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 Devolver789 (talk | contribs) at 16:08, 22 November 2025 (→13:23, 18 November 2025 review of submission by MrDevolver). 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 16

01:04, 16 November 2025 review of submission by Olegivvit

How to move the draft to the main space without waiting in Pending AfC submissions? Olegivvit (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Olegivvit Is there a particular reason you want to bypass the review process? It is highly recommended to use this process unless you have experience in getting drafts accepted. You have moved a page before, according to your edit history.
Any particular reason you've had your account 10 years but didn't make a single edit until this past October, about this topic? 331dot (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked and found that drafts can stay in Pending AfC submissions for half a year. I see it impractical to wait without any deadline. I moved it before, but the draft was without previous discussions. I don't know how to move and keep the discussion and do it in the right way. I've had my account for 20 years, but it does not show my edits correctly. Admin moved the draft to Pending AfC submissions. I made corrections and the article is ready now. Olegivvit (talk) 01:43, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me please, I see you've edited other Wikipedias.
The review is very beneficial as other editors are involved with the process before the draft is an article. I encourage you to let the process proceed. However, if you wish to move it yourself, the move function is in the Tools menu. The exact location depends on how you are viewing Wikipedia. Please know that you should be confident that the article would survive a deletion discussion. 331dot (talk) 02:05, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Olegivvit, something important to keep in mind is that the article has been draftified once - the next time someone is concerned about whether the subject is notable, it will probably go to a deletion discussion. If it is then deleted, recreating it becomes much harder. Having it reviewed at AfC gives it a much better chance at survival.
I also believe that the Pending Submissions drafts you are seeing are either not currently waiting for review or you are looking at when they were created. The New Pages feed says that the oldest waiting draft was submitted on Sept 5; it was created earlier, but editors may take a while to work on their drafts and then rework them if they're declined. You wouldn't be waiting six months for a review. Meadowlark (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:55, 16 November 2025 review of submission by Nambiar123

Reason for not Accepting draft request Nambiar123 (talk) 03:55, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see all the messages on the draft and your talk page, including mine: "Not able to see notability as the submitter did not make any changes after the previous review."? aesurias (talk) 05:29, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:47, 16 November 2025 review of submission by NordicSea

Hello!

My draft was rejected with a comment on a perceived lack of notability but I had provided many external articles from worldwide press (Al Arabiya TV, Gulf News, BBC, etc). Could you pls advise me?

Thanks vm! NordicSea (talk) 08:47, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NordicSea The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
Please disclose your connection with this young man, as you took pictures of him. Please see WP:COI.
As noted by the reviewer, interviews do not contribute to notability. 331dot (talk) 08:52, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@NordicSea, some useful links for you may be WP:BIO, WP:BLP, and WP:42. We are strict on articles about living people, and even more so if that person is a minor, so do your best to make sure your sources are impeccable. Happy editing! Meadowlark (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:52, 16 November 2025 review of submission by Politician Rajneta

From this edit considerable data you pick and add in Wikipedia and other than that you don't consider that data not add. It's request so after that at least I start my first step in Wikipedia. Politician Rajneta (talk) 09:52, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry but I am unable to understand what you're talking about. aesurias (talk) 09:57, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Politician Rajneta Your question suggests that English may not be your first language, and your use of English is hard to understand.
I think you may be asking why this draft was rejected. It has had multiple reviews and does not show any true progress. None of your references are reliable sources, and the subject fails WP:NPOLITICIAN.
Is there anything we are able to help you with, please? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 11:52, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you consider Facebook post source about Amritlal Tiwari Politician Rajneta (talk) 13:13, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Politician Rajneta Almost never. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:36, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Politician Rajneta. Every source you cite is from what appears to be your blog.
Wikipedia articles should be based exclusively on reliable sources, which excludes almost all blogs.
What have people unconnected with Tiwari published about him in reliable publications? That is almost the only question you should be asking.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 12:16, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:29, 16 November 2025 review of submission by Guz13

Am I allowed to copy text from one Wikipedia article and paste it into another? And keep the references. Or is that copyright infringement? Guz13 (talk) 13:29, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Guz13: yes, you are allowed; see Copying within Wikipedia. (In fact, Wikipedia content can be copied and used even outside of Wikipedia.) DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:33, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, @Guz13. But you must say where you got it from: most easily in the edit summary. ColinFine (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:46, 16 November 2025 review of submission by AjayTyagi1

ATTENTION REVIEWER: This draft is about a DIFFERENT PERSON. This is Ajay Tyagi the ROWER (Sportsman, born 1999), NOT the IAS Officer/SEBI Chairman. The existing article 'Ajay Tyagi' is about a bureaucrat. This subject is a Gold Medalist athlete. Please verify the citations (Olympics.com, Times of India) and move this page to 'Ajay Tyagi (rower)' upon acceptance. I have distinguished him clearly in the article AjayTyagi1 (talk) 13:46, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AjayTyagi1: Draft:Ajay Tyagi is about the Indian rower, and Ajay Tyagi is about the Indian rower; both clearly about the same person, and both created by you.
In any case, why are you still concerning yourself with the draft, when there is already the published mainspace article? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:49, 16 November 2025 review of submission by AntBF YT

why did it get rejected AntBF YT (talk) 13:49, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AntBF YT: because this is not a viable draft, or even an appropriate topic for an encyclopaedia. If you want to tell the world about some game you've played, post a YouTube video or do an interpretive dance or something else, somewhere else. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:55, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:05, 16 November 2025 review of submission by Oratenancy

Hi, My draft was cancelled due to lack of sources, I understand that I jave misspelled the links of the addresses. My info mostly from PDF file so i dont know how to paste the link of PDF file to the page. Oratenancy (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oratenancy: I don't think you've misspelled the links, since they work. It's just that three of the four sources are website home pages which don't even mention Fairway. You need to cite the specific URL which supports the information against which you are citing the source.
Can you say more about this PDF file you mention – what and where is it, who has published it, etc.? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:13, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tdND75KHDcbIHh6DIHWIMhpJuyl3wlEB/view?usp=drivesdk (nautical PDF file)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1umzg-ifGkKJHrM0EZ37DPjBCdsSXo7es/view?usp=drivesdk (alaska name place PDF file)
+ Im sorry for the "Coastview" cite, i haven't notice that Coastview is a need to pay website Oratenancy (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Oratenancy: thanks, but I'm not keen on clicking on some files of unknown provenance. Please tell us what they contain.
If these are something you've uploaded to Google Drive yourself, then they are not published sources in the sense that we require.
Also, did you create them yourself, perhaps by scanning some third party sources? If so, they may be copyright violations. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have the google internet link of the NOAA Nautical Charts I was talking about, but if you click on google it will automatically download the file from google. I really don't know any other way, I know the wiki doesn't allow this so I asked first to be sure and if there is any other way? Oratenancy (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:49, 16 November 2025 review of submission by History edit25

To know how to make article accepted History edit25 (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@History edit25: this draft has been rejected, which means it won't be considered further. It is barely intelligible, completely unreferenced, and provides no indication, let alone evidence, that the subject is in any way notable. Please see WP:GOLDENRULE for a summary of how Wikipedia articles should be composed and referenced. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:30, 16 November 2025 review of submission by Knowledge Pioneer

What type of references is best for to be accepted and the given references is from top medias from Kerala, India. Knowledge Pioneer (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Knowledge Pioneer No allowances are made for regionality. This is a global English Language encyclopaedia.
We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:32, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Knowledge Pioneer I assumed that your asking the same questions a minute apart was simply an accidental circumstance, and have deleted the duplicate. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:34, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Knowledge Pioneer, did you use an AI/LLM to help with this draft? They're not very good at inline citations, among many other things - see WP:REFB for more on how to cite your sources. Meadowlark (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:16, 16 November 2025 review of submission by ~2025-33651-00

I want to know why my article is rejected. ~2025-33651-00 (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the creator of the draft, remember to log in when posting.
The reviewer left the reason for rejection at the top of the draft. 331dot (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:08, 16 November 2025 review of submission by Jenfast

I have given information are true and best of my knowledge regarding Mekkarai. Also the references are taken from public and government sites. You can either approve or reject. Thank you Jenfast (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's been rejected, sorry @Jenfast. qcne (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:58, 16 November 2025 review of submission by MotionMogul123

Hello, I would appreciate a fellow Wikipidian reviewing this draft as I have have removed the obvious LLM ChatGPT text and added more citations. Does it need to be resubmitted? I want to adhere to the rules and correct procedures please. MotionMogul123 (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MotionMogul123: yes, once you felt you've sufficiently addressed the reason(s) for the decline, you need to resubmit it for another review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fast reply @DoubleGrazing I appreciate it. OK will do, I will give it one more check as well (fresh eyes!). MotionMogul123 (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:05, 16 November 2025 review of submission by Historicthebruce

I am a new editor to Wikipedia, who recently noticed that the website didn't have an article about the battle of Varamin (1911), so I decided to create one.

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

Unfortunately, the article was rejected, as it did not appear to be "written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia". As a new editor, I failed to understand why the article was considered to not be formal enough, however, I was able to change a couple of minor things about the article to make it seem less formal. For example the sentence "The Battle of Varamin was a battle fought in 1911 between the forces of the Qajar dynasty under Arshad Al-Dawleh and the forces of the Majles under Yeprem Khan." Was changed to "The Battle of Varamin was a battle fought in 1911 between the Qajar dynasty under Arshad Al-Dawleh and the Majles under Yeprem Khan."

So my question is, do any experiences Wikipedia editors understand why my submission may have been rejected, and if so, how I can change it to get it accepted? Historicthebruce (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Historicthebruce Yes. WikiAviator may even now after this lomg gap, be able to help you. They declined it. You ought to have asked them because they know what was in their mind. However, that was on 27 March. I am surprised you have shown no interest in it since that date. I hope you have not been incapacitated in some manner. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:13, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 17

06:38, 17 November 2025 review of submission by Texamedic4

Would like help writing this article draft. I am not related to the founders, I just help out and am a local sidewalk artist that draws there and wants to see this space recognized. There are one Dallas-Fort Worth news ABC affilliate news broadcast, two local newspaper articles, one feature documentary that's been aired at film festivals and on our local PBS channel, one podcast with Texans Against Fentanyl non-profit group, and one local newspaper story. What else can I do to possibly create this as a new article, I'd love your help and support! Thank you so much for your help and time and efforts, I really appreciate you! Texamedic4 (talk) 06:38, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Texamedic4 We are not usually equipped to collaborate in writing drafts, though this might catch someone's interest. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 11:48, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Really hope so! I have plenty of national sources, just need to figure out how to have it be allowed. Thank you for responding, have a great day! Texamedic4 (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:15, 17 November 2025 review of submission by Ashequrrahmanresearch

It's clear that this discussion has reached the end of the road. Closing to end time sink. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 11:50, 17 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 article rejected ? how to improve ? Ashequrrahmanresearch (talk) 07:15, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashequrrahmanresearch: We do not accept original research or thought, as we are an encyclopaedia. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:27, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please search the word "samophobia" in google , its been published in SSRN and also available in wikimedia. can you please write an article about samophobia in wikipedia and publish it. That would be great support.
SSRN : http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5417838
WIKI MEDIA: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Samophobia-Copyright-Certificate.jpg
www.ashequrrahman.com Ashequrrahmanresearch (talk) 07:38, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ashequrrahmanresearch: in a word, no. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:43, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First published in 13/3/2023 , it's been more than two years. 11/4/2023 got the copyright certificate from Bangladesh govt. official copyright office. please check
SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4381943
Copyright certificate: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Samophobia-Copyright-Certificate.jpg Ashequrrahmanresearch (talk) 07:52, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ashequrrahmanresearch: copyright certificate is totally meaningless, certainly in terms of establishing any sort of notability. You've coined this term and concept, even your SSRN paper says you "invented" it, and now you're trying to use Wikipedia to promote it.
This draft has been rejected, and that means the end of the road. Please find something else to edit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:57, 17 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.

08:16, 17 November 2025 review of submission by Sami Brhams

Thanks for reviewing. I understand and respect Wiki's strict policies concerning content that may appear promotional. My intention was purely to create an objective entry about the company, not for marketing purposes...committed to meeting Wiki's standards.

Thank you for your time and guidance. Sami Brhams (talk) 08:16, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sami Brhams You have not responded to the important inquiry on your talk page two weeks ago; please disclose any connection you have to Redefine Meat. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:37, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is also no evidence that the company meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies; awards generally do not count towards company notability and your draft has zero independent sources (press releases and sources based on press releases are not independent). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:42, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Sami Brhams. "Promotion" has a wider meaning in Wikipedia than normal. If you say what the company wants people to know about itself, that is promotion.
{{HD/WIN
Two of your sources are from the company's blog, and therefore neither independent nor reliable, in Wikipedia's terms. And Incus appears to be a marketing and PR company, so that is also probably not a reliable source.
Writing an article begins by finding several places where people wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject at some length, in reliable publications (see WP:42). If you can't find any, then the subject is not notable in Wikipedia's terms, and no article is possible.
If you can find several such, the next step is to set aside everything that you personally know about the subject, and write a summary of what those sources say.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 13:34, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:47, 17 November 2025 review of submission by Stuffbymax

i need help to finish this page mainly with

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject) reliable secondary independent of the subject Stuffbymax (talk) 11:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Stuffbymax In which case you need to perform significant research. Yoou also may find HELP:YFA instruction, and need to read and apply WP:REFB and WP:CITE.
We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 11:54, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is based on Slovakia and Czech wikipedia also how to exactly add primary and secondary sources Stuffbymax (talk) 12:01, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Stuffbymax The English Language Wikipedia has the strongest acceptance criteria. Having an article in either or both does not immediately mean an article here is acceptable, It must pass WP:GNG
With regard to the second part of your question, how to add references, I have answered that in my prior answer when I suggested you read and apply WP:REFB and WP:CITE. Others may wish to add extra information to that answer 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:12, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:51, 17 November 2025 review of submission by InfoLibres

My draft Draft:Educational Records Evaluation Service was declined due to insufficient independent sources. I would appreciate help identifying reliable, secondary, in-depth references that demonstrate notability. I’ve included government listings, university recognition, and conference participation, but I’m unsure if they meet the criteria. Could someone advise on how to strengthen the sourcing or suggest examples of acceptable coverage? InfoLibres (talk) 11:51, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@InfoLibres You need to become familiar with the mantra "If it's to be, it's up to me" please. It's the title of a self motivation book by Dan Nielsen.
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.
We no not accede to requests for pre-reviews, I'm afraid. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 11:58, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:59, 17 November 2025 review of submission by The Tonic Communications

Is it possible to gain advice on the best way to improve this page's chances of being published. It is my first attempt at a Wiki page. I'm guessing removing any citations to the brand website would be first? If it is not worth continuing to try please let me know and why. Many thanks The Tonic Communications (talk) 12:59, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Tonic Communications Please confirm that you have read and understood the information given to you already by Robert McClenon? That is the way forwards. If you have not yet understood the rational please talk to them directly. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@The Tonic Communications I have asked you the formal question about paid editing on your user talk page. This must be answered as your next edit.
If you believe that Wikipedia will enhance your client's corporate reputation please think again. Wikipedia adds no value to them, nor you. You and they must add value to Wikipedia. Their passing WP:CORP does that. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:32, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Timtrent - You might be interested that the submitter had left a question for me on their user talk page, but it began Hi Robert without pinging me. Of course, I didn't see it or answer it. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon If they were not a paid editor I woudk have alerted you directly. My view on paid editors is that they are paid to learn all policies, processes and 'stuff' here. As a hobbyist amateur editor I am not interested in helping poor paid editors get their invoices paid. I have total good faith that they are capable of learning on their own 😇 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:19, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Timtrent - I don't know if they are capable of learning on their own, but it doesn't matter. We are not paid to help them learn the rules. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon I see it as a definition of capability by virtue of the reward they (plan to) receive. This one is a PR Agency. We may seem them achieve their brief. if they do, good. If not, good. Wikipedia is improved either way. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:36, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:54, 17 November 2025 review of submission by Giga Bang

I cannot find other website mentioning it other than for job offers. The references I gathered was somewhat "ok" as it was public info from the education board. I want to know any other way if it is possible to gather websites mention this? I heard trying web scraping works but not sure what to do. Giga Bang (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This college does not seem to be notable; I would suggest moving on to another topic. 331dot (talk) 16:00, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Giga Bang. A Wikipedia article should be based on what several people completely unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and not much else.
You should start by finding such sources (see WP:42), and if you cannot find them, then an article will not be possible. Note that government publications are nearly always primary sources, which do not contribute to this. ColinFine (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:55, 17 November 2025 review of submission by ~2025-34341-79

how can i create this article ~2025-34341-79 (talk) 15:55, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in to your account when posting. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. Please read the autobiography policy. You should use your social media accounts to tell about yourself. 331dot (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@~2025-34341-79, @Clintmachuki, this is truly simple. No references = no article.
This will not proceed further. Rejection has no mechanism for resubmission. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 18:15, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline review of Draft:Anastasius Moumtzoglou by Wikishovel

[Migrated here from WT:AFC 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:11, 17 November 2025 (UTC)][reply]


Hello, I am requesting a second opinion on the decline of my draft, Draft:Anastasius Moumtzoglou, by reviewer Wikishovel.

The draft was declined with the reason "Most of the sources are from predatory journals." However, the core sources establishing notability are:

  • Official award documentation from the Technical Chamber of Greece (TEE) (a professional body).
  • Digital preservation of award ceremony photographs in Zenodo (CERN) and the Internet Archive.
  • A professional news announcement from IGI Global.
  • An academic award from Emerald Publishing.

The reviewer's reason focuses on a claim about "predatory journals," which does not apply to these core sources. When I asked for specific guidance on what sources would be acceptable, I was told to "let someone unconnected with you... edit your biography" instead of receiving concrete feedback.

Could another reviewer please assess whether the existing sources are sufficient to establish notability, or provide specific, actionable guidance on what kind of additional sources are needed? Thank you. Anastasios Moumtzoglou (talk) 14:06, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Anastasios Moumtzoglou. I am another experienced reviewer and concur with @Wikishovel. Your sources which are not from unreliable predatory journals do not establish that you meet our criteria for inclusion. qcne (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. Could you please provide specific examples of the types of sources that would establish notability for an academic and health economist in my field? Anastasios Moumtzoglou (talk) 14:45, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable, mainstream journals or publications. This specifically excludes IGI Global which has been determined to be a vanity-publisher. Evidence of notable, highly prestigious awards. Being the chief editor of a well known journal. Being a named Chair or Fellow. qcne (talk) 14:50, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. To ensure I follow Wikipedia's sourcing policies correctly, could you please provide a direct link to the official Wikipedia page, policy, or guideline where IGI Global was formally 'determined to be a vanity-publisher'? I have been unable to locate this determination myself. Anastasios Moumtzoglou (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Anastasios Moumtzoglou Plenty of discussions if you search Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. qcne (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, qcne. I have searched Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and related pages. I cannot find any official, consensus-based policy or list that labels IGI Global a "vanity-publisher." These pages contain discussions and opinions, not firm determinations.
My question stands: On what specific, official Wikipedia policy page is IGI Global formally "determined" to be a vanity publisher, as you claimed? If this is not an official policy but an editor's interpretation, please clarify so future submitters have accurate guidance. Anastasios Moumtzoglou (talk) 16:02, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Anastasios Moumtzoglou I see consensus that IGI Global is an unreliable vanity publisher. A simple Google search also finds evidence from other people that concurs. qcne (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This convo has more or less ended but I should note that IGI is on ResearchGate's blacklist of sites for the same reason. aesurias (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Anastasios Moumtzoglou This is not really the venue for this. WP:AFCHD is a far better venue. That is what it is designed and intended for. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:53, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:23, 17 November 2025 review of submission by ThanosA1978

I am not sure what is missing here as there are other wiki pages with similar content and pages that include less than what I have included. Please can you guide? 

ThanosA1978 (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ThanosA1978: oh come on, now. A company registered a few months ago, with £1 share capital and a single director, with zero evidence of any trading activity, and even less of notability. Wikipedia is not a business directory where everyone and their dog can create a 'profile' to tell the world about themselves; for that, you'll need to try the likes of LinkedIn etc. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @ThanosA1978. If there are other articles on Wikipedia with no sourcing and external links to primary sources, let us know so we can delete them. Unfortunately the company in your draft has no indication of meeting our criteria for inclusion at Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion (organizations and companies) qcne (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: That said, I did enjoy the SIC codes on the CoHo records:
  • 70229 - Management consultancy activities other than financial management
  • 81210 - General cleaning of buildings
:) DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:31, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:44, 17 November 2025 review of submission by Djwrex

is this article fit the criteria to get published? Djwrex (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the vast majority of content has no sources. We also highly discourage writing about yourself. Have a read of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Autobiography. qcne (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:45, 17 November 2025 review of submission by ~2025-31338-27

The draft Hyperscience page was rejected because apparently it reads like an advertisement. I looked at hundreds of company pages in the same space and in general and literally copied the same format, writing style and even the sections. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UiPath or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automation_Anywhere or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic

Please be more specific in your feedback on why this Hyperscience entry is any different from the other examples shared above. ~2025-31338-27 (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-31338-27: UiPath predates WP:ACPERM, while Anthropic and Automation Anywhere both predate WP:Articles for Creation as a whole. None were drafted. As to your sources...
None of what I can assess is any good. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:03, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:54, 17 November 2025 review of submission by Her Majesty of Basementian Empire

My work has been rejected quite a few times and I am still unsure why as it has been denied for different reasons which do not make sense to me. I am sure I have not broke any guidelines or done anything which is irrevelant to Wikipedia. Her Majesty of Basementian Empire (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Her Majesty of Basementian Empire: you do realise Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, right? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:58, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Draft deleted, user blocked for !HERE.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:07, 17 November 2025 review of submission by Donplastic

Hi, I am seeking help with the submission of a new artist page. I realise that it's not easy to get an artist page, but Robert Graff has had releases on a number of independent record labels since 2005, and has just scored his first major label writing credit, which has already been added to the FKA Twigs Eusexua Afterglow wiki page. Any steer to you can offer, to increase the chances of this page being accepted would be much appreciated. Donplastic (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Donplastic. Like many people who come here and immediately try to create an article, you are starting with a mistaken idea of what Wikipedia is.
I suggest you let go of the idea that you are "securing him a page", and think rather that you are writing an encyclopaedia article about him.
This might seem picky, but it's important. An article is not what he wants people to know about himself, or what you want people to know about him: it's based on what people who are not connected with him have chosen to publish about him in reliable publications. Any article you write about him will not belong to him (or you), will not be controlled by him, and will not necesarily say what he would like it to say. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, it is not in any way for his benefit (as implied by your "secure him a page").
If it happened that all the independent commentators who wrote about him said very negative things about him (I'm not saying that is that case, this is an example), then that is what should go in the article.
And if nobody unconnected with him has written much about him, or has only done so in unreliable places like forums, iMDB, or their own blogs, then an article is not possible.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @ColinFine, whilst I'm sure you meant well, at no point did I mention attempts to "secure him a page".
I am merely seeking helpful and friendly advice. Donplastic (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You said it in this edit(the comment immediately below). 331dot (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am trying to secure a page for a musician who has been writing music since at least 2005. Some of the labels he was associated with no longer exist, but, as he has just scored a major record label writing credit, I really want to secure him a page.

Are there any aspects of the draft which could be removed to secure an approval? If there is any contentious content here, I'd be more than happy to remove it. Any help you can provide would be very much appreciated. Donplastic (talk) 20:11, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Donplastic. Fundamentally, your sources do not prove this person meets our criteria for inclusion for musicians. discogs isn't a valid source to use, which just leaves datatransmission which is an okay source - but we'd need three or so sources of that calibre or better to prove he meets our criteria. qcne (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Qcne, I can understand where you're coming from. A compilation he appeared on was reviewed in the print edition of DJ Magazine back in April 2020, but it is not online. DJ Magazine is a very influential UK magazine that has covered electronic dance music since the early 90s, but I only have a paper copy of the review. How might I go about submitting it as an additional source of evidence?
Also, does his recent credit on the new FKA Twigs album not go a long way towards eligibility? His credit appears now on streaming services - how can I best prove his new major-label association?
His appearance on the Plastic City compilation is, I think, fairly relevant here, also. Plastic City are a label that have been around for over 30 years. Is there an alternative type of link to the Discogs entry, that would provide a more reliable level of evidence?
Any steer you could provide would be very much appreciated. I appreciate that you are only trying to retain high standards of information here. Donplastic (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Donplastic Paper offline sources are totally fine - don't take a photo and upload the source, as that's copyright infringement, just provide a full citation with as much bibliographic information as possible (author, page, date, etc) to allow readers to verify the information. Sources have to be published and accessible, but they don't have to be easily accessible.
A credit unfortunately isn't enough to prove notability, the test we use is "significant coverage", in this case some sort of transformative critical review by a mainstream music publication would be perfect.
If there are (offline or online) sources that discuss his involvement with Plastic City in an in-depth, transformative way that could work? qcne (talk) 20:30, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Surely a writing credit on a major label record counts towards significant coverage? This is poles apart from a bedroom producer self releasing his own material. Donplastic (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (music) states "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.". But it doesn't sound like he meets that? qcne (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The song is a major label release, and a video for the song was released today by Atlantic Records.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUvqvvTLKNA
Surely a song with a big budget video on a major record label qualifies as a notable composition? Donplastic (talk) 21:20, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mm, I don't think being fourth co-writer on a fairly niche song is going to cut it, unfortunately. qcne (talk) 21:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, the song now has 800k plays on Spotify, in a little under 24 hours. Under no circumstances could that level of traffic be considered niche. Donplastic (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
..and he has a co-writing (music) credit on the song. This can be verified on any streaming service. Donplastic (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Robert's writing credit has already appeared on the Eusexua Afterglow page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusexua_Afterglow Donplastic (talk) 21:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, not disputing he didn't co-write the song, but I just am not seeing it meeting that criterion. I could be wrong. Maybe submit for review again (with a few more sources?) and see if another reviewer disagrees with me? qcne (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the magazine citation that was suggested elsewhere in this thread. How might I submit my current draft to another reviewer? I sense you might be getting a little fatigued by this submission.
For instance, you've remarked that Robert is one of four writers, when, in fact, he is one of three. A second pair of eyes on the proposed article would, I think, not hurt at this stage.
I appreciate that you're only trying to secure high quality information, but I think we could do with another set of eyes on this. Donplastic (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, feel free to re-submit for review. Before you do - I would still remove the discog sources and replace them with better ones. qcne (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again @Donplastic. You posted that reply while I was posting my commet above. Yes, you can cite offline sources: as long as they are published, so that in principle a reviewer or a reader can obtain the source, eg from a library.
A review of something he produced might help an article about the compilation, but unless the review talks in some depth about him, then it doesn't help with an article about him. Nor will any credits. ColinFine (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One more point: I hadn't noticed the reference to Plastic City. Given your chosen username, need to ask, what is your connection with Graff? If you know him or work with him, then you have a conflict of interest, which doesn't prevent you from writing about him, but may make it even harder to be suitably neutral. Furthermore, if you are in any way employed or paid in connection with this work (even if you are not directly employed by him, and not paid to write this article specifically) then Wikipedia regards you as a paid editor, and you must make a formal declaration of that fact, as explained in that link. ColinFine (talk) 20:36, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @ColinFine, just to be clear, I have no connection to the Plastic City label nor Robert Graff personally. I am most certainly not being paid to do this - I sure you've been able to determine that nobody would pay someone with my level of wikipedia ability to create them a wikipedia entry.
I am merely a music fan more generally speaking. Donplastic (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Donplastic, I can promise you that your efforts to draft an article are significantly better than a number of paid editors we've seen.
It could be worthwhile spending some time working on improving some of our many subpar music articles before you tackle a new article - writing an article is the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia, and writing about a living person is the hardest kind of article. The task gets much easier if you already have a good grasp of Wikipedia's policies and criteria, and it's also possible that Graff will become more notable as time goes by. Certainly there's a lot of musicians who didn't initially qualify for articles, but ended up doing something that rocketed them to notability. Meadowlark (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:49, 17 November 2025 review of submission by ~2025-34455-85

Why did you reject it ~2025-34455-85 (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no indication this short film meets our criteria. qcne (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 18

03:51, 18 November 2025 review of submission by Nardevkanwar

why my page is not being published yet. I has been corrected it and resubmitted it to publish. please tell me the exact reason why my article is not published yet. Kindly guide me. Nardevkanwar (talk) 03:51, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nardevkanwar, you have not resubmitted it. Once you feel you have addressed the reviewer's concerns, you may resubmit it. Meadowlark (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There have been no edits made since it was declined, so I'm not sure how the article has been corrected since the decline. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:43, 18 November 2025 review of submission by Siva1702

can you tell me what is the reason Siva1702 (talk) 06:43, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Siva1702: this draft was rejected as non-notable, and deleted as promotional. As the reviewer said, we are not LinkedIn (we're instead an encyclopaedia, in case that wasn't clear). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:49, 18 November 2025 review of submission by ShahzaibExplorer

I want to create a article on wikipedia but when i create article after some hours it is rejected by the wiki pedia team. This is the reason of assistance 

ShahzaibExplorer (talk) 10:49, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @ShahzaibExplorer. I rejected this draft as AI-generated slop, which isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. qcne (talk) 10:55, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft was an unsourced essay and entirely written by AI and so has been rejected. CoconutOctopus talk 10:56, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:58, 18 November 2025 review of submission by Yascohen

Question answered. Article now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hived where its fate will be decided. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:36, 18 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.

I would like to change the title to all capitals (HIVED) instead of Hived but I am unsure how to do this? Yascohen (talk) 11:58, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yascohen  Not done per MOS:TE; the company may stylise their name how they see fit, but our article titles use mostly sentence case, or title initial caps for proper nouns.
In the future, you may put such non-AfC questions to the Teahouse or Help desk. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:04, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hived. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:33, 18 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.

12:27, 18 November 2025 review of submission by Ériugena

Where can I get help to satisfy your requirements?Ériugena (talk) 12:27, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ériugena. You can get help here. Let us know what help you need? Have you read our criteria for inclusion at Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion (people)? qcne (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:30, 18 November 2025 review of submission by User1988888

What could help me get the page passed? User1988888 (talk) 12:30, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @User1988888. I unfortunately see no evidence Rory meets our strict criteria for inclusion at this time. Maybe try another website that is not as strict as Wikipedia? qcne (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:37, 18 November 2025 review of submission by Hirushakithmi

why Hirushakithmi 12:37, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, @Hirushakithmi qcne (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is an AI generated essay on instagram complete with an advert link to your account; it is not an encyclopaedia article. CoconutOctopus talk 13:45, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:50, 18 November 2025 review of submission by ~2025-31710-58

To make sure page is correct ~2025-31710-58 (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has been rejected, @~2025-31710-58. Feel free to expand the Blue Peter pets article. qcne (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:23, 18 November 2025 review of submission by MrDevolver

Zxcvbnm thinks that Brookhaven RP is not notable for Wikipedia but I disagree about that and instead think that Brookhaven RP should be more properly sourced by fixing the text and adding more suitable citations that match with the topics of Brookhaven RP because it's unfortunately the best that I could do but failed which is why I'm crawling to the Help Desk for aid. MrDevolver (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging rejecting reviewer @Zxcvbnm. qcne (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "Pinging rejecting reviewer"? MrDevolver (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The draft was rejected by @Zxcvbnm, so I am pinging them into this conversation. qcne (talk) 14:11, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article was rejected due to failing WP:GNG. See also WP:AKON for an explanation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:27, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But that doesn't mean that there is no possibility to simply leave the rejected draft alone and wait a period of time until notable suitable citations are available online to note to what it talks about of that subject otherwise you can simply just remove all the text and/or citations that don't match to the topics of them or are not a suitable website for Wikipedian citing or are unsuitably not entirely properly talking about that topic of the subject and I'm also not going to be entirely listening to WP:AKON's advisors and policies. MrDevolver (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Devolver789: Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
The declines and rejection look to be correct. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:23, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay A) I wasn't responsible for that previous decline about the draft containing too much AI text and B) I'd rather like it if you'd refer to me as 'MrDevolver' even though my username is Devolver789. MrDevolver (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They just pinged you using the autocomplete feature on the text editor, it autocompletes your username. qcne (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne: I manually type my pings. @Devolver789: The ping does not work if I don't use your username. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:38, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano weirdo! qcne (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's only because I'm not able to change it to say 'MrDevolver' instead of Devolver789. MrDevolver (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Devolver789 Wikipedia:Changing username qcne (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eitherway, that doesn't matter right now because besides I'm literally subscribed to this section incase if I receive anymore comments or replies on this review of submission. MrDevolver (talk) 07:09, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And also why does lack of notability have to lead to an immediate rejection rather than just a simple decline? and also Wikipedia:AKON just makes this seem even more strict in Wikipedia, don't you think? That's the reason why I think Wikipedia:AKON should limit some of it's policies so it would seem easier or maybe suggest deleting it, which is too much of a case. MrDevolver (talk) 07:18, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the policies on Wikipedia are easier, we get worse content, and this becomes a less useful encyclopedia. The rejection was warranted here; notability was far from the only serious problem. While the AI slop has been cleaned up, the prose is quite unencyclopedic, it's full of personal commentary, and many details are extremely poorly sourced. If a Wikipedia-compliant article about this subject could be created, it would probably need to be started over from scratch. Time is the most precious commodity, and to not reject an article that has little hope of being accepted in its current state would be to needlessly spend the time of AFC reviewers, the community, and you. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:41, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean Wikipedia:AKON's policies not the entirety of Wikipedia itself. MrDevolver (talk) 13:41, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Devolver789, AKON is a shortcut link to an essay elaborating on Wikipedia's policies. It is neither a person, nor a policy. The relevant policy is notability, and Jeske has explained in great detail why the citations in the draft do not meet it.
Yes, it is conceivable that other sources exist which will establish notability (though in that case one might ask how come you have not cited them so far, but filled the draft up with inadequate sources).
If that is the case, you should approach the rejecting reviewer Zxcvbnm and ask them to reconsider. But unless you have at least three sources which all clearly meet all the criteria in WP:42, you will be wasting your time as well as theirs. ColinFine (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay A) I'm not referring to Wikipedia:AKON as a person nor a policy, B) I'm subscribed to this section so you don't need to ping me as 'Devolver789' because whatever is commented or replied here, it will send me a notification about it and C) I do reconsider for Zxcvbnm to reject this draft for 'Lack of Sufficient Notability' because there is still possibility that there is notable uninadequate sources available online and/or potential that there will be notable uninadequate sources to appear online in future time and this was the biggest attempt that I tried to find citations for the draft online and if you think that there is 0-50% chance in average that I am able to do that then think again because the other Roblox game page that I created 'Steal a Brainrot' had been rejected for repeated declining and all hope was lost until the videogaming community had come back to help out with the mistakes that I kept making and after rejection, more suitable and notable sources had begun appearing online for Steal a Brainrot and there were a few people from WikiProject Video Game that helped me out with the citing and even though Steal a Brainrot was rejected, there was still no possibility that neither of us had the power to still accept it for AfC and what happened next? It was approved, because if the community helped me out with Steal a Brainrot before it was approved to be moved to mainspace, then so can they do so with Brookhaven RP (if there is possibility that there will be notable uninadequate sources to be available online as of now and/or within future time). MrDevolver (talk) 19:15, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We do not approve articles based on their "potential" to have sources. It either has the sources to support eligibility or it does not. This is not the pre-2011 "publish and be damned" days. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:22, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care, I think there will be possibility that there will be eligible notable sources for Brookhaven RP in future time and neither you or anyone else who agrees with you on Wikipedia can force me to follow the rules and standards that it is today and also what do you mean by "publish and be damned days" and how was I suppose to know all of that stuff happened in 2011? And if you're going to block me for defying modern-day Wikipedian standards and policies then instead I would rather prefer if you permanently IP-Blocked me as in permanently blocking me from ever editing Wikipedia in whatever device I use of what WIFI and/or IP address it is (Apologies if I was being rude and if anyone else took it like that aswell). MrDevolver (talk) 08:43, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you drop this now. The draft has been (correctly) rejected, and continuing to flog the proverbial dead horse is not helping. Whether you care about our policies and guidelines, them's the rules which we all have to abide by. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:57, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, and also you didn't even answer my question about 2011 because I didn't know that stuff even happened and I'm also never going to drop it! MrDevolver (talk) 09:09, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Devolver789 You certainly aren't expected to know the entire history of Wikipedia and how standards have changed- generally getting stricter- over the years. But when people more experienced than you (and more than one) tell you about them, you're expected to abide by the advice you are being given- not necessarily agree with it, but abide by it. Continuing to persist against the advice of the community is considered disruptive and if you refuse to heed valid advice you will be blocked to prevent your disruption.
There is no means of preemptively blocking any and all IPs that you have used or will use in your lifetime. IPs can be shared. If you no longer wish to edit Wikipedia, you don't need us to block you, just stop editing.
You identify yourself on your user page as autistic- I am wondering if this is affecting how you are perceiving things here.
If you think that there will be sources in the future, then just keep your draft active by editing it at least once every six months. Even if your draft was deleted for inactivity, it can be restored via WP:REFUND. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But Brookhaven RP ain't even requested for deletion. MrDevolver (talk) 09:59, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was. Drafts are automatically tagged for speedy deletion after six months of inactivity. If you edit the draft at least once every six months, that will not happen. Even if it deleted for inactivity, it can be restored. 331dot (talk) 10:01, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there is only a possibility of sources, then all we can do is wait for those sources to be found. Ultraodan (talk) 08:58, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean by the "publish and be damned days" is the time period before 2011, when the drafting process actually began to take shape. Before 2011, you published your article in mainspace and accepted whatever consequences arose from it. We still have a lot of problematic articles on Wikipedia that were first created during that timeframe that nobody knows exists (except to try and use them as a weapon to contest their draft's being declined or rejected). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:37, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano I had changed some of the sources, are there any problems with those ones? MrDevolver (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give them the same treatment as I did the others:
Something that would help immensely is if there were an outlet which reviewed Roblox dreams professionally; as it is that coverage is very scattershot (yes, even Grow a Garden and Steal a Brainrot, the latter of which I've seen in draft before as well). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:42, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure if an outlet would help but there must be some other method that we can get sources that don't contain much of these problems and if there isn't any of those types of sources then I guess we'll have to leave it be. Devolver789 (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:39, 18 November 2025 review of submission by SR75385

Hi there, this draft was declined on the basis that the references didn't meet all 4 criteria: in-depth; reliable; secondary; strictly independent of the subject.

I would like to resubmit it asap with a different list of references, but I don't want to risk the draft being declined again, or rejected. If I post the new set of references in this chat that I want to resubmit with, would someone kindly be able to review them and check they would suffice? How many notable references does a Wiki page need to have? Is it at least 3, or more than that?

I previously received feedback that this reference is WP:CORPTRIV: https://www.business-live.co.uk/enterprise/bristol-ski-holiday-operator-heidi-29436570

But I've seen similar references on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidi_Health, which has been accepted. Example: https://www.mobihealthnews.com/news/anz/melbourne-based-heidi-health-expand-ai-scribe-capability-new-17m-fund

Could someone explain the difference of why that reference was accepted, and not considered WP:CORPTRIV?

Any help gratefully received, thank you. SR75385 (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SR75385: This is what Heidi Health looked like at time of acceptance. And frankly, it shouldn't have been accepted in that state; literally every source in that revision fails WP:CORPTRIV. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for your quick reply. Interesting - how/why would it have been accepted in that state? And what is different with its current live version - does it now have enough other reliable sources amongst all the WP:CORPTRIV funding round references listed? SR75385 (talk) 09:19, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SR75385: no, the source cited are mostly routine business reporting (mainly about this company's funding rounds), plus a few passing mentions, nothing that would satisfy WP:NCORP. I've tagged it accordingly, and may take it to an AfD discussion at some point unless things improve. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:48, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you for clarifying. How many strong, notable references does a Wiki page need to have as a minimum to be accepted? SR75385 (talk) 10:23, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Typically a reviewer looks for three or more. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:12, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Benison: Apparently you accepted it. See above. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:21, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:48, 18 November 2025 review of submission by Zapag

Hello,

I wrote this draft about my project, but it has been declined. I think all needed reference are present, they are reliable and secondary (website of the European Commission). Should I make a more in-depth presentation of the project? Many thanks in advance for your suggestion Zapag (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zapag: Government sources (incl. the European Commission) are by default primary sources and do not help for eligibility. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:50, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But in this case is not quoted as a source but as a reference about the statement that the project has been founded by the EU. Zapag (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A distinction without a difference. A source is what is referenced, and so "source" and "reference" are often interchangeable here on Wikipedia. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Zapag. The point is that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. - and official sources are nearly always based on what those involved with the subject have said, so are not independent.
Unless and until there are significant independent sources writing about your project, there is essentially nothing which can go into a Wikipedia article about it. ColinFine (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:16, 18 November 2025 review of submission by KiaVz

I need help revising this draft tone KiaVz (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @KiaVz. A few of your sources do not exist, they lead to 404 errors. One of your DOIs also does not exist. This makes me think you used an AI chatbot like ChatGPT or Microsoft Copilot to write this draft, and it has hallucinated the sources. qcne (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also pretty certain the sourcing for this article would have to comply with WP:MEDRS. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:51, 18 November 2025 review of submission by ~2025-34635-18

Hi everyone,

I’m working on improving the Wikipedia article for Jxrdanrdz, and I’ve encountered a blatant promotion warning on the page. The article seems to have some overly promotional language and possibly unbalanced coverage of Jxrdanrdz's career. I’m seeking feedback and guidance on how to revise the article to meet Wikipedia’s neutral point of view (NPOV) and citation guidelines.

Specifically, I need help with:

Removing superlative or promotional statements.

Balancing the coverage of their career by addressing both achievements and challenges or controversies.

Ensuring that sources are reliable and third-party, rather than promotional or self-referential.

Any suggestions on how to approach these revisions would be greatly appreciated!

Thank you for your help. ~2025-34635-18 (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

draft deleted ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&page=Draft%3AJxrdanrdz+%28TikTok+Content+Creator%29 ) 🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 09:48, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:36, 18 November 2025 review of submission by Clk-muhammed

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia.

My draft was declined because it does not have enough reliable and independent sources. I want to improve my draft, but I am not sure how to find the correct sources or how to show notability.

Could someone please help me understand:

What kind of sources I should add?

How to format the references correctly?

What changes I need to make so the draft can meet Wikipedia’s notability rules?

Thank you very much for your guidance. I appreciate any help. Clk-muhammed (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Clk-muhammed, your first problem is that you have written the draft WP:BACKWARDS - you have written the text, and now you're looking for sources. Wikipedia articles summarize what reliable sources say, but you have no sources to summarize. To revise your draft, please work your way through Wikipedia's notability rules, the 'golden rule' for sources (note that all three criteria must be met to count as a reliable source and help establish notability), and then referencing for beginners so you can cite sources that you find. Your first article might also be of use to you. Meadowlark (talk) 06:20, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Meadowlark thanks for valuable comment. The latest software program, "scikit-plots," is already about a year old. It's hard to find a single source that directly cites it. Frankly, there aren't any. I could add more sources about the applications and software used in the process, but I'm not sure this meets the rules for Wikipedia articles. Clk-muhammed (talk) 10:02, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Clk-muhammed: any source you wish to rely on to establish notability must provide significant coverage directly of the subject, not about some indirectly related matters.
If there aren't sufficient sources available, then the subject is unlikely to be notable. That, incidentally, is the normal state of affairs: out of a thousand software products (or pretty much anything, for that matter) out there, 999 are probably not notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:09, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:24, 18 November 2025 review of submission by CEKav

Hi there! I want to change the title of this article from Jamil B. Ahmad (diplomat) to Jamil Ahmad (diplomat). How can I do this? Thanks so much! CEKav (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. You aren't able to move pages yourself until you become autoconfirmed. Ultraodan (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:04, 18 November 2025 review of submission by Tharpbellavista

According to my research this does meet requirements for notoriety Tharpbellavista (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tharpbellavista: All of your sources have a "retrieved" parameter filled on them. This only applies to online sources - none of which you link. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:15, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To this end, I will be manually searching for and linking each source as I assess them.
Nothing you have is any good, and there are four sources that do not seem to exist. I'm not going to buy an argument that it's because of changes to website structure, because my search for Reference 2 turned up articles from 2008/9 as well as other letters-to-the-editor pieces, and I doubt 5NEWS's search engine would likewise fail to return stories it's published within the past two years. I'm thinking either this draft is unsanitised chatbot faeces, or the referencing is. Either way, the decline and the rejection for blowing off the decline look proper. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:44, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this is LLM slop that wasn't properly reviewed by the submitter first, it should be tagged with {{db-g15|reason=<your reason here>}}. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:17, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist: The problem is I can't tell if AI was just used for the references list or for the article as a whole. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:26, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you about the prose in this case, although hallucinated sources would be enough to convince me that the submitter didn't bother with the most basic due diligence before submitting it. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:10, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:21, 18 November 2025 review of submission by AlcubierreWarp

First, thank you to @Hurricane Wind and Fire: for the quick review of my draft. I’ve gone through the linked WP:PRIMARY guidance and wanted to clarify the level of independence required for sources before I continue researching and strengthening the article.

By way of context, the Joint Meteorological Centre (JMC) is a unit within the Canadian Armed Forces, which itself reports to the Government of Canada. Some of the sources I cited are not affiliated with the JMC’s operations and function independently day to day, though they may fall within the broader defence or federal ecosystem. A few examples:

• Citation 4 – The Maple Leaf: A newspaper covering military activities, published by the Canadian Forces. It is part of the same parent institution but is not connected to the JMC in mandate or function.

• Citation 5 – Historical article: Written by a civilian who occasionally worked alongside military personnel but belonged to another government department (now Environment and Climate Change Canada). It is published by the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, an independent professional organization unrelated to the CAF or the Government of Canada.

• Citation 6 – Canadian Military Journal: Authored by a CAF member with experience in the broader meteorological service, though not at the JMC. The CMJ is a peer-reviewed journal published by the CAF.

My question is: does Wikipedia’s definition of “independent sources” require that contributors or publishers have no professional background in government, the military, or meteorology? I’m trying to understand how to demonstrate notability for topics that are significant but inherently low-profile, especially organizations adjacent to intelligence or specialized technical domains where public coverage may be limited.

Any clarification would be appreciated before I revise the draft further. AlcubierreWarp (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AlcubierreWarp: Hello. The primary source guideline is not necessarily experience in a field; rather, relation to the subject, and because the agency is part of the government, I did not count in the Canadian government domain towards notability guidelines. For Reference 5, I was unaware this was written by a civilian and not a government employee. The most ideal sources to add would be from reliable news outlets or websites that significantly cover the subject. 🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) (contribs)🔥 23:31, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 19

03:33, 19 November 2025 review of submission by ~2025-33223-14

Please explain what needs to be done for approval. ~2025-33223-14 (talk) 03:33, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-33223-14: Please see WP:Biographies of living persons, Help:Referencing for beginners, and Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: using a source more than once. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 04:57, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:54, 19 November 2025 review of submission by 89735s

I want upload new page of "ID5". ID5 is similar go that of IP5. The IP5 wikipedia page is already formed. ID5 and IP5 is only the difference between design patents and general patents. 89735s (talk) 04:54, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@89735s: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Patent offices don't help for eligibility (gov't document). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 04:58, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:34, 19 November 2025 review of submission by Traveller One

Hello! I am a Singapore-based travel journalist on a mission to fill in the gaps on Wiki when it comes to local brands. I just tried creating a new article page for Capella Hotel Group, which I noticed was missing. Capella is a significant brand for Singapore as it's one of the first local hospitality brands to get international recognition. I tried to create the page in the same vein as the Aman Resorts page. However, it was flagged for not having sources that are indepth, reliable, secondary and strictly independent of the subject. I don't quite understand this as all the sources I used were third-party credible sources (something which I'm quite familiar with as a journalist). I was also called out for having a conflict of interest on the subject, which isn't true. Would appreciate any tips on what I'm doing wrong here, and specifics on how I can fix the issues. Thanks! Traveller One (talk) 09:34, 19 November 2025 (UTC):Traveller One[reply]

I fixed your header so it links to your draft, the full title of the draft(including the "Draft:" portion) is needed.
You didn't create this draft, another user did. Is that your account as well? That account was a paid editor, which is probably part of the reason why you were given a COI warning. In recent weeks there has been an extensive effort by South Asian hotels to promote themselves, so there is much attention in this topic area.
You have made a common error in that you used one poorly written article as a guide to write another. There are many ways inappropriate content can exist on Wikipedia, and you would be unaware of what is inappropriate as a newer user. If you want to use another article as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles or even Featured Articles, which have received community vetting.
Some of the draft is unsourced(like the section about a legal case in New York). Industry accolades or awards are meaningless towards notability unless the award itself merits an article(like Academy Award). Hosting a meeting between Trump and Kim might merit the specific property an article, or at least a mention on the article about the meeting, but doesn't add to the notability of the company, unless you have sources that discuss the particular involvement of the company itself in setting up or conducting the meeting. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Traveller One: you weren't "called out" for anything; I posted a conflict of interest (COI) query on your talk page, and if you have no COI, then all you need to do is say so.
The draft you wrote (or rather, rewrote, since there was an earlier draft at that title created by an employee of this business) is not about a brand, but about a corporate entity. As I understand it, that company operates two brands, including Capella, on which we already have an article: Capella Hotels and Resorts. If you want to create another article on the group, you need to show that the group is notable in its own right, because notability (and I'm not entirely sure that Capella Hotels and Resorts is properly notable, either, but that's a separate debate to be had) is not inherited. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:53, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @331dot and @DoubleGrazing, I appreciate you taking the time to explain. I didn't create the original draft, it was already there when I clicked the red link. I'll review my draft and see if I can justify the new article at all; otherwise will drop it. Thank you! Traveller One (talk) 12:06, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:19, 19 November 2025 review of submission by John.s.fontana

How is this reading like an advertisement? I've reviewed a competitors page and it follows the same format and information style (Lytx) John.s.fontana (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John.s.fontana Thank you for identifying another poorly written article. (Lytx) You have made the common error of using any random article as a model or guide. You would have, as a new user, no way of knowing that it was inappropriate. 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 is why each article or draft is judged on its own merits and not based on the presence of other articles. Please see other stuff exists. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles, which have received community vetting.
You have just described the activities and offerings of the company, this is routine coverage that doesn't establish that the company meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. That requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources that goes into detail about what makes the company important/significant/influential as a company, as the source sees it.
If you work for this company, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:32, 19 November 2025 review of submission by Mekelley1

My article was rejected for showing "signs of a Large Language Model," and for being "promotional in tone" but I literally wrote and compiled the whole thing and looked at other pages about visual artists for tone/content. I was also concerned about proving the subject justified a page, as Lucy Kim is a known artist who has shown internationally, but not one a casual art-lover would necessarily know (not Picasso, etc.). How do I address those critiques? Can anyone take a look at the draft and let me know if they see anything I should specifically change? I spent hours putting it together, so I hope it would get published in some form. Mekelley1 (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging JesusisGreat7 so they can elaborate as to why they suspect LLM use.
Beware in using other articles as a guide, as those too could be incorrect and you would be unaware of that. If you want tl use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles, which have received community vetting. 331dot (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The draft has some of the typical hallmarks of LLM writing as described in WP:AISIGNS, not all of which are definitive, but taken together indicate that an LLM wrote, or at least aided, the writing. GPTzero assessed it as 20% AI generated, 78% human, and 2% mixed, which suggests that an AI was used to suggest improvements to phrasing and grammar.
Examples of AI writing include:
  • Title case in headings (Wikipedia uses sentence case)
  • Redundant conjunction headings in the form "A and B", as "Art and Career" or "Awards and Accolades"
  • Vapid subjective and unsourced prose such as "her work bridges the gap between science and art"
  • Abrupt cut-off in the middle of a sentence: "Other works include Kim's 'beach cast paintings,' which are based", with nothing to finish it.
  • Listing selected works (papers, books, artworks) without any discernible criteria for inclusion, along with pointless citations that have absolutely nothing to do with establishing notability
I didn't check the sources for hallucinations, but based on the above examples, I can understand why the reviewer felt it was LLM-generated. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:58, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:44, 19 November 2025 review of submission by Skakkle

Hello, Can you explain "improperly sourced" in a bit more detail please with respect to this draft? I think I understand the concept in general, so any specifics for this case would be helpful. Thank you skakEL 18:44, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You would have to ask the reviewer. It seems to me that the two sources you cite aren't really about the actual topic of American-Israelis, but about another context that involves American-Israelis. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:05, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:50, 19 November 2025 review of submission by Audreyember

I'm confused as to why this article is not being accepted - This is a notable artist in New York City. I've included many references about her career and noteworthy things she has done. Please let me know what I should specifically include to help get this published? 

Audreyember (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Audreyember. An article must show that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, which is not the same as the normal definition. Neither her career, nor noteworthy things she has done are necessarily relevant.
The key to notability in the Wikipedia sense is that enough has been independently written about her to base an article on - and any draft must show this by citing suitable sources.
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. So most of your citations are not relevant, because they are not independent of her.
If you look at the history of the article you previously submitted, Claudia Bitrán, you'll see that @Lopifalko only accepted it after themselves making a sgnificant edit where their summary was Add independent WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV, replacing some of the over abundent primary sources. That was kind of them, but it means that you have now made the same mistakes again - and most reviewers do not do that much work to clean up a draft.
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 give that advice even though you have had a draft accepted previously, because I think it is still relevant. ColinFine (talk) 22:48, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 20

06:39, 20 November 2025 review of submission by Ayushh333

Can you help me with the draft this is my first time and am trying my best for our chairman wikipedia , Help me what should I add and mention here. Ayushh333 (talk) 06:39, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ayushh333: it's not for us to tell you what should be included in the draft. You need to find sources that satisfy the WP:GNG notability guideline, and summarise what they've said.
You also need to disclose your obvious conflict of interest. This was queried already a few weeks ago. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:43, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Ayushh333. Did you read WP:BOSS before you started?
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:58, 20 November 2025 review of submission by Mohammad Mowad

I am writing to kindly request an expedited review of my draft titled "Yasser Shaban" (Draft:Yasser_Shaban), which I submitted on 17 August 2025. The draft is currently awaiting review, and I would greatly appreciate it if you could prioritize its review and provide any necessary feedback as soon as possible.

I am eager to move forward with the article's approval process. I understand that you may have many requests, but I would be grateful if you could assist in speeding up this review.

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

Best regards, Mohammad Mowad. Mohammad Mowad (talk) 09:58, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mohammad Mowad: correction, you created this on 17 Aug, but you only submitted it on 31 Oct, ie. 3 weeks ago.
Is there a reason why you want to expedite this? We have nearly 3,000 drafts awaiting review, and it wouldn't be fair for yours to jump the queue (not that it's a queue, it's rather a pool, but still). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:36, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mohammad Mowad We would prefer to talk with you directly, and not an AI(98% certain according to zeroGPT). 331dot (talk) 10:47, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewed and declined, a number of these sources do not even mention the subject. Theroadislong (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:44, 20 November 2025 review of submission by Sliyanage1967

I cannot find the edit tab to edit the article. Sliyanage1967 (talk) 11:44, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The exact location depends on how you are viewing Wikipedia, if you are using the desktop mode in a browser(whether on a mobile device or a computer) it should be located at the top of the screen. 331dot (talk) 12:03, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sliyanage1967: given that you have edited it some 10 min ago, I assume you're okay now. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:04, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you. Sliyanage1967 (talk) 12:54, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for a second-opinion AfC review

Hello. I’m requesting a second-opinion review for the draft at Draft:Chrome Angelz RC. The draft has been revised several times with all sources manually checked against the cited articles, reference errors resolved, and redlinks removed. The information is directly based on the newspapers and outlets cited (Press Herald, Duluth News Tribune, NBC26, Wisconsin Agriculturist, etc.). Because the most recent declines were based on perceived “LLM-style writing” rather than sourcing or notability, I would appreciate a fresh review from a different editor so the draft can be evaluated on its references and factual reporting. Thank you very much for your time. 85frankenstein (talk) 14:45, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@85frankenstein: alright, if you've rewritten it in your own words, resubmit it and I'm sure Pythoncoder will let someone else take a swing at it next. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:56, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While 85frankenstein says they have manually checked the sources, removed the reference errors, and removed the redlinks, they notably do not say anything about whether they are still using LLMs to write the article's text, and I am seeing many signs that point to LLM use in their latest submission. So I'd like a yes or no answer on this question: are you using AI in any capacity while writing this draft? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:02, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I used AI tools early on for help with formatting and structure, but the current text in the draft has been rewritten and edited by me and is based entirely on the published sources. Every fact and citation in the present version was checked manually against the original articles. My intention is simply to summarize the coverage in a neutral and verifiable way.
I hope this clarifies things, and I would appreciate a review focused on the sourcing and the reliability of the references. Thank you. 85frankenstein (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:40, 20 November 2025 review of submission by Sao917

My draft Titled "Dominic Spadaro" was recently declined. I have made multiple changes to it. How do I resubmit the draft? Sao917 (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sao917 I fixed your header so it links to your draft as intended and not to a nonexistent page entitled "How to resubmit draft". Please do not use multiple forums to seek assistance, as this duplicates effort.
Your draft was rejected, typically meaning it won't be considered further.(you removed the rejection notice, it should be restored). If you have fundamentally changed the draft to address the reasons for rejection, you should first appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sao917 It's not clear to me how this man is a notable person as Wikipedia defines one. He seems to be an ordinary college football player who served in the military and had a business career afterwards. Only one source is cited, an article should cite multiple independent reliable sources. It seems to be that the rejection was correct and should stand, Mr. Spadaro is not notable. If you just want to tell the world about him, you should use social media or other website with less stringent requirements. 331dot (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:57, 20 November 2025 review of submission by BuC222

Hi. I have sourced information from a 1974 press cutting which has not been digitalised. How can I avoid citation error messages under the 'News' section as there is no URL to provide? Thanks BuC222 (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you should use Template:Cite news. 331dot (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:42, 20 November 2025 review of submission by The nara wiki

why did it get declined it was a joke for me and my friends The nara wiki (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You answered your own question. This is a serious project to write an encyclopedia, not a place to make jokes. Do that on social media. 331dot (talk) 17:45, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Joke Toarin (talk) 03:24, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:11, 20 November 2025 review of submission by ~2025-34854-97

Hi, how can I declare that I am submitting a draft for my employer? ~2025-34854-97 (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PAID. Basically, you either:
In either case, you need to complete the template with the relevant details to create the link between your user account (assuming you have one?) and the draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:17, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @~2025-34854-97.
As a paid editor, please note that Wikipedia has essentially no interest at all in what your employer wishes to say about themselves. Your article should be a summary of what several people wholly unconnected with your employer have independently chosen to publish about your employer in reliable publications, and not much else. Most people find it very difficult to set aside their own knowledge and beliefs in order to do this effectively.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:55, 20 November 2025 review of submission by Vacosea

Hi, I disagree with the argument given. Xinhua is used only once for a non-political statement: Roco Kingdom Adventure was a muscial produced by the China National Theatre for Children, first performed from May 31 to June 2, 2013. This is allowed under WP:RSP. Secondly, while WP:RSSELF largely does not accept self-published sources, it makes an exception for WP:SELFSOURCE when describing the subject matter itself, which is the case for this draft article when Tencent makes announcements under its official account. It also has not been explained why the existence of sources such as ITHome, Phoenix Television, and CICF/CACC (an award organizer) was ignored by the reviewer. Vacosea (talk) 20:55, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11WB See WP:XINHUA. There are circumstances where it is acceptable. 331dot (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @331dot, if Xinhua is acceptable in this circumstance then they are encouraged to use it appropriately. @Vacosea, I do stand by the decline, however you are welcome to resubmit at any point. It was not a rejection. You also welcome to move the draft straight to mainspace, as AfC is not restrictive. The article would at that point be subject to WP:AfD and the standard WP:NPP process. 11WB (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vacosea, I understand you would have also preferred for me to go over every source individually. There is an essay known as WP:THREE, along with User:RoySmith/Three best sources/notes. When reviewing we do indeed take the time to make sure the information in the article is both verifiable and from reliable sources. Many of the sources didn't actually load for me, which made verifying information harder, and the few that did load, such as this one from TapTap, are social media posts and are classed as WP:SPS. From this, I concluded that the draft was not reliably sourced, with the information being questionable. I also took note of this comment left by @Vrxces. I hope this clarifies your concerns with the review I conducted. Please do continue to work on the draft in the meantime! Happy editing! 11WB (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. For the few questionable sources, I would be fine with removing them and the text used. Vacosea (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In response to you and several above: I think the most notably objectionable source is Douban, which should be removed. I think Roco Kingdom as a franchise is likely notable, if consensus is that the online game itself is not on its own - are there sources that describe it as a whole? -- Reconrabbit 17:33, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:45, 20 November 2025 review of submission by JesseDarko

I'm unaware of why this doesn't qualify. Ian Douglass is very well known in the professional wrestling journalism space. I am a fan of his books and was flabbergasted he didn't have a wikipedia page yet. So I made one and followed the standards to the best of my ability. Any and all help getting this up is appreciated. JesseDarko (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JesseDarko I fixed your header; using the whole url breaks the formatting that creates a link to your draft.
The photo used comes from a website that states "all rights reserved" so you cannot use it on Wikipedia and must request its deletion.
The book list should just be removed as none of them have articles, so that does not contribute to notability. The awards don't help unless the awards themselves merit articles(like Pulitzer Prize), even if the awarding organization merits an article. 331dot (talk) 21:56, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @JesseDarko. It's not surprising that you are unaware why this doesn't qualify: like most people who plunge straight into trying to create an article, you don't appear to have spent any time learning about Wikipedia's policies and procedures.
A Wikipedia article should be almost entirely based on sources which are reliably published (not, eg Twitter), are independent of the subject (not from an associate, or from an organisation he is affiliated with or has been honoured by), and contain significant coverage of him (not just a passing mention) - see WP:42. The first three sources don't seem to do this, and I haven't looked further.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:58, 20 November 2025 review of submission by Mopho Ndlovu

Hi , Please kindly confirn if you have received the edited version of the article

Kind Regards

Mopho Ndlovu Mopho Ndlovu (talk) 22:58, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If independent coverage of you is limited, then you would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time- like the vast majority of humans on this planet. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves, please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Mopho Ndlovu. As you can see from your user talk page, your sandbox has been deleted as "unambiguous advertising".
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 21

13:18, 21 November 2025 review of submission by ~2025-35325-88

My article is being declined - need some assistance for creating an article according to Wikipedia provide assistance step by step if possible. ~2025-35325-88 (talk) 13:18, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's being declined, because it is blank. We cannot publish, or even review, a blank page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:29, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I assume you are Trecent logistics? You have been blocked from editing. That applies not just to your registered account, but to you as a person. By editing logged-out you are evading your block, which is not allowed. If you wish to have your account unblocked, you must log into it, and appeal via your user talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:33, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:01, 21 November 2025 review of submission by ~2025-35354-57

why was this taken down? ~2025-35354-57 (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @~2025-35354-57, as the notice at the top of your draft says, the subject is not notable enough for Wikipedia. There are other sites where this information would be more appropriate. -- Reconrabbit 17:18, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:16, 21 November 2025 review of submission by Renate Wiehager

I have created a biographical entry here: User:Renate Wiehager/sandbox I don't see a) how to move the text to the "draft" space b) how to ask for review c) how to publish the text, so the entry will be available on Wikipedia.org / English. There is an existing biographical entry in the German Wiki Version: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renate_Wiehager Thanks for guidance Renate Wiehager (talk) 11:41, 20 November 2025 (UTC) Renate Wiehager (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Renate Wiehager I fixed your header so it links to your draft as intended and not to a nonexistent page entitled "Creating a biographical entry". Your draft has now been moved to Draft space(the preferred location for draft submissions) and been given the information needed to submit it for a review. Note that you seem to be writing about yourself, this is highly discouraged here, please see the autobiography policy. Also know that the German Wikipedia has different policies and standards than we do. 331dot (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing the header for further review. The WikiProjects related to my work as art historian and curator would be: Contemporary Art, Modern Art, Visual arts, Corporate Culture, Art+Feminism, Women Artists. Renate Wiehager (talk) 09:09, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Renate Wiehager It has not been submitted for a review. Why do you think you pass WP:BIO? Nothing I can see in it suggests that you do. Doing a job well is just doing a job well, and is WP:ROTM.
Individuals who are truly notable will eventually get an article written about them anyway by editors who have no conflict of interest. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:46, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Renate Wiehager If your content is acceptable on the German Wikipedia, I suggest that you focus your efforts there. The English Wikipedia tends to be much stricter than other language versions. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please delete the draft Renate Wiehager (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. 331dot (talk) 15:37, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:57, 21 November 2025 review of submission by EditorBlakeJohnson

I tried submitting a draft to get a page for my company, Xendoo, on Wikipedia; however it saying it was called for immediate deletion. It is written in entirely neutral language without advertising. strictly informational. EditorBlakeJohnson (talk) 20:57, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are editing about your company, you are required by the Terms of Use to make a formal paid editing disclosure.
Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about a company, its offerings, and its activities. That is considered promotional here, see WP:YESPROMO. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Really? "Entirely neutral language without advertising"? You truly believe that phrases such as "deliver data-driven, timely financial insights", "grown to serve thousands of businesses", "developed to provide small and medium-sized businesses with data-driven visibility into their financial information", "a comprehensive view of network-wide performance" are neutral, and not unsubstantiated puffery? It is abundantly clear that this article was written for the purpose of publicity or promotion, which is expressly prohibited by Wikipedia policy. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:37, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have to concur with Anachronist after reading the draft. It would be hard-pressed to be less neutral or more blatant an advertisement, as it basically read like marketing material. If you attempt this again at some point, make sure that you fully disclose your affiliation with the company per WP:PAID, and it would have to be a very different article, one that is sourced from what reliable, independent sources say about the company; Wikipedia has very little interest in what companies say about themselves. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:51, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 22

04:56, 22 November 2025 review of submission by Carlovan

Hi, I’m the subject of Draft:Rufai Kasim (User:Carlovan/sandbox). My first submission was declined for tone. I’ve now rewritten it in neutral language with inline citations to independent sources (Starr FM, MX24, GhanaWeb, The Ghana Report, Afropulp, Economic World). Could someone please confirm if it looks closer to what’s expected before I resubmit? Carlovan (talk) 04:56, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have to ask, what would possess you to draft an article about yourself? Vanity? Publicity? Search engine optimization? Individuals who are truly notable would eventually get an article written about them anyway by editors who have no conflict of interest. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:29, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1323576979"