India. 14 January 2024. Retrieved 2025-09-18.
  13. ^ "World Designing Forum showcases Indian handloom". The Times of India. 3 January 2025. Retrieved 2025-09-18.
  14. ^ "World Designing Forum Pushes Indian Handloom To Global Spotlight At National Designer Awards 2024". BW Businessworld. 3 January 2025. Retrieved 2025-09-18.
  15. ^ "A glimpse of India at the 'Heritage' program of the World Designing Forum". India Today. 16 February 2025. Retrieved 2025-09-18.
  16. ^ "Agra hosts 10th National Handloom Day by World Designing Forum". The Times of India. 10 August 2024. Retrieved 2025-09-18.
  17. ^ "World Designing Forum to set up handloom cluster and apparel designing park in Agra". The Economic Times. 13 April 2024. Retrieved 2025-09-18.
  18. ^ "'Vocal for Local': Indian Couture League puts handloom weavers and artisans in the spotlight". Financial Express. 21 October 2023. Retrieved 2025-09-18.
  19. ^ "World Designing Forum Celebrates The Rich Heritage Of Indian Handloom And Handicrafts At Lovely Professional University". Financial Express. 8 May 2025. Retrieved 2025-09-18.

AnkushBharadwaj (talk) 13:07, 18 September 2025 (UTC) [reply]

World Designing Forum
AbbreviationWDF
Formation2017
Founders
  • Ankush Anami
  • Srashti Kulshrestha
Location
Key people
  • Ankush Anami (Founder & CEO)
  • Srashti Kulshrestha (Director)


The World Designing Forum (WDF) is an Indian organization for the fashion industry, founded in 2017 by Ankush Anami and Srashti Kulshrestha.[1] Its stated purpose is to promote Indian handloom and handicraft traditions in contemporary design.[2] The organization's activities are aligned with the Indian government's "Vocal for Local" initiative.[3]

WDF holds industry events, including an annual awards ceremony and fashion showcases at cultural festivals such as the Taj Mahotsav.[4] It also collaborates with academic institutions and government bodies.[5][6]

History

The World Designing Forum was founded in 2017.[7] Its initial focus was on creating a network for designers working with Indian craft traditions. By the mid-2020s, the organization reported its network included over 25,000 designers.[8]

Governance

The WDF is led by CEO Ankush Anami and Director Srashti Kulshrestha.[9] In 2022, the organization formed an advisory board composed of figures from the fashion and business sectors to guide its National Designer Awards.[10]

Activities

National Designer Awards

The National Designer Awards is the main annual event of the WDF. It presents awards for fashion design with a focus on the use of traditional Indian textiles and techniques.[11] The sixth edition of the event was held in New Delhi in December 2023 and was attended by over 5,000 designers.[12] Past award recipients include Neeta Lulla, Anamika Khanna, Ken Ferns and Varun Bahl.[13] The 2024 event in Goa featured approximately 300 designers and highlighted fabrics such as Kashmiri pashmina and Kanchipuram silk sari.[14]

Events and Collaborations

WDF organizes and participates in events related to Indian textiles. In 2025, it organized a fashion showcase at the Taj Mahotsav festival in Agra, which presented traditional attire from 27 Indian states.[15]

The organization holds annual programs for India's National Handloom Day (August 7). The 2024 event in Agra included exhibitions, panel discussions, and the announcement of a planned Handloom Cluster and Designer Hub in the city.[16][17]

WDF has partnered with government bodies, such as the Agra Development Authority for the Agra Youth Festival in 2023,[18] and with academic institutions, including Lovely Professional University for a program in 2025.[19]

References

  1. ^ "World Designing Forum: Changing The Face Of Fashion Designing". First India. 2023-11-25. Retrieved 2025-09-18.
  2. ^ "World Designer Forum announces National Designer Awards 2024". India Today. 3 January 2024. Retrieved 2025-09-18.
  3. ^ "World Designing Forum embraces 'Vocal for Local' vision". India Today. 24 November 2023. Retrieved 2025-09-18.
  4. ^ "World designing forum showcases Indian handloom". The Times of India. 4 January 2025. Retrieved 2025-09-18.
  5. ^ "World Designing Forum celebrates the rich heritage of Indian handloom and handicrafts at Lovely Professional University". Financial Express. 8 May 2025. Retrieved 2025-09-18.
  6. ^ "Agra Youth Festival ends: Models scorch runway donning traditional weaves". Hindustan Times. 2 July 2023. Retrieved 2025-09-18.
  7. ^ "World Designing Forum: Changing The Face Of Fashion Designing". First India. 2023-11-25. Retrieved 2025-09-18.
  8. ^ "World Designing Forum embraces 'Vocal for Local' vision". India Today. 24 November 2023. Retrieved 2025-09-18.
  9. ^ "Agra hosts 10th national handloom day". The Times of India. 15 August 2024. Retrieved 2025-09-18.
  10. ^ "Agra Youth Festival ends: Models scorch runway donning traditional weaves". Hindustan Times. 2 July 2023. Retrieved 2025-09-18.
  11. ^ "World Designer Forum announces National Designer Awards 2024". India Today. 3 January 2024. Retrieved 2025-09-18.
  12. ^ "World Designer Forum announces National Designer Awards 2024". India Today. 3 January 2024. Retrieved 2025-09-18.
  13. ^ "World Designer Forum announces National Designer Awards 2024". India Today. 3 January 2024. Retrieved 2025-09-18.
  14. ^ "World designing forum showcases Indian handloom". The Times of India. 4 January 2025. Retrieved 2025-09-18.
  15. ^ "A glimpse of India at the 'Heritage' program of the World Designing Forum". India Today. 17 February 2025. Retrieved 2025-09-18.
  16. ^ "Agra hosts 10th national handloom day". The Times of India. 15 August 2024. Retrieved 2025-09-18.
  17. ^ "World Designing Forum to set up handloom cluster and apparel designing hub in Agra". The Economic Times. 14 April 2024. Retrieved 2025-09-18.
  18. ^ "Agra Youth Festival ends: Models scorch runway donning traditional weaves". Hindustan Times. 2 July 2023. Retrieved 2025-09-18.
  19. ^ "World Designing Forum celebrates the rich heritage of Indian handloom and handicrafts at Lovely Professional University". Financial Express. 8 May 2025. Retrieved 2025-09-18.

11:45, 18 September 2025 review of submission by Shradha Adhikari

Hello, I recently submitted Draft:Stefan Avivson. Stefan is a Danish serial entrepreneur, author, and recording artist. My submission was declined with the note that the draft is “not adequately supported by reliable sources” and that the references do not yet show notability.

I would like to improve the draft and resubmit, but I am unsure how to move forward. The sources I used are reliable, but they may not provide the kind of significant coverage required. Could anyone please guide me on:

What type of sources would count as significant coverage in this case?

Whether trade publications, industry interviews, or book reviews are acceptable?

If the subject does not currently meet notability standards, should I keep the draft in my userspace and wait until more coverage is available?

I am willing to work on this carefully and follow all guidelines. Any advice or examples would be very helpful.

Thank you for your time and guidance. Shradha Adhikari (talk) 11:45, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft may remain where it is, it doesn't need to be in userspace. Draft space is an area precisely for drafts.
Please see WP:42 to learn more about what types of sources are being looked for. You have not demonstrated that he is any of a notable musician, a notable author or creative professional, or more broadly a notable person.
If you are associated with this person, that needs to be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 12:07, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1312066545"