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 Ballj5 (talk | contribs) at 13:14, 7 November 2025 (→20:57, 6 November 2025 review of submission by Ballj5: 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


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]
@Moefry1: Before I tear into your sourcing, I'm going to bring up a couple points the chatbot brought up in your defence while you were busy sewing your mouth shut. First, arguing social policies on this page in responce to accusations that you're using a chatbot to write for you is akin to complaining about the paint job on a house that has been condemned. We are assuming good faith, but the fact is that LLMs write to the satisfaction of the prompt and not to Wikipedia's policies, leading to serious conflicts with our content policies. Second, just because a source is published by a reputable outlet does not make it automatically acceptable in every circumstance. Now, onto your sources:
Of everything I can assess, the only good sources seem to be about the night his life changed for ever, and one of those you cite four times due to different websites. You barely have anything beyond that amongst the sources I can look at. The sources I can't assess may be a different story, but you'd need someone who has a subscription to those sources to assess those. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:01, 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]
Hello! Just for clarity, do you refer to Draft:Yasser Shaban? GGOTCC 17:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mohammad Mowad Unfortunately Researchgate is not at all useful as a reference, and you have relied on it greatly. May I offer the firm advice to replace it with reputable sources. See WP:RGATE. I have not made a formal review. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Timtrent for your time. I would like to clarify one point regarding the sources used in the draft. ResearchGate links in the article are only used for works authored by the subject himself, and are not being used as independent sources. The biographical details and core information in the draft are supported by reputable, well-established, and neutral sources from respected newspapers and media outlets in Egypt (the subject’s country of origin).
Additionally, I have now added English-language sources to the draft, and I have translated the titles of the Arabic sources to make them easier to understand and verify for reviewers.
I kindly request a formal review of the draft, whether acceptance or rejection, and if rejected, I would also appreciate the draft being deleted entirely. Waiting indefinitely is not ideal, especially considering that I submitted the request for review once already, and the draft has been pending since August 18.
I have spent this time searching thoroughly for the best possible reliable sources, and I can confirm that there are no additional sources about this individual on the internet beyond those currently included in the draft.
Therefore, if the draft can be accepted based on the existing sources, I would appreciate approval. If additional sources are required beyond what exists publicly, then I understand if the draft must be rejected but in that case, I would prefer that it be deleted so the matter is concluded clearly.
Thank you again for your consideration.
Kind regards, Mohamed Mohammad Mowad (talk) 07:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mohammad Mowad We do not perform reviews on request. May I suggest most strongly that you remove any "pay to publish" and other unreliable references and replace them with valid references. Arguing in their fav0ur will ot succeed Their inclusion is against community consensus. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Timtrent
I’m quite sure that there are almost no pay-to-publish sources in the draft. The article currently contains 49 references, and I can add more if needed but I’ve avoided adding too many research-based sources so the article doesn’t become unnecessarily large and overloaded.
Could you please point out which specific source you believe is pay-to-publish? I’ll review it and remove it immediately if that’s the case. Thank in advance Mohammad Mowad (talk) 10:15, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mohammad Mowad I have no concerns whether you choose to take advice or not. I imagine you will discover what a reviewer considers to be useful referencing at some point. I truly do not mind what you do. I can tell you that marching to the beat of a different drummer is unlikely to be successful. Marching to Wikipedia's drummer saves a great deal of frustration. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:25, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent
On the contrary, I always listen to advice — you’ll notice that after every suggestion or comment, I make the necessary edits to improve the page accordingly. Mohammad Mowad (talk) 11:18, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mohammad Mowad Then we will see whether you improve this draft in time to avoid a decline and resubmit cycle. I wish you success. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 11:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes @GGOTCC Mohammad Mowad (talk) 07:25, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Mohammad Mowad. A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and not much else. On a quick look, I don't see any sources which can be characterised in that way. Which of your sources meet all the criteria in WP:42? Those are the only kind of sources which can be used to establish that a subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability.
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) 18:00, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ColinFine, while not acceding to Mohammad Mowad's request for an early review, I have left them a comment on the draft giving them serious pointers for a route forward. I hope they embrace these pointers, otherwise I predict an initial decline and pushback for further work. I might have reviewed the draft more formally, but I do not accept requests to review drafts. Other reviewers' mileage may vary. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:36, 4 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]
@Jenfast: This draft has been rejected due to failure to heed reviewers' concerns and will not be considered further. When a draft is declined, the expectation is that you will read the decline notice and any comments left by the reviewer, and then edit the draft to address those concerns. If you just resubmit repeatedly without addressing those concerns, eventually the draft will be rejected because it's clear you're not listening. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:28, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano: @ Fiddle: I'm very new to Wikipedia and want to add Mekkarai a village not found in Wikipedia. So I want to add information about this village. Now I have rectified the references. please review and and publish, It will help to many of the people. Jenfast (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jenfast I am sorry, but your latest edits do not show this village meets our criteria for inclusion. As such, the rejection will remain. qcne (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jenfast: this draft remains almost entirely unreferenced – where does all this information come from, and how do we know any of it is true? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:38, 6 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]

Neither YouTube nor Patreon are references. no references=no article. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 14:43, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:51, 2 November 2025 review of submission by 2405:201:F028:F088:DCDF:48EE:1D46:1C6F

Please help in making this page better and publishing it. 2405:201:F028:F088:DCDF:48EE:1D46:1C6F (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:03, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:27, 2 November 2025 review of submission by 2400:1A00:B080:84E2:D352:43E9:3253:547E

There is sufficient coverage from national and international media why it is showing it could not publish due tl notability 2400:1A00:B080:84E2:D352:43E9:3253:547E (talk) 18:27, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases do not count as reliable sources (connexion to subject). Likewise for anything a subject themselves authors (connexion to subject). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:43, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:38, 2 November 2025 review of submission by Dragonofruit1

how do I make a good article from a point of view that is neutral Dragonofruit1 (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dragonofruit1. Writing a new article from scratch is really difficult for a new user. It's like trying to perform in an orchestra when you don't know how to play an instrument. To save yourself frustration please spend a few weeks at the minimum improving existing articles. I would recommend Special:Homepage which gives you suggested articles to improve, and how to improve them.
Before doing that, have a read of Wikipedia:Everything you need to know which outlines our most important policies and guidelines in an easy to understand way.
Let us know if you have more questions! qcne (talk) 19:43, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:51, 2 November 2025 review of submission by BraveFly

It's not just mentioned; the entire book is about this person. [Woman from Shanghai : tales of survival from a Chinese labor camp ] And it has been verified by official organizations, Laogai Research Foundation, a human rights NGO located in Washington, D.C, United States. : [Cannibalism in Communist China] BraveFly (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BraveFly I do not see a question. What assistance are you looking for, please? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:41, 2 November 2025 review of submission by TommyWillB

I don't understand how to make "independent" references/citations for an organization that is so small and unknown that nobody has ever talked about it on the internet.

Please help me with a tangible example. TommyWillB (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TommyWillB Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is the last place something would be written about. The sources do not have to be on the internet (books, newspapers, journals, etc) are also good references, but they need to be independent of the subject. If not, then the article is essentially an advertisement. If you are unable to find independent sources to cite, then that a sign that the subject is not notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. GGOTCC 22:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TommyWillB:, I did a quick WP:BEFORE and the topic is likely notable. I included some of the references on the talk page of the draft under "refideas." I suggest starting with those sources and including ONLY information from those sources (and others you may find that are reliable). --CNMall41 (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:03, 2 November 2025 review of submission by Mferrari100

Just wondering what other possible references would be needed in order for this article to be published, or is the subject not relevant enough to be published? I was going to try to create an article for every MIAA sanctioned sport and the state championship history for each sport but would like to know in advance if that does not follow the guidelines. Thanks Mferrari100 (talk) 23:03, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article follows the exact same format as an already published article (List of Massachusetts state high school baseball champions - Wikipedia). Mferrari100 (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mferrari100 Please simply make the extra attempts to find additional references. This is not only best practice it is expected by our readership.
No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:35, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Haha cool cool, but I guess my question is what other possible references would be needed in order for the article to be published? Since this article is quite simple and is just a list of Massachusetts high school softball state championships sanctioned by the MIAA, the only two sources that I provided were the official MIAA softball link (which includes a pdf of every state championship), and the pdf that is included on that website (the pdf). It seems like those are the only relevant sources, and anything else would either be not relevant to anything that is on the article or just repeating what is already accessible through the official existing sources but from a less notable source. I apologize if I sound dumb or am missing something Mferrari100 (talk) 23:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I added over 50 citations. Hopefully that's enough. Mferrari100 (talk) 01:47, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mferrari100, it's not the quantity of citations that counts but rather the quality. You may have inadvertently shot yourself in the foot by adding tons of references - reviewers choose what drafts to look at and many will not want to spend their time going through 86 references! If your subject is notable, there will be books/articles/etc discussing the list as a whole: see WP:NLIST for more information, and focus on finding and using those sources. Meadowlark (talk) 05:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 3

09:41, 3 November 2025 review of submission by Bradlyh

Hi there, I’m seeking clarification on the decline of my draft article Draft:27Four Investment Managers. The submission was declined for not demonstrating notability, but the draft includes multiple independent and in-depth references from reputable media such as Business Day, Sunday Times, Personal Finance, and News24, among others.

Each reference provides substantive coverage of the company’s operations, leadership, and role in South Africa’s investment industry.

Could someone please review the draft or advise specifically which sources may not meet the notability requirement, so I can address this appropriately before resubmitting?

For transparency, I have no paid or professional affiliation with the subject and have aimed to follow Wikipedia’s notability and neutrality guidelines. I am really just trying to get my first article published. :)

Thanks very much for your time and help. Bradlyh (talk) 09:41, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have summarized the routine business activities, offerings, and structure of the company. The awards are meaningless towards notability as the awards are not notable themselves(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). You must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company and what makes it notable as Wikipedia defines a notable company. The vast majority of companies are not actually notable.
If you don't work for this company, you should, since you wrote it as if you were writing for their website. How did you select this company to edit about, and not, say, another? 331dot (talk) 09:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Bradlyh.
I reckon thousands of hours of people's time (and patience) must have been wasted by "just trying to get their first article published", before they've spent time learning how Wikipedia works, and (most importantly) what is and what isn't a suitable subject for an article.
I remember when I started, twenty years ago, I so wanted to find a subject that hadn't been written about, as though making a new article would somehow make a special contribution to Wikipedia. But in 28000 edits, I've only ever created a handful of articles, because I now understand that that is not the only way to contribute to Wikipedia. We have thousands and thousands and thousands of terrible articles which desperately need improving (or deleting). We have many thousands which are not too bad, but could be improved by bringing them up to date, by adding missing citations, or by copy-editing.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. (I know your account has been around for a few years; but with 18 edits in your contribution history, you're still a new editor). ColinFine (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your guidance, really appreciate you taking the time to share your perspective. I totally hear you - and honestly, I can see why many new editors struggle when they jump straight into creating an article.
I’ve taken all the feedback from this process to heart and I’m using it as a chance to get better. I’ve been working hard to understand notability, sourcing, neutrality (all of it) and to make sure anything I contribute meets the standard. I do believe this topic has notability, but I also get that how it’s presented and supported matters just as much.
I’m genuinely keen to keep learning and improving as an editor, not just through new pages but also by helping strengthen existing ones. So, thank you again for the guidance and honesty - it’s really valuable, and I appreciate it. Bradlyh (talk) 12:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bradlyh:, You stated, "For transparency, I have no paid or professional affiliation with the subject and have aimed to follow Wikipedia’s notability and neutrality guidelines. I am really just trying to get my first article published", yet you made a PAID disclosure on your userpage. Just curious if you meant to say you "do" have a paid affiliation above in your comment.--CNMall41 (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41 Thanks for the point on this one. Subsequent to this, and based on the guidance I got yesterday, I’ve already resolved this and updated everything under my disclosure section. Just to clarify though, I haven’t personally been paid to create or edit the article, but the agency I work for (Alkemi) does some other comms work for 27four, so I included that for full transparency. I am doing the article on my own, as I do think it has some notability. I have also updated based on all your feedback given yesterday, thank you! Bradlyh (talk) 12:26, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bradlyh So you're kind of confusing people by saying (to paraphrase) "27four doesn't pay me to edit but my company does communications work for them". As you are employed by your company, and 27four is their client, that counts as paid editing. You say you are doing it on your own, but we have no way to know when you are "on the clock" at work or "off the clock" at home, nor is that particularly relevant given your relationship(since we don't know what they instruct you to do or what they don't instruct you to do).
You've disclosed all this and that's good- but you need to know how you are being perceived. My advice is, instead of quibbling over the specifics, just lean into this and concede you're a paid editor without dissembling. 331dot (talk) 12:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@
331dot
Thanks, completely fair point, and I understand what you mean. I actually took your advice from yesterday and updated my disclosure to reflect that more clearly, so it’s properly covered now. I really appreciate the continued guidance, it’s been super helpful in understanding how to handle this the right way.
Bradlyh (talk) 13:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:32, 3 November 2025 review of submission by Bracket Maker

Hello,

I recently created a draft titled "Bracket Maker App", but when I click "Publish page" nothing happens. Could you please check whether my draft has been successfully submitted, and advise how I can proceed to publish or request a review manually?

Thank you in advance for your help. Bracket Maker (talk) 11:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bracket Maker: your edit history only shows two edits, the creation of your userpage with a paid-editing-disclosure (thanks for that!), and this query here at the help desk. There is nothing in your edit filter log, either. So clearly something has gone wrong, since you haven't created any draft, not here on the English Wikipedia nor on any other language version. (There is a Wikidata item which you created a few days ago, though.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @DoubleGrazing, thank you for the clarification!
It seems that my draft was not successfully saved under the Draft namespace. I tried recreating the page using "Draft: Bracket Maker App", but system still doesn't allow me to publish it. The "Publish page" button does nothing when clicked. Bracket Maker (talk) 12:01, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing @Bracket Maker sounds like this system issue hasn't been resolved, which is preventing new editors creating pages with external links (incl. refs).
The work around for now is publish a blank page as your draft, and then subsequently add your content. Nil🥝 12:08, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Bracket Maker.
Please, please, please don't start your career as a Wikipedia editor by trying to create an article about an app you've created. (Apologies if I'm misreading the situation). The chances of you having any success are remote, and the chances of you having an extremely frustrating experience are very high.
Why?
  • Wikipedia only accepts articles on subjects which meet its own definition of notability: roughly, that enough has been reliably published about the subject by people wholly unconnected with it to base an article on. What the subject or its associates say or want to say is almost irrelevant. Most companies (software, apps, bands, schools, fashion brands ... ) are not notable in Wikipedia's sense, and all effort spent on trying to make an article about them is wasted. Some may become notable in the future but it is often too soon.
  • Writing a Wikipedia article successfully is much more difficult than most people realise. To take an analogy from housebuilding: I know what a house looks like, so it can't be too hard to build can it? Well actually, yes. Even before the building, you need to know about surveying, structural engineering, permits and licences, safety regulations etc. Obviously a Wikipedia article is not on the same scale of difficulty as building a house; but it too has a lot of hidden preparatory work, without which it will be much harder, if not impossible, to create. (See backwards.)
  • Writing an article where you have a connection with the subject - a conflict of interest, as we say - is even harder. Most people find it very difficult to set aside absolutely everything they know about a subject and stick to what the independent sources say - which is more or less what is required. Especially if they think the sources are incomplete or wrong.
  • If you write about your own product (or company, or band), it is very likely that the result will be promotional, even if you thought it wasn't. Basically, if you don't follow the previous point, and write either what you know, or what the subject wants to say about themselves (which will likely be the same if you have a COI) it will come out promotional. Promotion is forbidden anywhere on Wikipedia.
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) 17:09, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:25, 3 November 2025 review of submission by Hell yeahhhh mann

My submission was rejected fro the purpose of "Being contrary to the purpose of wikipedia" but I read through the article of what wikipedia should be posted and what is not wikipedia and I dont understand why Hell yeahhhh mann (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:The Pillars of game development
@Hell yeahhhh mann: We don't accept what amounts to personal essays or opinion pieces. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:28, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...or how-to guides, if that's what this was meant to be. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Hell yeahhhh mann
A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people, wholly unconnected with the subject, have independent chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and not much else.
What the writer knows, thinks, or believes about the subject is almost irrelevant, except where it can be cited to independent reliable sources.
Writing an article begins with finding sources which meet all the criteria in WP:42. Any other approach is almost certainly a complete waste of time and effort. ColinFine (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:32, 3 November 2025 review of submission by Heatherapse

New Article Rejection Question I submitted a new article, for "Tripleseat", the company I work for, and it was immediately rejected.

"Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by LuniZunie was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia."

I suspect even though I disclosed on my Wiki user account that I work for the company, wiki sees this as a COI. I wrote the information following wiki's best practices as to be non-promotional. How do I get someone to review it? What's my next step?Heatherapse (talk) 18:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heatherapse I fixed your header as there is no such page as "New article rejection question"; only the exact title of the draft at issue should go there.
Your draft is sourced almost exclusively to your company. A Wikipedia article should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. This is usually very difficult for company representatives to do; see this page and show it around your company. 331dot (talk) 18:36, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Typically, rejection is the end of the line for a draft. If you have no independent sources with significant coverage(that are not press releases, interviews, company materials, announcements of routine business activities, or the like) an article will not be possible at this time. 331dot (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Heatherapse. Please read the long reply I gave to another new editor just above: #11:32, 3 November 2025 review of submission by Bracket Maker ColinFine (talk) 18:40, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Heatherapse, the paid COI you have truly makes no difference in terms of how the reviewer looks at the draft - in fact we are thrilled that you did disclose that you're being paid, because that means we don't have to worry about undeclared paid editing and its consequences for you and your draft. I suspect part of the reason you ran into problems because your draft looks very much like it was created by an AI/LLM. See WP:AIFAIL for more information on that. You may also wish to read WP:BOSS if this is a task your manager has assigned you - it will help them to understand why this is a very unfair task to give you. Best wishes, Meadowlark (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:36, 3 November 2025 review of submission by IronStrikesIron

I want get some clarity around the concern about "interviews" and "notability".

Many of the media appearances aren't interviews about the individual herself but the individual being asked to give expert opinions regarding current events (animal law related) or common issues that people face (ex. what happens to pets in a divorce?)

In that context of the individual as an "expert resource to the Media", does this better address the concern about notability? The article should be better written to emphasize this aspect of who the individual is but I want to better understand if this matters during the review process. Thanks for your help. IronStrikesIron (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have documented her work and media appearances, but have no sources that state what they see as important- what we term notable- about her. What makes her particularly influential or significant? Has her advocacy been cited as having led to, for example, the passage of animal rights legislation, or increased prosecutions of animal abuse- why does her advocacy matter, or why is it important? That's what Wikipedia is looking for, not just a summary of her work. 331dot (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is good feedback. Thank you! IronStrikesIron (talk) 15:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@IronStrikesIron Allow me to try to help. When the subject of an article speaks, this is a primary source. We have no interest in what they say. However, when a reliable source, independent of them covers and comments upon what they say, we are interested. Thus a pure interview is useless, but a commentary about what is said is useful
We may only record what is said in significant coverage in multiple reliable sources which are independent of the subject, and we must use our own words. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:40, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Some of the sources mentioned on the page fit this re: a source talking about them and their work but not talking directly to them or conducting an interview. I'll go back and clarify this on the page. IronStrikesIron (talk) 15:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Her website states "all rights reserved" so you cannot use her photo in the draft and must immediately without delay request its deletion. Images are not vital to drafts anyway, as the draft process only considers the text and sources. 331dot (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've just gone ahead and nominated it. 331dot (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The other uploads are also nominated on Wikimedia Commons. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:01, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I now see that you are her paid representative. If you want to release a photo of her, I would suggest taking a photo of her specifically for use on Wikipedia, then that avoids copyright issues. 331dot (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain with precision IronStrikesIron-SK and its relationship with IronStrikesIron. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IronStrikesIron-SK is an assistant to IronStrikesIron. While we work with Suzana Gartner on other projects that IronStrikesIron does get paid for, the Wikipedia page isn't one of them. One reason is that we want some distance from the "conflict of interest" aspect but also that I naively thought this process of starting a Wikipedia page would be easier :) IronStrikesIron (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SK needs to declare a COI as well. My advice would be to declare as paid editors as you both have a financial relationship with her, and we have no way to know what she pays you to do and what she doesn't. 331dot (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:08, 3 November 2025 review of submission by Neamo301

Draft has beed deleted 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 11:07, 4 November 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.

need assistance on article for Eddie Neam. i do not know what is missing for publishing Neamo301 (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer left you a message as to what is missing- sources. 331dot (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Neamo301 Notability. Excellence of referencing to prove notability 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:14, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
need assistance on article for Ariyan Mehedi Imranmahmudulmusic (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yes its my first time doinng wiki thak you for your help Neamo301 (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

20:19, 3 November 2025 review of submission by Imranmahmudulmusic

He is Notable Artist, kindly protect this page. Imranmahmudulmusic (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Protect" it? Consider it done! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DoubleGrazing I don't think that's what they meant..... ;) 331dot (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, my bad. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We'll let it go this time. :) 331dot (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot A real life example of "be careful what you wish for" I think, with DoubleGrazing playing The Genii of the Lamp. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:40, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:41, 3 November 2025 review of submission by ApoieRacional

I am still relatively new to Wiki, but I have declined a few submissions, while having provided detailed reasoning for my decline. Today I am dealing for the first time with an article, that- after a series of improvements- is ready for getting published. I cannot find a button or instructions HOW TO APPROVE a pending article. You can find the draft here: Draft:PARP7 ApoieRacional (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ApoieRacional I fixed your link, the whole url is not needed, just the title in double brackets. I also fixed the header so the link displays, the full title is needed, including the "Draft:" portion.
Please see WP:AFCR; if you are operating as a formal AFC reviewer. 331dot (talk) 21:06, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As stated in the draft, PARP7 appears to be a synonym for TIPARP. I think the appropriate action here is to merge the contents of the draft into TIPARP, with or without a subsequent move of TIPARP to PARP7. I'll leave a comment on the draft. Mgp28 (talk) 21:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:01, 3 November 2025 review of submission by SeptOctNovDec

I submitted a draft for Charlotte McCurdy. Someone tried to delete it and I don’t understand what I did wrong. Please help tell me what I did wrong and how I can correct it. SeptOctNovDec (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SeptOctNovDec, there's a notification on your talk page that says, in part, This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. You may find WP:42 useful in your redrafting efforts. Happy editing! Meadowlark (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @SeptOctNovDec. Please see my long answer to the section #11:32, 3 November 2025 review of submission by Bracket Maker above, beginning at "Please, please, please". ColinFine (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SeptOctNovDec:, thank you for the disclosure and submitting through AfC. I don't see this anywhere clsoe to G11 although it could use some slight cleanup. I was going to ping the editor who recommended it for deletion but I see they are now blocked. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]


November 4

00:04, 4 November 2025 review of submission by Evan Shenberger

Because i want my YouTube channel to get more famous, but it got hated quickly. Please, help me. Evan Shenberger (talk) 00:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Evan Shenberger:, because this is a company page, it will need to meet WP:NCORP. In order to show that, there needs to be sources that talk in-depth about the company. Unfortunately, I cannot locate any in a search so do not believe this will be notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Evan Shenberger. Because i want my YouTube channel to get more famous means "to promote my channel". Promotion of all kinds is forbidden on Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 10:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

00:23, 4 November 2025 review of submission by Mkecassidy

Hello, I'm new to Wikipedia and submitted my first article last week. It was almost instantly rejected. Being new, I expected a good number of suggestions and some hardy editing. Unfortunately, the editor of my piece left very little direction on how the piece could be improved. He noted that it sounded like an advertisement and was based solely on cited material that was created by me. I tried hard to take a neutral approach to the piece and in fact studied published entries covering two similar companies and used them as a guide. I thought all three pieces were fairly similar in terms of neutrality. I'm quite willing to accept that I failed the neutrality test, but I could use some specific pointers on how to fix that. As for the second point on citations, the short entry that I produced includes many citations from third-party sources and none from material created by me, so I wonder if there isn't some confusion here. Any suggestion on how to proceed? Thank you. 

Mkecassidy (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you ask the reviewer?
To me it looks like you're describing mundane company operations, and that the draft exists solely for publicity purposes.
If what you wrote "was based soley on cited material that was created by me" do you mean you created the sources and you are citing them? If so, that won't work. Sources must be independent of the article subject. See WP:Golden Rule for an overview of the sort of sources we expect. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:14, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Very helpful. I wanted to gather a little more information before asking the reviewer, as I was honestly confused by the second part of their critique. I included more than a dozen citations, including The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, TechCrunch, Fast Company, Bloomberg, The Irish Times, none of which included material in part or in total created by me. I thought maybe I was misunderstanding the point the reviewer was making.
I will ask them about the shortcoming there and work to make the piece sound less like an advertisement. Thanks again. Mkecassidy (talk) 22:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Mkecassidy, your main goal is to show that this company qualifies for a Wikipedia article - being a company, the specific criteria you need are at WP:NCORP. Companies are difficult because most of what you'll find is simply routine business activity; most companies are not and never will be notable by Wikipedia's standards. You need at least three sources that meet all three criteria in WP:42.
As to the advertisement comment - offers a suite of products including fraud and chargeback protection with a 100% financial guarantee is very promotional. Basically if the company would use the sentence in their advertising, Wikipedia probably isn't interested. I hope that helps! Meadowlark (talk) 02:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the example of advertising language. That's the kind of guidance I was looking for. I'll explain what the company does in a different way and look through the piece for other similar types of descriptions. Thanks again. Mkecassidy (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Mkecassidy. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 10:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ColinFine. Yeah, I thought I had enough material from independent sources to meet the criteria, based on other published Wikipedia entries I reviewed. But, it's back to the drawing board. Thanks again. Mkecassidy (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just hopping in here to say that if you want to see articles that would be good to compare your draft with, have a look at the aptly named 'Good articles' for your subject's field - here's the business/organisation ones. These articles have been reviewed and vetted by the community. There's a lot of articles on Wikipedia that shouldn't be here, often from the early days when the criteria were much less strict, and we simply don't have enough volunteer time to find and improve them all. Unfortunately this means that you may end up comparing your draft to a terrible article without knowing! If you do run into articles you think are questionable, we're always happy to have a look at them and take appropriate action. Meadowlark (talk) 00:17, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That makes a lot of sense @Meadowlark. Thanks for the pointer. As a matter of fact, the two articles I most closely studied were from some time ago — 2019. I'll check out the Good Articles page you referenced.
Thanks again. Mkecassidy (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:03, 4 November 2025 review of submission by Sarfy36

Hi... I just created a simple new page... however it got declined for lack of footnotes/references. I have added references though... what am I missing? Please help. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Shakuntla_Bhagwaria_(politician) Sarfy36 (talk) 01:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the decline notice and comment I left on the draft. It explains what you are missing. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:45, 4 November 2025 review of submission by 2607:FEA8:551F:8090:607A:7727:6AF0:FF2F

bro publish it then i will delete i=t 2607:FEA8:551F:8090:607A:7727:6AF0:FF2F (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's rejected. That means stop, don't waste your time further, and don't waste our time. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:59, 4 November 2025 review of submission by FactMechanic

Hello! I created the article for Excel Motors (a Jamaican automotive manufacturer) and need help understanding what qualifies as a credible source. The sources I cited were from verified sources (the BBC and Jamaica Observer newspaper). The response cited a press release by one of my sources was an issue. Is a press release from a verified independent source an inadequate credibility? FactMechanic (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a very simple guideline that explains what qualifies as a credible source: WP:Golden Rule. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @FactMechanic. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 10:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:10, 4 November 2025 review of submission by Yuli04011995

I would like to know which of the references are not considered reliable sources. Also this subject I believe meets the requirement that the subject qualifies for an article, per the requirement that it meets any of the eight academic-specific criteria, specifically, this subject meets criteria under the Wikipedia:Notability (academics) page (ie. person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution as the chair of the Computer Science department of Boston University). I appreciate your help, thank you very much. Yuli04011995 (talk) 02:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yuli04011995 All of them. I have left a comment on your draft. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:41, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:34, 4 November 2025 review of submission by JilingHat

He is Famous Artist in Bangalore i don't know why the articles got rejected ? JilingHat (talk) 03:34, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of the sources are written by the subject. Essentially, all of those references are advertisements. We are not interested in what Sejekan thinks about himself, but an overview of how others his impact, as each source should be independent of the subject and reliable. The only sources not by Sejekan mention him only in passing.
You call him famous, but fail to explain why. Are there any well known pieces he made? What were the awards for? Superlative claims like that should be self-explanatory in the article rather then out-right stated. GGOTCC 03:49, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(User blocked as a sock.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:30, 4 November 2025 review of submission by Mykyta Ageyev

Could you please explain to me, why my draft is not eligible for Wikipedia? Mykyta Ageyev (talk) 05:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mykyta Ageyev. Like the thread right below, your draft fails to show that this company meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). In particular, most or all of your references are of the sort specifically ruled out by that notability guideline, namely announcements of funding rounds, IPOs, acquisitions and executive hires. These are the type of sources specifically excluded by WP:NCORP#Examples of trivial coverage. It's all "the company announced this" or "a company executive said that". These sources are clearly generated by company press releases or public relations activity. One is openly identified as a press release. These sources are not independent, and do not provide significant, in depth coverage of the company. Your next step is to do one of two things: eliminate the weak references and instead provide references to far better sources. Or, to abandon the draft if excellent sources do not yet exist, because without such sources, it is not possible to write an acceptable Wikipedia article about the organization. Cullen328 (talk) 08:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mykyta Ageyev, one of the things that has caused the rejection is that you decided to resubmit the draft without making any changes at all - this leads reviewers to conclude that you do not think you can improve the draft, in which case it should be rejected to avoid wasting your time and the reviewers' time on pointless resubmissions. It's always a good idea to read reviewers' comments (on your talk page and under the big pink box on the draft page) and edit the draft to address the problems they mention. Meadowlark (talk) 08:16, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your comment.
I will review those sources and will update an article! Mykyta Ageyev (talk) 08:48, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mykyta Ageyev, if you think you can salvage this draft, there's a few things you need to do. The draft has been flagged as being written with the help of AI/LLMs (ChatGPT or similar) and as not having good references. Firstly, read through WP:42 and WP:NCORP so you know what kind of sources you can use. Then to address the LLM concern, you will need to completely rewrite it - not just update it - in your own words. If you do both of those, you can then appeal to the rejecting reviewer, @Theroadislong (courtesy ping). Don't do this until you're absolutely certain that the draft is as perfect as you can make it - you will probably only have one chance here. I'm not sure that the company does meet WP:NCORP, as outlined by Cullen above - so make that your first priority. Good sources are key! Meadowlark (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:36, 4 November 2025 review of submission by 36Flames

This article was rejected thrice & the third declined has no comments. How to proceed for improvement? 36Flames (talk) 07:36, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 36Flames. Your draft fails to show that this company meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). In particular, most or all of your references are of the sort specifically ruled out by that notability guideline, namely announcements of funding rounds, IPOs, acquisitions and executive hires. These are the type of sources specifically excluded by WP:NCORP#Examples of trivial coverage. It's all "the company announced this" or "a company executive said that". These sources are clearly generated by company press releases or public relations activity. These sources are not independent, and do not provide significant, in depth coverage of the company. Your next step is one of two things: eliminate the weak references and instead provide references to far better sources. Or, to abandon the draft if excellent sources do not yet exist, because without such sources, it is not possible to write an acceptable Wikipedia article about the organization. Cullen328 (talk) 07:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Cullen328 for explaining it in details. However, can you share some examples which are considered as notable sources because I have checked & wasn't sure about it. The citations which I have mentioned are actual & factual data with journalist involved & those are perennial sources as well. Still Notability is an issue. Hence, need guidance with some examples. -- 36Flames (talk) 06:46, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Golden Rule. I mean it. Read it. It's short and direct. Don't do anything else until you read it.
Once you've read it, then tell us, which sources do you believe meet all three criteria described? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:57, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Anachronist, again my question is - I need some organisation examples to understand more about Notability because all the perennial sources or Indian Newspaper are covering it or not. I have read all the Notability related guidelines. Now I just want some reference to check so that I am pretty much sure about it & then cross check with Veefin Group article so that I can improvise or else will ask for deletion of the article. -- 36Flames (talk) 07:21, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Organization examples? See Wikipedia:Good articles/all and search the page for "company", then you'll find plenty.
You still need to answer the question I asked. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 07:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Anachronist. I will definitely come back to you with the evaluation of my article (Veefin Group). However, I still don't have clarity. Entire Good Articles page doesn't have any Indian company similar to my queries. Maximum of them are of US or any other region. Some of the articles are viewed, however, it is of places or something. Which are not giving me any clarity. As mentioned below to Cullen328, there are lots of theories, but we are lacking in terms of examples or clarity. -- 36Flames (talk) 08:20, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In your browser, go to Wikipedia:Good articles/all like I suggested, press ctrl+F to find a word on the page, and search for the word "company" and you'll find many examples.
However, you are also asking the wrong question. Each article is evaluated in isolation without regard to what else exists on Wikipedia.
All that matters are whether you have multiple sources meeting WP:Golden Rule criteria. I ask again, what three sources do you believe meet the criteria? If you actually read WP:Golden Rule, it should be trivially easy to identify sources that qualify. The first source, for example, is a press release, so it doesn't qualify. Most of your sources, in fact, are either press releases or announcements of routine activities. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 09:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Anachronist, @Cullen328Cullen328 or @DoubleGrazing I got some clarity. Still looking for example for good coverages.
I totally understand and did the analysis as suggested. Veefin Group article has to be deleted. It does not pass the Notability. Even first comment was "no evidence of notability whatsoever; the sources are just routine business reporting, which does not contribute towards WP:NCORP."
What I have understood is the guidelines (theory) & things which should not be included.
Many articles are not notable as per the WP:RSNOI
My simple question is -> I just need 2-3 Indian company related sources link where I can understand clearly about notability which includes all the details. I have understood for biography, films and others.
My Analysis:
Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass Notes
Economic Times Link 1 Yes No No Yes Used for key people from ongoing news.
Entrepreneur Link 2 Yes No No Yes Used for key people from ongoing news.
Business Standards Link 3 Yes No No Yes Used for key people from ongoing news.
Financial Express Link 4 Yes No Yes Yes Used for key people. Acquisition trivial coverage not counted.
Economic Times Link 5 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Used for Lead Paragraph, it has ISSN mark as well. Low in significant, however, it should be valid as Journalist spoke about details.
Livemint Link 6 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes IPO is not a trivial coverage (not mentioned there). Coverage is low as per the topic, however, Journalist has mentioned about the company details.
The Hindu Businessline Link 7 Yes No No Yes Raised funding, trivial coverage. This can be removed.
Financial Express Link 8 Yes No Yes Yes Acquisition, trivial coverage. This can be removed.
The Hindu Businessline Link 9 Yes No Yes Yes Acquisition, trivial coverage. This can be removed.
The Hindu Businessline Link 10 Yes No Yes Yes Acquisition, trivial coverage. This can be removed.
Financial Express Link 11 Yes No No Yes Acquisition, trivial coverage. This can be removed.
BW Disrupt Link 12 Yes No Yes Yes Acquisition, trivial coverage. This can be removed.
Entrepreneur Link 13 Yes No No Yes Acquisition, trivial coverage. This can be removed.
Campaign India Link 14 Yes No No Yes Acquisition, trivial coverage. This can be removed.
The Hindu Businessline Link 15 Yes No No Yes Acquisition, trivial coverage. This can be removed.
Entrepreneur Link 16 Yes No No Yes Acquisition, trivial coverage. This can be removed.
Financial Express Link 17 Yes No No Yes Acquisition, trivial coverage. This can be removed.
Total qualifying sources 6 These 6 are my forced ones.
36Flames (talk) 14:45, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@36Flames: I have removed the indenting from the table so it displays properly, and corrected the "Pass" column based on your assessments of the other columns (which are unchanged). Based on that, there are a total of only two that pass, not 6. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:29, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist, thank you very much. I have got some clarity. Let me try if I can find some good sources. Still learning. If things doesn't workout. I will ask for deletion. -- 36Flames (talk) 17:52, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@36Flames: this draft was only declined, not rejected (rejection would mean the end of the road). Comments are optional, it is the decline notice that matters, as it gives the reason(s) for the decline. In this case, it is say that there is insufficient evidence the subject is notable according to the WP:NCORP guideline. You need to therefore provide better sources to satisfy that guideline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, DoubleGrazing for explaining it in details. However, can you share some examples which are considered as notable sources because I have checked & wasn't sure about it. The citations which I have mentioned are actual & factual data with journalist involved & those are perennial sources as well. Still Notability is an issue. Hence, need guidance with some examples. -- 36Flames (talk) 06:46, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You asked the same question above, and I answered it above. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you say it was declined with no comments? And this is actually the fourth decline. :The third decline, by reviewer user:Thilsebatti, had the edit summary "Declining submission: adv - Submission reads like an advertisement" with an inline template explaining in that problem in detail.
The fourth decline, by user:AllWeKnowOfHeaven after you made minimal changes, had the edit summary "Declining submission: corp - Submission is about a company or organization not yet shown to meet notability guidelines" with an inline template explaining the notability problem in detail. Meters (talk) 08:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ohh my apology, Meters, I have not checked the comments under the history section. I was checking the top section of the article. -- 36Flames (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
36Flames, the issue with sources is not whether the source is notable. Some highly notable sources are completely unreliable. Examples of notable but unreliable sources that come to mind are Weekly World News and Der Stürmer. What you need are sources that are simultaneously reliable and independent and that devote significant, in depth coverage to this topic. WP:RSP is a guide to commonly discussed sources, but it is not comprehensive because there are many thousands of sources. Wikipedia editors need to develop the skill of evaluating the reliability of lesser known sources on their own. Cullen328 (talk) 07:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Cullen328. Exactly, my point is the same. There are lots of theories about notability. There are lots of dont's in the notability. I have seen in many of the AfD's that Indian Newspapers are not notable & close the AfD. How we can develop skills if there are no clarity? That is why I am asking for examples for entire notability. -- 36Flames (talk) 08:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
36Flames, are you really hearing me? You are focusing on the notability of sources which is irrelevant. What is relevant is the RELIABILITY of sources. Cullen328 (talk) 08:20, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328, I am talking all about notability. Presumed, Significant Coverage, Reliable, Sources & Independent of the Subject. Yes many of the citations do have Journalist & they are from perennial sources. So, yes I am hearing to you. But still clarity is missing. -- 36Flames (talk) 08:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@36Flames: I think at this point you're just arguing the semantics or whatever, rather than making the effort to actually understand our policies and guidelines. There is plenty of "clarity" around our definition of notability, starting at WP:N.
The long and short of it is that the sources in your draft provide no evidence of notability, being only routine business reporting ("Veefin appoints...", "Veefin raises...", "Veefin launches...", etc.), which is invariably based on press releases or similar material, ie. not independent, and only covers a specific issue such as new product launch rather than providing independent and significant coverage of the subject as a whole.
You said earlier that if Veefin doesn't prove notable, you'll drop it. I think we're getting close to that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:23, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, DoubleGrazing. I know that if there are multiple declines & all of them are towards notability (majorly seen for independent & significant coverage) then the article will not go to mainspace. I also know that I will not be able to answer Anachronist appropriately. Even my mentor (Codename Noreste) is not replying for my questions. I am not arguing, just need clarity or else everytime I will fail to contribute.
1) My understanding for independent means source is from publicly published newspaper from perennial sources list and journalist name present then how come it is still not independent?
2) Just need few Indian organization examples where sources are notable which covers all the 5 pointers.
Also, I need a mentor to guide me. If you can be my mentor it will be great. Don't worry I wont't ask too many queries. -- 36Flames (talk) 08:51, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"My understanding for independent means source is from publicly published newspaper from perennial sources list and journalist name present then how come it is still not independent?"
There is more to it than that. A perfectly 'legit' source, say the New York Times or The Guardian, may publish an article which is based on an interview of a business founder or executive talking about their business. That would mean it is not independent, as it is a primary source (the subject talking about themselves), although appearing in what would typically be classified as a secondary publication. Similarly, many seemingly respectable publications, eg. trade magazines such as CRN, routinely carry content based on press releases etc., which again would not be independent, significant coverage, even though the publication itself is by and large an acceptable source.
Indian newspapers have (not only, but especially) a reputation for low 'news threshold', and are even known to accept content in exchange for payment. That is why routine business reporting, celebrity gossip, film-related chatter, etc. in them is often treated with a degree of skepticism; see WP:RSNOI. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:03, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DoubleGrazing, this is good & thanks. I know this. Let me evaluate Veefin Group article with all the citations so that it will be answered to dear Anachronist as well. -- 36Flames (talk) 13:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@36Flames: Another rule of thumb (you probably already know this): Don't just focus on where the article comes from, pay attention to what it says. If it's just reporting funding or acquisitions, it probably will be rejected as not "significant". A lot of the sources you used are not "significant", so it doesn't matter if they're independent. AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:57, 4 November 2025 review of submission by 12Gaurav12

Why my article get rejected , I want to know reason 12Gaurav12 (talk) 07:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 12Gaurav12. Your draft is an almost entirely unreferenced essay giving your personal opinions about modern furniture. Please read WP:NOTESSAY. It bears no resemblance to an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia already has an article called Modern furniture and does not need another article on the same topic. Cullen328 (talk) 08:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:46, 4 November 2025 review of submission by Info.jkshukla

Dear Team, I have put a lot of afforts to write my first article. I am new to Wikipedia. The Person I am writing about is very renowned for her work in the industry and received multiple rewards and recognization as well. I took help from LLM to fix any gramatical errors of my article, not to write it.

I need your expert guideance and advice to publish the article It will also help me to contribute more on Wikipedia by writing and updating more articles. Please help me. Thanks, Info.jkshukla (talk) 10:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Info.jkshukla You took a photo from her website, but her website states "all rights reserved", so you cannot use images from her website here and you must immediately without delay request the image's deletion from Commons. The vast majority of images on the internet are not suitable for use on Wikipedia.
You have documented her work and accomplishments, but this is actually not what is being looked for- we are looking for a summary of what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about her and what makes her a notable person as Wikipedia defines one. If she is renowned for her work, we need the sources that say that and why, not just a description of her work. Awards are meaningless towards establishing notability unless the awards themselves have articles(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award).
If you can fundamentally change the draft to address the concerns, you should first appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 10:53, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You must write in your own words, do not use AI. Please see guidance on AI use. 331dot (talk) 10:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Info.jkshukla Please never upload copyright violations anywhere, least of all to Wikipedia Commons. At least you declared the apparent author, but even they are unlikely to be the copyright owner. Stuff you find om the internet is almost always copyright items and you may not upload them.
This has been nominated for deletion on Commons as a copyright violation. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 11:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I'm sorry, but this draft does not show any shred of notability for the person, and that means there cannot be an article about her. As for the LLM style writing, one typical indication (not by any means the only one!) is the inclusion of fluff text similar to "X has been profiled in Y publication". That's irrelevant! If the text in Y publication is a reliable, independent, and secondary source, information from there can be included in the article without any help from an AI, with the publication Y source used as a reference. An AI also doesn't understand that something like the paid puff piece replicated in four different places here, here, here, and here is the same thing and cannot be used as four different sources – a human reading the sources discovers that in a few seconds! (To be clear, that source is worthless for Wikipedia's purposes anyway and can't be used at all.)
Abandon this draft and spend some weeks or months editing existing Wikipedia articles to learn about the policies and guidelines. Doing that will make you much better able to create a draft from scratch! --bonadea contributions talk 11:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The draft has been rejected, not just declined. That means STOP, don't continue wasting your time or ours on this, and move on to something else.
It is obvious that the LLM did far more than merely "fix grammatical errors" as you claim. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:56, 4 November 2025 review of submission by Thembinkosi Nene

i want to know why is my article declined Thembinkosi Nene (talk) 12:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thembinkosi Nene I have fixed your header so it links to your draft as intended, you need the full title, including the "Draft:" portion.
The reviewer left the reason at the top of the draft, do you have more specific questions about it? 331dot (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Thembinkosi Nene.
The reviewer told you that three of your sources were not reliable, so you have responded by removing two of them and resubmitting with no other changes.
This is like if you built a house, and an engineer told you that some of the beams were not strong enough to support the structure, so you just took those beams out. This doesn't work: you need to cite (and base almost the whole of your article) on sources that are reliable, independent, and contain significant coverage of Prizmondz Artz - see WP:42. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 17:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:10, 4 November 2025 review of submission by MATHEMATICART

Why u reject my article ? An article about mathematics and art. I am an artist and in same time a mathematician specialized in artificial intelligence. My company is www.directingintelligence.com and my artistic work is www.mathematicart.org MATHEMATICART (talk) 14:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @MATHEMATICART.
Your draft was rejected because it isn't an encyclopaedia article, it is an essay or a research paper.
A Wikipedia article should be a summary of existing published sources about a subject. original research is never acceptable in a Wikipedia article.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 17:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:11, 4 November 2025 review of submission by Touma m

My draft has been declined again. I understand that the reviewer mentioned it reads more like an advertisement rather than an encyclopedic entry. However, I had previously been advised to declare a Conflict of Interest (COI), which I did when editing my draft the second time. I was under the impression that making this COI disclosure would help my draft move forward in the review process. Could I please get more clarification on why the disclosure didn’t affect the outcome, and what specific changes I should make to meet Wikipedia’s neutrality standards? Touma m (talk) 14:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's best for you to disclose on your user page(also see my comment on your user talk page) so it has maximum visibility. While it's required that you do this, it is not a guarantee or promise that your draft will be accepted.
What you are attempting to do is not easily accomplished. Please read WP:BOSS, and show it to your superiors, as it is specifically relevant to your situation. Most people in your position fail; are you the rare person who can succeed? Possibly, but the odds are against it. 331dot (talk) 14:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The awards you mention do not contribute to notability, as the awards themselves lack articles(like Nobel Peace Prize or Grammy Award). You have just summarized the activities of the company, this is routine coverage that does not establish notability. Please read WP:ORG carefully. 331dot (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:39, 4 November 2025 review of submission by ContentCreator100

Hi, I just want to understand why this article was declined when it contains just as much if not more references than other articles about music composers/directors (for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurent_Belissen)? Thank you ContentCreator100 (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ContentCreator100 Please see other stuff exists; that other articles exist does not necessarily mean that they meet current standards, if they ever did. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can, when they can, inappropriate content can get past us. This cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles, which have received community vetting.
If you want to help us, and prevent others from doing what you did, please identify these other articles you have seen so action can be taken. We need the help, and we are only as good as the people who choose to help. The article you cite, Laurent Belissen(the whole url is not needed when linking) has only one source and isn't acceptable at present. 331dot (talk) 14:49, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ContentCreator100:, I left a comment on the draft. It is an uphill battle here as there is a lot of rewriting and sourcing that needs to be replaced. Even then, there is no guarantee of notability, but at least this is a place to start should you decide to continue working on the draft. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I really appreciate the help. I will continue working on the draft with your feedback in mind. ContentCreator100 (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:17, 4 November 2025 review of submission by Zena Ghossoub

Hello, my draft “Zena Ghossoub” was recently declined with the reason “This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia,” under the WP:NARTIST guidelines. I would like to request that the draft be moved to my user space (User:Zena_Ghossoub/sandbox) so I can continue improving it by adding more reliable, independent sources and neutral content. I am working on improving the article's notability and would appreciate any further feedback or guidance you can provide. Zena Ghossoub (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to be in your user space, you are welcome to continue to edit it where it is. Draft space is the preferred location for drafts. As long as you edit it once every six months, it will remain(and even if deleted due to inactivity it may be restored via WP:REFUND). If you improve the draft to address the concerns, you should first appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zena Ghossoub: It's been rejected, not just declined. That means stop, don't continue, you would be wasting your and the community's time submitting it for further review.
I don't know what possesses people to want to write articles about themselves. Vanity? Self-promotion? Publicity? None of those things are allowed here. See Wikipedia:Autobiography for further advice. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:21, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for review: Chrome Angelz RC draft

Hello editors, I’ve recently resubmitted a draft for Chrome Angelz RC, an international women’s motorcycle riding club founded in 2011. The draft now includes multiple independent reliable sources, such as: CBC News via Yahoo Canada (2015) NBC26 News (2019) Journal Tribune / Portland Press Herald (2018) Duluth News Tribune (2019) Wisconsin Agriculturist (Farm Progress, 2019) WBBM Newsradio (2023) Cronkite News (2021) I’ve also rewritten for neutral, encyclopedic tone, disclosed my COI as the organization’s webmaster (not a member), and used self-published sources only for verifiable factual data like founding year and nonprofit status. The current draft is located here: 

👉 User:85frankenstein/sandbox

Would any experienced reviewer be willing to take a look when time permits? Thank you very much for your time and help! 

—85frankenstein (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @85frankenstein. I've moved it to Draft:Chrome Angelz RC and removed the broken code that ChatGPT generated when you used ChatGPT to format your draft. Since you used ChatGPT, please very carefully read Wikipedia:Large language models and ensure every part of your draft has no LLM hallucinations.
The draft has been submitted for review and will be reviewed in due course. qcne (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much !!!!! ~2025-31224-09 (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
85frankenstein Remember to log in when posting. 331dot (talk) 18:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:10, 4 November 2025 review of submission by Nideon

Hi,

I need support to undeatand what it is needed to the page being accepted.

there issue is mention as the next : WP:NCORP there is zero significant coverage in independent sources.

but it was not dificult to find similar irish companies with a wikipedia page that has the same templete as me that it was accepted.

Exemple : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_Networks

So I need support to understand what is needed. My latest edit has 12 references. Nideon (talk) 18:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nideon Please see other stuff exists. That other articles exist does not necessarily mean that they were "approved" or "accepted" by anyone. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can, when they can, it is possible for inappropriate content to get past us, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. This is why we judge each article or draft on their own merits and not based on the presence of other articles. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Agile Networks has been tagged as problematic since 2012. Not the best example to use. 331dot (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:29, 4 November 2025 review of submission by Ryan Kaviu M

why was it decliined please provide in depth information Ryan Kaviu M (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can say that you cannot take an image of the school logo to get around copyright, you will need to immediately without delay request its deletion. 331dot (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your sources are mostly primary sources or basic information. The school seems like it could be notable, but you need more independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:04, 4 November 2025 review of submission by Masudparvej023

I am requesting assistance to improve and verify information about the Ziovix social media platform. As the founder and current CEO, I want to ensure that the details presented are accurate, neutral, and meet the notability and formatting standards required by Wikipedia. I seek guidance in organizing the article structure, adding reliable sources, and properly categorizing the content under relevant WikiProjects. Masudparvej023 (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place to promote your platform. See WP:YESPROMO. 331dot (talk) 19:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting administrator/reviewer attention – Draft:Dr Sunita Dube

Hello, I would like to request an administrator or experienced reviewer to review my draft article Draft:Dr Sunita Dube.

The draft has been improved with multiple independent, reliable sources including The Indian Express, Hindustan Times, The Times of India, Business Standard, and The Week, as well as references in government and academic records (Rashtrapati Bhavan DPL listing).

Earlier feedback (by 331dot on 4 November 2025) suggested the subject may be notable but needed stronger sources. These have now been added.

Kindly consider re-reviewing for publication. Thank you! Wiki-Edit-Your-Life (talk) 19:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Draft:Dr. Sunita Dube Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:14, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you have already selected the article for review. It will be checked when a reviewer is available. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:15, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean "submitted", @Lee Vilenski ColinFine (talk) 11:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:13, 4 November 2025 review of submission by ~2025-31286-63

Where should I place the paid editor disclosure? And what should this disclosure look like? ~2025-31286-63 (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest way to disclose would be to create a non-temporary account and disclose on its user page; absent doing that, just disclose on the draft talk page. 331dot (talk) 19:35, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please log in to your account User:Jared Press when editing. Theroadislong (talk) 12:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:52, 4 November 2025 review of submission by GFeastko4444

Answered with an exhortation to find a better website 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:36, 5 November 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.

help GFeastko4444 (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GFeastko4444 Please go elsewhere to share your fictional stories. There are plenty of other websites that allow that content. qcne (talk) 20:53, 4 November 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.

21:06, 4 November 2025 review of submission by XRodox

My submission was rejected, I’d like ways I can better revise and update my draft to make it more effective and more likely to be accepted. XRodox (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @XRodox. You have provided no evidence that this person meets our strict criteria for inclusion: Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion (people). You need to do that for there to be any chance of an acceptance. It is quite likely this person does not currently meet our criteria, and therefore cannot have an article written about her. qcne (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:18, 4 November 2025 review of submission by ~2025-31256-01

Can you edit this article? ~2025-31256-01 (talk) 22:18, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can, but we generally do not get involved in co-editing here. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 02:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's now a reasonable stub, I think. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:49, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]


November 5

02:23, 5 November 2025 review of submission by Borunth

Draft deleted editor blocked 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:33, 5 November 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.

Please help to post from sandbox Borunth (talk) 02:23, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Borunth: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. I've tagged this advertizement delivered with the volume of a jet engine for deletion. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 02:33, 5 November 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.

12:50, 5 November 2025 review of submission by Safitis

Contact made between editor and reviewer 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:32, 5 November 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.

Greetings, colleagues. I'm a little unclear about what's wrong with this article. Of course, I don't have much experience, but the sources are quite serious, professional, and quite authoritative for Uzbekistan. Usmanov is being discussed by authoritative critics in the country. Perhaps it would be worth expanding on the sources for this article? Usmanov and his work are not being mentioned in passing. He has received awards and recognition.

If you could suggest anything to strengthen the article, I would be extremely grateful. Thank you! Safitis (talk) 12:50, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Safitis First, please have a converstaion with the declining reviewer. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:02, 5 November 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.

13:51, 5 November 2025 review of submission by Lukedxhehexd

See WP:NOTSOCIAL 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:34, 5 November 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.

Why did you remove my article, yes I understand its not true or anything like that but still. I'm explaining why we should understand strangers fairly? Im complaining about this btw Lukedxhehexd (talk) 13:51, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not host essays, this is not a blogging website. Please find the proper forum for your essay, like social media. 331dot (talk) 14:00, 5 November 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.

15:22, 5 November 2025 review of submission by Borisandre

Hi everyone,

I’m looking for some advice on my draft article on Klippa. It was declined on 25 September 2025 with the note that the references didn’t show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article.

Since then, I’ve rewritten it carefully to make sure it uses a neutral tone and only relies on independent, reliable, secondary sources, none of which we had any involvement in creating. I’ve tried to ensure the sources give real coverage, not just brief mentions or routine announcements.

Despite these changes, the draft hasn’t been reviewed again since September, and I’m not sure why it’s still falling short. Could someone take a look and let me know whether the current sources are strong enough under the WP:GNG and WP:ORG guidelines? And if not, what specifically I could add or change to get it closer to acceptance?

I’d really appreciate any guidance, as I’m trying to make sure everything fits Wikipedia’s standards and is done the right way.

Thank you for your help! Borisandre (talk) 15:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a hurry? The template says it can take more than 2 months. There is no deadline here.
Just looking at it, it still contains evidence of having been written by an AI. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't use multiple forums to seek assistance; I replied on your other posting. 331dot (talk) 15:47, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Borisandre no Declined with rationale. Your decision is now simple. Are you able to find sources thus?
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.
If so then rework the draft according to what those sources say. If not I suggest abandoning your quest. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:25, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:12, 5 November 2025 review of submission by Boyd2703

My draft was flagged for peacock language and not sounding like an encyclopaedic entry. Could I please have further insights on this? I can see the word 'strengthening' may be deemed peacock language but uncertain where else I have written it not like an encyclopaedia. Keen to improve and learn! Would love to start over and resubmit but would like clearer insights into how I can improve the writing, is it a need to strip back the information and language entirely? Many thanks. Boyd2703 (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are making a fundamental- if common- error in that you are telling us what you want the world to know about your company, like its activities and offerings. That's the wrong approach. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. "Significant coverage" is that which goes beyond just telling routine information about the company and goes into detail about what the source sees as important/significant/influential about the company. You have 52 references- far too many- most of them seem to be basic reports or other primary sources. What are the three absolute best independent reliable sources with significant coverage that you have?
Please see WP:BOSS, and show it to your superiors and colleagues. Companies trying to force the issue of creating an article about them aren't usually successful. Our articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the topic, who take note of coverage of a topic and choose to write about it. 331dot (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Boyd2703 Thsi draft is a blatant advert. I have requested speedy deletion. That does not stop you from starting again. However, as presented, I an unable to see the org passing WP:NCORP. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:32, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to review my article and share your feedback. I truly appreciate your experience and insights, particularly regarding writing quality and sourcing. I’m currently conducting a thorough review and have started revising the draft based on your recommendations.
While I understand your concerns, I would like to request that the article not be deleted at this stage. I believe there is sufficient third-party coverage and reliable sources to meet notability requirements. Additionally, I’ve noticed similar articles, like the Klippa one above, proceeding despite potential conflicts of interest, which makes me feel this topic warrants inclusion as well or at least a second chance.
That said, I fully respect your expertise and the standards you uphold. My aim is to improve the article so it aligns with Wikipedia’s guidelines, and I welcome any further advice you may have. Please may I have another opportunity. Thanks so much. Boyd2703 (talk) 17:27, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Boyd2703 No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
Ask a self declared paid editor you may not advertise your paymaster's business. You may only writ neutral and well referenced prose. You might be able to solve the major issues the draft has, but you will be far better to start from new, good sources. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:19, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:21, 5 November 2025 review of submission by Vasima Faruqui School

Editor blocked 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi Boby,

This is Jwaad Ahmed, the president of Vasima Faruqui Charitable Society. I am the founder of Vasima Faruqui School, I have started this school in the beloved memory of my mother Vasima Faruqui and please help me upload this information on Wikipedia. I am new to Wikipedia. Your help is highly appreciated and approval is highly obliged.

Regards, Jwaad Ahmed President & CEO Vasima Faruqui School Vasima Faruqui School (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Rejected draft deleted, user blocked.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:31, 5 November 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.

17:26, 5 November 2025 review of submission by ~2025-31139-74

Dear sir/mam Thank you for your message. I appreciate your guidance. I am willing to improve the article content. I am currently working on adding **independent and reliable sources** to verify the information mentioned in the article.

If you could please point out which parts appear promotional or insufficiently sourced, I will revise them accordingly to follow Wikipedia's policies and neutrality standards.

Thank you. Ratna Sunuwar ~2025-31139-74 (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are Ratnasunuwar, please log into your account whenever editing.
Everything is insufficiently sourced, since there are no inline citations (hard requirement in articles on living people) and the sources cited don't seem particularly good.
We don't host autobiographies. If you wish to tell the world about yourself, please try LinkedIn or some other social media platform instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:35, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please communicate with us directly, not through an AI. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:11, 5 November 2025 review of submission by PASAPHC2024

Hi, I’ve recently resubmitted my draft after substantial improvements. It now cites multiple independent, reliable sources providing significant biographical coverage including a CT Insider feature (a Hearst Media publication), two Reading Eagle features, and an article from The Pit. Could someone familiar with film or photography topics please take a look and let me know if it now meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for biographies? Thanks so much! PASAPHC2024 (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @PASAPHC2024, having a quick look at your sources I think you have fallen into the same trap as many new editors: to help demonstrate notability, a source must be all three of reliable, independent, and significant coverage. See WP:42 for more information. Usually we ask for at least three WP:42-compliant sources to show a subject is notable.
Interviews and articles based largely around them are not independent, so you immediately lose the CT Insider piece and the RE piece by Speese for your notability sources. Of the remainder, the Forbes source is a passing mention (not significant coverage), The Pit appears to be about someone else entirely (or is a primary non-independent source if you're using information Hazard gave there), Getty Images is none of the three, and the RE piece by Hanson is a passing mention. The RE piece by Rasmussen is great - you want more like that! I hope that breakdown is of some use to you. Meadowlark (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:17, 5 November 2025 review of submission by Hookthis

I am wondering where I might find the reasons my new submission was rejected. I specifically addressed all of the previous issues. Your time and efforts are most appreciated. Hookthis (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hookthis, many of your sources do not seem to exist. Did you use ChatGPT/another AI or LLM to help write this draft, by any chance? Meadowlark (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]


November 6

01:26, 6 November 2025 review of submission by Bohan Zhang1

Why is my article rejected? Where did I go wrong on? Bohan Zhang1 (talk) 01:26, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's no evidence for notability for the simulation, there's basically nothing about the simulation beyond a single sentence, and there are no references of any kind, let alone the independent, reliable, significant sourcing required for articles. It also reads like an introduction for a running log that you and your team will make for your project, something that is suitable for your own web page hosted elsewhere, not an encyclopedia article. You also seem to have undisclosed conflict of interest as well. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:47, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bohan Zhang1 In addition to what CoffeeCrumbs said, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day and Wikipedia:NOTWEBHOST. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:56, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:08, 6 November 2025 review of submission by RebeccaShear

My submission has been rejected on the basis of references not being reliable, secondary or strictly independent. However, they are stories that have been published by independent media outlets like the Boston Globe, AdAge and The Australian. How can I get more information on why they are not suitable references? RebeccaShear (talk) 04:08, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCORP would be the best place to get further information. The references you've provided -- and most of the article -- basically focus on the normal day-to-day functions of a corporation, not anything that makes this a notable corporation. Routine reporting on things like acquisitions, mergers, reorganization, and funding rounds are considered WP:CORPTRIV, and cannot be used to establish notability. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RebeccaShear The sources may be reliable- but they only document routine business activities. Your draft just tells of the activities and offerings of your company. This is not significant coverage. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. "Significant coverage" is that which goes beyond just telling of the activities of the company and goes into detail about what is important/significant/influential about the company as the source sees it, not as the company itself might see it.
Please read WP:BOSS, and show it to your superiors and colleagues. In short, companies trying to force the issue of creating an article are rarely successful. Our articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the topic, who take note of coverage of a topic in independent sources and choose on their own to write about it. 331dot (talk) 10:13, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:18, 6 November 2025 review of submission by Ishikatiwari2775

My page is not getting published, although it is not for advertising purpose. Ishikatiwari2775 (talk) 06:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have two major problems with your draft, @Ishikatiwari2775. The first is that you have not shown that the company qualifies for a Wikipedia article; you can find the relevant criteria at WP:NCORP. The second is that your draft was written by an AI/LLM such as ChatGPT, so the wording is extremely promotional - LLMs always write like this, and it is not suitable for a Wikipedia article. To fix both issues you will need to find sources that are not WP:CORPTRIV, and then you will need to completely rewrite the draft in your own words. Other pages that might be helpful: WP:42 (what you're looking for in a source), WP:YFA (basic overview of writing a draft). Meadowlark (talk) 06:46, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:00, 6 November 2025 review of submission by Noareuv

ive created a draft but i can't seem to publish it for review Noareuv (talk) 10:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Noareuv: I've added the necessary template to it. There's a blue 'submit' button in the bottom-right corner of the template, just click that when ready. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:08, 6 November 2025 review of submission by Meiteileima

Hi, I attempted to create a Wikipedia page for Archana Kapoor, but it was declined on October 14. The article included sources such as mainstream news coverage and content from reputable organizations’ social media and writeups. Could you please help me understand what improvements are needed for it to be accepted? Meiteileima (talk) 12:08, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meiteileima I fixed your header, your draft is actually in your sandbox.
You have described her activities, but not what makes her a notable person as sources see it. Interviews with her do not contribute to notability. 331dot (talk) 12:11, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not only interviews, Archana Kapoor is an Indian media entrepreneur and development communicator known for her pioneering work in community radio and gender advocacy. She is the Founder of Seeking Modern Applications for Real Transformation (SMART) and Radio Mewat, one of India’s first community radio stations established to empower rural and marginalized communities through participatory communication.
Kapoor also founded and directs The Radio Festival (TRF) — a national platform supported by UNESCO, Prasar Bharati, and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. TRF brings together public, private, and community broadcasters, as well as podcasters, to celebrate audio and foster dialogue on the future of sound.
Internationally, Kapoor has represented India at several global forums, including as a TEDx speaker in Washington DC and a speaker at the 62nd Session of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) in New York. She has participated in Asia-Pacific Broadcasting Union (ABU) Radio Festivals and UNESCO-led consultations on media, gender, and sustainable development.
She collaborated with UNESCO New Delhi and CEMCA to launch the international handbook “Best Practices of Community Radio and Sustainable Development Goals.” Her contributions have been recognized with the Devi Award, Laadli Media Award, and SKOCH Order of Merit, among others. Meiteileima (talk) 12:17, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Meiteileima: I get the feeling you're not hearing what we're trying to say. Being a TEDx speaker means her speaking. Being interviewed is her speaking. Commenting on things is her speaking. None of that contributes anything to her notability. Commentators, lobbyists, advocates, etc., by definition spend their time speaking and getting their views into media, that's just their standard stock in trade. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:23, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources are Kapoor commenting or being interviewed, or otherwise primary sources. We're not interested in what she has to say, we want to see significant coverage about her, in multiple secondary sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:16, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Her contributions have been recognized with the Devi Award, Laadli Media Award, and SKOCH Order of Merit Meiteileima (talk) 12:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Awards are meaningless towards notability unless the awards themselves merit articles(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). 331dot (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But I’ve seen many people who have Wikipedia pages without winning a Nobel Peace Prize or an Academy Award. How come they have one? I’d like to create one too — please help me. Meiteileima (talk) 12:22, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see other stuff exists; there are many articles that are likely inappropriate, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate articles. If you want to tell us what these other articles you have seen are, we can take action so that others don't do what you did and base a draft on poorly written articles.
I offer the Peace Prize only as an example of an award that has an article, meaning that someone being given a Peace Prize is notable. Anyone can create an award- I can give you my 331dot Editing Award. That's meaningless because it's not notable, so it wouldn't confer notability on you. 331dot (talk) 12:27, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Meiteileima: that's as may be, but if you don't say that in the draft, then it's pretty pointless to say that here at the help desk, either. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
so tell me what should I do, to accept it as wiki article, enlighten me Meiteileima (talk) 12:24, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Meiteileima: almost certainly (unless this person is an elected legislator, senior scientist, etc.) you need to demonstrate that she meets the general notability guideline WP:GNG. That requires significant coverage (not just passing mentions), directly of her (not some related matters like causes she advocate for), in multiple secondary sources which are reliable and entirely independent of her and of each other. That excludes interviews, matters she has commented on, and things she has otherwise said or written. It also excludes anything based on press releases or other publicity/campaign materials, as well as any sponsored content (churnalism, advertorials, etc.). So you need to first find 3-5 sources that meet the GNG standard, and then draft your content based on them, as described in WP:GOLDENRULE. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:28, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:41, 6 November 2025 review of submission by Masyundai

Bisa buatkan article tentang Opposition Indonesia Masyundai (talk) 13:41, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Masyundai, if you want an article about Opposition Indonesia to be written, you have to do it yourself. Otherwise, add a list item to Wikipedia:Requested articles, or ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indonesia. -- Reconrabbit 15:55, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Masyundai: Siapa pun dipersilakan menulis artikel tentang Oposisi Indonesia jika memiliki sumber tepercaya, tetapi ini bukan tempat yang tepat untuk meminta seseorang menulis drafnya. Anda dapat mengirimkan permintaan di WP:RA (dalam bahasa Inggris, ya!), tetapi perlu diketahui bahwa editor biasanya menulis artikel yang ingin mereka tulis, bukan artikel yang diinginkan orang lain. (Google Translate digunakan untuk menulis ini.)
Anyone is welcome to create an article about Opposition Indonesia if they have reliable sources, but this is not the right place to ask for someone to write the draft for you. You can submit a request at WP:RA (in English, please!) but be aware that editors usually write articles that they want to write rather than articles other people want them to write. (Google Translate was used to write this.) Meadowlark (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:03, 6 November 2025 review of submission by Cullimorer

My draft page I am trying to create is marked as generated by a large language model but I wrote it myself Cullimorer (talk) 14:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mark it as AI-generated if I was reviewing it, but it looks like the article needs more sources since there is nothing that supports Hughes' early life and education other than his MA at Metfilm, as well as several statements under Career. Also, the references are more supporting the notability of Dreaming Whilst Black and not Hughes himself since he isn't being discussed in any detail by the independent sources in the text. -- Reconrabbit 15:41, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:19, 6 November 2025 review of submission by Anamul Hasan Rafin

what i have to do for posting this? Anamul Hasan Rafin (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing; it has been rejected and now deleted; please find somewhere else to advertise. 331dot (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See also deletion log of User:Anamul Hasan Rafin/sandbox/Email Signature Generator. —‍Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:56, 6 November 2025 review of submission by RasikaofVR

Please let me know what you mean by "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia" she has more than 100 concert links in youtube. I have a bunch of news articles for 'The Hindu' RasikaofVR (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RasikaofVR You continually re-submitted without improving the citations. Please very carefully read the referencing tutorial at Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1. If you can create proper references, let me know and I'll take another look. qcne (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I modified it, can you please give me example of what you mean by references. Thank you RasikaofVR (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RasikaofVR There are no in-line citations. We require in-line citations. Please follow the tutorial at Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1. qcne (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is in-line citation (cite web) which i have added already, is there anything else that needs to be added. RasikaofVR (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly haven't read the tutorial I have linked to you twice now, as there are no in-line citations in the draft at all. qcne (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the citations can please check, i am not able to submit because i think i did too many submissions:) RasikaofVR (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In a biographic article, every single statement must have in-line citations. Everything. Most of the draft is still uncited. qcne (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh got it. Thanks RasikaofVR (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the page is removed, i will create again with all the citaions. Thank you for your patience, appreciate it RasikaofVR (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RasikaofVR: please proceed with care. I've just deleted three copies of your promo piece, and issued you a warning. If you can produce a non-promotional draft with reasonable evidence of notability, please go ahead. But if you carry on this same vein, you will likely be blocked for spamming. Up to you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:50, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thank you, I will submit a draft in sandbox 1st then will create page ones everything looks good. RasikaofVR (talk) 20:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:30, 6 November 2025 review of submission by RajendraRajan.M

why my article declined ? what is the reason? and how to resolve it RajendraRajan.M (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RajendraRajan.M Your draft article is blank. It has no content. To resolve this, please write something on the draft. qcne (talk) 18:33, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
where to write? i have already created a content RajendraRajan.M (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Click here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ARajendraRajan.M%2Fsandbox&veaction=edit
and when you're finished, save it by clicking "Publish changes" qcne (talk) 18:48, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You created an article on your user page, I have moved it to here Draft:Rajendra Rajan for you. Theroadislong (talk) 19:44, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:31, 6 November 2025 review of submission by RasikaofVR

What should i do RasikaofVR (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in your above message, @RasikaofVR, you continually re-submitted without improving the citations. Please very carefully read the referencing tutorial at Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1. If you can create proper references, let me know and I'll take another look. qcne (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:32, 6 November 2025 review of submission by Jedi0012

i am getting it denied due to Subject of Criteria or something and i have 4 references of the game. I would like this verified and put onto the Wikipedia page as Tanks 3D .io is a real game and I play it. Jedi0012 (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, @Jedi0012. It is not possible for topics that do not meet our criteria for inclusion to have a Wikipedia article. Just because you play the game and it exists, doesn't mean it merits an article here. qcne (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I give up. Jedi0012 (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you've had a bad experience - writing a new article is the most difficult task a new editor can do. Why not look at some easier tasks like improving existing articles that interest you? See Special:Homepage for some suggestions. qcne (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine. Jedi0012 (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:55:35, 6 November 2025 review of submission by Kbedell

I have had this article rejected for a second time due to it being initially generated by an LLM. I did initially use an llm to generate the article and complete some research on the topic, but I have combed over it in detail and have done my best to remove any promotional writing, ensured there are no hallucinations, and verified the existence of all referenced articles.

I believe the article is now in a state where it is solid and fact-based with minimal promotional tone. You can review the edits I've made and I believe I've done a conscientious job to ensure it meets standards.

I will review the article one more time and will do my best to make appropriate changes, though at this point I'm guessing what could be a problem unless I can get more specific feedback.

Thank you for your support. Kbedell (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have now verified that there are no AI hallucinations, feel free to re-submit for review. However, I would probably cut down on the Activities and Traditions sections which belong more in a brochure vs Wikipedia. Ensure the camp meets our criteria for inclusion at Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion (organizations and companies). qcne (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your assistance. I have simply removed the Activities and Traditions sections to reduce the risk of seeming promotional. I've also done another sweep of the article to look for other promotional tone and have resubmitted. Kbedell (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:35, 6 November 2025 review of submission by ThisUserIsVivid

Advice on German-language sources for Draft:Vivid Money

Hello, I’ve resubmitted Draft:Vivid Money. Most of in-depth coverage there is in German, so I’ve added English trans-titles and set out a WP:THREE (t3n, IT-Finanzmagazin, FinanceFWD), plus two additional sources (Manager Magazin, and another FinanceFWD article).

Could someone advise whether these sources satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:RS for AfC? I’ve left an AfC comment noting a preference for a German-speaking reviewer, given the source language. Thanks! ThisUserIsVivid (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ThisUserIsVivid What you are doing is asking for a review here as well as resubmitting your draft. Makimg a request will neither speed not slow the review. It will happen when it happens. In the meantime please continue to improve the draft. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:56, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent: Thanks for the note, and apologies if my post suggested I was trying to accelerate AfC, I’m not. I resubmitted the draft as usual and posted here to double-check the sourcing.
For context, the last AfC reviewer and I discussed this on the draft talk page (see Draft talk:Vivid Money#Follow-up after AfC decline), and we agreed it may be better assessed by someone comfortable with German-language fintech sources. I’ve noted that as a preference in an AfC comment (but of course not as a request).
My specific question is whether the sources listed at Draft talk:Vivid Money#Notability (WP:NCORP) – WP:THREE satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:RS for AfC. If any fall short, guidance on whether the issue is routine, its depth, independence, or editorial quality would help me swap in stronger sources while I continue neutral copy-edits. If this question is better handled at WP:RSN or WT:CORP, I’m happy to take it there.
Thanks for the clarification and for your help. ThisUserIsVivid (talk) 12:28, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ThisUserIsVivid I find that Google Translate is almost always sufficient for checking references in languages not readily understood by the reviewer. We are able to determine with relative ease whether the reference passes WP:42. Unless, of course, we cannot.
I'll have a look at the draft without promising to review it. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:36, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ThisUserIsVivid no Declined with full rationale. You have work to do, and rather a lot of it, I fear. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:50, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:41, 6 November 2025 review of submission by YoYoSuryaPatra

This organization appears to meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria based on multiple independent and reliable sources (Economic Times, Inc42, Mint, and others). The article has been revised for neutrality, formatting, and citations. Draft Resubmitted for Approval. Shashwat986, DesiMoore, Robert McClenon, GoingBatty, Onel5969YoYoSuryaPatra (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

YoYoSuryaPatra (ec) Your header is now fixed so it links to your draft as intended, instead of a nonexistent page entitled "Updated Moneyview Article – Requesting Review".
You have submitted it for review and it is pending. Asking for a review does not speed this volunteer process. Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Concurring with 331dot, pinging a large number of reviewers, some of whom had only minimal involvement with the draft, may annoy the reviewers. We may express our annoyance by ignoring the ping, which neither speeds up nor slows down the review. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:57, 6 November 2025 review of submission by Ballj5

Hi, I have had a recent rejection of the above page been approved and I am really stuck in terms of how I progress and could really do with some support

I’m new to the wiki world so I am not entirely up to date with the terminology used.

The above was recently rejected for not having secondary sources and the admins comment states a ‘lot of original research’

The research I used was off the Mexborough Montagu Cups website and I have added several newspaper articles along with details of a book publication which celebrated a recent anniversary of the competitions.

Am I required to add further newspaper articles on the subject to ensure there is more credible sources to the page? Ballj5 (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ballj5 The problem is that you have not provided references proving that this competition is notable. You have proved that it exists. I exist, but I am not notable. The distinction is large. While you might find references to prove the event to be notable you will not find references to prove that I am
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.
More references does not mean notability is proven. Better references might. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ballj5:, I declined this previously as I couldn't even find anything online other than some social media information. I looked again and see this so wondering if it was known by a different name in the past.--CNMall41 (talk) 00:54, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the article relates to the competition. It’s official name is the Mexborough Montagu Hospital Cup (this is engraved on the trophy etc) however all newspaper articles seem to shorten it to ‘Montagu Cup’ or simply ‘The Mont’ which is what it is known as locally. The article you have highlighted is for this competition.
do you think I need to add your link on that you have found, or look to change the name of the page to ‘Montagu Cup’ Ballj5 (talk) 13:14, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:14, 6 November 2025 review of submission by Wtbj24

Hi there,

Thanks for taking the time to review my draft. I was just wondering why the sources were the problem with the draft? They are news articles covering the topic. I have also added another book as a source. I believe that the sources are in depth (they specifically cover the topic and don't deviate), independent as they're from media outlets and universities without links to the source (also covering the secondary aspect) as well as being reliable for covering related issues.

Please advise what else I need to do to have the article approved. Wtbj24 (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the draft is actually unsourced, and the sources you do have don't have significant coverage. The fact that you describe this as "new" is a strong indicator that it is too soon for an article about this topic. 331dot (talk) 12:35, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 7

00:16, 7 November 2025 review of submission by AndyShow1000000

I need help finding sources for this article. I have provided sources in the article, but they were not good enough. AndyShow1000000 (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would be shocked if the specific question about the pH value of water merited its own article. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:56, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like this would be better covered by another article, perhaps Properties of water which already mentions PH? @AndyShow1000000 in order to show that the PH of water is a widely debated topic, you'll need provide multiple reliable sources (preferably scholarly in nature) that discuss such a debate. My understanding is that the PH of water isn't widely debated – the consensus is that pure water is always 7, and that PH is changed by external factors. Nil🥝 02:32, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Independent Review - Draft:Safak Serez

Hello, I kindly request an independent review for my draft article titled "Draft:Safak Serez".

The draft was written in a neutral, encyclopedic tone and is fully supported by verifiable references, including academic, library, and music registry sources (Harvard University, Yale University, Taylor & Francis, ASCAP, Zenodo, and others).

I understand Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines and would appreciate if a neutral editor could review, polish, or resubmit the article on my behalf to ensure full compliance with Wikipedia standards.

Thank you very much for your time and support. — User:Safakserez Safakserez (talk) 04:22, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User blocked, RIP GGOTCC 04:52, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:28, 7 November 2025 review of submission by ~2025-31144-93

Why it didnt Move to main Article area. I am not asking ques about why, but i want to understand what we want to publish this in main area i mean what we need to do this ~2025-31144-93 (talk) 06:28, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in this draft that would explain why this person is any more notable than the other 100m 17-year-olds in the world. And even if there were some claim of notability, there is no evidence of it. If you want to tell the world about this person, you'll need to find a different platform for it, perhaps some blog or social media. (I'm deleting this draft, since it contains personal details of a minor. Please do not publish such information unnecessarily for safety and security reasons.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:01, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:36, 7 November 2025 review of submission by StephanReinerie

Is there anything missing in this draft for it to be published? StephanReinerie (talk) 06:36, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@StephanReinerie: I don't know; we don't do pre-reviews here at the help desk. If you want to find out, submit it for review, that way you'll get a proper assessment. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:57, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay, thanks a lot StephanReinerie (talk) 07:10, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:49, 7 November 2025 review of submission by Hysazemusic

Hey everyone. I have created the page for Esports Awards, which is mentioned in hundreds of other esports/gaming/streamers related articles on Wikipedia. Took me a lot of time to compile everything and cite as many sources as possible. However, it's my first page creation, and I would love to get assistance from experienced editors! Draft: Esports_Awards Hysazemusic (talk) 06:49, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hysazemusic: can you be more specific, what assistance do you require?
To compile "everything" is not necessarily a good idea. A Wikipedia article should not be a comprehensive catalogue of every little factoid that is known about a subject. For instance, we don't necessarily need to know every winner in every award category for every year.
Also, citing "as many sources as possible" is not always helpful: see WP:REFBOMBING. By and large, it would be better to cite a few solid sources that establish notability as well as verifying the information in the draft/article, than citing dozens of flaky ones that don't.
Anyway, those are just general comments, while waiting to hear what help you actually need. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:56, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I actually meant that can someone experienced go through it to proofread and let me know if there is any issues with it, or do I just submit it for review directly?
By "everything", I meant everything important that should be in the article and by "as many citations", I meant all the links that must be necessary to verify important information. I don't think I added unnecesary info/links.
Thanks a lot for your quick response! Hysazemusic (talk) 06:59, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hysazemusic: I'll try to say this differently: your draft cites 78 (!!) sources. That's a lot for any reviewer to sift through, in the hope that some of them might establish notability, which is the main thing we're concerned with here. You may be in for a long wait for this to be reviewed. If you had, say 7-8 sources, that would take a reviewer mere minutes to check, and if they demonstrate notability, your draft might be accepted straight away. As I said, not everything that can be said about a subject needs to be said, and not everything that needs to be said needs to be said in the initial published version. One of the longest articles we currently have is Tartan, at massive 555,962 bytes, but when it started life 22 years ago, it was a tiny stub at 579 bytes consisting of a few short sentences only.
Anyway, you must of course do as you see fit.
To answer your question, we don't do pre-reviews here at the help desk. If and when you're ready, please submit your draft for full review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:13, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That definitely made everything much more clear for me. I guess I can remove some citations for sure. Just going through the Tartan article, that massive lol. Thanks a lot for your time and clear answer Hysazemusic (talk) 07:16, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:23, 7 November 2025 review of submission by Mohit Tolani 18

This needs to be updated on the wikipedia. Mohit Tolani 18 (talk) 08:23, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mohit Tolani 18: I don't know what that means, but this draft has been rejected.
If this is about you, please see WP:AUTOBIO for some of the reasons why autobiographies are very strongly discouraged. (And if this isn't about you, then your username is problematic!)
Also, please don't use AI to generate drafts, or any other content for Wikipedia, for that matter. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:26, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:19, 7 November 2025 review of submission by Magic Earth

Hello! I'm new to Wikipedia. But the page, titled Arafat Mohsin, is a famous music artist in Bangladesh. So, please review and publish the page quickly. Thank you. Magic Earth (talk) 09:19, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have submitted it for review and it is pending. Asking for a review does not speed this entirely volunteer driven process. Please be patient, it may not be reviewed immediately. Note that "famous" is not the same thing as "notable", the term we use- see our criteria to be a notable musician. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:02, 7 November 2025 review of submission by ~2025-31418-43

label ~2025-31418-43 (talk) 11:02, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected, sorry. qcne (talk) 11:10, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1320906075"