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 GreeceP (talk | contribs) at 07:08, 30 November 2025 (Requesting assistance regarding Draft:Tessa_Huntington). 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
Dec 2025
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 24

05:09, 24 November 2025 review of submission by McAfee, The Story, House and Foundation

I got a notice saying my submission was rejected, just wondering if the notice is legit. If so, why we were rejected and and how I might correct to get approved? Thanks in advance. McAfee, The Story, House and Foundation (talk) 05:09, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@McAfee, The Story, House and Foundation: the notice was legit, your draft was rejected, and has since been deleted. We don't publish mystery speculation about a house that was never built. Also, judging by this draft and your username, it seems you're not here to help us build an encyclopaedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:18, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:47, 24 November 2025 review of submission by ~2025-35942-71

Needs update because the year is almost over ~2025-35942-71 (talk) 06:47, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a question. Did you have one in mind you wanted to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:14, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:50, 24 November 2025 review of submission by Saloj Nair

Hello, Could someone check my article and tell me if it looks ready to go? Especially the sources. Thank you so much for your help. Saloj Saloj Nair (talk) 06:50, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Saloj Nair: your draft has been resubmitted, so you'll get an assessment once a reviewer gets around to it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:13, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect thank you Saloj Nair (talk) 07:15, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:31, 24 November 2025 review of submission by ~2025-33785-15

Hello,

I kindly request a reconsideration of the draft biography of this individual. They are a well-known Afghan author who has worked in various national and international organizations both inside and outside Afghanistan. They have published numerous articles and writings and have participated in multiple discussions and forums domestically and internationally.

Given this background, I respectfully ask that the draft be reviewed once again to determine whether it may be accepted for Wikipedia.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration ~2025-33785-15 (talk) 10:31, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This will be reviewed again, once you address the reasons for the earlier decline, and resubmit. You haven't made any edits to it since I declined it, so asking for it to be reviewed again at this stage is entirely pointless. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:57, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @~2025-33785-15.
Not one of the things you mention above about him is relevant to whether or not your draft can be accepted. What matters is whether you cite adequate independent reliable sources (see WP:42), remembering that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:45, 24 November 2025 review of submission by Mmemaigret

Second opinion: can I just confirm my reasoning on this one please?

The subject has "won their country's senior all-around or individual event finals national championship while competing for a country that qualified a full team into the most recent Olympics or senior World Championships", refer WP:NGYMNAST.

Although, the article does not disclose significant coverage, and the subject only appears to be notable for a single event, the reviewing instructions say that if it would probably be kept at AfD, I should accept it (and tag non-deletion-worthy problems).

Thanks, MmeMaigret (talk) 10:45, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mmemaigret: this could be argued either way. On one hand, NGYMNAST doesn't say that medalling at top level automatically makes someone notable, only that it is likely that someone who is at the top of their sport has also received sufficient media coverage to satisfy GNG. On that basis, you could decline this, and ask the author to cite such sources... and if they can't, then that shows that such sources do not exist, and the person isn't in fact notable despite the presumption of NGYMNAST.
Or, you could take the stance that a gymnast who at 16 has already won world champ team gold and individual silver is clearly quite a remarkable athlete, and that the presumption of NGYMNAST seems eminently reasonable in this case; accept the draft, and leave it to someone who takes issue with that to open an AfD discussion and try to argue why that's not the case.
I'd probably do the latter, but it's your call of course. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:47, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:56, 24 November 2025 review of submission by Priyanshu Mahapatra

Why my draft is declined and is not posted as main article of Wikipedia so that people through Google search engine can view it ? Priyanshu Mahapatra (talk) 10:56, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Priyanshu Mahapatra: because your draft is completely unreferenced, and provides no evidence that the subject is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:00, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
but respected sir I have mentioned reference in the article through editing. Please see to it , Article: Captain Sumeet Sabharwal (Air India) , and publish it as main article, it is biography of a person, a pilot, who died saving people. He deserves recognition. 🙏🏻 Priyanshu Mahapatra (talk) 11:33, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Priyanshu Mahapatra The four references you provided do not meet our criteria for reliable references. qcne (talk) 11:34, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Priyanshu Mahapatra: you have (now) cited Facebook twice (neither of which citation works), and Wikipedia twice (which you cannot cite as a source on Wikipedia). Someone who only died a few months ago is still covered by our requirements for articles on living people, and such referencing is therefore wholly inadequate. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:51, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Priyanshu Mahapatra: I have moved this back to drafts, do not attempt to publish it again without significantly improving the references, or it will be deleted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:53, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Priyanshu Mahapatra.
A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:35, 24 November 2025 review of submission by DonFryser36

Can you please be more specific about the references one should use when citing, because if it's a company that doesn't have so many references from different websites/sources, how is it possible for anyone to publish an article on Wikipedia? DonFryser36 (talk) 12:35, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DonFryser36: if there are no sources, then it isn't possible to publish a Wikipedia article. The concept of notability, which is a hard requirement for inclusion in the encyclopaedia, means that 'multiple sources have noted' a subject. If such sources don't exist, the subject is almost certainly not notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:06, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so how many sources should the subject have for it to be notable? DonFryser36 (talk) 14:31, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:08, 24 November 2025 review of submission by ~2025-34883-73

This company is notable enough -- I don't understand why it can't go to article space where it will be improved by more knowledgeable persons in the space, where it can be expanded upon with greater sources -- one person can't get this to the article space alone and help is needed to where it can stand on its own until improved. ~2025-34883-73 (talk) 13:08, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't work like that. We need to see evidence of notability before a draft is accepted, not just assurances of notability and a vague promise to provide proof thereof at some future time.
And yes, one person can get a draft to an acceptable state, assuming the required sources exist to demonstrate notability. But even a dozen editors can't do that, if such sources don't exist.
Besides, anyone can edit a draft, so whoever you have in mind is welcome to collaborate with you in the draft space (not necessarily on this draft, since it's been rejected, but in general). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:25, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the games they've made is notable, but you haven't really provided much coverage about the company. Basically all the sources you've listed are simply financials, mostly mergers and acquisitions, and that's considered routine coverage of any corporate entity, not something that makes it notable. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:25:54, 24 November 2025 review of submission by RajaRajaC

Does Draft:Role of the Sri Lankan Home Guards in the Sri Lankan Civil War still read like an essay? Previous AfC reviewer mentioned the article "reads like an essay rather than an encyclopedic article." He emphasized that this concern is primarily regarding the way the article is written, not the content itself, which seems to be encouraging. Since then, I’ve already made several positive changes to transform it into an encyclopedic article written with a neutral POV and the article is now in a much stronger position. This is why I am seeking further assistance from the Help Desk. I’d really appreciate it if anyone can provide useful feedback. RajaRajaC Talk 13:25, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have resubmitted it for review, the reviewer will leave you feedback if not accepted. We don't do pre-review reviews. 331dot (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:49, 24 November 2025 review of submission by TORNADOESARSOKOOL

Hey! so i am making a wikipedia article for my school, but there are not a lot of reliable sources or newspapers. there are engravings that show information on renovations and stuff. can i cite those? or can i record an interview with the principal?. TORNADOESARSOKOOL (talk) 14:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An interview would not be an independent source, and would also not be a reliable sources as any interview you conduct would not be subject to fact checking and editorial control.
If you have no independent sources with significant coverage of your school, it would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. 331dot (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:55, 24 November 2025 review of submission by Gw1007

Requesting guidance — well-sourced draft repeatedly declined

Hello. My draft Draft:Gregory P. G. Wharton has been declined several times for lack of significant coverage, but the draft includes multiple reliable, independent secondary sources that offer in-depth profile-level coverage, including:

• Corporate Counsel (ALM) – full feature, “In-House and On Patrol” • The Recorder (ALM) – profile of dual GC / police officer career • CBS News – Medal of Valor rescue coverage • PJ Media – narrative profile of policing and rescue • Chickasaw Times – award reporting • KTVU broadcast – Somerville reporting video stating the post reached a million people • Law360 – profile as GC of BigID • Government election results – two mayoral wins • Official SJPD tweet identifying me by name

These appear to meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO. The declines seem to stem from skimming or misunderstanding. Could an experienced AfC reviewer or mentor please take a look and provide guidance on next steps? Thank you. Gw1007 (talk) 14:55, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gw1007: by asking for an "experienced" reviewer, you're implying that the four reviewers who decline this are all inexperienced and got it wrong?
Most of the sources seem to be either primary or not provide significant coverage directly of this person. What would you say are your best three sources? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:26, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning, I apologize, I am not trying to imply anything negative. I am new and just trying to navigate the process. I have been seeking and trying to follow it. I was told this is where 'experienced mentors' are found, it was actually meant as a token of respect, but I can see your point of view. The nuance in the story is the dichotomy of career paths, simultaneous service as a Yale trained senior tech executive (starting with General Counsel of McAfee by age 29), and a highly decorated street level police officer. This is followed by being a twice elected Mayor. The event that resulting in a Medal of Valor was national and internal news with of 95 outlets, but my name is not explicitly mentioned (but I offer two sources for it) The overarching idea is that, if there are three good sources for news worthy law enforcement actions and three good sources for achievements in tech, that those two things existing together in the same biography is very rare, and should be a 'the whole is bigger than the sum of the parts' analysis. The ALM Corporate Counsel article is a full length feature (In House and On Patrol covering this dual career), as is the PJ Media story focuses on law enforcement heroism (*their words), and the Law360 Article covers current role as General Counsel of a 'Unicorn'. Any guidance would be well met. Tank you. Gw1007 (talk) 16:09, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gw1007: I'll bite. Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
Even assuming the two walled sources are usable (I can't comment one way or the other on those) this is very much a "wheat choked by the chaff" situation. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:12, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:23, 24 November 2025 review of submission by Treeoflife2024

Hello. I am very confused as to why my article has been rejected, since I employ several different sources, many of whom are official universities, unions, newspapers and museums etc. Treeoflife2024 (talk) 15:23, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Treeoflife2024: I'll look at both sources and text, as the decline notice implicates both.
For sources:
Because all of the sources are no good, the text of your draft is effectively unreferenced. This is UTTERLY FATAL for a biography of a living person, which requires a source for every claim that could potentially be challenged by a reasonable person. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:44, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Treeoflife2024.
First, are you aware that Wikipedia very strongly discourages autobiography, as it is so difficult that very few people have ever done it successfully?
A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.
This implies that, having found several sources about that neither you nor any associate of yours was in any way involved in generating, you would then need to effectively forget everything you know about yourself, and write a summary of what those sources say - even if you think they are wrong. Do you see why this is hard?
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:56, 24 November 2025 review of submission by Minhwi

Hello, I wanted to understand why my draft had been rejected. I feel like I've addressed all the points listed for rejection the first time, but it seems I still got rejected again. Would love to learn more Minhwi (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Minhwi
You have still not cited any sources that contribute to establishing that Datarize is notable by Wikipedia's standards (most companies are not notable).
A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.
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.
What is your connection with Datarize? When a new editor tries to create an article about a company as the first thing they do, they are often connected with the company, and unaware of the rules about paid editing. ColinFine (talk) 17:34, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:00, 24 November 2025 review of submission by Jd9607

Could someone please let me know why this page submission was rejected and what I need to change to get it approved? Thank you. Jd9607 (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jd9607: because there is no evidence that this business is notable enough to justify inclusion in the encyclopaedia. The sources are mostly primary, plus a few non-notable business awards, and one WP:FORBESCON piece, none of which contributes towards notability per WP:NCORP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you. I was prompted to create this page based on the business mention on the Round House Café wikipedia entry in San Francisco.
There are many additional mentions for this business in local and industry publications. If I resubmit with those additional sources, will it be rejected outright again? Jd9607 (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:31, 24 November 2025 review of submission by Keatontm

How do I get better sources to create the Wiki Article? Keatontm (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Keatontm: I couldn't say, but I can tell you that you must base the draft solely on published sources, not on your own personal knowledge or what you gained by interviewing this person. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Keatontm
I'm afraid you are in the same situation as lots of people here. You need sources that each meet all the requirements in golden rule - and with a new, young, artist, it is possible, even likely, that they don't yet exist (see WP:TOOSOON). Most artists (like most companies, most brands, most bands, most schools, most business people, most professors ... ) do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and it is not possible to write an acceptable article about them.
A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:37, 24 November 2025 review of submission by Versatilewithu123

Sir What changes should i make to publish this article Versatilewithu123 (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Versatilewithu123: 'Sir' is otherwise occupied, but perhaps I may be permitted to reply. There is nothing in this draft to indicate that the subject is in any way notable, not least because the draft is entirely unreferenced. Consequently, the draft has been rejected and will not be considered further, therefore no changes are required. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, if you can clearly showcase that the subject of the draft (I presume yourself) is notable enough under the General Notability Guideline, then I will happily revert my reject. NeoGaze (talk) 23:26, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:49, 24 November 2025 review of submission by MyneTEC

Hello i just registered my account today as i was contacted first by david @ wikirep.org and after that by volodymyr @ wikibusines.com to making me an offer for a personal biography wikipedia page that they charged 1,6k usd if i would have agreed to that in such a way. As i am not in the position to pay for such an amount myself the way they wanted me to i decided to do the writing myself instead and solve that problem that way. It would be of help anyways from here on cause it would enable me sending just my wikipedia link to people so they can get more informed that way. What would save me a lot of stress and time in future as well.

i already published a first version but it was declined by the guy Ibjaja055 that seems to be running that Teahouse thing that was shown on the page where i also found this help desk link as well.

well i would be open to help to get this article about my personal life published soon so i have one problem less i have to care about. I also want to add i did type everything on my own accord and not used any AI generator application software. I dont know why i was accused of having used any Chatgpt whatsover as i had everything typed manually on my keyboard with my own fingers without any copy and past usage as well. Only thing i can say is that its not my original Native language as i am coming from Germany and as much as i like interacting with the english language i may still lacking some or the other things there too so i apologize if it does not fit perfectly into yet, i will grind to get this done better. I knew the day would come when i do not have any other choice but to put things more online. So i waited as long as i possibly could as i am not much of a fan of fame either and used on more background living till today. But there always comes the point when time forces you to take a step more into the light. Guess i can no longer hide towards that as well. But i can still decide what is written about me. To get this done in authentic means towards information given as well.

Thx in advance for your helping advice

Eric Günther MyneTEC (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MyneTEC. wikibusiness and wikirep are scams and you must read Wikipedia:Scam warning immediately. Cease all communications with "david" and "volodymyr".
Your current draft shows absolutely no indication you meet our very strict criteria for inclusion. At this time, you do not merit an article. qcne (talk) 21:52, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 25

03:50, 25 November 2025 review of submission by The boss 1904

My draft has been repeatedly rejected for creation on the basis of the game in question not having been released. I find this to be an absurd reason, as there are numerous video game articles for games that are not released at this point in time. I fail to see why this applies for my article specifically. The boss 1904 (talk) 03:50, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The boss 1904 The draft has been 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. We also judge each article or draft on its own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate, see other stuff exists. If you would like to help us, please identify these other articles you have seen so action can be taken.
Since it's a remake of a game, the information should now go in the article about the original game, just as we mention the remake/update of Super Mario Galaxy in the article about the original game, not a separate article. You can then have a discussion about splitting the article.
I'm not sure about video games, but I know that guidelines for films are that there must be something significant about the production of the film itself before an article is created about an unreleased film. You just have routine coverage about the development of the game. 331dot (talk) 08:57, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
English is not my first language, so sometimes I may pick inappropriate word choices. Regardless, I would like to elaborate on a few points you made:
1. The Super Mario Galaxy comparison is not appropriate, because the Switch release is an enhanced port of the original, not a remake. Yakuza Kiwami 3 & Dark Ties is a full-fledged remake bundled with a brand new spin-off story. It is almost entirely a new game of its own, thus it warrants its own article. There have been similar articles made for remake entries in the Yakuza series, so this shouldn't be any exception.
2. An example I can use here is Resident Evil Requiem, a game that does not release until February 2026, also in a similar time frame as YK3. Yet a page was approved long before I started the YK3 draft. There are many other similar video game articles listed on the 2026 in video games page that already have their own pages as well, so I don't believe this is breaking any rules. From what I have read on the Requiem article, I also don't see how my article fails to meet guidelines, because the content being covered is standard for most video game articles. The boss 1904 (talk) 09:57, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That another article exists does not necessarily mean it was "approved" by anyone. Again, we judge each article or draft individually and not based on the presence of other articles.
Even you say "almost entirely a new game". Since it isn't a new game, it should go on the original game article, at least for now. I understand your position, but if you want to get your content live the best way to do that right now is to add it to the article about the existing game. You can then have a discussion about splitting the article once the remake is released. Or- you can try to fight for your draft when you have already had four more experienced users tell you that they don't think it merits an article of its own yet. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:56, 25 November 2025 review of submission by Filmybuff

Hi Sir, I have initiated writing the articles, on WP:CORP. Though, I understood the guidelines clearly and submitted the draft, I missed the acceptance twice. Can I get proper guidance to re-frame, restructure the draft, following the Wikipedia WP:CORP, WP:NPOV terms and guidelines - Filmybuff (talk) 06:56, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While the company may be notable as it received a notable award, the other coverage in the draft is entirely routine(WP:ORGDEPTH). If there was more coverage as to what specifically merited the company an award, that might help. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:03, 25 November 2025 review of submission by Df2025

Hi, my second submission for this article has also been declined... I'm at a bit of a loss as to why though this time. I've spent the last few months reading hundreds of wiki pages to try and learn organically what makes a 'good' wiki page, and thought I had managed to recreate it this time... alas, I'm still going wrong somewhere.

I had two bits of feedback - one that it still seems like a piece of advertising, and two, that I need more and better sources.

All the sources I've included are independent of the subject matter (including it's former entities), and have not been written by any employees or former employees as far as I have been able to verify. I have even included some reliable sources of reviews of Dealfront by competitors. Please can someone help me identify what is wrong with the (40) sources I have used?

As for the 'advertising' copy... I have massively pared back and edited this article since I wrote the original, and have removed any promotional language. Furthermore, I've only stated facts that can be verified by the sources I've used... Please can someone help me identify what sort of phrases I'm using that are still deemed inappropriate?

I am genuinely keen to learn and become a 'good' member of the wiki community! Just need a pointer here and there! Many thanks x Df2025 (talk) 11:03, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Df2025: you've basically created a company presentation, which tells the world about your business, its products, partners, leaders, etc. We've no interest in any of that, here that's considered purely promotional (see WP:YESPROMO), and you should save that for your website and whatever marketing channels you use. We're almost exclusively interested in seeing what independent and reliable secondary sources have on their own initiative (not fed press releases etc. content by your company) said about your business and what in their view makes you worthy of note. Your job is merely to summarise what they've said. If you did that (assuming you can find such sources in the first place, which is far from a given) you would end up with a very different draft, indeed.
The notability guideline you're aiming for is WP:NCORP, and the process for getting there is outlined at WP:GOLDENRULE.
You should also read, if you haven't already, WP:BOSS, and show it to your colleagues and superiors as well. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:17, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting back to me so swiftly.
So, it would seem there's not really a problem with my sources at all then - given that they all follow the above criteria. I will obviously have to amend my understanding of the type of encyclopaedic wiki is after, as it would seem wiki isn't after true-encyclopaedic either! I do love a challenge!
I was under the impression everything I'd written had been summarised from the sources I've used, but I will go back through them (all!) again and see what else could be pulled out from them. So, to clarify, we're actually looking for 3rd party opinion, rather than true facts. Good to know - that certainly makes it clearer where I've been going wrong. Is there anywhere I can read up on the rationale of why Wiki thinks that makes something more reliable or not? Opinion is still opinion at the end of the day and surely that will vary everywhere? Would love to get clarification on this.
Thanks again - really appreciate you shedding some light on this for me! :) Df2025 (talk) 11:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Df2025: no, the sources are not okay, at least not all or most of them. There are several product reviews of Dealfront the product, as opposed to coverage of Dealfront the company, the latter of which is the subject of this draft. There are also routine business reporting and primary sources. I haven't analysed all the sources in any detail (given that there are 40 of them!), but I trust the reviewer did and concluded that they do not satisfy NCORP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:51, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:36, 25 November 2025 review of submission by MilosExitMilos

Hi, just got notification that draft has been rejected. I understand the reasons, but just wanted to know if there is any way to get this kind of article live? This is EU funded project and it was written in grant agreement that it will have Wikipedia page, but it god denied for understandable reasons and I am not really sure how to write it differently than how I did now. MilosExitMilos (talk) 12:36, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MilosExitMilos: EU FP projects are almost by definition not notable, because all coverage of them comes (if it comes at all) from primary sources closely associated with the project. Occasionally, if the project manages to develop something genuinely game-changing, it can get enough attention to clear the notability threshold, but typically that would be only towards the end of the project or even after that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understand, thanks. So we should have more external references and links to the technology developed by the project to get the notability threshold? The project is developing some important tech for prevention of microplastics in rivers and it should be notable. MilosExitMilos (talk) 12:59, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MilosExitMilos: starting with your last point, the project may be doing important things, but that isn't what makes it notable. Notability sounds like it means 'important' or 'worthwhile' or 'cutting-edge' or something like that. It doesn't. It means (in what comes to most subjects, incl. projects like this) that multiple secondary sources have taken note of the subject and covered it as part of their regular journalistic and media endeavour. In other words, the subject must be of considerable interest, sufficient to catch the attention of several print or broadcast outlets (doesn't have to be quite BBC News or Le Monde level, but shouldn't be hyperlocal or very niche sector/technology-specific either), and your job would then be to summarise what they have said. Usually it's best if you just focus on doing what you do, and if your project is genuinely notable, someone completely unaffiliated with it may one day write a Wikipedia article about it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:15, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:55, 25 November 2025 review of submission by Harisha pc

hey i was trining create for harsh i dont the guy the user of deepeditor something i suggest can you add the Artcile for Harsh Vardhan which i have posted Harisha pc (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Harisha pc: are you the same user as DeepHiveEditor? If not, are you two working together?
Be that as it may, this is now the third (at least) promo piece on the same person. Please stop, do not create any more drafts on this subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:17, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:50, 25 November 2025 review of submission by Theangrymoms

What have I done wrong? Theangrymoms (talk) 13:50, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Theangrymoms. Your draft is not a valid Wikipedia article, it's just a list of people who have signed a petition? Go to a social media website instead if you want to get people to sign a petition. qcne (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:59, 25 November 2025 review of submission by Tomhay972

I submitted this for review several months ago and the number of reviews in front of me is not decreasing. It seems to only increase. Have I done something wrong? Thanks in advance! Tom Hayes Tomhay972 (talk) 13:59, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomhay972: "several months ago"? You submitted this on Oct 10, which is c. 1½ months ago.
There is no "in front of me", because the system is not a queue, it is a pool, since drafts are not reviewed in any particular order. Please be patient. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:03, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:29, 25 November 2025 review of submission by Rahoman

Hello, I'm writing to request help with this draft, which has been under different moderators since July. I've attached links showing that it has been discussed and confirmed that the information is not promotional, that it's of international interest, that there are sufficient references from highly credible media outlets, and that there's no payment commitment. The last review was by a moderator who confirmed that everything is OK for publication, and it was he who requested it. Would it be possible to publish the page directly, as it has been reviewed countless times by numerous people, all of whom confirm that it's OK until a new moderator reviews it and we start again?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archive_70#c-Cullen328-20250802153500-Pigsonthewing-20250801124600

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pythoncoder?markasread=340113840&markasreadwiki=enwiki#c-Pythoncoder-20251010113100-Rahoman-20251009144300

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rahoman 

Rahoman (talk) 15:29, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rahoman: I don't think it's reasonable to expect a reviewer to investigate whether someone else has previously said a draft looks good to go; they will just evaluate the draft and either accept or decline it, as it stands. If someone has told you that this is ready to be published, and you wish to rely on that, then you should probably go back to them to follow up.
Your account is also autoconfirmed, so you have the necessary permission to move this into the main article space, if you so wish. Doing so may not be advisable, given the number of declines, but it is entirely permissible. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @DoubleGrazing, thanks for your reply. It's understandable that we can't thoroughly investigate every request; we already have enough work with the individual reviews! That's why I detailed all the work we've done—not just me, but a lot of moderators—so the problem wouldn't get any bigger and bigger. I'll try again with the last moderator who actually submitted the request. Thanks again! Rahoman (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:08, 25 November 2025 review of submission by Vlad Blackburn

Is my page can be published? Thanks. Vlad Blackburn (talk) 23:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vlad Blackburn: you have submitted the draft for review, and it will be reviewed at some point – I'm afraid it is impossible to predict when. Feel free to edit and improve the draft while it is waiting for review, but don't edit or remove the "Articles for Creation" templates at the top. --bonadea contributions talk 11:30, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:51, 25 November 2025 review of submission by Bgalgano94

Hi Team,

Our club is wanting to create a WIKIPEDIA page, many others at our level of the semi professional game have one, and we would like to proceed with a completed article.

We have had a few attempts rejected, and would like to know how we can have this page ratified.

Regards Bgalgano94 (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you represent the club, that needs to be formally disclosed, see WP:COI. Wikipedia is composed of articles, not pages. Your draft was declined, not rejected; rejected would mean it could not be resubmitted.
You are under the mistaken impression that article subjects own or control the article about them; our articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the subject. Boston Red Sox was not written by Red Sox employees. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate, see Other stuff exists.
Please see the message left by the reviewer; they were concerned that your sources are not reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 00:24, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 26

00:13, 26 November 2025 review of submission by Mr Friesen

Deer editors

Hi i am the maker of the piplup page and i was wundering why it was not accepted just looking for advice to make it better and for my future publishes.

that you for your time L Friesen Mr Friesen (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr Friesen: You need to demonstrate that Piplup has been discussed at length by third-party reliable sources; contrast Pikachu or Mimikyu. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 00:29, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

00:56, 26 November 2025 review of submission by Apora12

I don't understand why my article has been declined a second time. I searched for secondary citations/references, and only left primary sources as a last resort. I have seen other musician's articles use primary sources with no problem. Can someone please explain what I'm doing wrong? Apora12 (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources are not forbidden, but they do not establish notability. Please see WP:PRIMARY for more information. Please note that each article or draft is judged on its own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and just not yet addressed by a volunteer.(other stuff exists)
Social media is not an independent source, and is also user-generated without editorial oversight. 331dot (talk) 01:03, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:59, 26 November 2025 review of submission by ~2025-36479-32

Recently found out about Simple Wikipedia, where a version of the Rejected Draft was written in good faith.

The goal was just for an article to exist, briefly explaining about the company -- and that has been achieved with the publishing of the Simple Wikipedia article.

If sufficiently improved over time by various contributors using more and more notable sources, could the 'Simple' iteration be eligible in future for a standard Wikipedia article?

And, does the Simple Wikipedia article that was published over there, meet notability to be allowed to exist in its current state under that platform's rules, in your opinion, would you say?

The title used is the same in both places. ~2025-36479-32 (talk) 04:59, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-36479-32: The Simple English Wikipedia is its own project, with its own standards and practices separate from English Wikipedia. How the simple.wp page develops isn't going to have any impact on a hypothetical en.wp version. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 05:08, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @~2025-36479-32.
If an article in Simple met all the requirements of English Wikipedia in respect of sourcing and notability, then there is no reason why it could not be simply copied to English Wikipedia. I have no idea whether or not Simple's criteria are commensurate with this. ColinFine (talk) 14:59, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find it disturbing that the Simple English Wikipedia is being used as a fallback venue (perhaps with little review or oversight), as if it's a dumping ground for content that isn't acceptable on the non-simple English Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:47, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The good thing is that Simple English is much less pronounced then the English Wikipedia, so potential issues has less of an impact. GGOTCC 07:10, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:26, 26 November 2025 review of submission by Keramidi74

Hi, my submission was rejected due to it reading like a resume. Can I please have access to a mentor who can verify changes that I make ? One was initially made available however I did not take advantage of it at the time. Thanks in advance. Keramidi74 (talk) 06:26, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keramidi74 Your 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.
You can determine your assigned mentor on Special:Homepage.
What is your relationship to Helen Zahos? You claim to have taken, and hold the copyright to, a very professional looking image of her.
The draft reads like a resume because it just lists her work and accomplishments. It does not summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose to say about her and what makes her a notable person. The awards are meaningless towards notability unless the awards themselves merit articles(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award) so any awards that don't have articles should be removed. The same goes for her publications- any that don't merit articles themselves should be removed. 331dot (talk) 09:08, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the other problems raised, it also appears to be something that was mostly, or entirely, spit out from an LLM. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:25, 26 November 2025 review of submission by Prabesh84

THe improvement i should made for approval for of this article. Prabesh84 (talk) 09:25, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prabesh84 I see that you made a paid disclosure on the draft itself; for better visibility, please also do so on your user page(User:Prabesh84); see WP:PAID.
The reviewer left you a message as to what improvements are needed. You need independent reliable sources with significant coverage of her- most of your sources are either interviews with her(not independent) or are about protests/action against the government broadly and mention her very little. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Try writing it yourself instead of using an AI. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:43, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:31, 26 November 2025 review of submission by Mooredoor1986

Please can some one assist. I have had my article declined 3 times. I have been working on it for over two months now. I have re-wrote the whole thing, no copy has been written by AI. I have included plenty of 3rd party references. The article highlights the importance of a great Grade II listed building, which carries significant importance to British history and culture.

I am not sure what else I can add/change to get it approved. Any advice would be hugely appreciated.

Many thanks Chris Mooredoor1986 (talk) 11:31, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Mooredoor1986. You've resubmitted it.
I recommend you review every one of your sources to see whether it meets all the criteria in golden rule. (It's pretty clear that Very Paranormal is not a reliable source for example, as it says "Veryparanormal website is a free community portal where the paranormal fans, experts, and content creators around the world connect for entertaining, learning, sharing, discussing, showcasing and promoting the relevant subjects, and explore the unexplained!" so it does not have an editorial overview).
Any sources which are not reliable should be removed, together with any information which is verified only from them.
Sources which are not independent or which do not contain significant coverage may sometimes be used to verify specific information, but do not contribute to establishing that the pub meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. This is even harder where there is a conflict of interest, and I boggle that paid editors should ever take on a new task for which they have had no training. ColinFine (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Colin
Thank you very much for your in-depth feedback, it's been the best response I have had so far using Wikipedia. So far my interaction with others have actually been down right rude, so I truly appreciate you taking the time to provide some really useful insight.
I am a very experienced copy writer, but brand new to Wikipedia. I added in the additional paranormal section, due to being informed that the article needed more context and really I have exhausted all other resources. I am just going to remove the whole section.
The other sources I have referenced, I believe are what gives the article credibility to meet the notability criteria as being Greater Manchester's oldest public house and one of the oldest public houses in the UK, alongside the building being Grade II.
I will definably have a look at some editing exercises on Wikipedia to help me understand the process further.
Many thanks Mooredoor1986 (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:39, 26 November 2025 review of submission by FoltynFamOnTop

I would like help on how to make my topic more notable so that I can publish the page. FoltynFamOnTop (talk) 11:39, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have zero reliable independent sources, the draft was rejected, it will not be considered further. Theroadislong (talk) 12:00, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have 2 reliable sources. CBS News Miami and Florida Today. I found them after you reviewed my draft. FoltynFamOnTop (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FoltynFamOnTop: both seem to provide only passing mentions of this person.
BTW, is there any reason why you're citing offline sources only? I had to Google these sources myself, and I shouldn't really have to do that since they're both available online and you could just cite those. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:27, 26 November 2025 review of submission by Homosapien 002

For courses and infrastructure, I've referred to the organisation's site itself; also, since it is related to marine, some of the major marine news firms, I've attached news articles from major marine news publications. Even though this article got rejected last time. Can I know why? Thanks. Homosapien 002 (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Homosapien 002.
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.
If no independent source has talked about the courses and infrastructure, then they don't belong in an article.
And if nobody independent has chosen to publish non-routine information about the institute saying why it is notable, then it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 27

01:46, 27 November 2025 review of submission by Ancaruh

I need help how to upload photos of the art work Ancaruh (talk) 01:46, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Ancaruh
Images are completely irrelevant at this stage: they will not help your draft be accepted.
The only thing that bring your draft anywhere near being accepted is several properly-formatted citations to reliable independent sources that talk in some depth about Ancaruh. Nothing else. Despite your heading "References", you have no acceptable sources at all. Please see 42 for what are acceptable sources, and WP:RFB for how to cite them.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:31, 27 November 2025 review of submission by Jvbpds

Good evening. My article was rejected, and after making further changes and adding more sources, I submitted it for review again, but the screen didn't turn yellow (which indicates that my article is being reviewed). What should I do? Jvbpds (talk) 02:31, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Do you refer to Draft:Fear & Dagger (Paleface Swiss Album)? If so, it has been resubmitted! GGOTCC 04:21, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:11, 27 November 2025 review of submission by ~2025-36652-76

Hi! Thank you so much for the feedback. What would be the best way to make this article suitable for publication on Wikipedia? 

~2025-36652-76 (talk) 03:11, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The best way is to actually read the information in the decline notices, as well as the links in them. Basically, you need multiple sources that each meet all the requirements described in WP:Golden Rule. Not all the sources you cite need to meet all requirements but you should have at least three that do. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:37, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:05, 27 November 2025 review of submission by ~2025-36625-35

This is a page on Sprunki right? ~2025-36625-35 (talk) 05:05, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but it isn't publishable as an article on Wikipedia, because it cites no sources, especially no sources meeting the criteria described in WP:42. Read the decline notice. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:35, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your unreferenced draft violates the core content policy Verifiability and bear no resemblance to an actual encyclopedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 07:12, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:40, 27 November 2025 review of submission by Prashantredbrick

I recently created my brand page and need experts to review the page and make require changes to qualify for the Wikipedia guidelines. Please review my page in sandbox and help me to make my brand page live. Your help is highly appricated. Thank you in advance. Prashantredbrick (talk) 07:40, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have not responded to the paid-editing query at the top of your talk page. If you are employed by this company, you are considered a paid editor and must disclose that affiliation by following the instructions in the query.
Your draft has already been reviewed by an experienced editor; please read the decline notices and comments carefully. This help desk can answer specific questions you have about the decline reasons but it is very unlikely that anyone will volunteer to directly work on the draft. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:18, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note that most companies in the world do not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, and the companies that do qualify cannot control the content of their own Wikipedia articles. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:36, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Prashantredbrick. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Examples of dependent coverage. All of your references seem to be of that type which do not establish notability. Cullen328 (talk) 09:02, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:50, 27 November 2025 review of submission by ~2025-36698-91

I want to correct my username's spelling. ~2025-36698-91 (talk) 08:50, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English Wikipedia. Submissions here need to be written in English. Cullen328 (talk) 08:56, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remember to log in when posting. If you want to change your username, you go to Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS. Drafts are best written in Draft space via the Article Wizard. 331dot (talk) 09:24, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:27, 27 November 2025 review of submission by Toometa

Hi, I asked on the draft’s talk page whether the three sources listed there provide sufficient significant coverage under the GNG, but I haven’t received feedback yet. Here is the discussion: Draft talk:Claudia Vargas Mirza#Request for feedback on sources. If anyone from AfC could review those sources and share their view on the notability question, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you very much for your time. Toometa (talk) 09:27, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Toometa: very few people, if any, are likely to be watching this draft, so if you just post a question without pinging anyone, chances are no one will see that. Whereas here at the help desk you get a response quite quickly, often within minutes. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:46, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Toometa: I'd say all three are borderline, at best. Much of the D Magazine article is in Mirza's own voice, making it at least party a primary source. The publication is also local, which means low news threshold. The two BL pieces are more about her business ventures than about her per se. And in any case, since they are the same publication, they only count as a single source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:03, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing: Thank you very much for the guidance and for taking the time to review the sources. I appreciate the clear explanation, as well as the advice on how to handle questions like this in the future. This is very helpful. Thanks again. Toometa (talk) 10:14, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:08, 27 November 2025 review of submission by ~2025-36757-19

I do not understand why my article was not accepted. It's an honest biography which is easily corroborated. Please help me to make this acceptable. Many thanks Chris Bould ~2025-36757-19 (talk) 14:08, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting. You seem to be writing about yourself, this is ill advised, please see the autobiography policy. No one disputes its honesty, but Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves. Your films winning awards may merit the films articles, but not necessarily you- unless the award was for your directing work and is a notable award(it has an article itself). 331dot (talk) 14:15, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:19, 27 November 2025 review of submission by TheRealAirbornrabbits

How can i make this topic approvable for everyone to see? And are there any ways only people with the link can see this post or no? TheRealAirbornrabbits (talk) 14:19, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. You have not shown that this person is a notable person. I suggest that you learn much more about Wikipedia by using the new user tutorial before editing further. 331dot (talk) 16:28, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:14, 27 November 2025 review of submission by Georgetcb

what is incorrect? Georgetcb (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgetcb: as it says in the rejection notice, and ever decline notice before that, there is no evidence that this person is notable enough to warrant an article (in a global encyclopaedia). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:35, 27 November 2025 review of submission by GTays

Hi! My draft “Draft:Peerapat Peerakit” was declined and I’d like to understand what specific issues I need to fix so I can improve the article. Could you please tell me what parts need better sources, formatting, or neutrality? Here is the link to my draft: Draft:Peerapat Peerakit

Thank you very much for helping new editors like me! GTays (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GTays I fixed your header so it links to your draft as intended and not to a nonexistent page entitled "Requesting feedback for my declined draft". I also fixed the link you provided, the whole url is not needed. 331dot (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the message left by the reviewer. You have no independent reliable sources and have not shown how this person is a notable person. 331dot (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:58, 27 November 2025 review of submission by Jrtuenge

I'm thinking now that I should withdraw this submission (which was my first).

  • There are few additional references that I could cite -- for example, https://www.nga.org/publications/rapid-reskilling-covid-19/ only mentions the NLx in passing.
  • The timeline at https://usnlx.com/about, which is reportedly being revised based on my input, already provides sufficient background.
  • I want to respect reviewers' time, especially considering the current backlog of nearly 3k pending submissions waiting for review.

Should I insert something like the following (enclosed in double curly brackets) at the top of the page, or would you have to do this for me?

23:04, 27 November 2025 review of submission by Mihai Catalin 11

Hi! I reviewed the page again and I just want to clarify one thing regarding the sources. I used publications that, as far as I could verify, are considered independent and have a minimum level of editorial credibility (Ziarul Financiar, Forbes Romania, Italian press, etc.). I realize that some of them also include statements made by the subject, but they are not PR releases or texts coming directly from him—they are materials taken and edited by journalists. If you still see a specific issue with any of them, please let me know exactly which one so I can fix it. My intention isn’t to push anything, just to align the page with Wikipedia’s requirements. Thank you! Mihai Catalin 11 (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mihai Catalin 11. I already gave you advice about this draft at the Teahouse about 24 hours ago and pointed out that the sentence in the lead beginning Giacomo is mentioned in Romanian economic media . . . is not helpful. And yet that sentence remains. "Mentions" are of no encyclopedic significance. What is required are references to reliable, independent sources that devote significant, in-depth coverage to Billi. And those sources should be summarized. Which of your sources give Billi in-depth coverage instead of "mentions"?
I also pointed out previously that your draft is in violation of MOS:SURNAME and yet you have not made the necessary corrections. Cullen328 (talk) 05:08, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mihai Catalin 11, a good resource for you will be WP:42. Most if not all of your sources should meet all three criteria in order to show Billi qualifies for a Wikipedia article. Looking at your first four sources, none of them meet all three criteria. I strongly suggest reassessing your sources against WP:42, keeping in mind that interviews with the subject, his friends, family, colleagues or employees are not independent. Meadowlark (talk) 07:32, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 28

Draft declined - Draft:Battle of Nawanpind

Draft:Battle of Nawanpind Asc9924 (talk) 05:48, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Do you have a specific question we can help you with? GGOTCC 05:51, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, yes.
My draft was declined for
"This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of events)."
How do I better my draft? Asc9924 (talk) 06:01, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Asc9924: You start by abandoning the draft and picking a completely different topic area to edit in. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 08:24, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing wrong with a non-EC editor drafting a new article if an EC editor approves it. Edit count has nothing to do with one's capability of writing a good draft.
Looking it over, it looks like a valiant attempt at an article about a complex subject, and it's likely notable enough for a standalone article. It's also refreshing to see a draft submission that actually attempts to build the encyclopedia rather than satisfy a COI desire for publicity or vanity.
@SafariScribe: would you comment on your decline?
What is confusing is the citations, of which many are citing the same book, but different page numbers. There are better ways to do that, described in WP:CITESHORT. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have an issue with @Asc9924's citation style, and I do not believe it is a reason for a draft to be rejected. Duplicating references save for the unique page number is a common practice on Wikipedia and academia, ie. good articles such as USS Missouri (1841). GGOTCC 18:49, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for your replies and going through the article @Anachronist and @GGOTCC. As you have pointed out, my main confusion is about the reason behind the draft being rejected. I did reach out to @SafariScribe but couldn't get a reply.
I am more than ready to amend whatever issues may be present but right, I can't understand what the problem is. Asc9924 (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only issue I could identify is about the "Notability" of the topic. However, my argument against it that the battle in question was a significant event during the India-Pakistani war of 1971, moreover two gallantry awards of high precedence were also awarded during it.
I personally do not think that if a topic hasn't been dealt about specifically elsewhere can be classified as one with low notability. If pages like Abuja Airplane House, which talks about a personal property in Abuja or Ice cream barge, which is about US ships carrying ice-creams in WW2 can exist, why not a page about an actual battle that took place which resulted in major casualties amongst both the belligerents. Asc9924 (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think there is any issue about notability here! The only issue is if the sources provide enough information for a coherent article, which you have already done. GGOTCC 19:30, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So what do you suggest I may do to get the article accepted? Asc9924 (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the ping, I was just going through my message box before seeing this. I have few comments. Some WP:OFFLINESOURCES in that draft aren't with page numbers and that makes it difficult to check sources. Again, I am very inquisitive to know if this war existed because almost none of the sources referred it by the name (i.e draft title) except some gallantry (award) sources which I haven't confirmed the reliability. Sometimes editors may add up many things about different war and call it a specific name because the events may be likely be related as was probably the case with this draft. The war isn't clearly named "Battle of ..." unlike the 1971 Indian-Pakistani war. So I may advise @Asc9924 to edit the draft and add page numbers as well as confirm that the draft isn't made up of different stories which may include other wars. Cheers! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 04:06, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ask the reviewer your question first. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:02, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding of the EC restriction in CTOPs is that non-EC users shouldn't even be submitting drafts because that is still editing. 331dot (talk) 20:05, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is certainly news to me! Should we update Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions in that case? GGOTCC 20:18, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It may depend on the specific topic, I'm fairly certain that's the case with the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area, and that's handed pretty strictly. Asc9924 should be aware thar if the draft were accepted, they couldn't edit it again until they are EC. 331dot (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's news to me too. In the same spirit as draft space being the only venue we offer for COI editors to write drafts on their COI topics, similarly draft space should be available to good editor who just happens not to be EC can contribute good content that happens to fall under the CTOP umbrella.
    In fact, we even have a venue for that outside of draft space: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit, where unconfirmed editors can go to propose edit requests when the article talk page is EC protected. We don't restrict thoughtful and well-sourced edit requests from non-EC editors just because their edit count doesn't allow them on CTOP talk pages. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:17, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Such edit requests must be wholly uncontroversial and not require discussion to achieve a consensus. I suppose the same could go for drafts, but that's not my experience or understanding. A talk page can be EC protected even if the topic itself is not. 331dot (talk) 12:15, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Typically for contentious topics, the article is EC protected, and the talk page often has any equal or lesser protection depending on the disruption it has experienced.
    What I've done when I see a reasonable edit request about a contentious topic, I either make the edit myself if it's clearly uncontroversial (like a typo or formatting error), or I go to the talk page myself and inform the regulars there that there's a reasonable well-sourced edit request at WP:RFED that someone should look at and dispense with.
    I strongly disagree with removing all venues of participation from constructive editors merely on the basis of an edit count. That's a wrecking-ball solution to a problem that requires only a sledgehammer. When I started editing Wikipedia, my respect for neutrality, verifiability, and reliable sourcing was the same then as it is now. And that is true for other new editors, and apparently is true for the author of this draft.
    I am unfamiliar with the topic but I don't see evidence of pushing a POV or relying on unreliable sources. At most, according to the reviewers comment above, there may be some WP:SYNTH regarding what to call the topic, and problems with verifiability of some offline sources. I think if Asc9924 works on those things the reviewer clarified, it would be accepted. It looks quite close to acceptability right now. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thankyou for the advice! I have added more Notable references to improve the draft. These are published books (with their URLs) and page numbers along with official government records. I would have also loved to add more digitally available sources but despite searching far and wide I couldn't find suitable (and reliable) ones. Unfortunately, I do not have the resources to digitise these books as well. I had even tried to locate books from Pakistani sources but the information is unfortunately either very limited or not open source in that domain both from government and academic sources. If at anyone can help me find them, I would be more than happy to add them too and make the article richer as well as more reliable.
    I have resubmitted the draft now with the corrections. Hope it goes through this time. Asc9924 (talk) 20:24, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:11, 28 November 2025 review of submission by AksaMari

I need to know what are the things i need to add this article. I need this article to the public AksaMari (talk) 10:11, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AksaMari Why do you "need" this to be public? No one "needs" to do anything here. If you work for this company, that must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID.
You have just summarized the routine business activities and offerings of the company, not significant coverage in independent reliable sources that show how it is a notable company as Wikipedia defines one. 331dot (talk) 10:18, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:42, 28 November 2025 review of submission by Contemporaryart8

Following recent feedback, I have been advised that the article:

1. Is not written in a formal tone 2. Is not written from a neutral point of view 3. Does not refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources 4. Needs to be written in a more encyclopedic format 5. Uses peacock terms that promote the subject

I had submitted it with all these aspects in mind. I am new to Wiki, so I'd be very grateful for any advice. Contemporaryart8 (talk) 12:42, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Contemporaryart8.
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) 13:43, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing: You aren't the author of this draft. An AI wrote it, or most of it. We generally don't accept LLM-generated content. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Contemporaryart8 You cited an unpublished interview set to release in 2026, which is not allowed on Wikipedia; all sources must be published. Do you have a connection to Ben Judd? Please carefully read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and make a disclosure if you have a connection, or if you are Ben Judd himself. If you are being paid by Judd for any purpose, you must additionally make a paid-editing disclosure. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:05, 28 November 2025 review of submission by ~2025-37033-42

I would like to know which sources are credible and reliable enough, and which ones aren't. This would help me look for other sources. ~2025-37033-42 (talk) 13:05, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @~2025-37033-42.
On a quick look through your References section, hardly any of them. Almost as important as reliability is independence: 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.
Which of your sources are a) published by a publisher with a reputation for editorial oversight and fact checking?
Which of your sources are b) completely unconnected with Bate? Not written, published, or commissioned by him or his associates, or any institution he is part of; and not based on an interview or press release from any of those?
Which of your sources c) contain significant coverage of Bate?
The BBC report is counted as reliable, but a lot of its content clearly comes from Bate's blog, and so is not independent. The Times report is counted as reliable, but contains nothing more about him than his name in a list of runners.
You need to find several sources, each of which meets all the criteria in WP:42, in order to have any hope of writing an acceptable article. And if you write so much as a single word before finding such sources, you are quite possibly wasting your time. ColinFine (talk) 13:55, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:01, 28 November 2025 review of submission by AtticusIsAmazing

i need help lol AtticusIsAmazing (talk) 14:01, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What help are you seeking? 331dot (talk) 14:04, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:33, 28 November 2025 review of submission by Iwmackay

I have made the changes requested by the reviewer to address the points they made and would like now to resubmit. Iwmackay (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first step is to ask the rejecting reviewer directly to reconsider their rejection, on their user talk page. 331dot (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:01, 28 November 2025 review of submission by RebeccaCullen

Could someone help with clarifying why this article : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Shilling - is published, similar topic with similar links in the references, but my request / draft was considered not substantial? Thanks. RebeccaCullen (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not all articles went through Articles for Creation, and many predate the group entirely. In addition, other things exist with their own relevance, sources, and notability. Is there a specific issue regarding Richard Shilling that should be addressed? Looking at your draft, it was declined due to possible AI use, unreliable sources (other wikipedia articles), and uncited information. GGOTCC 21:10, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RebeccaCullen: Richard Shilling predates AfC entirely (first edit Jan 02, 2009). It was thus never drafted in any capacity. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 04:44, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:09, 28 November 2025 review of submission by ~2025-36956-72

Hello, the reasons for my articles rejection were "not show[ing] significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". I assume that using the artists own webpage would have bias (and will look for additional sources before resubmitting), but is the use of news articles talking about them and their significant birthdays/imdb page acceptable information?

I'm just a bit unclear about which (if not all) of the sources used were unacceptable? ~2025-36956-72 (talk) 21:09, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am not the user who reviewed the draft, but I agree that the news articles are good sources. While the subject is generally unreliable, it makes sense to only cite her for a simple and personal detail like you did. Well done!
While I can not speak for the reviewer, I think the issue lies with WP:NACTOR and WP:NMUSICIAN, ie. the article does not explain what makes her notable as an actor/singer? GGOTCC 21:15, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see! I will look at that before re-submitting. Thank you! ~2025-36956-72 (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:04:34, 28 November 2025 review of submission by BruceKing36

I am requesting assistance because my draft (Draft:Solstice (1993 film)) appears to have been declined using WP:GNG criteria rather than the correct subject-specific guideline WP:NFILM.

NFILM clearly states that a film is notable if it: “had a national broadcast on a major television or cable network.”

This film premiered nationally on the Lifetime Television Network in 1994 as a “Lifetime World Premiere Movie.” The broadcast has been verified through:

• Surviving off-air Lifetime promos • A Wikimedia VRT ticket (Ticket #2025112710010755) confirming the broadcast material • Multiple December 1994 newspaper television listings, which independently confirm 

 the title, date, and network (valid per WP:PRIMARY and WP:VERIFY)

NFILM does not require multiple in-depth secondary sources when national broadcast notability is already established. However, the decline rationale from TheInevitables appears to require a GNG-style standard, which is not applicable to this category of film.

Could an experienced AfC reviewer provide clarification or a second opinion on whether NFILM should be the controlling guideline for this draft? I simply want to ensure that the correct policy is being applied.

Thank you very much for your time and assistance. BruceKing36 (talk) 23:04, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BruceKing36 That you disagree with the review does not mean that the reviewer lacks experience. The draft is poorly sourced. The mere fact that it aired on a cable network might make it notable, but you still need to summarize what independent reliable sources say about it. Notability is only one aspect to satisfy. 331dot (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. I want to note, respectfully, that WP:NFILM specifically governs film notability, and NFILM’s Criterion #1 states that a film is notable if it:
“had a national broadcast on a major television or cable network.”
This film premiered nationally on the Lifetime Television Network in 1994, which is documented through newspaper listings and confirmed via a Wikimedia VRT ticket.
Under NFILM, independent secondary commentary is *not required* when notability is already established through national broadcast. NFILM supersedes GNG in cases where a subject-specific notability guideline applies.
All factual claims in the draft (title, writer/director, cast, plot, production, broadcast) are verifiable through primary sources per WP:VERIFY and WP:PRIMARY.
If additional improvements are helpful for article quality, I’m happy to make them, but the film does meet NFILM as written.
Thank you.
BruceKing36 (talk) 06:41, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "WP:NFILM does not require significant secondary coverage if the film had a national cable television premiere.", that is incorrect. 331dot (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the follow-up.
To clarify what I mean, I’m using WP:NFILM’s own wording. Under WP:NFILM#Criteria for inclusion, a film is presumed notable if it meets *any* one of several criteria, including:
> “had a national broadcast on a major television or cable network.”
That criterion is listed independently of the bullet about “multiple reviews by major critics”. In other words, national broadcast and significant secondary coverage are **alternative** paths to notability, not cumulative requirements.
In this case, the film’s national cable broadcast on Lifetime in 1994 (verified via TV listings and VRT) satisfies the “national broadcast” criterion. That’s what I meant when I said NFILM does not additionally require significant secondary coverage *if* that broadcast criterion is already met.
Of course, secondary sources are ideal for enriching the article’s content, and I’m happy to add any that can be located. But for the narrow question of notability under NFILM, national broadcast on a major cable network is sufficient as written in the guideline.
BruceKing36 (talk) 06:45, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BruceKing36 Literally none of this is correct. None, not a word. As noted by others, the AI you're using is telling you what you want to hear. I suggest that you stop relying on AI for your information and listen to the actual human beings who are trying to converse with you who actually understand the relevant policies here. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The page Wikipedia:Notability (films) does not contain anything close to the phrase "had a national broadcast on a major television or cable network". Please stop using AI to talk to us, and please disclose your status as a paid editor as instructed on your talk page. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:19, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, the wording I quoted is directly from WP:NFILM. Under “Criteria for inclusion”, the guideline states:
> “A film is presumed notable if it had a national broadcast on a major television
> or cable network.”
That is why I have referred to the Lifetime national broadcast as meeting that criterion.
Regarding the suggestion that I am using AI or am a paid editor, both are incorrect. I have disclosed my COI exactly as required, and I would appreciate keeping the discussion focused on content and policy per WP:NPA and WP:AGF.
My only goal here is to ensure that the correct subject-specific guideline is applied, since earlier reviews appeared to rely solely on GNG rather than NFILM.
Happy to continue the discussion with reference to the guideline text.
BruceKing36 (talk) 06:48, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no section called "Criteria for inclusion" on WP:NFILM. There is no mention of 'national broadcast', 'major television', or 'cable network'. It is trivially easy to use your browser's search function to verify this.
Your AI/LLM is telling you what you want to hear. This is something they do. You are running out of chances to tell the truth. Meadowlark (talk) 08:11, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the closest thing is the subsection Wikipedia:Notability (films)#Inclusionary criteria. But that has 3 bullet points none of which say anything like what you keep citing. Nil Einne (talk) 08:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 29

06:26, 29 November 2025 review of submission by Pubmixwiki

i want to know specific things to fix/cut out. i really do think this draft is stellar. i am bummed you guys aren't approving it.

please let me know specific things to cut out that cause me to break the policies you guys have. thank you Pubmixwiki (talk) 06:26, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pubmixwiki Seriously? "i am bummed you guys aren't approving it" is not a useful contribution when asking for help. It is unlikely that this approach will inspire people to respond. We are all volunteers. I volunteer my response with the next paragraph.
The speficic thing you need to do is to write it yourself, in your words, not the words of an LLM. An AI Chatbbot is useless to you.
What is the nature of your conflict of interest? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:35, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:02, 29 November 2025 review of submission by Ambientologist

Hi there. New user here and just had my article declined. I respect the decision, and would just like to know more and if there's anything else I can do.

Totally understand the conflict of interest, being my own label, but I had hoped that I was keeping it objective (and notable) enough to satisfy this fact. I'm assuming just having someone else create it for me is not a viable option (as it seems disingenuous)! Was it declined for this reason, or is it purely for the "not adequately supported by reliable sources" part? If so, I'd be interested to know what sources in the music space would be considered adequately reliable.

There were printed press sources, though no previews online that I could use to verify that the label was indeed included (I could provide screenshots but I don't expect those are accepted). I had hoped online publications like Headphone Commute would be trusted enough, but perhaps not. Happy to simply learn more, if there's nothing else I can do at this stage!

Thanks! Ambientologist (talk) 10:02, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ambientologist I fixed your header so it links to your draft as intended, you need the full title, including the "Draft:" portion.
You must change your username immediately; your username must represent you as an individual, not your label. Your real name is not required. I can change it if you tell what you want it changed to.
Whether you create it yourself or ask someone else to is a distinction without a difference; either way you or whomever you ask need to comply with WP:PAID and WP:COI. (I see you disclosed a COI, but I presume you own your label and have a financial interest in its performance, so you would be a paid editor) Now that you have publicly stated you might ask someone else to edit, you may receive attempts to scam you, please see the scam warning.
Wikipedia is not a place for a company to tell about itself, its offerings, and what it does. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company.
The Dutch Wikipedia has different policies than this one- it is possible that your content may be acceptable there, even if it isn't here. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 331dot, thanks for your quick response!
And thanks for correcting the header. Good to know about the username too, I'll change it to zonder_ziel if that's available? I appreciate you for helping with this.
I would indeed have financial incentive, albeit indirectly. Is this enough of a mark against my submission? Or do you think it would have still been declined had it been submitted by someone else independently, due to the sources? As I say, I respectfully accept whatever verdict is passed, but I would be remiss to not see if there was something I could do rectify the issues. From what you can see on the page, do you think it's workable in a different form, or is it too lacking in notability?
And yes I've already been approached by scam artists! They ain't fooling me haha. Ambientologist (talk) 11:02, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A financial incentive only means that the Terms of Use require you to disclose that fact on your user page, see WP:PAID. It doesn't affect the submission itself, nor does the fact that you wrote it. It still would have been declined if an independent editor had written it.
I'll rename you shortly.
The vast majority of companies on Earth are not notable, just as most people are not; I'm afraid that likely includes yours. 331dot (talk) 11:30, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The vast majority of companies on Earth are not notable, just as most people are not".
How profound! But understood, thanks for your clarity and help with changing my username. All the best! Zonder ziel (talk) 11:34, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:14, 29 November 2025 review of submission by Jackedit23

How can I write and get approval Jackedit23 (talk) 11:14, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jackedit23: I take it this is about  Courtesy link: Draft:Ocazey? The draft is completely unreferenced, which means it provides zero evidence of notability, and we don't even know whether anything in it is true since we've no idea where the information has come from. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:21, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jackedit23 (ec) I fixed your header to link to your most recent draft instead of creating a link to a nonexistent article entitled "My pages are being rejected please help me guys".
Your 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 see the message left by the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 11:24, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:02, 29 November 2025 review of submission by Cbohanan

I really need help understanding why my submission was not accepted and how I can correct it. The note I got said "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources" -- but I do have references included -- why are they not "reliable"? It also says that "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject." This play has been produced hundreds of times and I have included published references. What do I need to do at this point? Cbohanan (talk) 15:02, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Cbohanan. It is unfortunate that the boilerplate message that @SafariScribe used in declining Draft:Second Samuel (play) only mentions reliable sources and not the nearly as important independence of sources.
A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.
Only two of your four sources have any appearance of independence: The Stage Whispers and presumably the Atlanta Journal (I don't have access to it). But two sources are not usually enough to establish notability. And the Stage Whispers one has some history of how it came to be produced in Australia, but little about the genesis or history of the play itself.
The bulk of the article is a plot summary, which may be cited to the script - but that needs not to be the bulk of the article, which should be a summary of what independent reliable sourcs have said about the play.
Finally, the section about performing rights is absolutely out of place in an encyclopaedia article, and gives it a tone of promotion, which is forbidden in a Wikipedia article. ColinFine (talk) 16:37, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that information about the "Rights" section -- I have deleted it. It sounds like what I mainly need are references to a lot more articles about the play from a variety of sources. These do exist. Just have to compile them in a coherent fashion. Cbohanan (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:44, 29 November 2025 review of submission by Outsidetable6856

I tried but I can't get the hang of it. I don't know what else to add. Slainer Outsidetable6856 (talk) 15:44, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please review what constitutes a reliable source. Your first source is WP:PRIMARY, your second source is not significant coverage, and your third source is WP:SELFPUBLISHED. guninvalid (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Outsidetable6856. It's not surprising you can't get the hang of it. Like many new editors, you don't appear to have spent any time learning how Wikipedia works before plunging into the challenging task of creating a new article. Would you start a career in engineering by building a car from scratch? And if you tried to, would you expect to even understand the comments and criticisms you got about your attempt?
A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.
It follows that you should begin creating an article by finding sources that meet those criteria, because if you can't, the subject is not notable, and you're wasting your time trying to create an article about it. Most companies (like most people) are not notable, and if you want to create an article, it is your job to present the evidence of notability.
When a new user comes and immediately starts trying to create an article about a company, they usually have a connection with the company. Do you have a connection with Green Gridiron? If you do, you should read PAID immediately, and declare your connection as specified there. I recommend that you also read BOSS and YESPROMO.
Whether you have a connection or not, i recommend that you read your first article carefully. ColinFine (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't have a connection with Green Gridiron. I'm surprised no one has made an article about the company yet. Slainer Outsidetable6856 (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please convert Rejected → Declined or re-review: Draft:The Lupulin Exchange (COI disclosed)

Hello, my draft was previously marked Rejected. I’ve trimmed it to a short, attribution-only stub and added multiple independent sources (trade features, mainstream, university extensions, 2025 EU coverage). COI disclosed on user page and draft talk; I’m not resubmitting myself and would welcome a neutral review or a status change to Declined so it can be resubmitted by an uninvolved editor.

Draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Lupulin_Exchange Thanks very much. HallertauMittelfrueh (talk) 16:35, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft looks better now, but there are still signs of AI generation. I would advise you to rewrite your draft from scratch using your own words, but you can probably keep your current sources. From a brief glance, they look better. guninvalid (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
guninvalid thanks for the guidance. I rewrote the draft in my own words and corrected the UAEX citation (March 2022). Could you re-review, or change AfC status to *Declined* so a neutral editor can resubmit? Draft:The Lupulin Exchange ~~~~ HallertauMittelfrueh (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HallertauMittelfrueh: if you wish to appeal against the rejection, your first recourse is normally with the rejecting reviewer. If you don't get anywhere with them, you can then bring your case here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
guninvalid DoubleGrazing per the “contact the rejecting reviewer first” guidance: User talk:LuniZunie states they do not accept re-review requests. I’ve already rewritten the draft in my own words and fixed citations (incl. UAEX = March 2022). Could another AfC reviewer please either (a) convert status from Rejected → Declined so a neutral editor can resubmit, or (b) adopt and submit? Draft:The Lupulin Exchange ~~~~ HallertauMittelfrueh (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:36, 29 November 2025 review of submission by ~2025-37363-62

What do I have to do to get this up? ~2025-37363-62 (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing you can do, the draft has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. The subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria.Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 30

01:30, 30 November 2025 review of submission by Jonmogenson

When I submitted a draft for Princia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Princia), I was told there was not enough coverage on Princia, but that "unusually, there may be an option for Kukreja to have an article instead" since there were "about 6 sources". Thus, I submitted a draft article on him (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rushil_Kukreja) and included those 6, plus an additional 16 sources (including 15 independent sources total). However, this article was rejected without any specific comments, so I was wondering why that is and how I could correct it. Jonmogenson (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:13, 30 November 2025 review of submission by Jinhma

The article creation was declined for the reason: This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people).

I need help identifying which sources fail to demonstrate the subject's eligibility for a Wikipedia article, because I see many Vietnamese news sources discussing the person, which i provided in the references section of the draft. Jinhma (talk) 04:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:08, 30 November 2025 review of submission by GreeceP

My submission was denied, and I want help with editing the articles based on the feedback so it can be accepted. This was the comment: The sources do not support the claims of notability in the article, particularly in the lead. – bradv 17:11, 25 November 2025 (UTC). Does this refer to the first paragraph of the text or is there a wider issue? Thanks so much :) GreeceP (talk) 07:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1324923588"