Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
June 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


May 27

00:07, 27 May 2025 review of submission by Mayor Orangutan

How many reliable secondary sources do I need to have in an article? I'll get rid of any unreliable primary sources. Mayor Orangutan (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mayor Orangutan Start by reading WP:YOUTUBE and you will begin to see why it is unlikely to be useful as a reference.
Your draft needs summaries what is said about the subject in significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. It's not about quantity, it's about quality 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 00:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:50, 27 May 2025 review of submission by HeiLouSimp

I would like to publish the lyrics for songs by singer-songwriter Loulou Lailani. How do I do it? HeiLouSimp (talk) 05:50, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't, unless they are willing to donate their lyrics to WMF or provide them under a Wiki-compliant license. Otherwise, it's WP:COPYRIGHT infringment. Nor can they even be housed here on a user page or in your sandbox, which is public. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:51, 27 May 2025 review of submission by Work97111

The draft cites multiple articles from mainstream news outlets, showing widespread media coverage. Need help to understand what additional criteria need to be met to establish notability. Work97111 (talk) 05:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Work97111 in order for a source to meet the notability criteria it needs to meet all four criteria listed in the decline: reliable, secondary, independent and have in-depth coverage directly about the subject. Common issues are they are press releases/announcements, interviews/based on what the subject or those affiliated say or not in-depth. I have not gone through the sources but that might be the issue. S0091 (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:28, 27 May 2025 review of submission by Sadiowiki

I recently submitted a draft article on Jeff Campbell (Apostle), and it was declined by ToadetteEdit due to concerns about notability and the lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. I really appreciate the review, and I’m hoping to get clarification on how to improve the draft for resubmission.

The draft is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sadiowiki/sandbox

I’ve cited sources including La Voz, The Denver Post, Longmont Daily Times-Call, HuffPost, Westword, and award acknowledgments from the Bonfils-Stanton Foundation and Denver Arts & Venues. Some are in-depth features, while others cover public events or cultural contributions.

Could someone advise whether any of these sources already meet notability criteria if formatted correctly with inline <ref> tags? And if not, what types of additional coverage should I be looking to include?

Any guidance on strengthening the article for acceptance would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you! Sadiowiki (talk) 07:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toadette was absolutely correct. Most of these sources aren't really good for an article about Jeff Campbell. Most of these are just barely mentions of Campbell; more than half of the cites are to material that, if we accept as establishing notability, would establish notability for the breakdancing crew, not him. Some of the cites don't even mention him at all.
Wide swathes of the article include factual information with no source provided whatsoever. Do you have a link to the article you cited that was published sometime during the year 1984? The entire legacy section is especially problematic here, full of WP:PEACOCK terminology and absolutely nothing is supported with a cite. Note that awards themselves don't provide notability unless those awards are Wiki-notable by themselves.
There are also some copyright violations involved here; this a very serious issue. The newspaper one is already being taken care of, but you uploaded photos by David Stevens and a photographer named Dakiri with no evidence that these photos were released with a Wiki-compliant license, and in fact, characterized as these photographs as your own work. If these were photographs made at your request for pay and you are the copyright holder, you must substantiate these. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:33, 27 May 2025 review of submission by JacA12

Dear All,

it has now been nearly two months since my proposal for an article on Guido Ascari has been rejected, referencing the guideline WP:BLP. Since then, I have removed the unreferenced and unsourced information as I could not find any reliable source for them, and I have include some other additional sources here and there. I believe now the article satisisfies the standards and the guidelines. Thank you for your help. User:JacA12 (User talk:JacA12). JacA12 (talk) 10:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means it may be resubmitted. You have resubmitted it and it is pending. Please be patient, asking for a review will not speed the process. 331dot (talk) 10:53, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:02, 27 May 2025 review of submission by Cpeedexpert

I’ve recently created and submitted a draft article about a person, but unfortunately, it was not approved. I would really appreciate it if someone could take a look and help me understand which areas need improvement or correction to meet Wikipedia’s notability and content guidelines.

I've tried to include reliable sources and factual information, but I may have missed some key points or formatting standards. Could someone please review the draft and provide feedback on what specifically needs to be fixed — whether it's notability, references, tone, or structure?

Any guidance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance for your time and support! Cpeedexpert (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do you think they pass the criteria at WP:GNG, it's not at all clear that they do? Theroadislong (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:44, 27 May 2025 review of submission by Queenbird

I'm really frustrated as I have had others as well as ChatGPT check that it's worded in a neutral way and we have a number of independent sources. I'm directly involved in the project but I have the declared on my user page. What is the number one reason and an example of why it's been rejected so I can productively do something. Otherwise I am not very happy with wikipedia contribution Queenbird (talk) 14:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queenbird You need the "Draft:" portion of the title when linking, I fixed this for you.
Mission statements are wholly unencyclopedic, as all it is is the organization telling what it sees as its own purpose. I would just remove this.
Mostly the draft just describes the activities of the organization, which does not establish that the definition of a notable organization is met. See WP:ORGDEPTH specifically.
The main purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about the topic(an organization, in this case) showing how it is notable. One portion of the draft tells of the influence of the organization but doesn't say much about what that actually is. I would focus on that as independent sources see it, not as the organization itself sees it. 331dot (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that's much more helpful. is there a way to have you review this before submitting again? Queenbird (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Submitting is the way to obtain a new review; we don't do pre-review reviews here. 331dot (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and please don't add unsourced promotion to Maskless lithography relating to your draft topic. Theroadislong (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Queenbird Not the most relevant but I would not suggest using chatgpt to check your wording. It in itself is biased after all. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:03, 27 May 2025 review of submission by CR98gs

Hello, I'd like to undestand why the page has been delcined as I tried to keep the content factual referring to existing articles and sources. CR98gs (talk) 15:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CR98gs I mean just read it. It sounds like an ad(let's be real here, it probably is one.) Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not; it is meant to explain what DigiPHY technology is, how it is used, and how it is adopted. If you read the iPhone page, you will see that the content is even more specific and developed, and it is not an advertisement for this reason. CR98gs (talk) 07:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOMISSION Thehistorianisaac (talk) 07:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:12, 27 May 2025 review of submission by Monitoramento artista 2.0

Nao foram elencados os motivos da rejeicao, preciso de mais informacoes para adequar o artigo. Monitoramento artista 2.0 (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Cia José Francisco Lippi
@Monitoramento artista 2.0: this is the English-language Wikipedia, please communicate in English.
And for the same reason, your draft(s) have been declined as they are not in English (by in Portuguese?). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok. compreendido. Monitoramento artista 2.0 (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:27, 27 May 2025 review of submission by StevenTiger

Submitted page was rejected for lack of referencing, but every statement that requires referencing (by Wikipedia criteria) WAS referenced, almost all citing published articles from the professional medical literature. I used the Cite function in edit mode, filled in the fields, and the "publish" version shows all the references listed at the end, by numbers corresponding to the superscript bracketed numbers in the text. So I genuinely do not understand what is wrong. StevenTiger (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined not rejected, the sourcing is VERY poor with vast swathes having zero references. Theroadislong (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:20, 27 May 2025 review of submission by BRICKWALLBEAR5

This isn't a self submission, i started doing random young hockey players careers. BRICKWALLBEAR5 (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Random young hockey players are almost certainly not notable as Wikipedia uses the word. 331dot (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not make hoaxes. 331dot (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 28

01:17, 28 May 2025 review of submission by Darrin.davis

Wondering what more can I add to my wiki page to have it become active? Darrin.davis (talk) 01:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the most active in terms of music related articles, however please don't spam random links onto the external links section Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:08, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is just blatant self-promotion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:00, 28 May 2025 review of submission by Ryanh272025

Hi,

Requesting assistance on this page which was live but then was flagged for notability issues/conflict of interest. The subject is notable in the international automotive space as CEO of Formula E and there are no conflicts of interest from my side on the subject. It's been resubmitted for review but wanted to get any guidance please. Thanks. Ryanh272025 (talk) 09:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ryanh272025: yes, this was briefly in the main article space, because you moved it there, presumably because you believe(d) the subject is notable. It was moved back to drafts by a new page patroller, whose assessment was that notability had not been shown.
I've not reviewed this draft so cannot comment on whether notability is there or not, but just to say that being the CEO of anything does not make a person notable (otherwise I would be notable, and I'm most assuredly not!).
Your draft has been submitted and will be reviewed once a reviewer gets around to it. It's not clear what assistance or guidance you require; if you have specific questions, you may ask those, otherwise I suggest you wait for the review to take place. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the message. Fully understood on the reasoning that not everyone is worthy of a Wiki page of course, but I am pretty certain that the person in question does meet the requirements though. He's heavily featured in international sports media and his positioning is essentially head of Formula E. If there's actually any guidance I can get from anyone - even if it's guidance on just that it needs to be waited out now - that would be really appreciated. Thank you. Ryanh272025 (talk) 09:22, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You could improve the referencing and edit for neutral tone, puffery like this has no place in an encyclopaedia “As the company continued to thrive” “Under Dodds' leadership, Formula E has achieved record revenues’ “to work closely with elite golf professionals “ “elevating into chief marketing officer” “high-profile talent” “helped deliver major companies’ “continued to excel when it comes to sustainability”. Theroadislong (talk) 09:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you and noted. It's been resubmitted and should have eliminated the puffery for this now. I don't believe I'm able to check and amend after submitting for review but hopefully it's more or less there now. Thank you again for the feedback, it's appreciated. Ryanh272025 (talk) 09:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can continue editing you have NOT eliminated any of the puffery yet? Theroadislong (talk) 09:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies the version which went through must have been an earlier and unsaved. This has been resubmitted again now with amends throughout. Thanks again for the feedback and hopefully this is there now. Ryanh272025 (talk) 10:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:42, 28 May 2025 review of submission by عبدالله أحمد علي سالم


> Subject: Request for manual review of draft article – Whom Shall I Blame, Father?

Hello,

I kindly request a manual review of my submitted draft article titled Whom Shall I Blame, Father?, which covers a socio-political novel by Algerian author Abdallah Madjidi.

The draft complies with Wikipedia’s notability, neutrality, and sourcing guidelines. It includes references from independent sources, a structured summary of the novel’s themes, style, and reception, as well as a properly formatted infobox.

Disclosure: I have a conflict of interest regarding the subject and have declared it on the draft’s talk page in accordance with the Conflict of interest policy.

You can find the draft here: Draft:Whom Shall I Blame, Father?

I appreciate your time and any feedback you may offer.

Best regards, User:عبدالله أحمد علي سال عبدالله أحمد علي سالم (talk) 11:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@عبدالله أحمد علي سالم: there is no draft titled Draft:Whom Shall I Blame, Father?. There is Draft:Who blame, Dad?, which has been reviewed twice, and is currently awaiting its third review.
When you say you're requesting a "manual review", manual as opposed to what? All our reviews are done manually, if by that you mean actual live reviewers. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:56, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
نعم عبدالله أحمد علي سالم (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:47, 28 May 2025 review of submission by Strongmann

Hello, I've created this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Michel_Roccati Related to Michel Roccati, the first person in the World that walked again after a complete spinal cord injury. The submission has been declined because there aren't enough resources. But I have uploaded many official sources, from a Nature paper, Guiness world record and documentaries of BBC and Cnn... Could you help me to edit the page in order that comply to Wikipedia rules? Strongmann (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Strongmann: The reviewers are pointing at WP:BIO1E (though I would instead point to WP:BLP1E). To summarise, if a person is known solely for one incident or event and it isn't likely they'll become any higher-profile because of it, we err towards not having an article on them for the sake of their privacy. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:23, 28 May 2025 review of submission by Sabawaragarado

Why? Sabawaragarado (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sabawaragarado: at what point did this look to you like a viable encyclopaedia article? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:48, 28 May 2025 review of submission by Sam.S.Welch

Hi, I'm creating my first Wikipedia web page. Have tried to figure out what I'm doing wrong and also read through the WP:BAND and Golden Rules web sites and looked through how to create references. Not sure what I'm doing wrong. Very eager to make things right, but not sure how to. :) Cheers/Sam Sam.S.Welch (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sam.S.Welch: your draft cites only two sources, both primary, which cannot establish notability per WP:GNG. And as the draft is almost entirely unreferenced, even if there is a credible claim of notability per WP:BAND, there is no evidence of this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Sam.S.Welch. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:53, 28 May 2025 review of submission by 213.60.224.174

Just a very quick question about this submission: examples and references of significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject have been added. There are many more such references and examples that can be further added. How many more should be added and what is missing from this submission (reliable sources or sources independent of the subject or something else)? 213.60.224.174 (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, the general rule is three (see WP:THREE). Also, I suggest adding a note on the draft's talk page listing three to make it easier for reviewers. S0091 (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:26, 28 May 2025 review of submission by 41.210.146.106

Have failed to create a wikipedia article for my boss yet independent news websites mentioned or talked about him, now what can i do? 41.210.146.106 (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No you (Nyanzi Luther Martin) are a school child who is continuing to waste lots of peoples time. KylieTastic (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For others see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joanvumilia/Archive + several global blocks for cross wiki spam KylieTastic (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:33, 28 May 2025 review of submission by HarvResearch

According to SafariScribe, "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified." In my opinion, the article has more than enough primary and secondary sources reliable sources so I don't understand SafariScribe's reasoning for declining the article. Can someone clarify for me? HarvResearch (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HarvResearch off the bat, my.comics.org/comics.org is not a reliable source as it is user-generated and according to them contains a backlog of errors and it appears some of the sources are about Joe Simon, not his son Jim. For example, this NYT pieces makes no mention of Jim nor does it mention The Comic Book Makers yet is being used to support "Simon co-authored The Comic Book Makers, about the the Golden Age of the comic book industry". The Reception section appears to be solely about The Comic Book Makers, which is only one work and he co-authored with his father. Other sources also are about his father, not him, such as this popmatters article, where Jim is mentioned once and is his statement about his father. There's a lot work to do to clean it up as it not clear how Jim meets the notability criteria. S0091 (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Grand Comics Database (https://www.comics.org/) is recommended by Wikipedia as a reliable source. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/United States comics work group. I've seen the site referenced in other Wikipedia articles. So I am a bit confused here. Are you saying I should not use this database?
While the subject of the article is the son of Joe Simon, the subject is the known as the co-author of The Comic Book Makers and is credited as such. So I don't know why he is penalized if a source article credits his work on properties in which perhaps the referenced main figure is his father. Are you saying I should delete such sources?
As for notability, the subject appears to have make a number of accomplishments on his own in the area of comics--writing, editing, publishing, appearing on panels and in a documentary. Can you please let me know why the subject fails criteria for notability on his own?
Thank you. HarvResearch (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @HarvResearch. His accomplishments, whatever they are, do not contribute to establishing that he meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability: they may well increase the likelihood that independent people have chosen to write about him, but you need to find those sources.
A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what several people who are completely unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else: the notability criteria are mostly about ensuring that this is possible.
Most sources that contain enough about him to contribute to notability will be primarily about him: sources that are primarily about his father but say a little about him may be useful for verifying additional information about him, but probably won't help with notability.
Your use of the word "penalize" suggests that you have the idea that a Wikipedia article about Simon would in some way be for Simon's benefit. If you have this misapprehension, I suggest you read WP:PROUD. ColinFine (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You also need to address your possible conflict of interest as thus far all of your contributions are regarding Jim Simon. S0091 (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:47, 28 May 2025 review of submission by 2600:1011:A122:42EF:24F8:93C3:D341:A920

Hello, I would appreciate any guidance on how to improve this draft to meet submission standards. If possible, could you please point out any specific areas that may need revision? Thank you for your time and feedback. 2600:1011:A122:42EF:24F8:93C3:D341:A920 (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting. If you are the creator, please disclose your connection with her(you took a very professional looking image of her) per WP:COI and WP:PAID.
The draft was rejected, typically meaning it won't be considered further. There is no indication she meets the definition of a notable musician or a notable creative professional. 331dot (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 29

00:44, 29 May 2025 review of submission by Rustyrortise

yeah I changed it Rustyrortise (talk) 00:44, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been rejected and will not be considered further. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:27, 29 May 2025 review of submission by CopperBeechRising

Hello, I’ve created a biographical article draft in my user sandbox that I’d like to submit for review, but I don’t have the ability to move it to the Draft namespace. Could an experienced editor please move it for me and submit it for review?

Here's the page: User:CopperBeechRising/sandbox

Thank you! 

CopperBeechRising (talk) 03:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CopperBeechRising I've moved it to Draft:Nela Wagman. It is currently awaiting review. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:35, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:34, 29 May 2025 review of submission by 102.216.77.46

Good morning!

I received this message on 20 March 2025: "Your submission at Articles for creation: Branko Brkic has been accepted Branko Brkic, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!"

But when I Google Branko Brkic, the Wikipedia doesn't appear, no matter where in the world I am. Would you be able to help?

Thank you! 102.216.77.46 (talk) 06:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@102.216.77.46 new articles are indexed by search engines when reviewed by a new page patroller, or after 90 days have passed since its creation, whichever happen first. There are currently over 10 thousand unreviewed articles, so please be patient. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:09, 29 May 2025 review of submission by Trigiant

Good morning, Yesterday I submitted an article with the biography of Prof. R. D'Auria. I would like to inquire if the submission was successful. I submitted it from the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Trigiant?action=edit&veswitched=1 Thank you very much. With best regards, Mario Trigiante Trigiant (talk) 07:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Trigiant you have created the same draft twice, once on your user page and another at Draft:Riccardo D'Auria (theoretical physicist), neither of which have you submitted. I've submitted the latter for you, and it is now awaiting review. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. I wait then for a response. Trigiant (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:40, 29 May 2025 review of submission by Tharunmakes

Why Tharunmakes (talk) 07:40, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tharunmakes This was rejected as an essay 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:05, 29 May 2025 review of submission by IamCashifSyleem

Hi Concern,

Please advice me the concern for declining. IamCashifSyleem (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IamCashifSyleem: the decline reasons are given in the decline notice, namely 1) the draft is completely unreferenced, and 2) it provides no evidence that the subject is notable. Besides which, this is basically just a CV/resume, and we don't publish those. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:14, 29 May 2025 review of submission by 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:D4D3:A345:DFAD:4042

I made this page in April under my main, @Shaneapickle and I submitted it recently, I just want to know what I can do to make this page ready enough for mainspace. I also want to know if it passes notabillity due to the amount of reviews and the amount of news reports on it, from independent and small sources. Thank you, 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:D4D3:A345:DFAD:4042 (talk) 13:14, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(I was not paid for this page to be made) 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:D4D3:A345:DFAD:4042 (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You submitted it for review, the reviewer will leave you feedback if not accepted.
You specify that you were not paid, if you have a connection to this establishment, it could still be a conflict of interest that you need to declare. Also note that "paid editing" includes employment in any capacity, and does not require specific payment for editing. 331dot (talk) 14:40, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know I asked this on the libera chat when i created this page but, does COI count if I have eaten there? 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:D4D3:A345:DFAD:4042 (talk) 16:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, being a customer of an establishment is not a conflict of interest. Only if you are editing at their direction or otherwise coordinating your editing with the establishment. 331dot (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:D4D3:A345:DFAD:4042 (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any info I can add to my draft to make sure it passes WP:N, the Manual of Style, the whole shabang 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:D4D3:A345:DFAD:4042 (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any info I can add to my draft to make sure it passes WP:N, the Manual of Style, the whole shabang 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:D4D3:A345:DFAD:4042 (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:52, 29 May 2025 review of submission by Eliveentertainment

I am not understanding why this page was declined. I have provided 8 sources. I can add more, but I'm unsure if that was the problem, or there was a different one. Please provide some direction.

Additionally, another fan added some pages in other languages, so maybe this page just needs to be merged with those pages, but this being the English version.

I appreciate any direction that you may provide to me so I can best move forward.

Thank you! Eliveentertainment (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Eliveentertainment: the sources are many (although not as many as they seem, given that half of them are by the same author and therefore count as only one source), but they are of poor quality, and thus not enough to establish notability per WP:GNG. The other option would be to show that this meets WP:BAND, but there is no obvious evidence of that, either.
The reviewer could have added that the referencing is inadequate, on account of the flaky sources, as well as the fact that much of the information is not supported at all.
The draft is also promotional, with peacocky expressions like "Their energetic live shows and unique sound have earned them a reputation as a compelling live act." Your job is not to sell this band, but merely to describe it. If phrases like that are direct quotations from a reliable and independent secondary sources, then they may be accepted, but you would need to cite the source so that the reader can see whose opinion is being expressed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Eliveentertainment. I'm afraid that, like many new editors, you have plunged into the difficult task of creating a new article without first spending time learning what Wikipedia is. 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.
A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else. Sources connected with the subject, and sources based on press releases (such as announcements of forthcoming appearances or publications) do not contribute to this.
Note also that the existence of articles in other languages is not relevant: each language version of Wikipedia is a separate project, with its own policies and procedures, and English Wikipedia is one of the strictest in terms of sourcing. ColinFine (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:12, 29 May 2025 review of submission by Bmorewine

Hi, I’d like to improve the article and would appreciate your input. Are there specific types of sources or references I could add to help demonstrate notability for Wine Village in Baltimore, an annual public event with thousands of attendees and local media presence? Bmorewine (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is the general nature of your conflict of interest with this topic?
The only sources you provided are announcements of the event. You need to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about this event, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable event. If you can do that, go ahead then appeal to the rejecting reviewer to ask them to reconsider. 331dot (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Bmorewine. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 17:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:25, 29 May 2025 review of submission by Artistsecond

why is he getting declined for reference when there are articles linked from reputable big sources? Artistsecond (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Answered below. S0091 (talk) 19:11, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:27, 29 May 2025 review of submission by Artistsecond

why is he getting declined for reference when there are articles linked from reputable big sources? the articles name David Murphy specifically as the head writer for the season of a network tv show. (along with Lebron James and production company) and other references. please help. thank you for your attention. Artistsecond (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Artistsecond did you read through all the linked information in the decline? Those should explain but you might also find Your first article and WP:42 helpful. If after you read those, you still have questions please come back here but be specific. S0091 (talk) 19:10, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:29, 29 May 2025 review of submission by Lindymae

After much careful editing and a lot of guidance, my page was rejected. I'd like to improve it so it will be accepted. I used this wikipedia page as a model since it represents something similar to my topic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Basement_Ladies.

I'd like more specific guidance on what specifically I need to change/add. I feel like I did a pretty good job and don't want to break things are working, only fix things that aren't.

Any help would be appreciated.

Here is the feedback I received: This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources. This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are: 

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

Lindymae (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Lindymae, Church Basement Ladies also has issues noted by the " needs additional citations" tag at the top so a poor example to follow. I suggest taking a look at articles that have met the WP:Good article criteria. Also, social media (including Yelp) are not reliable sources so should not be used nor is Broadway World and generally YouTube so remove all of those. Usually what is needed are critical reviews by reputable critics/publications (not press releases, announcements or other routine coverage). S0091 (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:47, 29 May 2025 review of submission by Nichol40

This article has been rejected for publication because of not having credible sources. Does the following qualify as such?: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2025/01/07/republicans-liked-crypto-before-trump-did/77398253007/ Nichol40 (talk) 18:47, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
Very little of the draft is sourced; every substantive piece of information about a living person needs a source, see the Biographies of living persons policy. You need to show that he is narrowly a notable academic or more broadly a notable person. 331dot (talk) 19:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:25, 29 May 2025 review of submission by Adityaraodank

I tried so hard , what more should I do to get this article up ? Adityaraodank (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing that you can do, it has been rejected. 331dot (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Adityaraodank
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.
Writing an article without first finding the necessary independent reliable substantial sources is like building a house without surveying the building plot and verifying that it is stable enough to build on: your house will likely fall down (or be condemned by the authorities) and your work will be wasted. ColinFine (talk) 17:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:42, 29 May 2025 review of submission by WilfredNewton

Could you please advise what is promotional so that it can be deleted or amended WilfredNewton (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was wholly promotional and has been deleted. Wikipedia is not a place to tell about an organization and its offerings. A Wikipedia article about an organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization.
If you work for the school, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 21:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:58, 29 May 2025 review of submission by Cindy0299

Hello Reviewer Team,

May I ask what should be modified for the article? Thank you so much! Cindy0299 (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is entirely 'written' by an AI, and you have not even checked to see if it makes sense before submitting. You will need to start from scratch and write in your own words this time, descriving what reliable secondary sources have to say about the subject and nothing else. CoconutOctopus talk 21:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:47, 29 May 2025 review of submission by PencilPR

Hi I would like to add picture for reference of the information of the biography , i have tried to add picture/scan of news papers. I tried to make an account in wiki commons, but i keep getting the auto error, i email them but nothing. PencilPR (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PencilPR Pictures arte not useful as references, and are usually the copyright of another. Please do not attempt to use pictures as references. Please do not upload copyright material.
This is not Wikimedia Common. Not only do we not know what the auto error is we cannot help you. Please try using the login credentials you have here when you log in to Commons You have no need to make a new account there. There is a unified login to all/most WMF sites. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:11, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have permission from the artist himself to upload picture, he the one that asked me to do the biography and wanted to add the news clipping and picture of himself and artwork. to be honest i am still new at this and i am trying to follow you tube video and i still don't get it. i even made a new version wiki page of the original in spanish i am trying to publish the new one the is translate to english. i am not even sure how to even asked to be review PencilPR (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PencilPR Is the artist himself the owner of the copyright? Or does he simply possess the picture?
I have given you the ability to submit Draft:Juan Elías López for review. Regrettably you wrote it on your User page. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PencilPR You seem to be a paid editor. Please read WP:PAID and comply. Being a pad editor means that you are paid to learn how to do things here. Many volunteers are unlikely to help you to earn your living. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 30

04:01, 30 May 2025 review of submission by Twin mohamed shafiq mustafa

wikipedia is worst my real twin history and photo wear removed Twin mohamed shafiq mustafa (talk) 04:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Twin mohamed shafiq mustafa uh... ok? Your submission has been rejected and will not be considered further. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:17, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:45, 30 May 2025 review of submission by Malaysianforchange

Hi, I have included various news links to the Article, and I believe the subject is notable with those references....do I need to include more news links? Malaysianforchange (talk) 04:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Malaysianforchange: this draft has been rejected, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:48, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:36, 30 May 2025 review of submission by InfamousEntries

Hi! I made an article about Chris Motionless, American singer of heavy metal band, Motionless in White. I want to know why it was declined. Keep in mind it was my first article, so please tell me how I can improve next time! InfamousEntries (talk) 11:36, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@InfamousEntries: this draft was declined because it does not demonstrate that the subject is notable enough for a standalone article. Individual band members must satisfy the WP:GNG notability guideline, which requires significant coverage (of them as an individual, not merely as a member of a band) in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I have thankfully found more articles discussing Motionless. Are there any other things I need to improve? InfamousEntries (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:35, 30 May 2025 review of submission by Sooup

I think a previous editor has added links to prove independent coverage of the band after being declined on the grounds of insignificant coverage.

The links talk about the songs and albums of the band with praise, and I don't know how to incorporate these links as citations without adding song-specific content which makes the article sound like an advertisement (again).

The links in question are currently placed under the temporary "Independent coverage" section of the draft Sooup (talk) 13:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sooup: those sources presumably support some statements in this draft (because if they don't, then they have no place being there), so please cite them against such statements. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:09, 30 May 2025 review of submission by GiraffeLover19

I want to know what I can do to get this article approved, as I put more sources and data for my draft, but it got rejected for the same reason. GiraffeLover19 (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @GiraffeLover19, I looked at this draft and noted that the draft is about 2026 election which is toosoon for now. Regarding your added references in the draft, there's not significant coverage about the election as it includes just passing mentions only. I want to remind you that, the draft is declined only not rejected. In my opinion, following are the areas where you can improve.
1) Gather more information about the election which must be verifiable by reliable and independent references to the subject.
2) Focus on Notable Development of the election.
3) Avoid speculation or prediction. Fade258 (talk) 01:16, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I understand your points. The elections in the draft won’t happened for more than a year from now, not much news about the elections is Kansas has happened, so what would be an appropriate time to resubmit it for approval in your opinion, considering I’ve added more information and and references in the coming time? GiraffeLover19 (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:46, 30 May 2025 review of submission by Emmakristoffy

I have submitted an article for Jacqueline Edmondson, the current President of the University of Southern Maine. I would like to resubmit this article for review and would appreciate any suggestions to get the article approved/clarification on what was missing or could be improved in the article. Thank you so much! Emmakristoffy (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emmakristoffy You need the full title, including the "Draft:" portion, when linking. I fixed this for you. On your user page, you had coding in place to prevent proper display of your disclosures, I fixed that too. 331dot (talk) 15:53, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I appreciate it! Would you suggest any other changes, or does it look like I can resubmit for review? Emmakristoffy (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to hear from the reviewer first. I can say thst most of the awards described will not contribute to notability, as they lack articles themselves(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). 331dot (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging the reviewer Endrabcwizart, as they declined it as an unsourced BLP, but it has sources. 331dot (talk) 15:56, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:00, 30 May 2025 review of submission by Imagemaker12

1. " They do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) of the subject in published, reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

The references provided are "not passing mentions," and they are secondary sources/news articles. I would like to understand what you mean by "Secondary Sources/Reliable" if newspaper articles are not accepted by you.

2. "None of the awards are major awards, and they do not meet any other criteria listed at WP:NFILM."

I checked WP:NFILM. There was no mention of what Wikipedia considers "Major Awards," and what sort of awards Wikipedia accepts. I need your help with this matter.

Thank you. Imagemaker12 (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Imagemaker12 "Major award" is usually understood to mean an award that itself merits an article, like Academy Award or Palme d'Or. 331dot (talk) 19:10, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Imagemaker12 "major" is explained in the footnote at the end of the sentence (footnote #3). S0091 (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. The ''Major" in the footnote that states an example, but the WIKIPEDIA guildlines under WP:NFILM It does not disqualify or nullify a credible award coming from any festival.
As you know, there are thousands of such films on Wikipedia that have not received any awards from "Academy Award" and "Palm D'or".
  1. I have a question, If the reviews are not in English, (but in foreign languages) can it be added as reference?
"The draft does little more than briefly describe the plot and describe routine activity around the film(casting and a screening of the film). These are not significant coverage; significant coverage for a film generally consists of professional reviews of the film, or other major coverage of the film beyond mere casting announcements/the release of the film"
2. Here question arises, "Casting and routine activities around the film are not significant coverage"-----So your suggestion is to post "reviews" about the film on the film's wikipedia page? I did not understand it.
Thank you for your time in guidance. Imagemaker12 (talk) 06:13, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Imagemaker12 Sources do not need to be in English; as long as a review of the film is written by a professional film critic/reviewer, it can be used.
"Major award" is not limited to Academy Awards or Palme d'Or, but generally to be considered a "major award" the award itself must merit an article. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again. How an award meet the merit of the artcle if they are not Academy Awards or Palme d'Or? (I mean what are the ways do you advise based on your expertise?). Imagemaker12 (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An award merits an article in the same way as any other topic- if independent reliable sources give the award itself significant coverage that can establish that it is notable. Anyone can create an award- I could invent a 331dot Award for Best Film, but it would be meaningless unless independent sources write about how my award would be significant or influential. That's the case with any type of award. 331dot (talk) 19:26, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The film festivals mentioned, in which the film has received awards, have Wikipedia pages. I am sure if they were not notable, Wikipedia wouldn't have allowed them to publish an article for their respective festivals. Independent reliable sources have been established there for each of those festivals. If not, Wikipedia should remove those pages. The example you have, " 331Dot Award," is thus different from what we are discussing. I want to understand it in more detail. That is why I am asking you questions after each of your replies.
  1. Do you advise me to link the " independent reliable sources" of the festival news for each of those festivals where the film received an award? (Currently, the award's coverage is linked to this specific film, but in the same category, there have been people who received that award every year. I'm not sure if you are asking me to find and link those independent news coverage pieces for the last 25 years. Most of those festivals that the film received award have been running for 25 years by now).
Imagemaker12 (talk) 02:19, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The draft does little more than briefly describe the plot and describe routine activity around the film(casting and a screening of the film). These are not significant coverage; significant coverage for a film generally consists of professional reviews of the film, or other major coverage of the film beyond mere casting announcements/the release of the film. 331dot (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:36, 30 May 2025 review of submission by Quentin Rupert

I need to understand what I did wrong. I've only used articles about the actress Quentin Rupert (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue is the manner in which you wrote citations. Please see Referencing for Beginners. 331dot (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 31

07:33, 31 May 2025 review of submission by 103.188.136.190

Dear Sir, Will you please tell us the rejection issue? or do you have any advise for complience? 103.188.136.190 (talk) 07:33, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is just pure self-promotion. My advice is not to attempt to publish this type of content. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:54, 31 May 2025 review of submission by PawsFC-GM

Hello I raised a question on 13th April, at 17:35, which 331dot responded to. Unfortunately, I only recently saw this response. I've added a reply, but I'm not sure if it will be seen now. I can post a new question if necessary, but I'm hoping someone can respond to the thread from 13th April. Thanks, Andy. PawsFC-GM (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PawsFC-GM You need the "Draft:" portion of the title when linking.
Please do not edit the archives. You may post your reply here. 331dot (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello
Thanks for your comments last month, and apologies for the delay in replying.
My username doesn't relate to an organisation. I'm just an individual, and this is the only article I will be producing.
I've removed various statements where I couldn't provide a citation. Some statements in the 'Early Life' and 'Personal Life' sections are not cited, but I think these are statements where citation wouldn't be expected or necessary. Please advise if this is not the case.
The article still has a citation to the retailer 'Pineapple Retro.' I'm not sure if this is suitable as a source or if the statement should be removed.
Can you confirm if the citation links to the British Library and National Library of Scotland are the most suitable links for the various books? Ideally, I'd have ISBNs, but these are 1960s books and predate them.
Thanks for your help,
Andy. PawsFC-GM (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Every fact that could potentially be challenged shouod have a source. Where did you get your information? 331dot (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:35, 31 May 2025 review of submission by Kapsicum

pls allow this i need this for school project Kapsicum (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Kapsicum. I'm sorry that you apparently need for a school project something which, at present, you seem to be completely incapable of doing. I suggest you show this reply to whoever you are doing this project for, and ask them to read WP:Education program/Educators
Creating a new article is much more difficult, especially for new editors, than people often think. 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.
A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else. Unless there is published material about your subject, it is impossible to have a Wikipedia article about it. ColinFine (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:00, 31 May 2025 review of submission by Legend of 14

My decline reason is very vague, and not sufficient for me to actually improve the article. My draft was declined because my 6 sources don't meet at least of 4 factors, but the specific factor was not explained, and at least 5 of them seem to meet all 4 factors. Legend of 14 (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Legend of 14 I am asking ToadetteEdit (by ping) to have a chat to you to ex[lain what was un their mind. It may be a good idea to engage them pre-emptively on their user talk page? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:58, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:36, 31 May 2025 review of submission by WikiUserNY

"One of your sources is to a chrome extension, which serves us no purpose" Bobby Cohn 🍁

would u be able to assist me with letting me know which one this is? WikiUserNY (talk) 20:36, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:44, 31 May 2025 review of submission by IMawro25

Hello, I am trying to publish my new Inclusive Cowboy Flag, but have some questions about the comments received from the Reviewer.

I actually created everything from scratch; everything as far as the design, symbolism, etc. I based my design on an older flag in Mexico. I know the creators of that flag as well.

Could you point me in the right direction as to what needs to be modified, specifically?

I have already submitted a request for publication at the local newspaper and the Pride Committee.

June is Pride month and I sort of rushed to have all the designs and information about it ready.

Thank you, again, for your kind consideration.

Regards,

Giovanni Bianchi IMawro25 (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Giovanni/@IMawro25, Wikipedia is not the place to be expending your efforts just yet - articles need to be supported by independent, reliable secondary sources, such as newspaper or magazine articles, books, and so on. Once these independent sources have noticed your flag and written about it, that would be when you could consider writing a Wikipedia draft - or even better, if it's really notable, someone else is likely to write the article instead. For the moment, all you can do is wait for the flag to become notable. I hope that helps explain the situation! Meadowlark (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:47, 31 May 2025 review of submission by Frogdad1982

I attempted to submit an article about this subject following all guidelines with notable references. Seems above board to me. What else is needed here? Frogdad1982 (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An interview does not establish notability, as that is not an independent source- it's the person speaking about themselves. The other source only documents the showing of the film. 331dot (talk) 23:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I'm going to simplify this to just establish this person as the director of the film, nothing more. Frogdad1982 (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 1

01:26, 1 June 2025 review of submission by IC 9612

I wanted to know if I did the references correctly? IC 9612 (talk) 01:26, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @IC 9612, not quite - have a look at referencing for beginners. Meadowlark (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:26, 1 June 2025 review of submission by Shimi Stallings

what is wiki project page and what do you mean by description question Im trying to post my page I just created 

Shimi Stallings (talk) 03:26, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Shimi Stallings Allow me to give you a firm suggestion that you get a Facebook page or your own website. You have attempted your autobiography which is a blatant advert.
You asked 'what is wiki project page and what do you mean by description question Im trying to post my page I just created', and I have no idea what your question means. Perhaps you would clarify it for us? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:01, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:32, 1 June 2025 review of submission by I Forgot Tbh

What specifically is the issue with this draft? I haven't gotten a straight answer and I want to fix it. I Forgot Tbh (talk) 04:32, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@I Forgot Tbh I wonder if yiu have read the decline reason? If you have please come back here and ask a more precise question. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:56, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
laserdancegame.com, X.com Spotify and YouTube are not reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:13, 1 June 2025 review of submission by Sedric1212

Hello! Could a reviewer please check this page and let me know if it's likely to be accepted after edits, or if the topic isn't a priority for final acceptance? Rewriting the entire page would take a significant amount of time. Sedric1212 (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sedric1212 The whole url is not needed when linking, and it breaks the header formatting, I fixed this.
We don't do pre-review reviews. If you edit the draft to address the concerns of reviewers, you should resubmit it for feedback. Yes, draft writing often takes time. Wikipedia has no deadlines, you may take as much time as you need. 331dot (talk) 12:37, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:21, 1 June 2025 review of submission by 70.97.255.197

Question on Reliable sourc Hello, not really sure how to use this or if Toadetteedit will get my questions. But I'm going to start here. Thank you so much for looking at my page, I really appreciate the help. The feedback was not enough reliable sources. Can you explain this further. I have many links with articles and video. Is this the sources you are looking for? I could really use some help to make my page. Heidi 70.97.255.197 (talk) 13:21, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You linked to a page called "Question on Reliable sourc"; that area is meant for the titles of drafts, it's not a header. I will fix this.
If you wish to communicate with ToaddetteEdit directly, you should use their user talk page, User talk:ToadetteEdit. 331dot (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have mostly just documented this person's work; the main purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about this artist, showing how they are a notable creative professional. Promotional language about "professional journey" should be made more neutral. 331dot (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:22, 1 June 2025 review of submission by Sara1599

Thank you for reviewing my draft. I understand your concerns about the tone and sourcing. I have tried to maintain a neutral tone throughout, but I will review again to remove any unintentional promotional language.

Regarding sources, I acknowledge that as a small local business, OKLanzarote may not have coverage in international outlets like the BBC. However, I provided sources that are well-established in their respective domains:

1. Hosteltur (Spain's leading tourism industry publication) discusses the platform in the context of Lanzarote's post-pandemic tourism trends [1].

2. ConsumeCanarias (official business directory of the Canary Islands government) lists the company [2].

3. Feast Magazine (UK travel media) mentions it as an excursion booking option [3].

I believe these meet the criteria of being reliable, secondary, and independent. However, I understand that they may not be considered in-depth enough.

Could you please provide guidance on:

- Specific passages that need a more formal tone?

- What type of additional sources would be acceptable? For example, would a feature in a regional newspaper (e.g., La Provincia) or a trade magazine suffice?

I am committed to improving the draft and would appreciate your advice.

Best regards, Sara1599 (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sara1599 I think you have missed the point. Please read, understand, and implement WP:REFB and WP:CITE. You have left all your references in a lump at the end. That is not how to do it 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:51, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:40, 1 June 2025 review of submission by Боки

Dear Wikipedia Help Desk,

I am reaching out to request clarification regarding the repeated rejection of my draft article titled "Sleep App." Despite my efforts to revise and improve the content in accordance with Wikipedia’s guidelines, the draft has been denied again.

I want to emphasize that the article was written entirely by me without the use of AI tools. I have been actively contributing to Serbian Wikipedia for many years—long before AI-generated content became a topic of concern. Additionally, other editors have contributed to improving the article as well.

Given my long-standing experience and commitment to maintaining Wikipedia’s standards, I would appreciate specific guidance on what aspects of the draft are problematic or how it could be brought to an acceptable standard for publication. I am genuinely interested in improving the article and ensuring it aligns with Wikipedia's notability and sourcing requirements.

Thank you for your time and assistance. I look forward to your feedback.

Kind regards, Боки 💬 📝 18:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you did not use AI tools, then you need to work on your references as they don't match what is claimed. 331dot (talk) 18:45, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Боки Your question is AI generated. We do not wish to enter into discourse with a machine. Please use your own words. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot Editor warned formally about use of AI. Really this behaviour is disruptive editing, wasting everyone's time, including their own. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot @Timtrent
Thank you for your comment. I understand how important it is for references to fully support the content, and I’ll go over them again to make sure everything lines up correctly.
Just to clarify—no AI tools were used in writing this. I’ve been living in Serbia for the past three years, so I use spell check simply to stay up to date with English and make sure I don’t slip on small things. I still rely on Microsoft Word for that—some habits just stick, even after spending over 20 years in Canada.
Thanks again for the feedback, I appreciate it.
Боки 💬 📝 20:33, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Боки GPTZero is moderately confident that you used AI in this response. I choose, though, to believe you this time. For the future FIRM suggestion is not to use AI to spell or grammar check.
Your first response used phraseology used by AI ChatBots, phraseology that I, as a human, recognise. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:30, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:38, 1 June 2025 review of submission by Vikramla

please edit it thank you . you censored it please please Vikramla (talk) 23:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not suitable as a Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Vikramla. A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications. If you do not have such reliable independent sources, then there can be no article.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2

02:18, 2 June 2025 review of submission by 24.194.32.135

this is a live story possibly big... 24.194.32.135 (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's rejected, and will not be considered further Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:02, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:45, 2 June 2025 review of submission by Maggie JL

Dear Wiki review team, Thanks for the detailed review for my article. I was noticed that the references chosen are not qualified, but I tried my best to source the independent and professional and renowned financial media and Stock Exchange press release. May I know which reference is inappropriate? Your early reply will be highly appreciated. Thanks! Regards, Maggie Maggie JL (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Maggie JL: the draft cites mostly routine business reporting and (other) primary sources, which do not establish notability per WP:NCORP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:58, 2 June 2025 review of submission by YogeshKiran

I included relevant links to support the article, so I’m unsure why it is still being rejected. YogeshKiran (talk) 04:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@YogeshKiran: I don't know what "relevant links" means. The draft was declined because the sources cited do not establish notability per WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:59, 2 June 2025 review of submission by Christianmaran

Hi Team,

My article was refused. i need to know reason and how can i fix page. My details inserted is correct but maybe i need to help in how to add references. Christianmaran (talk) 04:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Christianmaran: the decline reasons are shown in the decline notice. Namely, your draft lists three sources as references, but these are not cited anywhere, so it's unclear which statements are supported by which source. One of the three sources is Facebook, which is not considered reliable. And some of the information doesn't appear to come from any of the sources listed.
Additionally, had I had the option of a third decline reason, it would have been that the sources are insufficient for establishing notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:22, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:54, 2 June 2025 review of submission by 82.65.227.138

I don't understand what seems to be the issue with this draft. This is not promotional, we removed any peacock terms, we are just stating facts about a notable person in the fine jewelry designer field. Please help :) 82.65.227.138 (talk) 09:54, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"? User accounts are strictly single person use. Theroadislong (talk) 10:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Theroadislong ! Thank you for getting back to me so quickly. Sorry, I meant "I". Can you please kindly clarify which aspects of this draft can be improved/corrected to better fit Wikipedia's standards ? 82.65.227.138 (talk) 10:19, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited the article by adding two new articles solely talking about Marie Lichtenberg, to follow your recommendations of additional references that should not "just mention" the subject, but rather focus on it. I have not re-submitted the article yet, and am waiting for other recommendations from you to improve the draft :) Thank you ! 82.65.227.138 (talk) 10:21, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:58, 2 June 2025 review of submission by Hammad mubeen1

Dear Sir/Reviewer, I want to make a wikipedia page for "HEAT Cycle". It has been discussed in a scientific journal. I have given reference of the peer-reviewed published journal article. Please guide me, what type of referencing is required. Many thanks in advance. Hammad mubeen1 (talk) 09:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:37, 2 June 2025 review of submission by QuietVoyager

My article has been refused multiple times. I have removed any promotional language, added third party reliable sources, and did everything else that was suggested to me. At this point the article just states blunt facts as I have stripped it of anything that was even close to sounding promotional, however, I don't know what else to adjust. To me, and after reading the guidelines, it does not seem promotional but maybe someone here can pinpoint the issue more precisely for me please? Thanks a lot! QuietVoyager (talk) 11:37, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:54, 2 June 2025 review of submission by Geroabraham

i want to publish that article for the artist called jayly flare Geroabraham (talk) 11:54, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your text has grammatical mistakes, no punctuation, insufficient information, and zero sources. So I would start there. QuietVoyager (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Geroabraham, Welcome to the Teahouse. Currently the article on Jayly Flare doesn't meets notability standards. Thus, It tagged as speedy deletion as A7. At present, Due to the minimal present of reliable and independent sources as it fails to establish its notability. To improve this article, search reliable and independent references to the subject which have significant coverage about him. Fade258 (talk) 12:23, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:10, 2 June 2025 review of submission by Faresqar

Hi, My draft Draft:Minas Qarawany was declined due to notability concerns (WP:NACTOR). I’ve included coverage from Variety, Screen Daily, and Transfuge, plus details about his roles in Shikun, House, and Golem at major venues.

Could someone please review and advise if the current sources are enough, or what else is needed? Faresqar (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Faresqar, Welcome to the Teahouse. Currently your draft is declined under notability concerns regarding notability for actor. Well I have reviewed the mentioned references, and some of the references is primary as having significant coverage in some references but other references isn't reachable. So, I am not able to give my accurate opinion on that draft. Thank You! Fade258 (talk) 12:43, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:09, 2 June 2025 review of submission by 78.84.115.149

Hi! I have a question about the reliable sources. Are the sources used in the EYBL page cited incorrectly, or is the source itself wrong? Most of the articles are from the Latvian sports news portal sportacentrs.com. 78.84.115.149 (talk) 14:09, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1293578096"