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 Timtrent (talk | contribs) at 14:39, 2 November 2025 (→12:38, 2 November 2025 review of submission by New Music Citizen: 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 27

00:35, 27 October 2025 review of submission by Utterpoll

What should be added Utterpoll (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a connection to her beyond taking her picture? Please see WP:COI.
You have little independent coverage of her, mostly her website and documentation of her work. 331dot (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:12, 27 October 2025 review of submission by O S Prasanth

My article was rejected. Kindly guide how to re submit with additional details. O S Prasanth (talk) 02:12, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i have submitted all the reference for the notability, he was a notable person in the state of Bihar, as a special secretary education. Most of the news are confined to Bihar state as his area of work is in Bihar state. Most of The reference submitted by me is in hindi, will it be a reason for rejection ? O S Prasanth (talk) 02:15, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was rejected, not declined. That means stop, end of the line, it cannot be resubmitted, it will not be considered further, move on to something else. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:42, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:46, 27 October 2025 review of submission by Fivelidz5lidz

I have made extensive edits to this page after each rejection. There is no promotional language. There is no LLM usage. The page keeps getting rejected with little guidance.

Can I please have some help here? Fivelidz5lidz (talk) 02:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You removed some stuff, yes, but if it was LLM generated you didn't do much rewriting, just removing. It still has promotional language (the unsubstantiated puffery such as "unique in the health data ecosystem", and it still shows an LLM's penchant for using conjunctions, especially in headings. The Athaltec News citations look like churnalism (press releases rewritten by a journalist). ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:39, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:45, 27 October 2025 review of submission by Korea2100

i want to know where I have issues to be able to fix it Korea2100 (talk) 03:45, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:N 🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 04:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:17, 27 October 2025 review of submission by Hooky6

Hi, can someone please help me understand what would need to be changed to resubmit this article for creation? I noticed that every previous Christmas album that the Tabernacle Choir has released has its own Wikipedia article, so it would be puzzling if this one didn't also warrant its own article. Also, there are only so many "reliable" sources one can cite when it comes to creating an article about a music album, but I don't think that disqualifies its creation or renders it less "noteworthy" - it clearly exists. Please advise. Hooky6 (talk) 04:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hooky6, mere existence is not enough for something to be on Wikipedia - otherwise we would have to have articles for every person, place, company, event, or thing...that has ever existed. This is obviously impossible. Instead things have to be notable by Wikipedia's definition, which is considerably more narrow. It's completely possible for one album (or many) from a group to be notable (because critics have reviewed it and it has received extensive media coverage) while another is not. In the same vein, a book may be notable while the sequel isn't and perhaps even the author isn't; one sports star may be notable while another on their team may not be - and so on. If there aren't many reliable sources for something, it probably doesn't qualify for an article. This is always disappointing, but 99% of things/people/companies/etc simply don't qualify. If you've looked and can't find the sources, it's best to move onto something else. Meadowlark (talk) 05:31, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So why do articles exist for all the other Tabernacle Choir Christmas albums? Are they "notable", but this one isn't? If the argument is that this album is not "notable," then I would argue that none of the others should be considered that way either. Hooky6 (talk) 06:21, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You have to explain how this album is notable, their other albums being notable is irrelevant. Ultraodan (talk) 06:28, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well let me do that then. If you define it strictly by whether it's mentioned by reliable, third-party sources, then here are some sources that talk about it. Since this is a concert-based album, it seems reasonable that sources that review the concert can also be presumed to review the album as well.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nancyberk/2020/12/11/kelli-ohara-and-richard-thomas-featured-in-17th-annual-christmas-with-the-tabernacle-choir/
https://www.theatermania.com/news/kelli-ohara-richard-thomas-set-for-christmas-with-the-tabernacle-choir_91637/
https://www.tvinsider.com/965099/christmas-with-the-tabernacle-choir-kelli-ohara-richard-thomas-preview/
https://www.seattletimes.com/entertainment/kelli-ohara-richard-thomas-join-tabernacle-choir-christmas/
https://www.sltrib.com/artsliving/2019/12/12/performing-with/
Does that about cover it? Hooky6 (talk) 07:01, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hooky6: no, it doesn't work like that. As Meadowlark was explaining, it may be that this group's one album receives coverage, or gets certified gold, or hits the charts, etc., while another flops. The former would be notable, the latter might not be. It's only a question of whether an album meets the WP:NALBUM guideline; not whether it is by a group whose other albums have met that guideline, since notability is not inherited.
It's also possible that those other articles do not meet our notability guidelines, but they were perhaps created before the current guidelines were put in place, or they were created by someone who didn't have to put their creations through a pre-publication review.
In any case, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:29, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this album (and many of the choir's albums) has hit the charts, although I'm not a subscriber to Billboard and thus have no way to check that. Hooky6 (talk) 07:05, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You need to prove your claims, it's not up to others to do that. 331dot (talk) 09:47, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment above - I believe I have now done that, per Wikipedia's definition. Hooky6 (talk) 17:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hooky6: Let's test that theory.
When all of your usable sources are about "The event will happen", then you have no sources about "The event has happened and this is wot we think of it". —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:19, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The concert happened in December of 2019. Most of these sources were written in November or December of 2020, a full YEAR after the concert happened, and two months after the album was released. The album was released in October 2020.
So most of my sources ARE about an event that HAS ALREADY happened.
Regardless, with Tabernacle Choir Christmas concert albums, you just aren't going to get a whole news article saying "oh, by the way, an album was released for this concert." This is a tradition that has been going on for 20 years - EVERY Tabernacle Choir Christmas Concert gets an album released for it, and the fans already know that. There's nothing new to say about that, so no news organization is going to waste time covering that. Instead, they're going to review the CONCERT (for which the album is based). So it seems perfectly reasonable to me to use coverage of the concert as coverage for the album, since the album is just a recording of the concert and nothing more.
I don't get the hostility you Wikipedia editors have against people merely trying to Wikipedia:Be bold and actually create and edit stuff. Everything I try to do gets endlessly reverted. Hooky6 (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, relays information that is already covered in reliable sources independent of the subject. This allows anyone to check the source and make sure the information is correct. This policy allows Wikipedia to be reasonably reliable. The thing that "every fan knows" can not be proven unless their is a specific source, because you can not speak on behalf of a large group of people and assume they will agree on the same thing. If the topic is not covered in reliable, independent sources, then it is not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, is the last place something would be written about. If most of the sources you have access to only announce a concert and not the album, then the album is probably not notable, especially as the sources do not even mention it.
Your last claim is also incorrect. 17 of your edits have been reverted out of 406, or only 4% of your edits. GGOTCC 21:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you truly feel that it's the people with more experience than you that is the problem, you are free to disregard us and place the draft in the encyclopedia yourself; this process is usually voluntary. However, you'd be rolling the dice that it would not survive an Articles for Deletion discussion. 331dot (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:28, 27 October 2025 review of submission by RMNF1988

Why was the page not approved? the main references are from the person in question's own pages, social media, interviews, etc. RMNF1988 (talk) 09:28, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RMNF1988: the reasons are given in the decline notice. Namely, there is no evidence that this person is notable, and the draft is promotional in nature. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:35, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews and social media are not acceptable sources to establish notability. 331dot (talk) 09:47, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:16, 27 October 2025 review of submission by Ledukedestquentin

Hello. I am having a problem with the quality of references for this article. If I take another literary magazine of similar standing Acumen poetry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acumen_(magazine) I can see that the sources are very similar. Can you explain why my references are refused while those of Acumen are accepted being nearly identical? Do I have too many refernces, which explains the refusal and by removing some, could that help? Ledukedestquentin (talk) 10:16, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ledukedestquentin No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy. You need to provide correct referencing for the draft you wish to have accepted. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:00, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:59, 27 October 2025 review of submission by Mykyta Ageyev

Hello,

Could you please help me to understand what exactly sound like a promotion? 

Mykyta Ageyev (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you have used AI to create the draft. Wikipedia cannot be used as a source. Theroadislong (talk) 12:54, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:01, 27 October 2025 review of submission by Logeshkumarbs94

I have created a content which is aligned with Wikipedia guidelines but my article got rejected too many times. Could you please tell me what is the exact reason for rejection? Logeshkumarbs94 (talk) 11:01, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The exact reason, @Logeshkumarbs94, is that you have failed to demonstrate how this company meets our criteria for inclsusion for companies: Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion (organizations and companies). qcne (talk) 11:05, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain in a layman terms? Logeshkumarbs94 (talk) 11:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, @Logeshkumarbs94. In simple terms, your draft was rejected because it doesn’t yet show that the company meets our criteria for inclusion. We have specific criteria for companies. We would need several independent, reliable sources that discuss the company in depth. The company’s own site, press releases, routine directory/profile pages, and brief mentions don’t count. Your draft has no usable sources, so there is no evidence the company meets our criteria, therefore an article is not possible at this time. qcne (talk) 11:13, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How many independent and reliable resources should I need to include in my Wikipedia article? Logeshkumarbs94 (talk) 12:03, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We're usually looking for a minimum of three. qcne (talk) 12:29, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Can I use patent which is published in https://www.uspto.gov/ as a reliable resource in my wikipedia article? Logeshkumarbs94 (talk) 11:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Logeshkumarbs94. Nope. Patent publications don't have any value to prove notability. qcne (talk) 11:45, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about this website? https://www.clever.com/app-gallery/stepup
Is this a reliable source? Logeshkumarbs94 (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Logeshkumarbs94 That looks like a WP:Primary source. The sources required for establishing notability need to tick all three boxes of WP:GOLDEN RULE. Nil🥝 12:54, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:29, 27 October 2025 review of submission by Christos Politis

Hello, I have used LLM to refine the code, but the original code was generated by me. Also I am a senior academic, so I know how to use references. What is the problem with the code and the references used? Can you provide details pointers to your comments? All the information provided in the draft is correct and represent me entirely. Thanks Christos Politis (talk) 12:29, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have no reliable, independent sources which is what we usually base articles on, also please note that holding patents confers zero notability. Theroadislong (talk) 12:52, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Christos Politis: I would advise against using AI on Wikipedia, even to 'refine', because it really doesn't know what it's doing.
Four of your seven citations are to your own website, or that of your business. Two are to your profile at Kingston Uni, which you have presumably written yourself also? While you may be able to use close primary sources like these to support some, entirely non-contentious statements, for most things we require independent verification, especially where the article subject is a living person. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:53, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Christos Politis
Successfully writing a Wikipedia article about oneself is so difficult that very few people have ever managed it; in consequence we very strongly advise against trying it: see WP:autobiography.
A Wikipedia article (on any subject) 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. What the subject has said, written, published, or done is almost irrelevant except where it has been discussed by independent commentators.
In order to successfully write about yourself you would need to assemble sources which meet all the criteria in WP:42, and then, if you have found several which meet all the criteria, you would then need to effectively forget everything you know, think, or believe about yourself, and write a summary of what those sources say - even if you think they are wrong! (This is because Wikipedia is based on verifiability rather than truth). Do you see why I say this is very difficult?
More generally: 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) 16:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:40, 27 October 2025 review of submission by MdShahadatHossainSamit

Why my article is declined? MdShahadatHossainSamit (talk) 12:40, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is self promotional AI slop. Theroadislong (talk) 12:42, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so! MdShahadatHossainSamit (talk) 12:51, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MdShahadatHossainSamit: if you want to tell the world about yourself and your exploits, try the likes of LinkedIn etc.
I've deleted your draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're talking so roughly...
You should be more humble MdShahadatHossainSamit (talk) 12:51, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MdShahadatHossainSamit ☒N Deleted as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". I see the irony in your last statement. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:06, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:28, 27 October 2025 review of submission by ZombieLeChuck

I don't really understand what more is needed. He is a presenter on one of the country's main radio stations Qmusic (Flanders) . I have added as sources some articles from some of the country's major newspapers (Het Laatste Nieuws, Het Nieuwsblad) and magazines (Flair) where he is the main topic being discussed. ZombieLeChuck (talk) 13:28, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @ZombieLeChuck. You haven't resubmitted the draft since it was last declined four months ago. If you have indeed improved the sourcing (and I recommend that you evaluate each one of your sources against all the criteria in WP:42, then feel free to resubmit it for a further review.
I notice that your text doesn't contain any suggestion of why he might be notable. ColinFine (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:37, 27 October 2025 review of submission by Leo Fux

Dear @Pythoncoder: thank you for reviewing my draft. I have revised the article throughout for neutrality, conciseness, and source-based phrasing. Rewrote or shortened sentences to remove promotional tone, verified all statements against independent sources, and rewrote company material in my own words with attribution. Also reformatted sections for consistency. Could you please point to specific sentences or sections that need further adjustment to meet AfC standards? Leo Fux (talk) 14:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment reads like you copy-pasted from an LLM-generated edit summary then added a sentence each at the beginning and end to make the LLM output sound more coherent. Care to explain? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:19, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I used an LLM to learn how Wikipedia works. Maybe that wasn’t so helpful. Either way, I’ve gone through the whole article again and rewrote it to make it easier to read — by my own hands and brain. There are no AI hallucinations, because I’m the former CEO and I know what happened and what didn’t. I only used the LLM to help me get rid of PR talk. Michael Bieglmayer (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As you may have noticed, Leo Fux and Michael Bieglmayer are the same person — I use Leo Fux for Wikipedia editing and Michael Bieglmayer for Wikimedia Commons uploads.
The previous comment should have been made under my Leo Fux account, but for the sake of clarity I’ll let it stand. Leo Fux (talk) 00:36, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:01, 27 October 2025 review of submission by Spicy Anonymous

Hello. My draft Draft:Farah Hussain was declined as “not notable.” I would like assistance in understanding how to improve the article so that it meets WP:NBIO (notability for biographies) and WP:RS (reliable sources) standards.

The subject is an Indian civil servant who cleared the UPSC Civil Services Examination in 2015 (AIR 267) and is currently in the Indian Revenue Service (Income Tax). There are several reliable secondary sources, including Hindustan Times, The Quint, India.com, Lokmat, and Times Now Hindi, that profile her background and family of officers.

I want guidance on whether these sources are sufficient for notability, and if not, what kind of additional coverage or sourcing would be needed before resubmission.

Thank you for reviewing and advising on improvement steps. Spicy Anonymous (talk) 15:01, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Spicy Anonymous. A random civil servant does not meet our criteria for inclusion. qcne (talk) 15:15, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for the clarification. Could you please have a look at Draft Vyomika Singh as well? She’s a Wing Commander in the Indian Air Force and recently led the official briefing on Operation Sindoor, which got wide coverage in major outlets like TOI, News18, and Business Standard. Just wanted to know if that would be considered notable under Wikipedia’s criteria. Spicy Anonymous (talk) 15:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of your sources seem very poor, @Spicy Anonymous. They are tabloid/churnalism - with similar titles and some without by-lines. qcne (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OP has since been blocked as a sockpuppet of Sahilsambyal (talk · contribs). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 04:11, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:02, 27 October 2025 review of submission by Spicy Anonymous

Wing Commander Vyomika Singh is an officer of the Indian Air Force known for her role and contribution during Operation Sindoor. She has been recognized for her service and dedication to the nation. 

Spicy Anonymous (talk) 17:02, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Spicy Anonymous Do you have a question, pease? Or are you making a statement?
A reviewer will review this in time, meanwhile pease continue to improve it. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:31, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent I meant to say that I was requesting a review for this page Draft Vyomika Singh. I’ve improved the draft to align with Wikipedia’s standards. Spicy Anonymous (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Spicy Anonymous: The only way to request a review is to submit the draft. --bonadea contributions talk 20:02, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, Thank You Spicy Anonymous (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:09, 27 October 2025 review of submission by DegreeDriven

Before I resubmit, I'd appreciate any final feedback on Draft:Penn Foster. I took about a month to edit and create a well-sourced, neutral article. Also, I'd welcome your advice on article placement. Given that Penn Foster hosts a disambiguation page, do you think this article qualifies as the primary topic under WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? DegreeDriven (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DegreeDriven Pre-reviews are not a thing. If you woudl like an opinion submit for a review, please. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:29, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:30, 27 October 2025 review of submission by 185.143.147.170

Please tell me what I should update?

First it was some other issues, incorrect resources, and after on fifth review it became SEO, and written by LLM, but content stayed almost the same. 185.143.147.170 (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has now been rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:09, 27 October 2025 review of submission by Avanoonan

Hello, I was wondering if you could help guide me with steps to take in order to get my Wikipedia page approved? Avanoonan (talk) 19:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Avanoonan We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:28, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Avanoonan.
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 little else.
Absolutely the first step in creating an article is finding a number of sources which each meet all the criteria in WP:42. If do anything at all before doing that, you are probably wasting your time and effort.
As far as I can see, you have no sources which meet those criteria - it is just possible that the first one does, but it is giving me 404, and I'm not going to spend my time looking for an archive to save a draft which looks to me as if it is unsalvageable. My guess it that the source is based on a press release or interview, and so not independent.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:50, 27 October 2025 review of submission by Angelohuang

I want to create a user page to introduce myself Angelohuang (talk) 19:50, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Angelohuang You used an AI chatbot to create a sloppy promotional draft article. If you want to create a user page that outlines some of your interests as a Wikipedia editor, click User:Angelohuang. If you only want to be on Wikipedia to promote yourself and/or your company: go elsewhere. qcne (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:46, 27 October 2025 review of submission by Lonelyastronautmusic

Hello, I am stuck at this step of the process when writing an Article. I have used very credible sources (Time, Tech Crunch, Wallstreet Journal) and kept the tone very neutral. I can't find or think of any more reliable sources than the above. How do I proceed with getting this Article approved?

Thanks, Sean Lonelyastronautmusic (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(helped on #wikipedia-en-help) qcne (talk) 21:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 28

03:00, 28 October 2025 review of submission by AlisonLyne

My draft page, Ushur was declined at Articles for Creation. The reason given was "draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT." In keeping the page short and objective, it may be appearing AI-generated, but it is accurate and free of promotional language, vague claims, hallucinations, etc. I would greatly appreciate specific feedback from more experienced editors on what specifically does not meet expectations. AlisonLyne (talk) 03:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AlisonLyne, my first concern is that the draft does not demonstrate how this company qualifies for a Wikipedia article. More specifically, please see WP:NCORP for what is required, along with WP:CORPTRIV for examples of things that do not help a company qualify. At the moment I only see routine business activities, which is what I would have declined it for. I hope that provides some assistance. Meadowlark (talk) 05:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:00, 28 October 2025 review of submission by SJ8ANDREWS

Greetings Wikipedia,

Wikipedia has deleted the two images included for publication on this page, both of which were commissioned by Shock Octopus and for which Shock Octopus has the copyright for publication.

Can you please advise how I can get these images published on this page? SJ8ANDREWS (talk) 05:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SJ8ANDREWS. The copyright holder needs to freely license the images. This must be done in legally acceptable written form, and you can find out how to start that process at WP:DONATEPHOTO. Cullen328 (talk) 05:20, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SJ8ANDREWS, a very important thing to note here is that if Shock Octopus does freely license the images, anyone will be able to use them for any reason - even competitors and detractors - provided they give appropriate attribution. This is something that many groups would not want. You may wish to consider the non-free image use guidelines and see whether there's a suitable alternative. Meadowlark (talk) 05:40, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:34, 28 October 2025 review of submission by O S Prasanth

I want to reupload the article with additional documents O S Prasanth (talk) 05:34, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@O S Prasanth, the draft has been rejected. Your subject does not qualify for a Wikipedia article. Additional documents will not help. Please move on to another subject. Meadowlark (talk) 05:41, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


10:01, 28 October 2025 review of submission by Samwhoo

I had my 2nd attempt to pass the review on this article rejected and I'm trying to understand how best to successfully pass the review. I have tried my best to write this article in a way that's faithful to the purpose of Wikipedia, not as an ad for the company, but this is my first time contributing and I'm doing something wrong. I'd appreciate some more specific and detailed guidance, the references that remain to the ngrok.com website are there as a way to back up claims of ngrok supporting different technologies. I am happy to remove these sections if that's too advertise-y. I appreciate your time and understanding 🙏 Samwhoo (talk) 10:01, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Samwhoo Please define your conflict of interest? Reading WP:PAID and WP:COI will assist.
You seem not to have grasped the need for excellence of referencing. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:10, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Samwhoo Ah, I have now seen your user page. If you have been asked to write this article, please read WP:BOSS, and show it to the person who asked you to perform this task. If it is a manager request it is often impossible to fulfil it. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:14, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I put my conflict of interest comment on the draft article, I think I followed the process correctly but please let me know if I didn't. If I was meant to also include it here I apologise, I didn't realise.
Thanks for the clarification, sorry to have taken your time. Samwhoo (talk) 10:19, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Samwhoo no need to apologise. I saw your ordinary COI statement, but you need to declare WP:PAID rather more formally than you have. It goes n your user page, replacing the COI box. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:23, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:45, 28 October 2025 review of submission by Tektalkz

My article submission was rejected without a clear reason. The user who reviewed my submission directed me to this page as a reason for rejecting my article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)

However, the company I wrote about indeed meets the criteria of being notable, as evidenced by the list of independent sources I referenced in my piece. I feel like this was a lazy attempt at a review and my sources were not diligently considered. 

Tektalkz (talk) 12:45, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tektalkz: none of the sources are about UpGuard, they just mention reports produced by UpGuard, or comments made by a representative of UpGuard. We need to see significant coverage, directly about UpGuard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:52, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tektalkz Presumably you did read the big pink decline box? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:49, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:21, 28 October 2025 review of submission by GatheringMoss11

Hello! This draft has been edited to include independent sources to prove that it's notable for inclusion. I'm wondering what else I need to do to submit it for review once more. Thanks! GatheringMoss11 (talk) 13:21, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GatheringMoss11 I have left a solid comment on the draft, which was previously rejected. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 14:28, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GatheringMoss11, 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 (specifically) in reliable publications, and little else.
Almost nothing that the subject or its associates have said or written is relevant, and there should be no argumentation or conclusions of any sort in it, except where it summarises an argument or conclusion found in a single reliable independent source. ColinFine (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:56, 28 October 2025 review of submission by SammyQ2

My submission has been rejected. Can I get a few specifics about the rejection and were I should focus my efforts to get a Logan Museum article published? Thank you. SammyQ2 (talk) 13:56, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SammyQ2 Please confirm that you have read the big pink "Declined" box, and let us know about anything that you do not understand. It is there to help you 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 14:30, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read the Big Pink. I revised my article and have resubmitted it. Thank you. SammyQ2 (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SammyQ2 Thank you. A reviewer will be along in due course to review it. If you continue to improve it in the meantime that will be a good idea. Drafts always need better references. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 14:41, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:27, 28 October 2025 review of submission by 31.111.18.94

Hi, I'm writing about my draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:MiA_MiU

I understand there is a link references issues, how it was written, and I don't yet understand it fully how can I correct it, it looks a bit complex coding wise, but I will go through the help page again and carefully, as my draft was made by Chat GPT. My question is: is it just the way how I wrote the references links that are not compatible with wikipedia, or is it also about the content itself ? Thanks a lot, Mia 31.111.18.94 (talk) 16:27, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neither use ChatGPT nor use Wikipedia to promote yourself, please. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:46, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:16, 28 October 2025 review of submission by WikiAdd01

My submission has been declined by Jcgaylor because it is “not supported by reliable sources” (eg Streaming Services not considered appropriate.) I have since made 4 revisions, deleting all Streaming Services quotes and references (mostly used to just show where it has been available for viewing). I have added some additional Zimbabwe newspaper references (which are still in existence). Given it is a 2012 documentary – still getting world-wide attention, given ongoing elephant conservation problems in Zimbabwe and also the memoirs written by the documentary subject’s elephant work in Zimbabwe which include the documentary filming – some links can’t be used since they’re no longer available/accessible. I would appreciate any assistance/guidance/input from some experienced editors, before resubmitting please. Thank you. WikiAdd01 (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WikiAdd01 We don't do pre-review reviews, if you believe you have addressed the concerns of the prior review, you should resubmit the draft for feedback. 331dot (talk) 07:40, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
okay, thanks for taking the time to respond. (Jcgaylor suggested I come here.) She also suggested the teahouse so I'll go there instead. WikiAdd01 (talk) 09:48, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You will almosr certainly get the same response there! Theroadislong (talk) 09:56, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok, sounds like resubmitting my altered version is the way to go. Thanks. WikiAdd01 (talk) 10:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 29

02:45, 29 October 2025 review of submission by Jackstew1115

What's the recommended proportion of primary to secondary sources for notability reasons? The living person I wrote on does have multiple secondary sources discussing him and his actions (and I've recently included them); I was just using primary sources primarily for biographical information. Thanks! Jackstew1115 (talk) 02:45, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Primary to secondary sources for notability is, by design, 0%:100%. Primary sources do not help for notability or for biographical information that's even the least bit controversial. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:44, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I meant more so for things such as date and place of birth, or the positions that a person previously held (in this case a mention of his place on the appraisal district board of directors). I don't know if those are considered "controversial" for the purposes of article creation but are primary sources for those OK to have w/ secondary sources for more debated aspects? Jackstew1115 (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can use primary sources for that kind of purpose, @Jackstew1115, but for getting a draft through review, I suggest forgetting about them (and the kind of information that can be verified by them) entirely. None of that will help it get through review, and it can be added afterwards. In any case, the great bulk of sources should be secondary. ColinFine (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Jackstew1115 (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:24, 29 October 2025 review of submission by SkilsBiz Education

Hello! I’ve created a full article draft at User:SkilsBiz Education/sandbox. Please move it to Draft:SkillsBiz Education for review and publishing. Thank you! 

SkilsBiz Education (talk) 06:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How about I tag this blatant advertizement for deletion instead? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:27, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:55, 29 October 2025 review of submission by GRF01

Hi, I'm really struggling with this feedback. It's really high level and seems to be something that is inconsistently applied for similar lists. I used the List of Actors who Have Played Dracula and the List of Actors Who Have Played The Doctor as my templates. Both are interesting because of the scale of diversity of casting over years, and Richard III is similar to Dracula being a literary figure. Richard III has also become central to a political debate about ableism, this is why he has become even more interesting in the Shakespearean canon. I've linked to articles and papers that frame this debate and I've linked to all the productions. It's a very similar format to the lists I'm using as best practice, but now I'm being asked for something I can't see in the others, so I'm struggling a bit.

The feedback: "Still no reliable source about this list of actors as a whole. This will be declined again until you can find such a source." No other lists of actors provide this :/

There are lots of lists of actors and I can't find any that provide a "reliable source about the list of actors as a whole." in any of them. 

Or am I misinterpreting the feedback?

Without an example or explanation about what this feedback means it's hard to rectify the problem. An example of a list of actors that has provided this would be really helpful. Thank you. GRF GRF (talk) 08:55, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that this is a voluteer project where people do what they can, when they can, this may be why standards seem "inconsistently applied". We're only as good as the people who choose to help and invest their time. This is why each article or draft is judged on its own merits and not based on the presence of other articles, see other stuff exists. If you want to see standards better applied to other articles, you're welcome to take on that task- such as nominating other articles you feel do not meet standards for deletion.
You need to show that the topic of "actors who portray Richard III" is a notable topic itself before creating a list article for the topic. List articles can only exist for topics that are themselves notable. 331dot (talk) 09:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
List articles should also only list members of the list with Wikipedia articles(or at least the prospect of one). 331dot (talk) 09:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:01, 29 October 2025 review of submission by HashBit782

Hello, I don't really understand the criticism provided on this draft article.

"in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements) reliable secondary strictly independent of the subject "

the Bloomberg, Forbes, New York Times, and Reuters stories are all about the activities of the subject of the article, with limited information being known about an anonymous group. These are not brief mentions or routine announcements. All four are reliable, independent, and secondary. Further, multiple linked articles mention the subject of this article, such as (Kyle Roche), (Emin Gun Sirer), and (Avalanche (blockchain platform)) .

Thank you for your time and assistance 

HashBit782 (talk) 10:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HashBit782: most of the sources aren't really about Crypto Leaks, they're more about what Crypto Leaks has published, and how the various actors in these incidents have reacted to that. We need to see significant coverage of Crypto Leaks, the platform, not of content on the platform. (Arguably, the same also goes for the draft itself.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting a content-focused review with Bulgarian-language sources

Hello. My draft Draft:Crisis Liquidity Ratio cites multiple independent, published Bulgarian sources (peer-reviewed journal, a university textbook with page numbers and an appendix, proceedings) plus a regulated issuer’s report. English trans-title and short quotes are provided.

I respect WP:V and WP:RS and kindly request a content-focused review by someone with Bulgarian proficiency. An automated “LLM” flag appeared; the draft is now a minimal, neutral stub with only the definition and verifiable citations. Any guidance is appreciated. Thank you. Петър П. Петров (talk) 11:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, that LLM flag isn't automated. It was added by a real person when they reviewed your draft. Ultraodan (talk) 11:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably because the draft very much shows signs that you used AI and did not appear to review the output. In the initial version there are many serious problems:
  • Hallucinated citations. Example: Citation 6 claims that this is a quote on page 63: The conclusion highlights a crisis-specific liquidity ratio (CLR) and its crisis-use context. There is no such claim on page 63, even translating from Bulgarian. And it also reads exactly like AI.
  • Over-generalization of sources and of mere appearance in sources. For instance, and appears among reported indicators in company disclosures is cited to only one disclosure. A textbook enumerates CLR among applied indicators in an appendix in addition to discussing it in the main text is simply a description of the source, it does not matter whether it's in the appendix or not.
So I guess the first step here is to get the facts: did you use AI for this? Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(tagging @Pythoncoder as well as they reviewed the draft and may have more info) Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:16, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll also add the use of the lang-bg template, which was deleted semi-recently but the LLMs don’t know that. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 18:00, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:16, 29 October 2025 review of submission by 2A02:C7C:BEA7:F400:3CD3:EA0E:671D:5254

Any chance someone could tell me what is wrong with this article? What links to remove? The Poetry Book Awards is an international contest that is growing each year and seeks to help indie writers gain recognition. There is so much irrelevant stuff on Wikipedia (especially Literature Wales/Arts Council/Book of the Year/writers who have done nothing) yet this competition, that is doing amazing things is not deemed worthy - I don't get it? 2A02:C7C:BEA7:F400:3CD3:EA0E:671D:5254 (talk) 13:16, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia contains much which should not be present. Remember that this is a voluteer project where people do what they can, when they can, this may be why standards seem "inconsistently applied". We're only as good as the people who choose to help and invest their time. This is why each article or draft is judged on its own merits and not based on the presence of other articles, see other stuff exists. If you want to see standards better applied to other articles, you're welcome to take on that task- such as nominating other articles you feel do not meet standards for deletion.
The thing you have discovered is the requirements we have for references:
We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
What you need to find is material about the awards, in significant coverage as in the indented paragraph. Worthiness is not notability. I am worthy, for example, and I do worthy things, but I am assuredly not notable 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 14:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:01, 29 October 2025 review of submission by Darian Jay Rusli

Will it be accepted if at least one media spoke about it? I already fixed the citation and stuffs, just waiting engagements. Also can I remove that declination submission thing? AAAA.

Thank you :D Darian Jay Rusli (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for publishing original research. If independent reliable sources like peer reviewed scientific journals or the news discuss this theory, then it might be notable. 331dot (talk) 15:09, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Darian Jay Rusli. Which sources specifically discuss this concept, other than the source you authored (ref #5)? qcne (talk) 15:11, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah sorry sorry. Just asking if a media talks about it will my draft gets accepted, right now I'm trying to spread my idea. But now I knew it. Sorry for wasting your time though! :D Darian Jay Rusli (talk) 15:23, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Darian Jay Rusli. I'm afraid "trying to spread my idea" is an example of promotion, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:28, 29 October 2025 review of submission by RainInTheRiver

I have been given the feedback that my sources must be

  • in-depth
  • reliable
  • secondary
  • strictly independent of the subject

I don't understand how the sources I used don't match this? I have 11 sources in total, many of them are in-depth discussions of the service. Almost all of them are reliable industry-standard publications, and every single one is completely secondary and independent of the subject. None of them are self-published or blogs. None are primary or self-promotion.

I've read the articles relating to sources being reliable, independent, and supporting notability, and I cannot see how my sources have been judged to not fit the criteria?

Any advice appreciated. 

RainInTheRiver (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @RainInTheRiver, what you may be missing is that each source must meet all the criteria - so for example, your first source CNBC is not significant coverage; your second source Music Week is not independent (interview with CEO); your third source Musically is not significant coverage; and so on. See WP:42 for more on this. Since your subject is a company, the relevant criteria are in WP:NCORP and you must find sources that don't describe routine business activities (WP:CORPTRIV). I hope that helps! Meadowlark (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that's very helpful
Would this source count? It quotes the CEO but it's not an interview. Is it significant enough?
https://www.musicweek.com/digital/read/lickd-secures-5-1-million-in-funding-to-drive-global-growth/084238 RainInTheRiver (talk) 16:38, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is routine coverage of fundraising and partnerships based on a company announcement. We need in-depth coverage of the company that does not rely on company announcements, press releases, executive interviews, or whatever else the company has to say about itself. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:46, 29 October 2025 review of submission by Tim Troupe Noonan

I am trying to edit a draft page per editor's suggestions and it says go to "edit" at top of window. I only see "edit source" I want to cut and paste whole sections to remove embedded lists and enter the rewritten section with fewer books published and revised citations as instructed. Can I do this without triggering vandalism I cant do it all at once. Where is the save and return later button? Thank you. 

Tim Troupe Noonan (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Tim Troupe Noonan, 'edit source' is correct and when you want to save your work you choose 'publish' - I know it's a bit confusing. While it's a draft, you can do pretty much whatever you like without worrying about vandalism. Keep in mind though that once it's published you will not be able to edit it at all. Also important to know is that autobiographies are extremely difficult to write and you may not really want one. I hope this is helpful. Meadowlark (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just wholesale re-submit an entirely new article rather than make a whole bunch of edits> Tim Troupe Noonan (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can certainly do that if you prefer. I suggest reading WP:YFA and maybe using the Article Wizard to make your life a bit easier in terms of getting the right Wikipedia code and also understanding what you're looking for in terms of sourcing, neutrality, and so on. We discourage autobiographies, but you are welcome to make the attempt if that's what you want to do - just keep in mind that autobiographies are probably the hardest drafts to write since you have to forget everything you know about yourself and write in a strictly neutral manner, which is extremely difficult for most people! Meadowlark (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Submission template seems broken

Hey there, I just submitted the following draft Draft:/v/ but it seems the template is broken for some reason, as it doesn't resgister properly within the AFC submissions. Thanks in advance for the help! NeoGaze (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @NeoGaze. My guess would be that the template hasn't been written to cope with such a weird title for the draft. I suggest asking at WT:AFC. ColinFine (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I already asked there. NeoGaze (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:30, 29 October 2025 review of submission by NaomiWitherick

Hello,

Could I ask for some support regarding my submission for Everway LLC, which was declined on 27 October for 'reading too much like an advertisement' and referring to sources 'created by the creator of the page'.

Would you be able to: 1) provide me with some advice on how to make the submission more neutral (such as words/phrases to avoid, or anything else editors look for when determining if something sounds advertorial) and; 2) provide me with some guidance on sources - should I avoid citing from the PR websites I used (e.g. BusinessWire) for example? I didn't cite from any sources directly created by Everway, but understand how PR websites might be viewed as unreliable.

Any advice or insight would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you very much, Naomi Witherick 

NaomiWitherick (talk) 16:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @NaomiWitherick.
Like many people who come on here to write about their own companies or organisations, you have written what the company wants to say about itself, not what independent commentators have said about it. 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.
Simple (though not necessarily easy) advice for you:
  1. Find several sources which each meet all the requirements in WP:42. Ignore anything written, published, or commissioned by Everway or its associates; anything based on a press release (which includes most WP:CORPTRIV pieces), or on an interview with Everway or its staff or associates; anything about an award unless the award is itself notable (i.e. there is an article about it in Wikipedia) and the source is independent of both Everyway and the award-giver); anything which contains less than a couple of paragraphs about Everway.
  2. If you cannot find at least three such sources, the company is probably not notable, and you should stop wasting your time trying
  3. If you can find the sources, then forget every single thing you know about the company and write a neutral summary of what the sources say. If you think they've left out something important: tough. If they say things that your employers would rather not have in the article: tough. Put them in (if you don't somebody else will). If you think they're actually wrong: tough. Wikipedia works on verifiability.
Did you read WP:BOSS before you started?
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:50, 29 October 2025 review of submission by 84.68.32.182

I need help to show that Tom Brady's E1 team is notable enough to have its own Wiki article 84.68.32.182 (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do co-editing here at this help desk; please see the messages left by reviewers. 331dot (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:48, 29 October 2025 review of submission by Hockeyfan1212111

I need help getting this to finish line. I've continued to edit the draft, add NUMEROUS sources to justify who the bluebloods are, define what a blueblood is, and it keeps getting rejected. This follows the exact same structure as the college basketball blue blood list so I don't understand the gatekeeping getting this approved. I need to know specifically what needs to be added to get it approved. Hockeyfan1212111 (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the sources and feedback at the top of your page, more sources do not help the article if the sources do not address the claim or topic, such as ref 13 and 9. I am also unsure what source is used for "List of Bluebloods" or the other tables. The draft also mentions that the term "Blue blood" is vague, so why does it cite an attendance list that makes no distinction between Blue Bloods or other teams? For an enclopedia article, the article should only state X if a source states X to avoid WP:Original Research GGOTCC 22:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Hockeyfan1212111. You could start by removing unreliable sources, like Instagram, X, and blogs. Each one of those takes you further from the finish line. You might also find it helpful to read WP:AMOUNT. ColinFine (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 30

02:47, 30 October 2025 review of submission by 103.133.68.253

Hello Admin,

Could you please review this draft article and share any feedback you may have? Your input would be greatly appreciated as it will help us improve the quality of our content.

Thank you. 103.133.68.253 (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected due to failure to heed reviewers' concerns and will not be considered further. Why would we offer further feedback when it's clear you're not going to give it the time of day? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 04:09, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Jéské Couriano, Thanks for the feedback and sorry for the mix-up. I had already made the updates but forgot to publish them, so it looked like I ignored the comments. My bad.
If possible, could you let me know which specific parts didn’t meet the rules or what wording needs to be fixed? I want to make sure I get it right next time.
Thanks again for your time. Jodysetiawan23 (talk) 07:10, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Jodysetiawan23. Your question (which we keep getting from lots of people) is like: "I built this house, not knowing anything about housebuilding, so I didn't survey the site or build foundations, because I know what a house should look like, right? And now people say my house isn't well built so I'm asking which bit I should fix?"
The answer is, All of it. Start again, by surveying the site (finding the sources that meet WP:42). If you can't find the sources, you can't build a house there. ColinFine (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
hi @ColinFine Thanks for the feedback — I see where the concern is coming from. My intention wasn’t to ignore standards, but I see now that I need to rebuild the draft with verified sources from the start. I'll add reliable references first. After that, what’s the proper way to request an admin review? I remember there was a review button in the draft page, but it looks like it’s no longer there. Jodysetiawan23 (talk) 03:45, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, @Jodysetiawan23.
What I would do at this point is:
  1. Find at least three sources, each of which meets all the criteria in WP:42.
  2. Contact the reviewer who rejected your draft saying, "I have these sources now. Are they enough to establish that the subject is notable?"
  3. If the reviewer doesn't agree, give up.
  4. If the reviewer agrees, they'll unreject it, and you'll have a "Resubmit" button again. But you'll probably be best to start again: delete all your text, and write a summary of what those sources say - nothing else. Then resubmit it.
  5. If it is accepted, then you can add extra bits like limited information from non-independent sources (see WP:PRIMARY), images, infoboxes etc. These won't affect the review either way, so you don't have to remove them if they're already there, and you can add them while waiting for review, as long as the core of the text was created in the way I've described.
ColinFine (talk) 11:43, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:54, 30 October 2025 review of submission by Himanshujii

Respected Sir, Anand Dubey is a spokesperson for Shiv Sena (UBT) Indian political party, he appears in all news channel discussions. So please give suggestions to publish this page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Anand_Dubey hgvyas (talk) 06:54, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond while waiting for Respected Sir to rock up...
@Himanshujii: being a party spox confers no notability. Neither does 'appearing in discussions'. We need to see significant coverage about him; not him speaking, commenting or discussing things. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:37, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:22, 30 October 2025 review of submission by Euszerk25

Dear Editors, I would like to request a review of the article entitled Értéksziget. I am not a representative of the company, but I heard about them at a professional conference in June and have been following their activities ever since. I am convinced that the topic is of public interest and relevant from an encyclopedic point of view, as it shows how two people with disabilities in Hungary can build a socially valuable, recognized, and non-profit business from their initiative. The article only includes independent, edited, and reliable sources, such as Patika Magazine, Piac és Profit, Magyar Hírlap, Termálfürdő.hu, Programturizmus.hu, OTP Egészségpercek, Rehabportál, and international media outlets (Ouest-France, Ideal Salud, Diario de Avisos). These are all editorial content, not PR material. The tone is neutral and factual, in line with Wikipedia's guidelines (WP:ORG, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NPOV). Of course, if any part of the wording needs to be improved, I will cooperate, but the article essentially meets Wikipedia's notability and sourcing requirements. I would ask that another editor review the article and, if possible, approve its placement in the main namespace. Thank you very much for your attention and your work! Euszerk25 (talk) 08:22, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Euszerk25: I have reviewed this draft; did you not see that, or are you disputing my review? (I guess the latter, since you say you want another reviewer to assess it.)
The tone is far from neutral and factual, and the sources are even further from independent etc. Otherwise I would not have declined this.
As for your connection to this business, which you deny, can you explain how you came to create the company's logo (uploaded as your 'own work'), along with those photographs, if you have no relationship with the subject? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback, DoubleGrazing.
I understand your concern regarding neutrality and independence of sources. The intention was to provide an encyclopedic overview based on verifiable press coverage and publicly accessible records. I will review the tone and source selection to ensure full compliance with Wikipedia’s neutrality guidelines.
Regarding the images and logo: they were mistakenly marked as "own work". They are publicly available on the company’s official website and social media channels, used here under fair-use conditions for identification and illustration only. I will correct the file attribution accordingly.
Thank you again for your time and feedback.
Euszerk25 (talk) 08:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
> Regarding the images and logo: they were mistakenly marked as "own work". They are publicly available on the company’s official website and social media channels, used here under fair-use conditions for identification and illustration only. I will correct the file attribution accordingly.
Files available under fair use doesn't qualify as free and thus would be removed from Wikimedia commons. If you wish to re-add the files to the draft you have to directly upload them to Wikipedia directly.🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 10:20, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Euszerk25. A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people, wholly unconnected with the subject, have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else. Almost nothing that the subject or their associates say or want to say is relevant.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 21:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your message and the advice. I understand your point about independent sources and Wikipedia’s neutrality standards. I’ll leave the draft as it is and won’t continue the article. Thanks again for your time and explanations. Euszerk25 Euszerk25 (talk) 04:30, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:48, 30 October 2025 review of submission by Trinegje

Hi there, I have submitted the changes on the Pio page on 18th August, how long does it take to be approved or reviewed? Thanks Trinegje (talk) 08:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to click the Resubmit button in order to resubmit the draft for review. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Global Traditional Taekwondo Federation

I’ve carefully reviewed and rewritten the entire article. I’ve removed all promotional language, restructured the text, and updated the sources. The draft is now completely revised and neutral, essentially like a new article. I’d really appreciate it if you could take another look. Thank you for your time and guidance. This was since weeks and no one has respond to me. What should i do next? Fahd Marei (talk) 10:27, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Link to draft: Draft:Global Traditional Taekwondo Federation --bonadea contributions talk 10:31, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fahd Marei: the draft is waiting for review, and reviews take place in no particular order, so I'm afraid there is no way to predict when this draft will be reviewed. One thing you can do to assist the reviewer (and, more importantly, Wikipedia's readers) is to add more information about the sources. A source needs at least a minimum of bibliographic information to tell the readers what the source is, who published it, and (if relevant) when it was published. This is particularly important when the source is not in English – non-English sources are allowed, but reviewing them is more difficult for a reviewer who does not speak the language. In this draft, there are sources in Korean, Spanish, and (I think) Croatian, but there is no hint as to what the sources actually are. See this information about what is required. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 10:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bonadea, Thank you very much for your feedback and for taking the time to review the draft.
I understand your concerns regarding the sources. I’ll try to look for additional independent English-language references, although it’s a bit challenging since this is a korean organization, and most of the available materials are in non-English languages. I’ll do my best to find reliable sources that can demonstrate the organization’s notability and improve the draft accordingly.
If possible, could the review process be expedited once the draft is ready for review again?. Alternatively, please let me know if there are specific reasons why the article might be declined, so I can address them properly before resubmitting.
This is my first article submission, and my goal is to learn how to create a perfect and compliant Wikipedia article before publishing more drafts of a similar nature in the future.
Thanks in advance. Fahd Marei (talk) 10:45, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Fahd Marei. Please see WP:NONENG for recommended practise when citing non-English sources.
The important part of a citation is information such as title, author, date, publisher - and translation of the title if it is not English. A link is a convenience for the reader, not an essential part of the citation.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 21:57, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @ColinFine,
Thank you very much for taking the time to review my draft and provide your feedback. I have now translated all the non-English sources, added relevant English sources that discuss the organization, and included the publisher’s name for each translated reference to ensure transparency and reliability.
With my modest experience, I think the draft is now ready for review. I fully understand that creating a solid Wikipedia article requires time and practice. This is my first article, and I’m learning through the process. My goal is to continue improving my skills so that, in the future, I can publish complete and policy-compliant articles without needing the Draft stage.
If you have any additional comments or suggestions for improving the draft, I’d be very glad to hear them and make the necessary adjustments. Thanks in advance. Fahd Marei (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ColinFine, also this page Taekkyon. i added the sources that were missing. Can you remove the comment above the page that is missing resources?. Fahd Marei (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no means of an "expedited review". We need to treat everyone the same, as everyone would like their draft reviewed quickly, but that must give way to the volunteer nature of our efforts. Do you have a particular need for a speedy review? 331dot (talk) 17:41, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello sir @331dot, No, I do not need a speedy review. I just want to know if there is anything missing or wrong in the draft. If not, is there any problem with reviewing the draft now or in the coming days?. Thanks in advance. Fahd Marei (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It will be reviewed when a volunteer chooses to invest their time and do so. Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot, The draft has been published since June 29, so yes, I am patient. I just wanted to know if there are any other mistakes I can learn from and correct. Because of my last question, I learned about the issue of using sources in other languages and have already fixed that. I hope you understand what I’m trying to say.
Best regards, and I’ll be waiting for a reviewer to take a look at the article. Fahd Marei (talk) 17:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You submitted it on October 7. As noted, it could take 2 months or more. Best wishes. 331dot (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:27, 30 October 2025 review of submission by 115.127.120.1

Plz tell me or suggest why my the draft of theory of Manocracy declined 115.127.120.1 (talk) 11:27, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't written a draft there. You need to write out a full draft of the article for it to be accepted (or even properly reviewed). Ultraodan (talk) 11:30, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Malek Bachchu (I assume this is you not logged in). The fact that I get no hits at all searching for "manocracy" suggests to me that this is something you have made up. Wikipedia does not accept original research. Until the theory has been discussed in reliable publications by several independent people, Wikipedia will not accept anything about it.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:32, 30 October 2025 review of submission by 2409:40E3:49:EA6:8000:0:0:0

Kindly review and accept it as a page 2409:40E3:49:EA6:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 12:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has been rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 12:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:01, 30 October 2025 review of submission by THMH2011

Hello, I would appreciate feedback on the article's structure, including its consistency, coherence, and adherence to Wikipedia's style guidelines.

Thank you. THMH2011 (talk) 13:01, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For feedback, please resubmit the draft; we don't do pre-review reviews. 331dot (talk) 13:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An LLM wrote this. It's full of subjective opinions written in Wikipedia's voice. Reviewers are reluctant to engage in the cleanup necessary to make AI slop acceptable; you must do that yourself.
Also, you have zero sources that meet all three criteria of WP:Golden Rule.
The draft would never be accepted while those issues exist. If you cannot fix them, then stop working on it and move on to something else. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:24, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:28, 30 October 2025 review of submission by Kim Wilson copyeditor

Hello, This is the first Wikipedia entry that I have created. I have submitted it for review and I am wondering what the next steps are. Do I simply wait for the review to happen? After it is reviewed, assuming it is approved, will it automatically be uploaded as a Wiki entry? Thank you for any information. Best, Kim Kim Wilson copyeditor (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kim Wilson copyeditor You await review and at the same time continue to improve it, and/or start another. This essay may assist you. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 14:38, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kim Wilson copyeditor I have left you full instructions about declaring WP:PAID on your user talk page, and a comment on the draft. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 14:43, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep improving it. Just glancing at it, I'd say all those inline external links are a deal breaker, and you're stating subjective opinions in Wikipedia's voice. Either replace those inline external links with wikilinks to other Wikipedia articles, or remove the links. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Kim Wilson copyeditor. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and not much else. Almost nothing said, written, published, or done by the subject is relevant, except where an independent commentator has discussed it.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:15, 30 October 2025 review of submission by Llandaffwriter

My sandbox entry has been declined, can you explain why in plain language 

Llandaffwriter (talk) 15:15, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Llandaffwriter: We don't accept articles on neologisms. We are an encyclopaedia project, not a dictionary. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:20, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Llandaffwriter The notice on the draft is plain language. I can be plainer than I was when I declined it: Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:09, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on new draft

I'm looking for some advice. I'm working on this draft here hare: Draft:William Tudor (surgeon). I've been updating this draft for a wee while, as it considered quite worthy, but there is lots of work still to do. An editor has come in and says they can do another draft with better sources. They have access to the British Library and Cambridge Uni library. The originating editor is barely here. I would like to get the new new editor to create the new article but I'm worried about the revision history of the draft and don't want to annoy the originating editor who has spent considerable time on it. Could we work on the draft to reduce/expand the current article or is it better creating a new draft and merging the old draft in and perhaps move the revision history over once we are finished. The originating editor seems to be in every 10-12 weeks and I would like to this into mainspace. They not be back. What is the proforma here on this. The new editor wants to start tommorrow. scope_creepTalk 15:36, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep There is no ethical conflict here, since anyone may edit any draft, but your concern is well appreciated. As a courtesy I would notify the creating editor, and consider asking them to work with the one with better access. I am assuming, since you are at least as aware as I am, that the new ew editor is not requesting a fee (per WP:SCAM) 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:07, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fiddle Faddle: No, its an AFC reviewer who came in, reviewed the article and contact me. Genuine editor. So you reckon it's ok to edit the current draft into the new draft. scope_creepTalk 16:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep I got somewhat lost! I see no ethical objection. I think politeness suggests a user talk page attempt at dialogue first. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:56, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:12, 30 October 2025 review of submission by Letscontributes

Hello please I need help on my draft I have gotten declined multiple times Letscontributes (talk) 16:12, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One issue is that the draft is not neutral and worded like an article. An article should not refer to itself in the lead, but explain the topic. You can read other tech-related articles on Wikipedia to understand the tone of an encyclopedic article. GGOTCC 16:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:15, 30 October 2025 review of submission by Bruther6741

I submitted an Among Us article for review for being published yesterday at about noon. I was very dissappointed to see that the article that I worked so very hard on was rejected, and called as a hoax. I don't beleive in hoaxes, nor recall having malicious intent with that article. I have a very strong heart for Among Us, as it was my child's favorite game during the COVID-19 2020 pandemic.It got her through a lot, and I wanted it to reach others so the game could come back into popularity, as I miss when my daughter was a youngan playing such a game. Being accused of a hoax, hurt not only my nostalgia towards the game, but my writing skills as well. Was it not good enough? Was it not long enough? I don't understand. I need answers. Bruther6741 (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bruther6741 Your draft is completely unsourced; a Wikipedia article summarizes what independent reliable sources say about topics that meet our criteria for notability. Your information just seems to be your personal thoughts, which are not acceptable article content as they are not independently verifiable(a core aspect of Wikipedia) Do you have independent sources that discuss this game, like reviews by professional critics? 331dot (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Among Us is already an article, and a good one at that. It was rejected, among other reasons, to avoid duplications. GGOTCC 16:28, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:23, 30 October 2025 review of submission by Chelsea GriffinWink

Hello. My article was declined for the use of an LLM. I did use an LLM to gather sources, format the article properly, and ensure I had everything I needed included. After it was declined, I rewrote the sections AI helped me with, this time without the use of an LLM. This version was declined as well, despite no AI use. If you could help me determine which portions of my article are insufficient, I can better edit it. Thank you. Chelsea GriffinWink (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AIs love to use conjunctions in headings, like "Awards and Recognition", "Reception and Impact" (all in title case, which Wikipedia doesn't use anywhere), and it loves to include a section called "Selected Publications", which usually add zero value to the article in terms of establishing notability. It likes to use "solution" unnecessarily, as well as vague general terms like "large portion", "hundreds", "a primary research question", "a large percentage", "has been covered by [nameless entities]" (that one is typical of AI, meaningless puffery).
You may have rewritten some prose, but the heavy-handed fingerprints of the AI are still present. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Zaw Moe Than, Draft:Kyaw Zaw (politician) and Draft:The Three Main National Causes (Myanmar),

Hello, good day. My draft articles such as Zaw Moe Than, Kyaw Zaw (politician), and The Three Main National Causes (Myanmar) needs significant review since all are of notable subjects with significant coverage and passes WP:GNG, they're all covered by reliable, credible, and independent sources of the topic. If anyone could review it, it could mean everything. Thanks. KhantWiki (talk) 22:37, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have submitted them for review and they are pending. Asking for a review does not speed this volunteer process, please be patient. 331dot (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're right as well. Thank you for your time and honesty, I really appreciate it. I have submitted them for review and they are on the pending list. I will keep on waiting since I know a lot of articles are being reviewed and submitted at the same time. While these articles are currently pending, I will create some more articles in the future which would receive instant acceptance. KhantWiki (talk) 22:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@KhantWiki While awaiting review please do make any additional improvements you wish. Submission does not "lock" a draft. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:43, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It actually saves time. If any issues get fixed before a reviewer shows up it avoids having to wait for a review twice. Ultraodan (talk) 10:16, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the additional tips Timtrent and Ultraodan, I will patiently wait for the AfC review process of my articles being reviewed. I will note both of your useful advice for my future upcoming articles to be created hopefully. I agree that it does save time for both the reviewer and the creator which is me, for the article process to be great and simple, as drafts are not reviewed in order and we will have to wait mosty 2 months, which is good since the issues will be fixed. It's a practical idea to fix issues before a AfC reviewer shows up to review it and if the issues are fixed, the articles will get accepted to the main space. KhantWiki (talk) 10:20, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:10, 30 October 2025 review of submission by Sami Saab

I am tasked with creating a Wikipedia page to mark the existence of the company I work for, Genuine Optics. I have disclosed that I work for the company, but unfortunately my submission has been declined due to not having enough published sources as references. I am trying to find more references and am asking for help to make sure I am doing the right thing. Thanks. Sami Saab (talk) 23:10, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, you don't have any useful citations that suggest notability. One is simply from a business directory, which proves nothing about notability, just that the business actually exists, and the second is a press release. You need to start with independent coverage that provides significant coverage about the business. WP:NCORP details the ntoability requirements for corporations. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only sources I am finding are press releases or reprints of them (churnalism). Sources needed to show notability would need to fall under WP:CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:08, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're going about it WP:BACKWARD. Here's what you should do (and can still do):
  1. Read WP:Golden Rule. Read it first before doing anything else. It's short.
  2. Find at least three sources that meet all the Golden Rule criteria. Each source should meet all criteria. Do this before you write a single word.
  3. Review the sources and write your draft based on what those sources say. Don't let an AI write the draft for you; that road leads to misery and disappointment. You can use an AI to help you find sources. After you have written your draft in your own words, you can show it to the AI for improvement suggestions.
  4. Submit it for review. If your draft has at least three sources meeting Golden Rule criteria, and your draft is based on those sources, then it will likely be accepted.
You can make sparing use of other sources to fill in mundane information like number of emplyees and so on, but your draft should be based on Golden Rule sources. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:09, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that if you cant find adequate sources, then stop wasting your time, tell your boss the company doesn't merit a Wikipedia article yet, based on Wikipedia's policies. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:11, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 31

01:09, 31 October 2025 review of submission by Yhhwz

Could the review process for this manuscript be expedited? It has been nearly six months, and revisions have already been made in accordance with the reviewers’ comments. Yhhwz (talk) 01:09, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's been only a month since the last review. There are no deadlines here. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:14, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is also still not neutral, and includes several assertions that either unsourced or unverifiable. It wouldn't pass review in its present state. Continue working on it. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:44, 31 October 2025 review of submission by 2603:8001:7402:7D88:78E3:208E:FF56:1ADE

Hello! I tried creating a page for Diego Chojkier (Draft:Diego Chojkier) but saw that it was denied because of reliable sources. The sources used including mainstream news coverage and writeups / social media from reputable organizations. Can you please help me understand what needs to be bolstered? 2603:8001:7402:7D88:78E3:208E:FF56:1ADE (talk) 04:44, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor, the reviewer left a message for you: Doesn't indicate what the individual is actually notable for. You can see the options for people at WP:BIO; which criteria do you believe Mr Cojkier meets that makes him notable by Wikipedia standards? Meadowlark (talk) 09:17, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AFCH script and official review process

All sorted. Questons of this nature have a different venue, please 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:41, 31 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.

There's this editor have no AfC reviews rights but keep accepting and declining drafts using AFCH manually (Moving drafts to mainspace) and Sending messages that imply an official acceptance to the OPs. So my question is, is that really the right way? because according to me it confuses new editors or could lead to problems in mainspace (low-quality articles published). Any thoughts? ThilioR O B O T🤖 talk 06:17, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thilio: can you provide details, I'll go have a look? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:27, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing I was wrong,... I didn't see (+reviewer) in his/her User rights log, I dig deep search reviewers names etc and finally found out he/she is the newly AfC reviewer. Thanks for the reply. cheers !!! ThilioR O B O T🤖 talk 06:47, 31 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.

11:53, 31 October 2025 review of submission by Slapback79070

My draft article keeps getting declined which sources on this draft aren't reliable? Slapback79070 (talk) 11:53, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Slapback79070 I would suggest that none of them have any use to verify any notability. For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 11:58, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:22, 31 October 2025 review of submission by Runqizhu

Please could anyone point out the indicator of use of large language model? I am confused. Runqizhu (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Runqizhu:, did you use a LLM such as ChatGPT? It shows likely LLM based on a AI detection tool. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I used ChatGPT to create a drafted version, but I made lots of revision on that version. So the LLM could not be used at all? Runqizhu (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, anyone with the skillset to use LLMs properly doesn't need LLMs at all. Frankly, I'd bin it and start over properly. Start with just the independent, reliable sources that you can find that are about Wenxin Wang, and then write an article based only on that information. As it is now, the snippets that are actually about him rather than his work are sparse and poorly cited. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:46, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:41, 31 October 2025 review of submission by Natiewing

I received feedback on the TalkingParents article review submission that it was written in a promotional tone and did not have enough qualifying sources to establish notability. I've requested more details from the user who declined the request, but I'd appreciate any feedback from other editors who can help me understand how I can update the copy to meet Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you in advance to anyone who stops to share their input! Natiewing (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Natiewing.
I'm afraid that your experience is common for people who plunge straight into the challenging task of creating an article without first spending any time learning how Wikipedia works. It is like saying "I know what a house looks like, so I'll build one", without knowing anything about the essential preparatory work.
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.
Specifically, your draft tells us what TalkingParents wants people to know. Wikipedia has essentially zero interest in any part of this. What Wikipedia wants to know, and the only thing that most of the article should be based on, is what people wholly unconnected with TalkingParents have chosen, off their own bat, to publish about TalkingParents in reliable publications. The majority of your sources should meet all the criteria in WP:42; and there should be very little in the article which is not a straight summary of what those independent sources say.
If there are not several sources which meet those criteria, then, like most companies, the company is not notable in Wikipedia's sense of the word, and no article is possible.
More particularly, essentially nothing that you personally know about the company is relevant to the article unless it has been covered in an independent reliable source. Also, wwards are irrelevant and useless unless they are significant enough that we have articles about the awards themselves. ColinFine (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation, @ColinFine I've spent the last week working through edits on Wikipedia and have viewed similar pages for the past few months, but I definitely can see there's a lot more for me to learn. It was a bit disheartening to see the article declined, but I trust that editors here truly do work in good faith to preserve and promote what the platform stands for. Is it correct to conclude that some of the sources that interview our original founder (mainly referencing podcast episodes and TV segments) can't be used to establish notability? Also, I appreciate your note about the awards and will be sure to remove those in my next round of edits. Natiewing (talk) 19:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, @Natiewing. Material from interviews can occasionally be used to verify uncontroversial factual data (see primary sources) but do not contribute to establishing notability.
Note that similar pages won't necessarily help you, as Wikipedia has thousands of seriously deficient articles. For some reason, editors are not often motivated to go back and put in the work to fix (or delete) these, so they languish. See other stuff exists. If you're going to look at articles to compare with, make sure they're good articles or featured articles. ColinFine (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I left a comment on the draft that should help you get started in the right direction. Good luck! --CNMall41 (talk) 22:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:04, 31 October 2025 review of submission by Gojsk

How to post useful info. Please help Gojsk (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gojsk Wikipedia is not a travel guide, sorry. 331dot (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A good first step would be to browse Wikipedia:Good articles/Agriculture, food and drink#Hospitality to see what an enclopedic article looks like, along with Help:My first article. GGOTCC 22:23, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


November 1

00:04, 1 November 2025 review of submission by Bayoustarwatch

What is need to ger this page raedy for submission He is a bishops of a major Christian denominations the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church He was elected bishop of the Eparchy of Adilabad by the Synod of Bishops of the Syro-Malabar Church on 28 August 2025, with the prior assent of Pope Leo XIV -- Bayoustarwatch (talk) 00:04, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In short, more detailed sources about him that are independent of the church. GGOTCC 00:32, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:51, 1 November 2025 review of submission by Jetsonesque

The latest entry for entry for Sam Bregman has removed problematic text, cleaned up formatting and citations, and has aligned test with tone and informational intentions of Wikipedia entries for public figures. More importantly, newly edited version makes a seemingly solid case for notability. Specifically, through the addition of new citations that include numerous titled articles in mainstream news sources. The latest version seems to merit an acceptance based on that. Can anyone help or weigh-in on this matter? Jetsonesque (talk) 02:51, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that you have fundamentally changed the draft to address the concerns of prior reviews, you should first attempt to appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly to ask that they reconsider their rejection. 331dot (talk) 08:12, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jetsonesque: based on a previous disclosure on the draft from another account, I would also suggest reading WP:COI and WP:PAID and make the appropriate disclosure if applicable. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't want to talk to AIs here. Please communicate in your own words. When a draft is rejected, it means stop, move on to something else, don't waste the community's time any longer with it. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:51, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:32, 1 November 2025 review of submission by Firey TV 2

Zion Williams (or Pink Wonder, for her super-heroine/magical girl form) is the main titular protagonist of the Pink Wonder! TV series.

She inherits the heart Wonder Pact and been chosen as the new incarnation of Amorette the Love Wonderess, she becomes the titular heroine "Pink Wonder". Firey TV 2 (talk) 11:32, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Firey TV 2: yeah, sure. However, Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:33, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Firey TV 2. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what several people, wholly unconnected with the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else.
Unless you can find several books, academic papers, or reputable newspapers, where independent commentators have written at some length about Zion Williams, no article is possible. ColinFine (talk) 13:04, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:33, 1 November 2025 review of submission by Firey TV 2

Jac is the titular overall main protagonist of Kirby Cafe: Jac's World. He is an autistic round white object with black outline with a bright imagination. Firey TV 2 (talk) 11:33, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See above. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:34, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:55, 1 November 2025 review of submission by 2405:201:402D:5097:A417:B870:388E:6745

I don't know why this has been rejected i want to know that what is the reason behind this and how can I change this error 2405:201:402D:5097:A417:B870:388E:6745 (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted. The reason for the decline was left by the reviewer at the top of the draft. 331dot (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 2

06:02, 2 November 2025 review of submission by Moefry1

1. Addressing Notability Concerns and Comments re: “PR” or “AI-generated Slop” The submission has been written in strict adherence to WP:BIO, WP:V, and WP:RS. The subject has been profiled in multiple high-quality, independent, and widely-read outlets, including The Australian, SBS News, 7News, and coverage syndicated through the Associated Press—appearing in platforms like The Senior and Perth Now. These sources provide significant, substantial, secondary coverage, not trivial mentions or press releases. Referring to the draft as “PR” or “AI-generated slop” is inaccurate and does not align with WP:AGF (Assume Good Faith). The article was crafted carefully, and no AI tools were used in its composition. I respectfully request that future feedback focus on content and policy rather than speculative or dismissive remarks like those of the prior reviewer.

2. Improvements Made to References • Removed primary and non-RS sources: Refs 12 (Facebook), 9 (YouTube), and 7 (charity brochure) have been removed. • Ref 3 (Associated Press): This source is part of a globally respected wire service with coverage syndicated through mainstream news outlets. Nonetheless, if required, it will be replaced with one of the primary outlets that originally carried the same reporting. • Other sources: Replaced or supplemented weaker sources with reliable, secondary publications such as The Australian, SBS, and 7News, ensuring broad and verifiable coverage. • Tone and phrasing throughout the article have been carefully revised to maintain a strictly neutral, encyclopaedic tone in accordance with WP:NPOV.

3. Demonstration of Notability (Consistent with WP:BIO and WP:SIGNIFICANT COVERAGE) The subject meets notability criteria based on: • Repeated national media coverage for both professional and advocacy work (reported by SBS, 7News, The Australian, etc.) • Leadership roles in international and national health campaigns (e.g., THINK Aorta ANZ and board member of Hearts4Heart) • National ambassador role for the National Heart Foundation of Australia, highlighted by multiple independent reports • Academic and economic contributions recognised by universities, specialist publications, and health system institutions (e.g., University of Sydney, Monash University, RANZCR) • Ongoing public presence in respected media and at speaking events over multiple years, including via independent news commentary, landmark survival stories, and national health initiatives Together, these factors clearly demonstrate significant, sustained, and verifiable coverage—meeting both WP:BIOSIGand WP:SIGCOV.

Please let me know whether any specific sections or references still require adjustment. I welcome continued collaboration in ensuring the submission is fully compliant with Wikipedia’s content standards. 

Moefry1 (talk) 06:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Moefry1: you have resubmitted this draft, and will therefore get an evaluation in due course. If you have specific questions in the meantime, you may put those here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:31, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, responding to concerns about AI slop using AI slop is certainly a choice that a person can make. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:42, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:2025 Women's World Draughts Championship

Hello. I use official information from official site FMJD and KNDB. They are not reliable sources? Bars 23 (talk) 10:10, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link, Draft:2025 Women's World Draughts Championship. They may be reliable information for the results of the championship, but the main purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize what independent sources choose to say about the topic. You have no independent coverage of this event. 331dot (talk) 10:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Yasser Shaban

Dear Wikipedia Administrators,

I am writing to inform you that I have completed all the required steps for the draft of Yasser Shaban. I have carefully provided all the necessary sources, including references from reputable journals and platforms such as ResearchGate and Google Scholar for his academic work.

This is my first submission for this article to be reviewed, and I have not yet received a response. I kindly request that you review the draft at your earliest convenience.

Thank you for your attention and assistance.

Best regards, Mohamed Mohammad Mowad (talk) 10:13, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Mowad You just submitted it the other day, as noted on your draft, "This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,770 pending submissions waiting for review." Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 10:15, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:38, 2 November 2025 review of submission by 119.111.178.101

if you i know you are person please im begging you please accept this draft cause i need this to see all people my information to know us my personality i hope you hopeless and kind person Godbless 119.111.178.101 (talk) 10:38, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has been rejected because there are no reliable sources to establish notability, so you won't be able to submit it again. I know this sounds harsh but Wikipedia has strict guidelines on what or who is notable enough for an article. Ultraodan (talk) 10:42, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the autobiography policy. It's generally discouraged for people to write about themselves. 331dot (talk) 10:44, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:05, 2 November 2025 review of submission by 119.111.178.101

Good day I Write This Reason For Requesting Assistance Please becareful Read

Creating and maintaining articles on topics of public, historical, or cultural significance is essential to Wikipedia’s mission of providing free access to knowledge for everyone. The subject of this draft holds notable importance because it represents a meaningful contribution to a specific field, community, or area of study that has not yet been fully documented within the encyclopedia. By including this topic, Wikipedia would expand the diversity and completeness of its coverage, ensuring that readers have access to verified and balanced information on a wider range of subjects.

The importance of this topic can be measured through its lasting impact, recognition by reliable sources, and relevance to social, academic, or professional contexts. For instance, the subject may have influenced a particular discipline, inspired public discussion, or contributed to innovation or cultural development. Including this article would help preserve valuable knowledge and make it accessible to future generations of researchers, students, and general readers seeking factual and neutral information.

Wikipedia’s notability standards emphasize the use of reliable, secondary sources to establish that a topic has received significant attention beyond trivial mentions. This draft draws upon such references—such as news coverage, scholarly publications, or independent reviews—to demonstrate that the subject has a presence in the public record. Highlighting these references not only strengthens the article’s credibility but also ensures that it meets Wikipedia’s core content policies of verifiability, neutrality, and no original research.

Moreover, documenting this topic supports Wikipedia’s global goal of representing diverse perspectives and experiences. Many valuable contributions—especially from underrepresented regions, fields, or communities—are at risk of being overlooked simply because they lack online visibility. By providing a well-sourced, neutral account of this subject, the article helps correct that imbalance and promotes inclusivity in the world’s largest free encyclopedia. This benefits not just readers but also educators, journalists, and researchers who rely on Wikipedia as a starting point for deeper inquiry.

Sincerely Julian Madelo November, 2 2025 Thanks You , Godbless 119.111.178.101 (talk) 11:05, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was answered in the section above. Please do not use AI to generate discussion posts. We want to hear from you, not from a bot. --bonadea contributions talk 12:11, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:58, 2 November 2025 review of submission by Info.Forscher

The draft was declined by saying "Please rewrite the draft inline with WP:MOS guidelines". I am reading a lot, but there is so much information in different pages and subpages that I need help (German Newbie, first article). What are the main problems I have to rewrite before resubmitting the article. Thank you for hints. Info.Forscher (talk) 11:58, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Info.Forscher: we're a little bit gilding the lily here, because formatting etc. issues aren't really what makes or breaks a draft; we're mostly in notability, and (esp. in the case of articles on living people) referencing. But if you give me a moment, I'll post some suggestions on the draft's talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:23, 2 November 2025 review of submission by 2406:7400:FF03:1B6F:B4D2:BFCD:7BD7:9092

beacuse wiki is askking for citations and references. even i gave the media article links.still its says insufficient 2406:7400:FF03:1B6F:B4D2:BFCD:7BD7:9092 (talk) 12:23, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor. As I said in my decline, The Times of India cannot be used as a source. qcne (talk) 12:27, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:38, 2 November 2025 review of submission by New Music Citizen

I believe I’ve provided all the relevant facts based on reputable web sources, including the New York Times and other websites, particularly by reviewing similar Wikipedia pages for comparable music groups. The feedback I received suggested that my article sounds like an advertisement, but I’m struggling to see how it differs from other similar entries, which also seem to present factual information in a similar style.

Could you please provide more specific feedback on how I can improve the tone or content? I would really appreciate any guidance you can offer.

Looking forward to hearing from you! New Music Citizen (talk) 12:38, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@New Music Citizen no Declined with feedback to help you go forwards 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 14:39, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:10, 2 November 2025 review of submission by Jenfast

can you tell me why it is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia 

Jenfast (talk) 14:10, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jenfast We require citations. You have appeared not to heed seven separate declines requiring citations. It is truly important to heed the advice given in reviews. Improper citations = no article. Improper includes a lack thereof.
If you have a genuine intention to provide citations you may appeal the rejection with Qcne who rejected it, and seek to enter not dialogue with them. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 14:33, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:35, 2 November 2025 review of submission by 188.30.191.4

Please accept and don't reject! 188.30.191.4 (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1320065349"