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 ZyphorianNexus (talk | contribs) at 18:32, 25 October 2025 (→Requesting reconsideration of rejection — Draft:Funktasy: 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


October 19

00:20, 19 October 2025 review of submission by 68.47.121.158

List of Super Bowl commercials requested seperation to all grids. 68.47.121.158 (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! May you be more specific? I am unsure what you mean. GGOTCC 02:00, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, IP user. I see that you are responding to the suggestion at Talk:List of Super Bowl commercials#Split article for "List of Super Bowl commercials" (which had only two editors in the discussion, so I'm not sure that it really had consensus to split; but nobody spoke against).
However, simply copying the table out to a new draft is not sufficient, for two reasons.
First, a list article needs a lead section, introducing the subject and explaining why it merits a stand-alone article.
Secondly, and more important, each item in the list should be cited to a reliable independent source. The fact that many of the entries in the original list article were not cited is unfortunate, and in an ideal world somebody would have gone back and improved it. But we have seven million articles, tens of thousands of which are inadequately sourced, and only a few thousand active editors, few of whom seem willing to spend the time fixing old problems.
In short, because you have chosen to create a new article (and thank you for that), the new article is subject to our current standards, and it is up to you to do the work of bringing it up to those standards.
Please study WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:REFB. ColinFine (talk) 19:31, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:48, 19 October 2025 review of submission by 47yuik

Hello, is it appropriate to add this article to Afc? 47yuik (talk) 04:48, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean- the draft is already in AFC. If you have fixed the issues described by the last reviewer, you may resubmit it. 331dot (talk) 08:33, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Requestor blocked by a CU as a sockpuppet, draft G5'd. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:46, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:06, 19 October 2025 review of submission by 2A06:C701:4D86:8600:A517:7F01:211D:DDC6

Hi , what is missing in this draft order for it to be approved ? 

2A06:C701:4D86:8600:A517:7F01:211D:DDC6 (talk) 12:06, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 14:13, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:32, 19 October 2025 review of submission by R Andrew White

I do not know exactly what I did wrong on my submission and would like assistance to ensure I do not make the same mistake R Andrew White (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @R Andrew White. Your draft was deleted as there was evidence you used an AI chatbot like ChatGPT, Copilot, or Gemini without properly reviewing the output. Please do not use unreviewed chatbot output, as they can contain errors and unsuitable language.
You are free to re-create the draft and re-submit for review. But please don't use an AI chatbot to do so. qcne (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @R Andrew White. Please be aware, if you're not already, that writing about yourself on Wikipedia is very strongly discouraged, because almost nobody has ever managed to do it successfully.
The thing to remember is that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
Almost nothing that you know, think, remember, or believe about yourself is relevant to writing a Wikipedia article unless you can cite a reliable published source wholly independent of you which verifies it.
Having located the required independent reliable sources you will then need to effectively forget everything you know about yourself and write a summary of what those sources say - even if they leave things out that you think are important, and even if they don't quite get things right. Do you really think you can do this?
Please see WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. ColinFine (talk) 20:29, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:27, 19 October 2025 review of submission by 2601:647:C100:9D00:41A9:73BF:C1BA:9F67

My article was rejected b/c the reviewer felt the BLP doesn't qualify as significant - see | Notability. This person has produced a number of plays and worked at a number of theatres + companies that have their own wikipedia page. She has directed a movie starring two actors who also have BLP pages, and she has won several awards / recognitions for her work. I am not sure why this was rejected --- none of the sources I use are original or unverified. Can you please assist? 2601:647:C100:9D00:41A9:73BF:C1BA:9F67 (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi (please remember to log in while posting). Notability isn't inherited, which means just because she worked on a project that is notable by our standards doesn't mean the notability cascades down to her. However, what are the three best sources in your draft? Each should follow the criteria set out at Wikipedia:42. Let me know the three best sources, and I'll take another look. qcne (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I'll log in in a minute, but see a page like this, Eline Arbo, its a very similar BLP and I would have to argue similarly notable / sourcing is similar. I actually do believe that her project is notable - that she directed - and so how could she herself not be notable? That doesn't necessarily make sense to me, as the relationship between director<>project in film is different than lets say a random person working at Google, where Google is notable.
Best three sources: Two from the Guardian, one from the UK Government Website on her registered businesses, and one from the Evening Standard. 2601:647:C100:9D00:41A9:73BF:C1BA:9F67 (talk) 18:47, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Try not to compare against existing articles, as Wikipedia has tens of thousands of articles that are crap and might not meet our criteria.
As I said, notability isn't inherited on Wikipedia, e.g. a CEO of a notable company doesn't merit an article just because they are CEO.
As for those sources:
  1. You have three The Guardian sources. #13 is an average source, I think it's too much of an interview with Latif and not enough transformative journalistic coverage of her. #15 is the same, too much quotation and not enough analysis of her as a director. Then #16 is just her profile on The Guardian so doesn't count towards notability.
  2. Companies House is a primary source and does not count towards notability.
  3. You have two Evening Standard sources. #6 is a pure interview, so can't count towards notability. #19 is also a pure interview.
So, none of these sources provide independent transformational coverage of Latif as a director. If these are the strongest sources, then I agree with the reviewer and there is no evidence of notability yet.
Let me know if you have any questions. qcne (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
what do you mean by independent transformational coverage? I have the LA Times, I have the Guardian, I have the UK government listing her job as theatre director attached to a notable theatre. I also have a verified publication (Routledge, Taylor&Francis publishing) that has her as a director. Please explain what type of sourcing you think is needed. I have seen far less for other wikipedia figures. I edit a lot of academic economists and almost none of those have independent news articles that verify their work, only the primary sources of the publication. I genuine need a real explanation on what you mean. Abs145 (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abs145 The LA Times source is another pure interview.
To establish notability by the Wikipedia definition, we're usually looking for a minimum of three sources that are each independent (not an interview, press release, from the subject's own website, their organisation, or publicist); are each from reliable publications (not social media, forums, etc. All your sources are reliable, this criteria can be ignored); and are each devoting some sort of significant coverage to the subject in the form of transformational journalism, review, analysis, discussion, debate, etc (not a single credit, a database listing).
Academics have their own special notability criteria and don't necessarily need independent sources with significant coverage. They are a special case which might be why you see a discrepancy.
So far, the sources I've looked at in your draft are all either interviews (so fail the independent criteria). As such, you've not satisfied Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. There is the special criteria for creative professionals (like directors), but as far as I can tell Latif does not yet meet this. The film she directed, The Man in My Basement, does not meet that "significant or well-known work or collective body of work". If it wins an Oscar or an Emmy, it might.
Does that make sense? I am happy to answer any more questions. qcne (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, see the Guardian articles (note there are many now), particularly on her work in 2015. This is about the entire project, and is not just an interview. Secondly, see the article that review man in my basement (Financial Times - notable, reliable, independent, significant). Next, significant coverage - I listed UCL, RADA, Birbank, UAL all as having her as a speaker or panelist, so she has gone to all of the london art schools to present or discuss her work - this is fairly significant. And, again, you are ignoring The Standard, The Evening Standard, The Guardian, and all of the theatre-specific sources that sight her career and announce her presence at international film festivals, or even awards there. I don't necessarily see why this does not meet the requirement as EVERY publication I listed is independent and secondary. I would argue all of them are reliable as they are either academic institutions, newspaper outlets (not tabloids) with good reputations for journalism, and non-profits/charities in theatre, and then major theatre/film institutions (BFI, sundance).
Again, saying that her work is not well known is completely unfair. She has made a significant impact on the theatre community (directing a PULLITZER PRIZE WINNING PLAY) and then moving into film. You are focusing too much on the fact that her movie, that came out ONE month ago, featuring an Oscar, academy award wining actor, hasn't won any awards. But look at her theatre work and you see she has contributed substantially in the UK theatre scene.
Please reconsider as I think you're being way to stringent. I have over 20 sources on her. Abs145 (talk) 19:24, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
note these 20 sources are completely independent, verifiable, and reliable. I understand some are interviews, but most are not. Abs145 (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She directed a Pulitzer-winning play; the Pulitzer Prize for Drama is awarded to "the original American play, performed in New York, which shall best represent the educational value and power of the stage in raising the standard of good morals, good taste, and good manners"; she directed the play in London, so she did not earn the Pulitzer for the play. 331dot (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know she didn't write the play. But she adapted it. So the idea that she isn't doing notable work is ridiculous. She's not doing a one-man at the fringe. 2601:647:C100:9D00:41A9:73BF:C1BA:9F67 (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then you need sources that discuss her particular influence on her particular production. 331dot (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yeah and when i use theatre specific writing or news sources, you all say its not verifiable or journalism. I mean come on, how much coverage in major news outlets (BBC, Guardian, etc) does the arts really get? You know and I know this is circular logic. Abs145 (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You contradicted yourself there. Interviews are not independent. How many sources are left? Being a speaker or panelist is meaningless for notability because her own speech isn't independent of her. Now how many sources are left? Also, there is no Pulitzer prize given for performing or directing, and she didn't write the play she directed, so that's irrelevant. Now how many sources remain? Your own assertion that she has made a significant impact means nothing here; such an assertion would have to be made directly by sources that are completely independent of her, and not as a result of a conclusion synthesized from sources that don't explicitly say that. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm not contradicting myself, I am saying that all of the sources (non-interviews) are from independent, verifiable, good journalistic sources. The interviews, while the content you are claiming is not independent, are a tough call because they are somewhat primary sourcing (i.e. the person speaks for themselves in response to the question), the questions and the editing of the published interviews or taped interviews are edited by the independent journalistic organization. 2601:647:C100:9D00:41A9:73BF:C1BA:9F67 (talk) 19:51, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think perhaps you are misunderstanding what we mean by an independent source. We're not interested in what the subject has to say about themselves: we're interested in what other people independent of them subject say about them. The reliability and editorial independence of your sources are not in question: but the interviews are just that: interviews, and interviews do not contribute to our definition of notability. qcne (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yes but just because a subject says something about themselves, then the interviewer and editor decide what to include, how to respond, and adding their own analysis at the front / end of article doesn't mean that analysis should be disregarded? How else is analysis supposed to be done? Abs145 (talk) 20:25, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But the point is most of your interview sources don't have any independent analysis at the front/end. qcne (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that she can be well known and not yet merit a Wikipedia article. Well known and Wikipedia's definition of notability are not the same. 331dot (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are so many people with far fewer credentials and impact that have wikipedia pages. I know you don't want to go 'tit for tat' on that as you can't speak to other approvers, but this is quite ridiculous at this point. She is notable and arguably, not well known, until the release of her movie. Abs145 (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, @Abs145. Wikipedia has loads of terrible articles. That doesn't mean that more articles that don't meet our criteria should be added. That said, your draft is not a total lost cause. I think perhaps in the future stronger sources will appear which will nudge Latif over the threshold of our definition of notability. qcne (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree and I would consider you consider the following:
" The absence of sources or citations in a Wikipedia article (as distinct from the non-existence of independent, published reliable sources online or offline) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only that suitable independent, reliable sources exist in the real world; it does not require their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any. "
  • So you could look for some sources yourself before rejecting
  • You can also be a bit flex, noting that "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." does not mean three perfect sources. It means recognizing that there may be a bit of lag, but that she has been written about for her work extensively in notable / independent / verifiable sources (Guardian and other nonprofit / theatre writings) since at least 2015. She was a Guardian contributor herself from 2016 - 2017, she was the AD for a major theatre company in London, UK. And there are all good sources for this!!! You are holding her to an unfair standard with three perfect sources. I've never heard of this criteria and I find this to be unfair.
Abs145 (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abs145 Since the draft has not been nominated for deletion, that quote is mostly irrelevant. The draft has not been rejected, only declined so you can improve and re-submit it for review. I have no interest in looking for sources: I only review drafts. You as draft author should look for suitable sources. As I said, I think you could be pretty close to an acceptable article if you just found a couple more non-interview sources that devote significant coverage to her work.
The "three best sources" is not a guideline, but it's a useful rule of thumb for reviewers. We always require "multiple" sources to establish basic notability. Multiple is more than one. Three is a good number to start with.
We've already gone over there are very little non-interview independent sources. Her being a Guardian contributor does nothing to establish notability. Her being a AD for a major theatre company does not establish notability. qcne (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well Wikipedia recommends during the review that you also look yourself, to understand the context of the enviro for info for the article. You are not using the review tool the way it should be, and I cannot assume you're AIG if you impose arbitrary standards on the number of perfect sources and refuse to follow the reviewer guidelines. Abs145 (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abs145 If you feel I've made an egregious error in any of my interactions with you / my interpretation of reviewing guidelines / my source assessment I'd recommend making a new topic on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation and asking for a second reviewer to take a look. qcne (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will as your actions are unfair. Abs145 (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That you disagree and didn't hear what you want to hear doesn't mean it was unfair. 331dot (talk) 20:29, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
no imposing a 3 perfect source requirement when its not required, not following WP review guidelines where you should take a look at the enviro for sources and check yourself, and then miscategorizing analysis as non-analysis bc there are some interview or quotes taken is far beyond the requirement for the BLP. its not that i didn't hear what i like, I just think at this point there's a motivation to keep a black woman film maker off of WP. Abs145 (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't play a race card, that's a personal attack This isn't about race. No one is saying sources need to be perfect. 331dot (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
y'all said 3 perfect sources. so you did that. Not making a personal attack, its well documented - see the women's project on WP - that getting women BLP approved is actually harder. Best of luck with all your reviewing. Abs145 (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Really sorry you feel that way, @Abs145. I've probably reviewed 27,000 drafts over the years and try to keep any biases I may have to a minimum when I review. I can assure you the colour of Latif's skin has absolutely no impact on any of my comments here. I do think at this point it's best I step away from this conversation and I encourage you to ask another experienced reviewer to take a look. qcne (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok well review the systemic bias guidelines and the purpose of the project wiki women and then get back to me on whether you think you aren't holding her BLP to a higher standard Abs145 (talk) 20:51, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abs145: I've already stated the reliability of your sources is not the issue. Since you're not dropping ref numbers, I will go through each source one at a time and explain my reasoning:

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
No This is the BFI advertising her talk and selling tickets. Yes ~ Gives some brief biographic details. ✘ No
No Primary source. Yes No Companies House just verifies she has a company, it doesn't provide any significant coverage. ✘ No
Yes Yes No This is a review of the film, it doesn't discuss her as a director. ✘ No
No A theatre she produced a play at. Yes No No significant coverage of her. ✘ No
No An interview. Yes ~ Latif talks about herself, but we're interested in what other people have to say about her which is not present in this source. ✘ No
No A listing for an event she spoke at. Yes ~ Gives some brief biographic details. ✘ No
No An interview. Yes ~ Latif talks about herself, but we're interested in what other people have to say about her which is not present in this source. ✘ No
No Her resume. Yes ~ ✘ No
No An interview Yes ~ ✘ No
No Sundance's own fellowship Yes ~ Just a paragraph. ✘ No
No Yes No A credit. ✘ No
~ Not an interview but I presume Latifa gave the information to Screen Daily to write this piece. Yes ~ A little bit of biography. ~ Partial
No An interview. Yes ~ Latif talks about herself, but we're interested in what other people have to say about her which is not present in this source. ✘ No
No Yes No Her short film. ✘ No
~ Mostly an interview Yes Yes ~ Partial
~ Mostly an interview, but with some analysis. Yes Yes ~ Partial
~ Mostly an interview, but with some analysis. Yes Yes ~ Partial
No Yes ~ ✘ No
No Yes ~ ✘ No
No An interview Yes ~ ✘ No
No An interview Yes ~ ✘ No
No Yes No ✘ No
No Yes No ✘ No
~ Mostly an interview, but with some analysis. Yes Yes ~ Partial
No Yes No ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

So, you've got only really five average usable sources here, whereas I'd be looking for three strong sources. I hope that helps. qcne (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong sources:
(1) Ellis-Petersen, Hannah (4 August 2015). "Controversial Isis-related play cancelled two weeks before opening night". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 19 October 2025.
(2) Morey, P. (2023). Tormented visibility: Extremism, stigma, and staging resistance in Omar El-Khairy and Nadia Latif’s Homegrown. Journal of Postcolonial Writing, 59(3), 331–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449855.2023.2216998
(3) Leigh, Danny (11 Sept 2025). "The Man in My Basement film review — Willem Dafoe leads eerie exploration of what lies beneath". www.ft.com
(4) Grater, Tom. "Stars of Tomorrow 2019: Nadia Latif (director)". Screen. Retrieved 16 October 2025. Abs145 (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see other stuff exists. We judge each article or draft on their own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and just not yet addressed by a volunteer. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles.
If you want to help us address inappropriate articles, please identify the ones you have seen so action can be taken. We can only address what we know about, and we're only as good as those who choose to help.
Is there a particular reason that you have such a strong personal investment in this draft? 331dot (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abs145 I have already reviewed sources 1, 3, and 4 in my source assessment table. I don't know why you are repeating them here. The new source you've presented, the academic paper, is a good source! It provides significant, independent coverage of both the play and Latif. qcne (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have compared this to other GA drafts - I have literally no investment in this person, I'm not british nor do I really like theatre or movies. I am just finding the significant pushback against this woman as strange. I just genuinely have worked on other BLPs and never EVER received so much speculation on notability. There are thousands of poorly published BLPs and this one, I'm certain is not. It is comparable to other BLPs in GA and I can't understand why there's so much skeptism.
This person is a Guardian writer, an AD at a huge company, a film director. All with verifiable sources and you just think you can arbitrarily impose a 3 perfect sources limit? It's unfair. Abs145 (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your review of the link showing that she is a Guardian contributor and sayings its not independent or significant is wrong. It is both, no? She is a writer, and the magazine is confirming her status as that. I don't see what else could be more clear. Abs145 (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abs145 No, that isn't wrong. Her being a Guardian contributor has no relevance to establishing notability, which is all the source assessment table is trying to do. Note, I am not disagreeing that she wasn't a Guardian contributor. Of course she was, that is a verifiable fact. But it doesn't prove notability. qcne (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you're also wrong about the standard article. It is absolutely independent. Why would they care about promoting her? Abs145 (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finding your pushback puzzling; very rarely do people without a personal investment in the topic push back this hard. How did you select them to edit about if you don't like theater and aren't British? 331dot (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what "independence" means. The Standard is editorially independent and reliable, but that particular source is just Latif talking about Hackney. How is that relevant to establishing notability? qcne (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
because I read the FT. It's kind of unfair that you impose really strict guidelines that are not clearly stated in WP review guidelines, then if I push back you accuse me of not AIG.
I understand independence, but the identification at the beginning of the article by the standard of Latif's personal history is analysis and is independent. Abs145 (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I don't know what the acronym AIG means.
Are we looking at the same The Standard source? I genuinely see no analysis of Latif's personal history by any journalist at The Standard. The source doesn't even include a byline other than the photographer. qcne (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
here - https://www.standard.co.uk/futurelondon/culturecity/the-young-vics-nadia-latif-says-being-selective-is-how-to-keep-up-with-londons-culture-a3934226.html Abs145 (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is an interview. It is not independent. Toadspike [Talk] 20:39, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I can see this discussion is quite heated. @Abs145, you are not bound by AfC and are welcome, if you so choose, to move the article straight to mainspace. Your submission has been declined and it's been made quite clear here that the individual is not notable enough for Wikipedia, so this would not be something I would advise. However, it is an option. Once moved, the article would be subject to WP:NPP, and potentially WP:AfD. 11WB (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 20

01:53, 20 October 2025 review of submission by Castroaisha0

Hi, For the page on Charles Reigeluth, I made some edits but it is not what was suggested by Wikipedia. Will it still be accepted? Castroaisha0 (talk) 01:53, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Castroaisha0, if you're talking about your edits on Charles Reigeluth, they were reverted because another editor believed they were LLM generated, and you removed a number of existing references. Your edits should build upon the existing content, and not replace it completely with a copy-and-paste of your draft. Nil🥝 02:18, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok. Got it. Thank You 122.121.82.23 (talk) 04:23, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:15, 20 October 2025 review of submission by Lead Editor67

The draft is being rejected even though it is perfect Lead Editor67 (talk) 07:15, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lead Editor67: We do not consider blatant advertizing "perfect" by any definition of the term. What is your connexion to the school? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong with the article. Lead Editor67 (talk) 07:43, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lead Editor67 The majority of the draft has no references at all. The tone also reads like you're promoting the school. That's why we want to know if you're connected to it. Ultraodan (talk) 07:45, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not connected. Also the main refernce is "www.carmelacadmy.in" Lead Editor67 (talk) 07:49, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the entire article is based on that, then it is not independent Ultraodan (talk) 07:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OP has since been indefinitely blocked as uninterested in writing an encyclopaedia, and has since begun evading their block to push this article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 01:22, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:04, 20 October 2025 review of submission by FactPilot

Hi! I’ve created a short stub draft about a personal development method called GSR System (Deep Development System).

The draft is based on a small number of secondary media sources (Grit Daily, Worldcrunch) and pilot, non–peer-reviewed studies (Zenodo/OSF). It is intentionally short, neutral in tone, and clearly states the preliminary status of the method.

Before submitting it for AfC review, I’d really appreciate a quick pre-review or any suggestions for improvement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FactPilot/Draft:GSR_System

Thank you in advance for your time and feedback! FactPilot (talk) 10:04, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FactPilot: There is no such thing as a pre-review – if you want a review of the draft, you must submit it for review. Please make sure that you disclose whatever connection you have to the topic, and that you read the reviewer comments and decline/rejection notices on all the recent drafts (Draft:GSR System, Draft:GSR System (Deep Development System), Draft:Ustinov Dmitry Yuryevich and Draft:Ustinov, Dmitry Yurievich). --bonadea contributions talk 10:32, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification.
I understand that there is no pre-review, and I will submit the draft for AfC review.
I also confirm that I have no personal or professional connection to the subject of the draft. FactPilot (talk) 12:30, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:11, 20 October 2025 review of submission by 2003:F9:BF1F:FE00:C142:57F8:B495:2B13

The article was rejected with the reason "Please cite your sources using footnotes." I would like to improve the article, but on the one hand, I have listed all the sources used as footnotes in the "References" section, and on the other hand, there are no citations in the text for which I could cite sources. Did I misunderstand the reasoning, or what can I do to improve the article? 2003:F9:BF1F:FE00:C142:57F8:B495:2B13 (talk) 11:11, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, for Biographies of Living People, footnotes are not enough – inline citations are needed for all biographical statements. Check out Help:Referencing for beginners for more. Nil🥝 11:25, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:47, 20 October 2025 review of submission by Szabó Bálint Tamás

Dear Wikipedia moderators,

I submitted this page for review a while ago, I was wondering if you could give me a status update about it.

Thanks in advance! Szabó Bálint Tamás (talk) 11:47, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Szabó Bálint Tamás! We are not Wikipedia moderators (there actually aren't any of those - we do have administrators but they're not in charge of draft review), just plain old experienced editors.
You last submitted your draft on October 9, and if you look at the draft you'll see up the top this message: Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,997 pending submissions waiting for review. Hopefully that will suffice for a status update :) Meadowlark (talk) 11:58, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:36, 20 October 2025 review of submission by 88.209.117.210

Hello and thank you for reviewing the draft and for the detailed feedback.

I would like to improve the article so it meets Wikipedia’s standards, and I have a few questions to make sure I move in the right direction.

The book Eric Massholder was published in July 2025 and will soon be available through FNAC, so it is a verifiable published source. Should I limit the number of references and quotations from this book in order to avoid over-reliance on a single source and make the article publishable?

I understand that many exhibitions currently listed are unreferenced. Would it be better to remove most of them for now and keep only a small number of key exhibitions with independent references, and then expand later?

In general, would it be better to reduce the draft to a shorter, basic version first (only essential verified information), would take improve its chances?

Thank you again for your time and guidance — I appreciate any specific advice to align the draft with Wikipedia requirements.

Best regards 88.209.117.210 (talk) 12:36, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An article is not merely for documenting the existence of a person or "basic" information. An article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. There are also narrower notability categories like a notable artist. Anything that is sourced to Mr. Massholder or his associates does not contribute to notability. 331dot (talk) 12:57, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, IP user. The draft does not clearly specify the publisher of the book "Eric Massholder". If it is not published by a reputable publisher it may not be regarded as a reliable source. If Kamil is indeed the publisher (presumably the gallery) then it is certainly not an independent source, and can be used to support only limited uncontroversial factual information. ColinFine (talk) 11:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:23, 20 October 2025 review of submission by 213.151.222.75

why it has been rejected how to get validated 213.151.222.75 (talk) 13:23, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Content, notability, and sources are a good place to start. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:25, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:42, 20 October 2025 review of submission by DesignReviewed

Hi, I'm trouble shooting why the Mitch Paone draft keeps getting declined, it should follow all the proper wiki criteria. Please let me know how to proceed. Thanks! DesignReviewed (talk) 13:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DesignReviewed, your draft wasn't declined before its deletion. It seems that you used a large-language model (LLM), such as ChatGPT, to generate the draft. LLMs often hallucinate, and out of the ten references on your page, only two actually exist - the rest are all from real sites, but the pages are completely made up by the chatbot. I suggest reading this essay on LLM usage on Wikipedia and the rationale under which your draft was deleted. Have a good day, HurricaneZeta (T) (C) 14:11, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note! That makes sense, we'll make sure everything is completely verifiable manually. DesignReviewed (talk) 14:14, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "we" Wikipedia accounts are for single person use only, please address the paid editing tag on your talk page. Theroadislong (talk) 14:20, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:39, 20 October 2025 review of submission by 102.90.100.223

Please can I get an advice from you on what to do. What should I remove or add or edit. Thanks 102.90.100.223 (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My advice would be to give this topic a very wide berth indeed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:45, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:31, 20 October 2025 review of submission by Aparnaamruthraj

what additional material would qualify this for as a wikipedia page 

Aparnaamruthraj (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Aparnaamruthraj, the main issue with this page is the sourcing. There are only two sources, and the first source doesn't seem to support the claim He is known for his political activism, particularly for **leading the Plachimada Coca-Cola struggle** and participating in various other protests in Kerala. The entire Early life and education section is unsourced (all claims, especially in BLP articles should be reasonably cited inline), as well as the career and awards and recognition section. The second source only contains a passing mention of the subject. I suggest that for this draft to be accepted, cite at least 2-3 reliable sources and 1 that shows significant coverage, preferably all of them (see WP:42) HurricaneZeta (T) (C) 15:38, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:13, 20 October 2025 review of submission by Louisvilleborn

why was the article declined, specifically? Louisvilleborn (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Louisvilleborn: it was declined for insufficient inline citations, as it says on the decline notice (or said, before you removed it). I would add to that very unclear referencing more generally. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed your header, you need the full draft title, including the "Draft:" portion.
I restored the previous review; prior reviews must remain on the draft until it is accepted. It was declined because references were not properly done; please read the pages linked in the decline message carefully. 331dot (talk) 16:28, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:10, 20 October 2025 review of submission by Georgejaxx

Hello why my draft, has been canceled from Wikipedia ? Georgejaxx (talk) 17:10, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Georgejaxx. There is zero indication you meet our criteria for inclusion for musicians, sorry. qcne (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Georgejaxx: Your sources were all of your own website, Spotify, or iTunes/Apple Music. None of them are acceptable sources. The draft was properly rejected for failure to heed reviewers' critiques and would not have been considered further. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 01:18, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:37, 20 October 2025 review of submission by DeonsGaming

i dont know if there is enough relaiable source and i need some help with what is a relaible source and what isnt on for the page DeonsGaming (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DeonsGaming, a reliable source is secondary (not Wikipedia, which your source is, and not related to the subject), is independent, and provides significant coverage. If you can find something like a news article or a couple of them covering this mod, they would be reliable sources and you can cite them. Right now, your only source links to Wikipedia itself, which isn't a reliable source. Chances are that your mod isn't notable. HurricaneZeta (T) (C) 18:43, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
okay thank you for the answer is an direction to the modpage on both curseforge and modrinth? DeonsGaming (talk) 19:13, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, those are primary sources and do not convey any information about the source. I don't think this mod is notable, unless you can get coverage from news sources or game sites and the link. Here's a list of reliable sources for video games/related things: WP:VG/S and here's a link for general sources: WP:RS/P HurricaneZeta (T) (C) 20:04, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:55, 20 October 2025 review of submission by 66.210.44.45

This is me 66.210.44.45 (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting. Wikipedia is not social media for people to tell about themselves, please see the autobiography policy. Please also read WP:YOUNG along with your parent/guardian/custodian. You should not post personal information about yourself in this very public place. 331dot (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 21

01:03, 21 October 2025 review of submission by 202.150.108.62

ii want to publish this but i need to know what to change 202.150.108.62 (talk) 01:03, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kia ora @Herobanana4444, remember to log in when posting. The draft has been rejected, which means it can not be resubmitted for review. Please see our inclusion criteria for articles on musicians. Ngā mihi, Nil🥝 01:15, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No sources, no article, no debate. We also are incredibly leery about articles on minors. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 01:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing 🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 06:29, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:21, 21 October 2025 review of submission by 76.85.91.238

What am I missing. Every source I have sent is a legitimate source. 76.85.91.238 (talk) 02:21, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have resubmitted it and it is pending, the reviewer will leave you feedback. I suggest you cite or remove the uncited personal information about him. 331dot (talk) 10:15, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:32, 21 October 2025 review of submission by Aparnaamruthraj

what should be added that qualifies this person? he has been mentioned various articles, as given as reference. Aparnaamruthraj (talk) 04:32, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aparnaamruthraj: that's exactly the problem, most of the sources only mention him, in passing, without providing significant coverage of him. Passing mentions contribute nothing towards notability.
And the draft remains very poorly referenced, with entire sections without a single citation. Where are you getting all this information from?
Please don't remove earlier decline templates and comments, they must remain there until the draft is accepted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:39, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:40, 21 October 2025 review of submission by Kunal1231

what edit we can do so page get accept Kunal1231 (talk) 06:40, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The pink decline notices include links to help pages for new editors. Did you read those? ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 06:43, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Kunal1231.
Very few people have ever successfully created articles about themselves on Wikipedia, so it strongly discouraged to try. See WP:autobiography.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 12:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:03, 21 October 2025 review of submission by CloeyDeb

Can someone please explain what the issue is here, this woman is very prominent as a voice for Australian rural health and I'm not sure why I am being told she is not notable. CloeyDeb (talk) 07:03, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CloeyDeb: did you read any of the reviewers' comments? They seem to me to explain quite clearly what the issue is. Notability is not about being a "prominent voice", it's about receiving significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are both reliable and entirely independent of the subject. This excludes interviews and anything where the subject is commenting on things, as well as anything based on publicity materials such as press releases, statements, advocacy or lobbying efforts, etc. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:37, 21 October 2025 review of submission by Asbergerism

I recently wrote a page for New Zealanders of Cornish descent or "Cornish New Zealanders" and I used information sources or references? from the two reliable sources. One was the New Zealand Cornish Association and the other was Statistics NZ. I bet I probably didn't put something somewhere correctly or a trivial detail of such wasn't ... Anyway. I am not the best at formatting and I would like help from someone who knows how to navigate these parts. It's a valuable omission from wiki that I want corrected. Asbergerism (talk) 07:37, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asbergerism: your draft is unreferenced. There is one attempt at citing a named source, but that is not defined anywhere, so throws an error. Please see WP:REFB for advice on referencing.
I will also add that primary sources may in some cases be used to verify information, but they do not establish the subject's notability, which is a core requirement for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:45, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Asbergerism. IN order to have a Wikipedia article about "Cornish New Zealanders" we would require several secondary sources; that is, several people whould indpendently have to have written books, studies, or articles specifically about the idea/category/group "Cornish New Zeaanders" - not just about specific people who are in that group. Do you think that is likely?
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 12:05, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Asbergerism First, I honestly don't see what the page adds to Wikipedia. Are we going to create a page for every county in England where NZers came from? Every province in every country where people migrated from to another place. Second, I don't think the draft page name is accurate. People who migrated themselves and their children might have been Cornish New Zealanders but their distant descendants aren't. Third, I don't think the New Zealand Cornish Association is an independent source, it's clearly related. And, has Stats NZ really written anything on the subject that might count as "significant coverage". For sig cov on this subject, suggest academic articles might be your best bet for sources. But suggest you might first read WP:42 and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. MmeMaigret (talk) 03:10, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First, I think your keyboard manner could use some tweaking. I didn't come here to start a fight but you chose to comment on this... I'm not sure why the hostility is so high but thanks for your opinions, duly noted. Asbergerism (talk) 04:45, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Asbergerism: Speaking as an Aspie who's edited Wikipedia for 15+ years, they're not being aggressive towards you. ColinFine's advice is on-point and is worth taking on board, and MmeMaigret's message is likewise correct and even in tone. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 04:51, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:10, 21 October 2025 review of submission by Aya.mochrik

I do not understand exactly what parts of the draft are problematic. Is there any way I could receive more specific feedback? Thank you very much in advance. I really appreciate it Aya.mochrik (talk) 08:10, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Aya.mochrik, probably your main problem is that you have not shown what makes this a notable company by Wikipedia's standards - all your sources, as far as I can see, are about routine business activities which do not make the company notable. Meadowlark (talk) 08:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:56, 21 October 2025 review of submission by Jasmine omens

Hi, I would like to check if this draft page is good for submitting for review, and if not, what are the improvements I can make to have it good to go for submission? Jasmine omens (talk) 08:56, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do pre-review reviews, please submit it in order to obtain feedback.
I would ask you about the logo, did you personally create it and personally hold the copyright to it as you are currently claiming? I see that you are a company employee, but typically a company holds the copyright. Logos are also not typically uploaded to Commons, which releases the image for use by anyone for any purpose with attribution(this includes competitors); logos are typically uploaded to this Wikipedia directly under "fair use" rules(which doesn't allow use in drafts, but does allow limited use in articles). Images are an enhancement, not a requirement for a draft. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:04, 21 October 2025 review of submission by IanResearch

Hi there editors, I’ve trimmed my draft to remove promo tone and keep only third-party sources, but it was still declined as borderline WP:G11. Could you point out which parts are still seen as promotional so I can fix them? Thank you in advance! IanResearch (talk) 09:04, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing is promotional, because it just describes the offerings and activities of the company. An 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. Specifically, see WP:ORGDEPTH. 331dot (talk) 09:24, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:13, 21 October 2025 review of submission by Mass Event Rentals

I searched this title on wikipedia, but didn't get a correct answer. So I thought to add what this exactly means. you can read the first paragraph where i mentioned what is event rentals and what they are providing and how the fare comes etc. when coming to the second paragraph i just add an external link because the person who search will get a clear idea on how exactly this service works. If you still feel its irrelevant, please remove this asap. thank you Mass Event Rentals (talk) 09:13, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for spam. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:11, 21 October 2025 review of submission by NoOneButMeMyself

I made a wikipedia page for Nirmal Pillai which was declined I want to know why NoOneButMeMyself (talk) 10:11, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NoOneButMeMyself The reviewer left feedback at Draft:Nirmal Pillai. Have you read that and looks at the links? Ultraodan (talk) 10:13, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:56, 21 October 2025 review of submission by Sekcja Naukowa

Hi, I have prepared a draft of an article about Paweł Rozenfeld: User:Sekcja Naukowa/sandbox. I believe it meets the notability and sourcing requirements of English Wikipedia. Could someone review and move it to the main space (i.e., create it as “Paweł Rozenfeld”) — thank you! Sekcja Naukowa (talk) 10:56, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sekcja Naukowa I have fixed your header so it links to your draft and not to a nonexistent page entitled "Request to move draft: Paweł Rozenfeld".
You have submitted it for review and it is pending. Asking for a review does not speed this volunteer driven process, where drafts are reviewed in no particular order. Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 11:00, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've just gone ahead and placed it in Draft space, the preferred location for drafts, which can be accessed via the Article Wizard. The draft is now at Draft:Paweł Rozenfeld. 331dot (talk) 11:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:57, 21 October 2025 review of submission by Sahad033

its rejecting always 

Sahad033 (talk) 11:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Sahad033
A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and not much else.
After three attempts at submitting your draft, you have not managed to cite even one source that meets the criteria (see WP:42), so the third reviewer has reasonably concluded that Cheleri does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and you should not waste any more of your or anybody else's time trying.
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 realise you created your account some years ago, but with only 9 edits in your history, you are still a new editor). ColinFine (talk) 12:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:00, 21 October 2025 review of submission by Leonor1898

Hello, I wrote an article about the Luxembourg Protocol, and although I cited all my sources, the first submission was rejected. I put a lot of effort into it, but I was told that it appeared "copied" (due to close paraphrasing) or AI-generated. As this is my first serious article, I'm having trouble getting the style that Wikipedia requires. I would appreciate some help. Thank you in advance for any assistance.

Leonor

Best regards, Leonor1898 (talk) 13:00, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leonor1898 Please know that 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.
If it's not AI generated and you closely paraphrased, just rewrite the text to be less close a paraphrase. 331dot (talk) 13:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your response and for the advice. Since I am not a native speaker, I always check the grammar with DeepL, grammarly or AI just in case. For my part, I have no problem whatsoever with the article being modified if it improves the English. I am being completely honest :) Leonor1898 (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:19, 21 October 2025 review of submission by Michaeltopelpsyd

Hi, I'm a new editor (User:Michaeltopelpsyd) and not yet autoconfirmed, so I can't move my draft myself. I've prepared a biography draft on Jim Tullio, a music producer, with disclosed COI (I'm a professional acquaintance who conducted a 2025 interview—template added at top). It's sourced with independent refs and follows BLP guidelines.

Sandbox link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Michaeltopelpsyd/sandbox

Could a reviewer please move it to Draft:Jim Tullio and add the submission banner? I'd appreciate any quick feedback before I submit for AfC review. Thanks!

-- Michaeltopelpsyd Michaeltopelpsyd (talk) 13:19, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michaeltopelpsyd I have fixed your header so it links to your draft as intended, and not to a nonexistent page entitled "request article be moved to draft". I have also placed your draft at Draft:Jim Tullio; draft space is the preferred location for draft submissions; draft space may be accessed by using the Article Wizard.
Asking for a review does not speed this entirely volunteer driven process; it will be reviewed in due course as you have submitted it. Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 13:23, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that even if you were technically able to place the draft in the encycopedia yourself, this process is highly recommended until you gain experience in having drafts accepted- and if you have a COI it's more of a requirement. 331dot (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am grateful for the help and want to be fully patient. I am learning the process and apologize if causing extra work. THANK YOU! Michaeltopelpsyd (talk) 13:32, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:00, 21 October 2025 review of submission by 2409:40E4:10AD:DE61:313A:A30E:B979:16D2

INDIAN TELEVISION ACTOR PROFILE 2409:40E4:10AD:DE61:313A:A30E:B979:16D2 (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question? I suspect you are writing about yourself, which is ill advised, please see the autobiography policy. Your draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. We don't have "profiles" here, we have articles. If you want to write a profile, use social media. 331dot (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:55, 21 October 2025 review of submission by MonsterTruckLover

I need help finding references for this topic MonsterTruckLover (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can't find sources for you; make use of Google, a library, etc. We also have an article about Hot Wheels generally. 331dot (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:16, 21 October 2025 review of submission by Robbert125

any reason why my article is rejected Robbert125 (talk) 19:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have created a new draft article about "Grade Calculator," a digital tool used by students and educators to calculate grades, GPA, and academic performance. The article includes an overview, types, and educational usage.

Please review the draft and provide feedback or approval for publication. Thank you! Robbert125 (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Robbert125 I've removed the additional section you created, please try to keep additional comments in this section. HurricaneZeta (T) (C) 19:45, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:11, 21 October 2025 review of submission by Iliochori2

I've fixed some issues. Can you show me if there are more issues to be fix? Regards Iliochori2 (talk) 21:11, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Iliochori2 I suggest that LuniZunie reviewed it very positively and should be the reviewer to ask. Resubmission will ask any passing reviewer. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. Regards Iliochori2 (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Iliochori2 Yes! This was an amazing draft =) Keep up the good work! – LuniZunie ツ(talk) 21:55, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. Can I resumit it for a second review? Regards Iliochori2 (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, however I personally try not to review articles I’ve already reviewed, so it might end up in the queue for a bit. – LuniZunie ツ(talk) 22:06, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LuniZunie I have the same attitude to re-reviews. Your comments, however, allowed me to take the next action.
@Iliochori2 I submitted this on your behalf and it is Accepted 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:15, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a million Iliochori2 (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:54, 21 October 2025 review of submission by 2A02:1210:1817:EA00:A934:DC4:22F:EFEB

Hi I'm writing about the following rejection: 

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject) reliable secondary independent of the subject

How many references would one need for this to be acceptable? Are school directories not acceptable? Kind regards Ebrasse2A02:1210:1817:EA00:A934:DC4:22F:EFEB (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We need quality not quantity. Your job is to demonstrate that it passes WP:NSCHOOL. What makes this school pass it and is verified by citations? You may need fewer words and fewer, better references. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:10, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:02, 21 October 2025 review of submission by Crazy10061

I would like help with formatting and maybe editing the page Crazy10061 (talk) 23:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's too early to be asking for help formatting and editing. You should first find at least 3 sources meeting all three WP:Golden Rule criteria, before you write a single word of a draft. Right now you have zero such sources.
Given that Makerworld hasn't been around nearly as long as Thingiverse, there may not be adequate sources. Printables is bigger and has been around much longer too, and it doesn't have an article either. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:13, 21 October 2025 review of submission by Slgrandson

South African collection of poetry currently on the G13 list, previously tagged for AI, and not yet submitted. However, GNews brings up this item from a while ago; remind me if that qualifies per WP:NBOOK (further review hunts and a spot on my AFC queue aside).

  • de Waal, Shaun (2025-10-03). "And the 2025 UJ Prize goes to... Barbara Boswell, Shubnum Khan and Siphokazi Jonas". News24. Retrieved 2025-10-21. (Jonas is the author of said collection; UJ refers to the University of Johannesburg.)

(Filing on behalf of page creator Horizons2025 (talk · contribs).) Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 23:13, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do pre-review reviews. I wouldn't accept it as it is. I'd say clean up whatever AI slop you can find (poor formatting, redundant headings, invalid sources if applicable) and then submit it. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:04, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


October 22

02:06, 22 October 2025 review of submission by M.reyes1987

Hi! My article has been waiting for review for around three weeks — could someone please take a look? In the meantime I've edited and improved my draft to meet notability + neutrality guidelines. I edited it based off previous reviewers' suggestions (rewrote sentences that were AI-modified, something I overlooked when I used AI to check for grammar, as it also reworded some sentences). I used third-party sources from news outlets like BusinessWorld, ABS-CBN, Philippine Inquirer, etc. Could someone kindly take a look or update on the article's status? I'd appreciate any feedback and comments as well, so I can incorporate these and hopefully receive final approval.

Draft:Salcedo Auctions

Thanks for the help! M.reyes1987 (talk) 02:06, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@M.reyes1987: we don't fast-track reviews by request; your draft will be reviewed when a reviewer gets around to it. As it says on top of the draft, reviews "may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,080 pending submissions waiting for review." Please be patient. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright! Thanks for the guidance. M.reyes1987 (talk) 07:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:17, 22 October 2025 review of submission by Mmemaigret

The article has almost no independent reliable secondary sources and none in "career"'. Even after separating the primary and secondary sources, almost all the "secondary sources" are articles by the university and one is to a list of patents (so essentially primary sources).

There seem to be 3 heads under which the article might qualify for presumed notability under WP:Academic.

Significant impact in their scholarly discipline is not, however, demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

So the questions I'd like help with are:

  • is a fellow of the American Society for Microbiology grounds alone for notability, ie is it a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association or a major scholarly society
  • is the University of Alabama at Birmingham: a "major" institution (for the purpose of the distinguished professor criteria)?

Thanks MmeMaigret (talk) 03:17, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mmemaigret: I'd say as long as you can verify those two fellowships and the named chair (primary sources are enough), that should be enough to satisfy NACADEMIC. You'd certainly need to tag it for peacocky language and insufficient referencing, though. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:07, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've accepted the article, tagged it, and added a note on the talk page. Cheers. MmeMaigret (talk) 09:04, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:33, 22 October 2025 review of submission by BBB XY

Hi there, I'm reaching out to follow up on our draft titled Draft: Justin Loke. We incorporated the reviewers’ suggestions and submitted the updated version around two months ago. Since then, we haven’t received any further feedback or updates. We’re eager to move this forward and would really appreciate it if someone could take a look at the revised draft, or let us know if anything else is needed on our end to proceed. If it’s ready, we’d love to begin the next steps toward final approval and publication.

Could someone please advise on the current status, or let us know who might be able to help move the review along? Thanks! BBB XY (talk) 03:33, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BBB XY: Patience. Drafts are reviewed in no particular order, and the "2 months" figure on the template is, at best, a ballpark estimate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 04:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BBB XY Who is "we"? Do you have a particular need for a speedy review? 331dot (talk) 08:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BBB XY no Declined as rendered impossible to review properly because of WP:CITEKILL and WP:BOMBARD, with a fuller rationale on the draft. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:23, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:06, 22 October 2025 review of submission by Parikshitdas91

My article has been declined, citing "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."

However, all I have written is using publicly available content published by credible sources, including Forbes, Nasdaq, the United Nations, and others. I have included proper citations/references of these credible sources in almost every sentence. Could you please pinpoint the exact sentence where it sounds like an advertisement, so that I can modify the same? I can see a similar article being approved and published by Wikipedia editors previously https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verified_Market_Research Parikshitdas91 (talk) 04:06, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Spanish Wikipedia is a separate project with different guidelines and standards. Also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As for your question, the entire "Operations" section reads like an ad to me. Ultraodan (talk) 05:02, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Parikshitdas91: The Spanish Wikipedia is a completely different beast from the English-language Wikipedia; I'm sceptical they have the exact same drafting and review processes we have. As for your article... good god, you've overkilled it.
None of your sources are any good. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 05:22, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:34, 22 October 2025 review of submission by Pawssum mobile vets

Why contribution was rejected ? Pawssum mobile vets (talk) 05:34, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting, I've edited your comment to fix the link to your draft. Nil🥝 05:50, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Pawssum mobile vets, having a quick read, the two main issues are that the draft relies mostly on WP:PRIMARY sources, and that it comes across as WP:PROMO for Pawssum.
It appears you have a conflict of interest as well that needs to be declared – please have a read of the message I've left on your talk page. Thanks, Nil🥝 05:56, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked the user (promo name, promo edits). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:56, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:52, 22 October 2025 review of submission by Teri liew

I have been working on improving this draft for a while now and would appreciate help to see if this draft is good for re-submission Teri liew (talk) 05:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Teri liew: we don't do pre-reviews (which are basically just normal reviews) here at the help desk. If you feel you have sufficiently addressed the earlier decline reasons, you can resubmit the draft, that way you will get a full review in due course. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:54, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for guidance. I have been at this for a while n feel lost. 119.234.53.42 (talk) 07:00, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IP editor (I assume Teri liew? If so, please remember to log in!), I'll go over your first five sources and compare them against WP:42 - this is our 'golden rule' for sources, and ideally you want every source to meet all three criteria there. To show that someone qualifies for a Wikipedia article, you need at least three sources that meet WP:42 and can point to which of the criteria in WP:BIO or WP:GNG you're relying on.
  • Business Times #1 is only a brief mention, not significant coverage;
  • Business Times #2 is likewise a brief mention;
  • EDB is a press release and another brief mention, so it's not independent or significant coverage;
  • Singapore Business reads like a company-released statement and has no byline (author name), which makes me think it's not independent;
  • Yale is potentially a good source!
I would strongly suggest going through your draft, assessing all your sources against WP:42, and removing any that don't qualify. You will also have to remove any information that is sourced only to these weak references. If necessary, you can use a small number of WP:PRIMARY sources for basic information like name, birthdate, etc. A few really good WP-42 compliant sources are much better than lots of weak sources. Meadowlark (talk) 01:38, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Meadowlark - thank you for your kind guidance. the challenge about the Singapore main daily Business Times online platform is that you need to pay for subscription to get full article unless the stories already were with free access. What can i do in this instance ? I also thought that press releases from government agencies such as the Economic Development Board (EDB) would be reliable sources ? Singapore Business Review is an objective publication but I find that they do churn out stories as per media releases for those they do not add value to. I have deleted quite a number of references which are no longer valid as per guidance. Teri liew (talk) 02:23, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Teri liew. Paywalled sources are acceptable, if they are reliable sources; but you may end up waiting longer for a reviewer who can read them. See WP:PAYWALL.
Singapore Business Review does not appear to have been discussed at WP:RSN; but from your dseciption, it would not be accepted as reliable.
Press releases from government are usually reliable, but they are almost always primary, and so do not contribute to establishing notability.
A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have independent chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and not much else. If few or no commentators have done so, or have not done so great enough depth to base an article on, then no article is possible. ColinFine (talk) 12:37, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:07, 22 October 2025 review of submission by Touma m

Hello, I recently received feedback that my article on SoftNet Technologies Limited is not adequately supported by reliable sources and that it reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia entry.

I would appreciate some clarification on this. Are all the sources I used considered unreliable, or are only some of them problematic? Additionally, I’d be grateful for any guidance on how to adjust the article’s tone to make it more neutral and suitable for Wikipedia’s standards.

Thank you for your time and assistance! Touma m (talk) 08:07, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Touma m First, if you work for or are otherwise associated with this company, the Terms of Use require you to make a formal paid editing disclosure. Please also see conflict of interest.
The draft just tells about the business activities of the company and its offerings. This is promotional here(WP:YESPROMO). 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. This should not include staff interviews, press releases, the mere reporting of routine business activities, or primary sources. Awards do not contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). 331dot (talk) 08:22, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:41, 22 October 2025 review of submission by O S Prasanth

Hello respected reviewers,

I have fully rewritten the draft Draft:Satish Chandra Jha in compliance with the feedback received earlier. All AI-generated or speculative content has been removed, and the article now relies solely on verifiable information from reliable, independent secondary sources, including:

  • The Times of India
  • The Indian Express
  • The Telegraph India
  • Live Hindustan
  • Prabhat Khabar
  • Official Government of Bihar documents (Education Department orders and appointments archived on official/state websites)

The tone is now neutral, factual, and sourced as per WP:V and WP:RS. Please consider this version for re-review under WP:BLP and WP:NPOL criteria.

Thank you for your time and guidance. O S Prasanth (talk) 11:41, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@O S Prasanth: I have amended the link to your draft, since we have no page by the title Request for re-review: Draft:Satish Chandra Jha.
We don't do on-demand reviews here at the help desk. You have resubmitted the draft, and it will be reviewed in due course once a reviewer gets around to it.
Please don't remove earlier review declines or comments from the draft, they must remain there until the draft is accepted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:00, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't us an AI to talk to us. Times of India is questionable reliability (see WP:TIMESOFINDIA) and doesn't do the article any favors. You were already told this in an AFC comment in the draft some days ago, and yet you haven't fixed it. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@O S Prasanth No amount of editing can conjure notability up where none exists. Their career may have been excellent, but public servants are not generally notable. I have rejected the draft to save you from a load of work and heartache. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:58, 22 October 2025 review of submission by Le gen dary tlo

Hello, my draft about Nigerian Afrobeat artist Le gen dary (Meshach Akhuetiemhen) was declined for notability. I would like advice on how to improve the article so it meets Wikipedia’s notability requirements for musicians. The artist has released an EP (Roots and Rhythm, 2025) and has been featured in several online articles and press releases. Could you please guide me on what types of reliable sources or references I need to add, and how to properly format them? Le gen dary tlo (talk) 11:58, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Le gen dary tlo: rejected, and now deleted. Please do not attempt to use Wikipedia to promote anything or anyone. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, my draft about Nigerian Afrobeat artist Le gen dary (Meshach Akhuetiemhen) was declined for “not sufficiently notable.” I would like guidance on how to improve it so it meets Wikipedia’s notability requirements for musicians. The artist released an EP titled Roots and Rhythm in 2025 and has been covered in online news articles and music blogs. Could someone please explain what kind of reliable, independent sources I need to add or how to format them properly? Thank you for your help. Le gen dary tlo (talk) 12:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was wholly promotional and has been deleted. "Rising" musicians almost never merit articles; a musician must have already arrived and receive coverage in independent reliable sources that shows how they meet at least one aspect of the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician.
Writing about yourself is ill advised, please see the autobiography policy. I suggest that you go on about your career as if Wikipedia did not exist; once you are truly notable someone independent of you will write about you. 331dot (talk) 12:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:23, 22 October 2025 review of submission by 2601:282:2:A8B0:F0EB:34B2:290:E327

I don't know how this page keeps getting denied, specifically for the reasons listed. Especially as similar pages like this one exist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NewStore.

I see the reasons, I make the changes and it still gets denied... 2601:282:2:A8B0:F0EB:34B2:290:E327 (talk) 13:23, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No references = no article. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:54, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And frankly, NewStore is a terrible article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 14:35, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano it is terrible, but it is good to have folk show us terrible articles. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NewStore where the community will decide whether to retain or delete it. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:12, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see other stuff exists. 331dot (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:13, 22 October 2025 review of submission by BrownCanary61

I want to submit it for a review but review option is not appearing. BrownCanary61 (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection is typically the end of the line for a draft. If you have fundamentally changed the draft to address the concerns of prior reviews, you should first attempt to appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly and ask them to reconsider. 331dot (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have already sent a message to the editor User:Seawolf35 who had rejected it but did not receive any response. I have now added independent and reliable sources to this draft. But even now people are commenting on this draft that the sources are not reliable and independent. Please help me. All the sources I have added are from Indian news agencies like Amar Ujala, Hindustan newspaper and Amrit Vichar newspaper. All sources are independent and reliable. BrownCanary61 (talk) 06:01, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownCanary61: please don't post the same message in multiple places, I've just responded to this on the AfC project talk page (which was the wrong place to do that, but there you go!). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:34, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Thank you. BrownCanary61 (talk) 06:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:16, 22 October 2025 review of submission by EditorGenomics2025

Hi! I’ve written an article at [Draft:Octavian Bucur] and would like it reviewed and moved to main spaced. Could someone please help me with that? Thanks! EditorGenomics2025 (talk) 17:16, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the appropriate information to allow you to submit the draft for review. For future reference this is provided if you create drafts via the Article Wizard. 331dot (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EditorGenomics2025 I have left you a comment to assist you prior tp your first review. Bizarrely this posted first for @331dot. I have removed the notification form their user talk page, made an edit to the template they added, and placed the notification on your user talk page. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


October 23

00:14, 23 October 2025 review of submission by EthK34

The submission of my article was declined due to the existence of the "Metalloproteinase" Wikipedia article. However, I feel that my page is very different as it is much more specialized, detailing a specific subclass of enzyme, compared to the more general overview of Metalloproteinase as described in this other article. I was hoping you could provide info regarding what specifically in my article is too similar to this other article that is preventing it from being accepted. Thank you. EthK34 (talk) 00:14, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EthK34 Please consult your course tutor, as requested on your user talk page, if this is part of your WikiEd course. If the draft is important to your grade please do nothing to prejudice that grade.
With respect to the article and the draft, we do not use Draft space to prepare replacement articles. if you wish to edit Metalloproteinase please go ahead and edit it. By this I do not mean you should make a wholesale replacement. What you should do is to enhance it with properly referenced material where it is susceptible to enhancement. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:35, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

00:20, 23 October 2025 review of submission by KennethBaclawski

I received an email that I or someone on my behalf has tried to create a Wikipedia page with title "Washington Academy of Sciences". I have not tried to do this. I am on the Board of Managers of the Washington Academy of Sciences. What should I do about someone trying to create a Wikipedia page on my behalf? KennethBaclawski (talk) 00:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @KennethBaclawski, and welcome to Wikipedia! You do not need to do anything - but I would be very wary of people contacting you about this draft, or indeed about Wikipedia in general, as there are many scammers who will try to get money out of you. Please see WP:SCAM for more details, and report anyone who attempts to scam you using the information on that page. Best wishes, Meadowlark (talk) 01:44, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@KennethBaclawski if you look at the draft you can see that it was created by Drabmuh. You will see that they have commented on their relationship in a discussion on their user talk page. It appears likely that they are known to you and you to them since they and you have each declared a relationship with the organisation.
Please use normal caution; this is the internet. While we have no reason to believe nor to disbelieve either of you, anyone can say that they are anyone, so it is up to you and to them to check each other's bona fides. I say this without intending to cast aspersions on either of you, and in the hope that you see that with clarity. Please, however, See WP:OUTING and act with public awareness of privacy.
Both parties do need to be aware of WP:SCAM. Money should not be solicited nor change hands. I am not suggesting that this has been the case here.
Note, please, that anyone may create an article about any topic on Wikipedia provided it meets our acceptance criteria. The creation of a draft or an article should be of no concern to you, but a simple matter of pleasant surprise that one may be forthcoming. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:49, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:29, 23 October 2025 review of submission by Kushal079

Help me review and publish this article Kushal079 (talk) 08:29, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kushal079: we don't do on-demand reviews here at the help desk. You have submitted the draft, and it is awaiting review. Please be patient. As it says on top of the draft, "This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,093 pending submissions waiting for review." -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kushal079 no Declined Please do not use an AI chatbot to create drafts here. Instead use your own words, Please read HELP:YFA. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:38, 23 October 2025 review of submission by Hhc rajdeep

I am creating a draft article about Dr. Ashwin Porwal, an Indian colorectal surgeon based in Pune. The draft covers his biography, career, and innovations in anorectal surgery.

I am seeking guidance because the previous submissions were not accepted. I would like feedback on whether the current references demonstrate sufficient independent coverage to meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria for biographies of living persons, and advice on improving the draft to make it acceptable for Wikipedia.

Current references include coverage from The Indian Express, Times of India, India Today, Asia Book of Records, and an international patent. Hhc rajdeep (talk) 08:38, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hhc rajdeep: we don't do pre-reviews here at the help desk, but I can tell you that the sources currently cited do not establish notability, because they are the subject commenting on things (plus that one patent citation, which contributes nothing).
Please do not remove the earlier declines from the draft, they must remain there until the draft is accepted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:48, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do I need more to get the article published
Can you guide me Hhc rajdeep (talk) 09:38, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hhc rajdeep You have not done sufficient research. I suggest you read this essay, which has a process for researching and storyboarding a draft. Finding references whcih verify notability is the only place to start. Writing the draft is the final task in an article creation process. We are not looking for a great swathe of text, nor a huge number of references. We are looking for a precisely written draft from excellent references, neither too many too few. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:43, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hhc rajdeep: you will need to show that the subject meets the general notability guideline WP:GNG, or possibly the one for academics WP:NPROF. However, please be aware that the vast majority of surgeons and physicians are not notable, so you may well be on a hiding to nothing. My local hospital is a large teaching hospital of one of the top-3 medical schools in the world, and I am almost certain none of their surgeons have Wikipedia articles, or at most a few might do, but they are likely to have knight-/damehoods or other significant honours and/or senior positions at the university. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:46, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then can we work on the wikipedia article of Healing Hands Clinic as it an established private hospital in India just like the ones Ruby Hall Clinic, Jehangir Hospital, Sahyadri Hospitals
Kindly guide me regarding the same. Hhc rajdeep (talk) 09:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hhc rajdeep: you may be able to, if you find sources that demonstrate notability, in this case according to the WP:NCORP guideline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:54, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hhc rajdeep The whole url is not needed when linking to other Wikipedia articles or pages, I've fixed this. 331dot (talk) 11:07, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hhc rajdeep I wonder whether you read what I have said to you. My guidance to you is the same. The same guidance is valid for any article creation. To help you, here is what I said:
You have not done sufficient research. I suggest you read this essay, which has a process for researching and storyboarding a draft. Finding references whcih verify notability is the only place to start. Writing the draft is the final task in an article creation process. We are not looking for a great swathe of text, nor a huge number of references. We are looking for a precisely written draft from excellent references, neither too many too few.
I truly do not mind whether you read my words or not, but I do find it peculiar when you ask fr guidance twice in one thread. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:15, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hhc rajdeep I see you are creating a walled garden of drafts to promote Ashwin Porwal and his clinic. In June you inserted many promotional paragraphs into mainspace articles seeking to promote the clinic and Porwal. This failed and you received a number of warnings. DoubleGrazing, 331dot, and I have tried to assist you, but I am now certain that you at WP:NOTHERE. The declaration of paid editing is not a licence to promote the organisations who are paying you. You have stretched my good faith beyond its elastic limit. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention to promote or advertise the company or the Dr. I have read the sources and I am grateful for the help. I will check notability, proper articles and references and then get back to editing. Sorry for any trouble. Hhc rajdeep (talk) 07:50, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hhc rajdeep I think it unlikely that you will be able to get your invoice paid. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:11, 23 October 2025 review of submission by 2A0A:EF40:1624:B301:157A:9166:7446:888D

Re Reliable Sources Ive quoted the Book the world record is published in and provided copies of the documents. What other evidence do you require? I have some congratulatory notes from different organisations, but I would have thought the Book was sufficient? 2A0A:EF40:1624:B301:157A:9166:7446:888D (talk) 12:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the creator of the draft, remember to log in when posting. As you took all the images, please disclose your connection to this event, see WP:COI.
Guinness in and of itself confers no notability, we need significant coverage in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 12:31, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would help a great deal is the draft had not been AI generated. it has all the hallmarks of AI generation, and needs to be written by a human being.
The images are being handled on Wikimedia Commons, through processes there. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:53, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:58, 23 October 2025 review of submission by Jasxbaguio

I want to upload a biography of someone notable here in Doha. I really want to publish an article about him. Please help me craft an article Jasxbaguio (talk) 12:58, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jasxbaguio: then find 3-5 high-quality sources that meet the WP:GNG standard, and summarise what they have said. This process is outlined in WP:GOLDENRULE, and at WP:YFA you can find pretty much all the advice you need to create your first article draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:59, 23 October 2025 review of submission by Dr.DeveshChaturvedi

Hello, I saw you deleted a draft I created about Dr. Devesh Chaturvedi, an IAS Officer. He holds a really high, significant position in Govt. of India. I understand you might not be aware of this but it was just a draft I made and I was still editing it. Wikipedia told me I can edit drafts and review them based on the submissions and comments left by reviewers. Why would you DELETE it? It has literally been 24 hours and it was not even published. I will now have to recreate the draft, I can't even find a way to reuse the details from the previous drafts. Dr.DeveshChaturvedi (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, you are speaking about Dr. Chaturvedi as if you are not him, but you are using his name as your username. You shouldn't be doing that unless you are him. If you are not him, you need to immediately request a change of username via Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS.
You disclosed a COI on the draft itself; please also do so on your user page for better visibility, see WP:COI. A photo used in your draft says it is a work of the Indian government; if you are employed by the Indian government, the Terms of Use require you to declare as a paid editor, see WP:PAID.
Your draft was deleted as wholly promotional; it was little more than his resume. A Wikipedia article summarizes what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about people that meet the definition of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 14:07, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr.DeveshChaturvedi: it was purely promotional, with zero indication that the subject is notable, and completely unreferenced as well. In any case, autobiographies are very strongly discouraged, see WP:AUTOBIO. If you wish to tell the world about yourself and your exploits, you need to do that on a different platform, such as LinkedIn. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:08, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:44, 23 October 2025 review of submission by 64.8.144.211

I would like to have this page published, please tell me how I can 64.8.144.211 (talk) 15:44, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can't, it has been rejected. It's a single sentence that has no sources. Writing a new article is the most difficult task on Wikipedia, please get some experience editing before attempting it. See Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:54, 23 October 2025 review of submission by 2001:579:2430:3710:5D7C:E5EC:7C00:5D57

This article satisfies WP:GNG with significant coverage in independent reliable sources (Playbill, IBDB, BroadwayWorld, Palm Beach Post) documenting Broadway credits with Al Pacino/Kathleen Turner and regional premieres, plus WP:PROF#C1 as UF associate professor with extensive theatre scholarship. All claims verified via primary (IBDB) and secondary sources. Ready for mainspace.

Please, there seems no suitable reason to continue denial of this article as there are similar articles published with not even half the notability presented here. I urge publication of this as submitted, or any suggestions that will help me achieve this goal. Thank you so much for consideration. 2001:579:2430:3710:5D7C:E5EC:7C00:5D57 (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see two or three references that exist.The rest are red errors. One of the reference that exist is to IMDB which is unsuitable 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 18:15, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:16, 23 October 2025 review of submission by JValle21

Hello, I’m reaching out regarding our submission titled Draft:Paystand. It has been more than 30 days since we submitted the article, and we have not yet received a review or response. We would appreciate any update on its current status or next steps.

We’re happy to provide any additional information if needed.

Thank you very much for your time and assistance.

Best regards JValle21 (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @JValle21. Who is "we"? Accounts can only be used by one person. If you are employed by this company you must declare this by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Failure to do so is a breach of our Terms and Conditions.
Note also the top of the draft which states This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. qcne (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JValle21: disregarding the pointless resubmission just a moment ago, this draft was most recently submitted on 1 Oct, which is c. 3 weeks ago. It will be reviewed in due course, once a reviewer gets around to it. Please be patient. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-wiki LLM slop

This page's creator also submitted pt:Jorge Patrão to Portuguese WIkipedia mainspace. I don't speak Portuguese (though I can read it a bit because of its similarity to Spanish), but I suspect that article is LLM-generated too because of its overuse of boldface and dashes. I've attempted to PROD that version but I'm not sure if I've done it right, so if any reviewers here are active on ptwiki, I'd appreciate it if they could check that page and fix any template errors (or remove the template if they think it's not LLM-generated). —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 18:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:23, 23 October 2025 review of submission by AmandaK1987

I see other pages pertaining to Health Departments in the United States. What is the difference between those and this? AmandaK1987 (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @AmandaK1987. Your draft was a comparison/how to guide/directory. That is fundamentally at odds with Wikipedia. If you find any other articles that do not meet our criteria please do nominate them for deletion. qcne (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This draft was not a comparison/how to guide/ directory. Now you I have lost all of my work for my class assignment. By it being deleted. AmandaK1987 (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It absolutely was a how-to guide/comparison. That is why I rejected it. I also left a message on your User Talk page about the class assignment. qcne (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who once made a Wikipedia article for a class assignment, I wrote the text in Google Drive before publishing it. The article, First Chinese Baptist Church of San Francisco, is written in an encyclopedic tone and provides an overview of the topic, such as the church's history and physical structure. I also did it after having written dozens of other articles. Just from the title alone, this article would read as a directory for public services rather than an overview of the history/role/functions of a Kansas public health department. You could perhaps start with Public Health Department of Kansas (or correct name) in a similar style and structure the articles on the main page are laid out. GGOTCC 23:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This draft was strictly informational- as no where on Wikipedia do you have this information about local health departments in the state of kansas. AmandaK1987 (talk) 19:35, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Articles about health departments should be summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the particular department, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. They shouldn't be comparing services or just describing them. We draw no distinction between "informational" and "promotional" here, see WP:YESPROMO.
It is a poor and unfair assignment to give you to require you to create a Wikipedia article. It puts you under pressure while we aren't concerned with tasks you have been assigned. Your teacher should review the Wikipedia Education Program material so they can design lessons that put less pressure on students and benefit Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you also using the account User:Ajk4955? Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 21:07, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:19, 23 October 2025 review of submission by Stephengalgocy1

Hi! Could someone please move my sandbox submission for Interactive Entertainment Group, Inc. to the Draft namespace? It’s currently awaiting review but shows the “should be moved” warning. Thank you! — Stephengalgocy1 (talk) 21:19, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's now at Draft:Interactive Entertainment Group. We don't generally have inc in titles, though if there is some reason to the accepting reviewer can place it there. 331dot (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:42, 23 October 2025 review of submission by Emmonsemmo

Hi there!

I've done my best to review this page 4-5 times now and made every adjustment possible. There are many comparable prodjects with pages that are far less objective in nature than the one prepared here. Just confused as to what more needs to be done to get this published and hence curious if someone can give more feedback. Appreciate all the help otherwise. Emmonsemmo (talk) 23:42, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Emmonsemmo, when I look at your draft my first question is: how does this company qualify for a Wikipedia article? There's a specific guideline, WP:NCORP, and it also tells you what sort of things do not help show that the company qualifies (at WP:CORPTRIV). Your aim is to find three or more sources that all meet the triple criteria at WP:42 and also indicate that the company meets WP:NCORP in some way. Most companies don't, which is why creating an article for them can be very frustrating and often impossible.
When it comes to other companies/projects that have articles - often, these have been created in the 'wild west' of Wikipedia's early days and no one's looked at them much since then. It's also possible for people to create articles directly in mainspace that never get reviewed. If you've spotted articles you think shouldn't exist, please link them here or at least give us some names - we can't act on them unless we know about them! If you bring them to our attention, we can do something about them. I hope this is all of some help. Meadowlark (talk) 23:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Emmonsemmo Please see other stuff exists. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and just not yet addressed by a volunteer. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible, in many ways, for inappropriate content to get by us. This cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. Please tell us what this other inappropriate content is so we can address it and avoid others doing what you did. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles, which have received community vetting. Don't use any random article. 331dot (talk) 23:58, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 24

03:11, 24 October 2025 review of submission by Nguyễn Đăng Tráng

Hello Wikipedia team, My article about CafeScore was not approved. Could someone please help me understand specifically what I need to improve or add to the article for it to be approved? Thank you very much. Nguyễn Đăng Tráng (talk) 03:11, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nguyễn Đăng Tráng, please read the boxes inside the decline notices at the top of the page. There are two main issues:
In addition to Nil NZ, the single reference appears to be sponsored news, which is not a reliable or independent source. If you are affiliated with CafeScore, this should be disclosed per WP:COI and WP:PAID. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:01, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Nguyễn Đăng Tráng. 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) 12:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:26, 24 October 2025 review of submission by Eitan577

Editor's talk page shows warnings against making personal attacks. I feel that the usefulness of this thread has expired, and that we are now in ANI territory. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:18, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi, I’ve resubmitted Draft:CYE (company) after addressing all previous feedback (added independent reliable sources and rewrote the text for a neutral tone). Would someone be able to take another look? Thank you! Eitan577 (talk) 07:26, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Eitan577 I did. You need to rewrite this from the bottom up assuming you can verify that it passes WP:NCORP. Despite your user talk page protestation that you have written this by your own hand it has all the hallmarks of AI generation. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:28, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Eitan577 You have alleged that editors are discriminating against your draft because it is an Israeli company. If you have evidence of discrimination please take that evidence to WP:ANI as I have suggested in a very firm warning against making accusations of discrimination on your user talk page. If you have no evidence please apologise and withdraw those allegations.
Making personal attacks, even generalised ones, is deprecated behaviour. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

08:16, 24 October 2025 review of submission by Independentwriter8

I'm not sure how to improve so it doesn't read as much as an advertisement. In my opinion it reads very similar to the Wikipedia page from Kärcher (my main inspiration for this article). Their sources are also often their own website, but this company has existed for 90 years, so there's also some material available outside of their own website. i-team Global does not have it on that extend, but I've seen other Wikipedia pages who also don't have that many sources. Can someone help me improve? Independentwriter8 (talk) 08:16, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Independentwriter8 Yes. Do not use AI to generate your drafts. Use your own words. This requires a total rewrite. That is the best help I can give you. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:19, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Independentwriter8 Doyou have a relationship with the organisation, please? I have left a note about WP:COI on your user talk page. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:22, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see other stuff exists. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and just not yet addressed by a volunteer. There are many ways inappropriate content can exist, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. This is why it is a poor-if understandable- idea to use any random article as a model or example. If you want to do that, use those that are classified as good articles, which have received community vetting.
You(or your AI) has just documented the existence of the company and described its activities and offerings. Instead, you (you, not an AI) should 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.
If you are associated with this company, that needs to be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 08:23, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:51, 24 October 2025 review of submission by Jairzee

Hi There,

Could someone please let me know why my article failed the review process? I am trying to write a neutral article on TRIO Technical Solutions Ltd as a business, and although I am the MD of the company, I have declared in my user profile that I have a conflict of interest with the subject. I have used neutral language throughout the article, and tried to make it informational, as well as reference external awards sites where TRIO has been shortlisted or later won the award. It is in no way meant to be a 'sales piece', and so I would really appreciate some help and guidance on how to get this article accepted, please. Many thanks! 62.254.117.225 (talk) 08:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the creator of the draft, remember to log in when posting. The creator of the draft disclosed a conflict of interest, but if you are them, and you work for the company, you must make the stricter paid editing disclosure instead, a requirement of the Terms of Use.
I fixed your header, you need the full title of the draft when linking(including the "Draft:" portion).
You are making a very common, but fundamental error, in that you are telling us what you want the world to know about your company, like its activities and offerings. That is the wrong approach. You call this "informational"; Wikipedia is not for merely providing information, we consider that promotional here, see WP:YESPROMO, you don't have to be actively soliciting customers or selling something. Instead, you must gather and 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. This should not include staff interviews, press releases, brief mentions, or the mere reporting of routine business activities. 331dot (talk) 08:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draft deleted as the request of the author. 331dot (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:43, 24 October 2025 review of submission by Malik Umar Hayat

What I should change to make this article best Malik Umar Hayat (talk) 09:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd start by adding references, as you have none. Please see Referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot It appears to be AI Slop 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:31, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:23, 24 October 2025 review of submission by RitzOne

as this information is important for the general public to know , i request to to re-consider the deletion of this page , its authentic and important knowledge for the users of this site RitzOne (talk) 10:23, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Draft deleted, user blocked.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:27, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:37, 24 October 2025 review of submission by Edouglasww

I am once again struggling to get an answer on why a New York band with six albums and countless awards over their 14-year career is not being accepted to Wikipedia. I just added another source from an article in a prominent New York newspaper about the band's new single and a launch for their new music video (something organized solely by the band), and yes, there's an interview component but this isn't just some "blog." One of the band's singers just appeared on a popular and prominent national television competition series, as well. I have spent a lot of time researching and writing this entry and updating it to meet the Wiki standards and now one Safari Scribe has had a STOP put on it, so I can't even resubmit with the changes for reevaluation, and there doesn't seem to be anyone there to actually HELP get these articles published. Why is that? Edouglasww (talk) 12:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Edouglasww Which elements of WP:NMUSICIAN/WP:NBAND do you rely on to suggest that the draft is to be accepted? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:40, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Has won first, second, or third place in a major music competition."
Main songwriter John W is a three-time winner of The John Lennon Songwriting Contest
https://jlsc.com/, which is referred to on this Wiki page:
Songwriting competition
And it was mentioned at least once when it won (as well as a source to when he was a finalist). I've removed many other sources already, because I was told they were unreliable. I was up to 40 sources at one point. Edouglasww (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Though the Lennon contest is mentioned in that article, it doesn't yet have an article itself that shows it is a "major competition". 331dot (talk) 13:00, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm moving on. I've wasted too much of my time and life with this site already. Edouglasww (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to hear that. Unless you have a COI, you are free to disregard what more experienced people are telling you and move the draft into the encyclopedia yourself, as this process is usually voluntary. However, you would be rolling the dice that it wouldn't be nominated for a deletion discussion. 331dot (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merely releasing albums does not confer notability, as with the internet anyone can post music to the public. If an album or song charts, then there is notability. 331dot (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I did not realize this was an option, but the only reason why I have been so adamant about having my entry accepted is because during the course of me writing and trying to get it approved, I have seen many other bands on Wikipedia that do not meet the criteria as far as airplay, charting, etc. I'm not going to mention names but I saw a band opening at a concert who I had never heard of, and as most people do, I went looking for more information right here on Wikipedia, and they were listed with zero albums, no charting, etc. So clearly, people have been getting pages for other bands/musicians approved, while I've struggled, while spending time that I should be using for my paid writing gigs. I'm not sure being a band's fan and wanting to have more info about them in one place would be considered a COI, would it? Edouglasww (talk) 13:15, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See other crap exists. Theroadislong (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Edouglasww Being a fan is not a COI. But it can be mistaken for one if the person is so much of a fan that their personal investment in the topic acts as rose colored glasses, preventing them from hearing what more dispassionate people are saying.
That other articles exist does not necessarily mean that they were "approved" by anyone- or, if they were, that they meet current standards(depending on when the approval was done). This is why each article or draft is judged on their own merits and not based on the presence of other articles.
You said you have been a journalist for 30 years. I'm guessing that you thought that would be perfect experience for writing a Wikipedia article, and it certainly doesn't hurt. But writing for Wikipedia is very different than journalistic writing, as you are finding out. We usually recommend that new/inexperienced users not dive right in to creating articles- the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia- without first getting experience editing existing articles. Otherwise users often end up as you have- frustrated and angry as things are happening to, work you spent hours on about a topic that you personally enjoy, that you don't understand. I'm sorry this has happened. 331dot (talk) 14:46, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thanks for explaining. Edouglasww (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say that some of the worst writing I've seen on Wikipedia has been by people claiming to be journalists. I recall one some years ago who got all huffy when his highly non-neutral unsourced prose got reverted, as if being a journalist bestowed a presumption of correctness, and eventually left without ever accepting any advice. It is gratifying to see that Edouglasww has been receptive to feedback.
That said, @Edouglasww: there are many ways described in WP:BAND for a band to merit an article here. If going through that list doesn't turn up any met criteria, then it's best to move on to something else. It may be WP:TOOSOON, so the draft can be revisited later. If it gets deleted after six months of inactivity, it can be restored easily simply by making a request at WP:REFUND. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:43, 24 October 2025 review of submission by Agorgey737

I recently developed an article introducing my bio as a research scientist. It appears that the article does not meet the criteria of Wikipedia. I really appreciate help and support to edit my article and hopefully, it possible published by Wikipedia. Agorgey737 (talk) 13:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Agorgey737 It seems that an AI Chatbot developed the article and you took that material and risked whatever it said. Please do not use AI to create anything.
You need to check WP:NPROF and work out if you pass. Then, if you do, you need to destroy 100% of the AI generated slop and consider whether you are the person to create an article on yourself. Are you able to be sufficiently neutral about yourself to write objectively? Fewer than 5% of people are. Even if you think you are able to do it, why do you want to appear? Wikipedia does not enhance your reputation; you must enhance Wikipedia. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Agorgey737. Please read our autobiography policy, and remember that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. And that is even without a conflict of interest. ColinFine (talk) 12:16, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:22, 24 October 2025 review of submission by Jam.mckit00863872sd

im dumb Jam.mckit00863872sd (talk) 14:22, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jam.mckit00863872sd. That's okay. Wikipedia is really difficult for new editors. Have a read of our core policies and guidelines in an easy to understand way at Wikipedia:Everything you need to know. qcne (talk) 14:23, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked as !HERE. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:49, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:11, 24 October 2025 review of submission by 92.77.57.38

Sure von relevance 92.77.57.38 (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has been rejected and will not be considered further. qcne (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
sure relevant as other List of historian political parties politicians. --92.77.57.38 (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except that almost all of the persons named in this list do not have articles. The purpose of a list article is to list members of the list that have articles. 331dot (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was resubmitted multiple times without any changes. If there's an indication of being unresponsive to the previous declines messages, there's no reason for reviewers to keep spending time on it.  hekatlys ✉  18:40, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

mayor or city official list directory

I am curious when the list of city , state, county, etc. names officially will come out to ease my mind a little on the matters of my grandma being a city mayor. Jam.mckit00863872sd (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to make the list yourself with reliable citations included to serve as the source of the information. However, a list of mayors in a town smaller than my highschool graduating class will likely fail to pass Wikipedia:Notability (politics) and may be deleted after a discussion. GGOTCC 16:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no master schedule for when content is added to Wikipedia. Everything is based on unpaid volunteers, and their interests/willingness is what dictates the topics of articles. GGOTCC 16:50, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, this guy is blocked. GGOTCC 16:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:54, 24 October 2025 review of submission by 92.77.57.38

Sure relevant 92.77.57.38 (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Do you have a question regarding Articles for Creation? GGOTCC 18:26, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's been rejected, meaning it won't be considered further. Move on to something else. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:58, 24 October 2025 review of submission by Dswisener

"they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject..." I've cited a biographical piece in the "Wall Street Journal," one in the "Nashville Post," one from the "Chicago Tribune," one from "Modern Healthcare," one from "Reuters." These are articles either entirely about him or largely pertaining to him. Along with several other resources for a guy who is largely responsible for establishing a Fortune 20 company, has a Deanship named for him at Washington and Lee University, and was integral along with two Heisman Trophy winners in selecting a football coach at Auburn University then auditing its athletic department. Dswisener (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've got junk sources in there, such as Investopedia, routine announcements, and press releases. I suggest you clean those up before resubmitting. In particular Investopedia is an unreliable source, and including it is a red flag that would trigger a decline, and since it's your first source, a reviewer isn't likely to waste time looking further because the creator of the draft didn't review it properly first.
Which three sources do you think meet all three criteria in WP:Golden Rule? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You need multiple significant coverage in reliable independent sources. I only see sig cov of the subject in Investopedia and Super Money. The rest are mentions. Investopedia is flagged as a unreliable source and the SuperMoney article also read like as not independent. So I think you need to find two good sources that discuss him for 250 words or more. (Also, on another note, 8 inline citations for one fact is over the top. Also, I would name the page Mac Crawford.) MmeMaigret (talk) 06:38, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:33, 24 October 2025 review of submission by ScratchMC

Hello,

Would you be able to point to the specific reason(s) my page keeps getting declined? Happy to make any necessary adjustments. Thank you! ScratchMC (talk) 21:33, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't actually been declined, the AI you used to write it put the decline notice. Please review WP:LLM for guidance on AI use. 331dot (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated this for speedy deletion as unreviewed AI slop that includes a pre-declined review template in the very first edit as well as citations only to company pages and press releases. Really, you should know better. See WP:Golden Rule for starters. You can use an AI to help you find sources that meet Golden Rule criteria, but you should really write the article yourself, only after you find sources. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:56, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 25

06:20, 25 October 2025 review of submission by Mmemaigret

This draft was started by someone else. I revised it and, when I thought it was ready, submitted it for AfC review. (This was before I had reviewer rights myself).

The draft has been declined for encyclopedic tone/peacock terms. I've reviewed it again and I don't know what the reviewer is referring to so I'm struggling as to what to change.

I'd appreciate suggestions about what can be changed so that the article seems more neutral/objective.

Thanks MmeMaigret (talk) 06:20, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only peacock term I see might be "community leader" but that isn't the reason it was declined. To me it's borderline hagiography. You would get a more complete explanation if you asked the reviewer, Josedimaria. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 07:06, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist I've since found the word "prestigious". So I'll change that too before resubmitting. Thanks MmeMaigret (talk) 07:13, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mmemaigret: I'm not quite sure, either. Have you asked the reviewer? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:06, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mmemaigret I think we have just seen that human beings are fallible. All of us make mistakes. Your draft has, as you will know already, been Accepted by a different reviewer. Thank you for bringing this question here. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:26, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's all good. With an overabundance of caution, I removed any word that might be taken as subjective and resubmitted it and it was accepted. Thanks all. MmeMaigret (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:19, 25 October 2025 review of submission by 2A0D:3344:3090:3908:68AF:4BA5:90D0:38A7

.. 2A0D:3344:3090:3908:68AF:4BA5:90D0:38A7 (talk) 10:19, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected twice.🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 10:21, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:19, 25 October 2025 review of submission by Thomas.flynn

Having carried out considerable research and reviewed your guidelines, I believe this now meets and qualifies for a Wiki article. Does this now not show significant coverage about British restaurateur, Jeremy King with reliable published sources, indecent of the subject?

If not, I would appreciate some feedback as to where it falls short.

Thomas 

Thomas Flynn (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why are there two drafts on this same subject? There's Draft:Jeremy King and Draft:Jeremy King (restaurateur).
Please don't waste reviewer time with this confusion.
I wouldn't review either one until they are merged and one is submitted for review. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist They seem independently created. King may have come to public notice around the time each was created. I don't see the harm in reviewing either or both of them. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:57, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thomas.flynn no Declined with rationale. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:45, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thomas.flynn What I ad not realised until I no Declined the other one is that you are the submitter of both for review. That is gaming the system. Work on one and abandon the other. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:50, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How's does one delete the first (Draft:Jeremy King) This draft should be immediately deleted. I've already placed the {{delete|reason}} template at the very top. Thomas Flynn (talk) 16:53, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise. I am trying to delete the first - Draft:Jeremy King Thomas Flynn (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thomas.flynn: you cannot delete a page, since you are not an administrator. You can request speedy deletion, but that will be declined, since you are not the sole author of that draft. (In any case, you placed the deletion request inside 'nowiki' wrappers, so it won't even be seen by an admin.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The creator of Draft:Jeremy King is a disclosed paid editor who hasn't made any edits since he created that draft in July. I think @Thomas.flynn should pick anything that can be useful and update his draft with that material, and then submit just that draft. I would prefer seeing a draft from someone without a COI, and lose the paid-edit version. Thomas.flynn doesn't have many edits but he's been around for more than a decade. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I'm just editing my version and have followed the advice of removing inline links and added the relevant external links and further reading sections. Thomas Flynn (talk) 17:39, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Salvage what you can from the other version, and then I can delete it as a duplicate. Let me know when you're done. Don't resubmit yours until you have addressed the problems described in the recent declines. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you — done. You can now delete and I will update mine as per your advice. Thomas Flynn (talk) 18:21, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In particular, any sources in the other version that meet all three criteria in WP:Golden Rule, you should definitely use in your version. Those are the kind of sources that reviewers want to see. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. Thomas Flynn (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting reconsideration of rejection — Draft:Funktasy

Hello, I’m requesting a review of the decision made on October 25, 2025, where Draft:Funktasy was rejected by reviewer ZyphorianNexus for “not sufficiently notable.” The draft includes multiple independent, reliable, and secondary sources establishing notability per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, including: CBC News – Meta suspended his business’s social accounts — it took him a month to reach a human (national coverage) MSN News – syndicated version of the CBC article TipRanks – reference to the CBC coverage Amsterdam Dance Event – Hoss listed as an official ADE artist The article has been fully rewritten for neutrality, fixed for citation errors, and verified to use reliable, independent sources. Would it please be possible for an experienced reviewer or administrator to reopen the draft for re-evaluation? Thank you very much for your time and consideration. - Tanya Musicwikiwiki (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @ZyphorianNexus qcne (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Musicwikiwiki thank you for taking the time to improve the draft.
I've re-examined Draft:Funktasy, and my initial concern remains that the topic does not yet demonstrate significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources as required by WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.
The cited CBC/MSN article focuses primarily on Meta's account-suspension issue, not on Funktasy itself in a manner that provides substantial, in-depth coverage. Likewise, listings such as Amsterdam Dance Event are considered routine mentions rather than independent coverage. TipRanks' reference merely repeats what CBC already covered and thus does not add new, independent analysis.
While I did notice some improvements to neutrality and formatting in the page's history, notability depends on depth and independence of coverage, not on the number of citations or the subject's online presence.
After checking the cited sources and searching for additional coverage, I was unable to find any independent, non-trivial, in-depth sources that would establish notability. If such sources become available — for instance, features or profiles about Funktasy in major, independent publications — the draft could be reconsidered. For now, I do believe the decline remains appropriate per policy. ZyphorianNexus Talk 18:32, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1318740595"