Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
  • Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.
Ask a new question
Please check back often for answers.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions
Skip to top
Skip to bottom


July 23

[edit]

00:47, 23 July 2025 review of submission by A person of sorts

[edit]

Does this tag at the top of the draft article mean that this article should no longer be ediited because it is viewed as non notable? Or is it just a rejection based on the current state of the article? I've just never seen that large 'STOP' at the top of the article. A person of sorts (talk) 00:47, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just an onlooker and not involved with this article at all, but I happened to see this and was confused too. I've seen and declined a number of AfC articles that were in much worse shape and whose subjects were much less notable than this that weren't outright rejected on the first submission. Pinging @Zxcvbnm: was there a specific reason rejection was preferred over declining here? GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 01:50, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After running a WP:BEFORE, I could not find evidence that he passed WP:NBIO, hence it was rejected. As stated in WP:AKON, no amount of improvement can overcome a lack of notability. Reject means it is not notable and should no longer be worked on.
If the article creator still believes it is notable, they should please state the WP:THREE best sources here that show significant coverage in reliable sources, without failing WP:1EVENT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:22, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:30, 23 July 2025 review of submission by OmarWikiEdits

[edit]

Hi, thank you for reviewing the draft. I understand it was rejected for not meeting WP:ORGCRIT. Could you kindly clarify which types of independent sources would be considered acceptable to establish notability for Space42? I want to ensure any future improvements are aligned with Wikipedia’s standards. Appreciate your guidance. 

OmarWikiEdits (talk) 05:30, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @OmarWikiEdits. Please see golden rule.
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) 13:25, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:11, 23 July 2025 review of submission by 103.216.195.97

[edit]

recently updates which is sufficient to notable 103.216.195.97 (talk) 06:11, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe you have added sufficient citations (which meet the criteria in WP:42) to establish that Mishra is notable, you need first to approach the reviewer who rejected the draft, @Bonadea ColinFine (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:17, 23 July 2025 review of submission by 2601:205:4B00:A2D0:2893:184:9918:5969

[edit]

Dear Reviewer,

This is the new concept of "Learning Dates" and is being used by multiple families in California. It's recently published in International paper and we heard a talk about this in our community. Though I am not a good editor, I tried submitting details as much I could to get this page available for more people to contribute.

Could you please help getting this published? 2601:205:4B00:A2D0:2893:184:9918:5969 (talk) 06:17, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't cite Wikipedia (circular reference), and your "two other sources" are simply the same research paper. One source, no matter how good it is, cannot support a Wikipedia article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:52, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only source this draft cites is a paper (published three days ago) by the person who invented the concept. For something like this to be notable, we need to see significant coverage of it by multiple sources which are reliable and entirely independent of the concept. As it stands, this is very far from being acceptable for publication in Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:40, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:17, 23 July 2025 review of submission by Arno Koch

[edit]

I got stuck... I want to bring a subject to the wiki community, however it was rejected; the reason was LLM suspected. In the talk I understand me using Deepl Pro for language and grammar correction might be the problem. I checked the text multiple times: To me -from a content expert view- it looks valuable and I see no violations of wiki rules. I am now out of ideas on what else I can improve. Also because I would like to add a few more entries, it would help me to know exactly what is wrong and what the criteria are to avoid this in the future. Your help is greatly appreciated. Kind regards from Belgium Arno Koch (talk) 08:17, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Arno Koch: in my non-expert view, this suffers from many of the problems typical to AI-generated drafts, as listed in the decline notice. And one fairly clear "violation of wiki rules" is that most of the sources are offline, but they are cited with insufficient bibliographical details to allow them to be easily verified. (BTW, are these really not available online anywhere?)
Another thing is that starting with the '8 steps' section this reads like a how-to-guide, which is not what Wikipedia is about.
My advice would be to simply not use generative LLM to draft articles. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:30, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, this helps partially.
1. I understand Wikipedia prefers online references above references to books (as I did, since the topic originates from the 50's and 70's. Correct?
2. The '8 steps' is the core of this method. They are essential. So how to otherwise incorporate them?
3. I still have no clue what you see specifically in this article as 'problems typical to AI-generated drafts'.
I fully acknowledge AI text often is terrible and should be avoided. But is using language and grammar correction leading to correct English (or also German, Dutch and French in my case) really a problem for wiki reviewers? In order to be able to keep contributing to this beautifull initiative, I need to understand this. As I am not willing to stop using a wordprocessor, I am also no longer willing to give up on Deepl since it is really supporting me to concentrate on good content. (which I believe should be also the goal of Wiki). Can you please help me out there by giving specific feedback on specific lines that are 'a typical problem to AI generated draft? Thank you very much for your support, Arno Koch (talk) 09:02, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Arno Koch:
  1. Yes, online sources are preferred, because they are much easier for most users to access. Offline sources are also accepted, but they need to be cited with sufficient detail; see WP:OFFLINE for more on this. There is a particular problem with LLM-generated content: AI is well known to hallucinate and/or invent sources, and when the sources are offline, the reviewer has no confidence that they actually say what AI says they do.
  2. Drawing a parallel to cooking, the article on Bouillabaisse tells you in broad terms what the typical ingredients are, but it doesn't give you a recipe with precise ingredients and step-by-step method. Does that help at all answer your question?
  3. I think there is quite a big difference between generating a draft using LLM, and having one "to correct English".
-- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:16, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks.
AD1 I have many of the books in my bookshelf: What needs to be added in this article?
AD2 mm, a good SGA follows 8 steps; so they should be mentioned I guess. Is it wrong to decribe what the steps is for? What happens in the step? that is far from 'how to', isn't it? I just try to grasp the nuance I seem to be missing.
A3 Fully Agree, but that still is not answering my question, So I still do not understand what you exactly see here as a problem that needs to be fixed. Without learning that I am afraid I can not proceed... Arno Koch (talk) 09:45, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the concerns raise, there's also at least some WP:COI in the mix. You're literally citing your own work for the sentence According to some, virtually any problem can be solved with a good SGA, and that's a huge red flag for an article. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:45, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. As I do not hide behind a fantasy name anybody can veryfy my trackrecord. So this sentence will be removed.
Now how about my real request for help after AD3? Arno Koch (talk) 12:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a little shocking you don't think disclosing a serious WP:COI problem is a "real" thing to worry about. Good luck to you. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, those are your words, not mine.
I do not experience much support to get this thing going. Time to draw my conclusions. Arno Koch (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:52, 23 July 2025 review of submission by BryantK2022

[edit]

Hi there! It seems I have used too many internal links on this wiki page and that's why it's been declined, if I remove the internal ones and leave the external will that suffice? BryantK2022 (talk) 09:52, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm skeptical as a large percentage of the independent sources remaining are mostly coverage of funding rounds or routine business transactions; Wikipedia considers this as trivial coverage, see WP:CORPTRIV. Of the ones that are not, there are a lot that are just lists of pricing, which isn't really significant coverage of the company. And frankly, that it has so many internal links provides a clue as to a crucial problem: the resulting draft looks a lot more like what the company wants to say about it rather than what independent parties are saying about the company. Much of the language is quite promotional, and there's more than a faint fragrance of LLM writing.
To be perfectly honest, while this company may be notable, the draft is in a pretty poor state. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:33, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @BryantK2022. 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. .
Also: 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) 13:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:55, 23 July 2025 review of submission by BryantK2022

[edit]

Hi there, my draft was declined because I had too many internal links, if I remove these and keep the external links, would that be within the guidelines? I would appreciate any help you could give me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:FileCloud BryantK2022 (talk) 09:55, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BryantK2022: where did you get the idea that this was declined because of "too many internal links"? That's not a reason to decline, and in any case this draft isn't even overlinked.
It was declined because the sources aren't sufficient to show that the subject is notable according to the WP:NCORP guideline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I've made some edits, do you think the article is sufficient now? I'm a bit confused, as I've seen many approved wiki pages with far less content (e.g., just four paragraphs and six links), which makes those subjects appear less notable. The topic I'm writing about is a reputable company with a long history and several external references. BryantK2022 (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:58, 23 July 2025 review of submission by Taccobaby

[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Taccobaby/sandbox I was wondering if you think my draft is good enough for resubmission, or if any of you have suggestions or feedback. I don’t want to waste the admins’ time. Thanks in advance! Taccobaby (talk) 09:58, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Taccobaby, have you read and implemented the feedback the reviewers have given you? The draft has received a review since the last time you worked on it, so you have some information to work with.
Admins are not the ones to approve or decline drafts - it's done by experienced editors who can judge whether the drafts are up to scratch. You won't be wasting anyone's time unless you resubmit your draft without making improvements.Meadowlark (talk) 10:44, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you. So you think i can resubmit, given the fact that i changed and implemented the changes?
Sry for asking stupid questions :D Taccobaby (talk) 11:13, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Taccobaby. Is it your sandbox, or Draft:Exotec that you are working on?
Your citations are mostly just titles. While this is not forbidden, it makes the draft considerably more inconvenient to review, because it does not readily provide crucial information which helps a reviewer evaluate the source: date, author, publication. Please read referencing for beginners.
Glancing through the titles, it looks to me as if the vast majority are routine business announcements (see WP:CORPTRIV) and I suspect that many of them are not independent. If a source does not meet all the criteria in WP:42, it does not contribute to establishing notability, and should be used only to add uncontroversial factual data (like dates and places) to an already solid article draft. ColinFine (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:16, 23 July 2025 review of submission by DLVDJ

[edit]

Hello, I hope this finds you well. I've updated the draft article to address Itzcuauhtli11's concerns and added wikipedia references and secondary sources; I'm quite sure it now meets the standards for a worthwhile contribution. Can you tell me what the process going forward is? Thank you very much for your time and guidance. DLVDJ (talk) 10:16, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DLVDJ, you have submitted it for review again so now you simply wait and see whether the next reviewer agrees with you. As a heads-up, I chose some of your sources at random and found that they were all either interviews with Flageollet (which do not establish notability as they're not independent) or about De Bethune (which do not establish notability as they're not about your subject). You may wish to highlight your three best references on the talk page, considering WP:42 as you do so, to make it easier for reviewers to assess your subject's notability as Wikipedia understands it. Meadowlark (talk) 10:49, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for this, Meadowlark. Much appreciated. Will do as you suggest. Many thanks for your time. DLVDJ (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:29, 23 July 2025 review of submission by 2406:7400:10B:28BE:2D12:74FC:537E:1D69

[edit]

Help me move this article to the namespace from Draft. I have given most of the citations.2406:7400:10B:28BE:2D12:74FC:537E:1D69 (talk) 11:29, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that you have addressed the concerns of the reviewer, you may resubmit the draft. 331dot (talk) 12:59, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:21, 23 July 2025 review of submission by Wixel owl

[edit]

Hello, respectable community! I need help regarding this page, Lee A. Doernte. Can anyone help me with this? What measures have been taken to make this eligible? I have reviewed it and made changes, but still vain.

I really appreciate any help you can provide. Wixel owl (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Wixel owl, did you use an AI/LLM such as ChatGPT to create this draft?
The biggest problem for this draft is that you don't have any sources that establish notability by Wikipedia's standards. You need to find sources that meet all three criteria in WP:42. Papers Doernte has written are not independent, and as far as I can see your other sources do not have significant coverage. Meadowlark (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:06, 23 July 2025 review of submission by Shahidul Hussain B.SC, B.ED

[edit]

Why you rejected my page Shahidul Hussain B.SC, B.ED (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is self-promotion; Wikipedia is here to share what reliable sources have to say about notable topics, not here for people to promote themselves. If you want to create a page about yourself you should try a social media platform such as Linkedin. CoconutOctopus talk 18:13, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a place to post your resume. Please use social media for that. 331dot (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:52, 23 July 2025 review of submission by Jeff633

[edit]

Hello, I’ve written a draft article about Sir Patrick Bijou, a British investment banker and author. I’ve cited independent sources such as Business Today and Outlook India, and tried to follow Wikipedia's notability and referencing guidelines.

However, I keep getting “Submission failed” errors even after moving the article to the correct Draft: namespace. The draft includes inline citations, neutral tone, and a proper structure.

Can someone please help me understand why the submission keeps failing, and whether the current version is suitable for review?

Thank you in advance! Here is the link to the draft:

Draft:Patrick Bijou (investment banker) Jeff633 (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff633: you've created Draft:Patrick Bijou (investment banker) and User:Jeff633/sandbox (and User:Jeff633). You should only create one.
In creating Draft:Patrick Bijou (investment banker), you yourself added a faulty template, which caused the draft to be seemingly declined. I assume you used some LLM tool to create this? They really don't know what they're doing, which is just one of the many reasons why you shouldn't use them.
Meanwhile, there's also Draft:Sir Patrick Bijou, created by Billing63. Are you and Billing63 connected somehow?
And what's your relationship with this Patrick Bijou person? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I’m the same person as Billing63 I’ve switched to my 6-month-old account (Jeff633) to avoid confusion and start fresh.
I am not connected to Sir Patrick Bijou personally. I was hired as a freelancer to help research and write a Wikipedia draft about him.
I understand the concerns about AI-generated content. I’ve reviewed and rewritten the content in my own words.
I’ll stick to a single draft from now on:
[Draft:Patrick Bijou (investment banker)]
Could you please help confirm if the current version of this draft is fixable or what improvements are still required? Jeff633 (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you were hired, you must comply with WP:PAID, a Terms of Use requirement. 331dot (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The AI that you used to write the draft put a decline notice. We would prefer that you write yourself. AI can be problematic for several reasons, see WP:LLM. 331dot (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I’ve prepared a clean, neutral draft for Sir Patrick Bijou using three independent sources (Business Today, Outlook India, Free Press Journal). I’ve removed all promotional and unverified claims and included an AFC submission tag properly.

However, the draft keeps getting rejected automatically, even though I’ve addressed all earlier feedback. Can someone please review it manually and advise what needs fixing to get this approved?

Draft page link: User:Jeff633/sandbox

Thank you! Jeff633, paid editing disclosure on user page & draft talk Jeff633 (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't create additional threads, just edit this existing thread. 331dot (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You may click the "resubmit" button to submit the draft. It has not been "automatically rejected", the AI put that there. I will note that it is unlikely to be accepted, as it reads like a resume. If you are getting paid to do this, it's up to you to first learn what is being looked for. 331dot (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 24

[edit]

01:39, 24 July 2025 review of submission by 9aija

[edit]

Leave it at the draft don’t move it, I’ll wait for it to be approved. SORRY I’m still new here.9aija (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:30, 24 July 2025 review of submission by Smucle

[edit]

I haven't Enough time and experience to Edit this All Text and References in my own width. Please help me to make it all good . Smucle (talk) 02:30, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Alambre Púa (Song)
please help me to edit this Smucle (talk) 02:11, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:40, 24 July 2025 review of submission by Smucle

[edit]

I haven't enough time for edit, Too trouble for me! But with a good editor , it's My pleasure, please give me some help for me, THANK YOU! Smucle (talk) 02:40, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:51, 24 July 2025 review of submission by Szeremeta

[edit]

I'm honestly not quite sure what else to do. I feel that this company is important and will only become more relevant as time passes, but I repeatedly receive notice that it "[doesn't] meet notability guidelines". What can be done to get this article published, or perhaps edited by someone more knowledgeable than myself? Szeremeta (talk) 02:51, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A company being “important” is subjective - whether or not a subject is wikinotable depends only on how significantly covered they have been by secondary, reliable sources. As Wikipedia articles are based on such subjects, without them there can be no article.
If Anzu Robotics are indeed growing, this may just be a case of too soon and I advise you to try again when more strong sources become available. -- NotCharizard 🗨 04:53, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Will only become more relevant as time passes"- this means it is too soon for an article about it- Wikipedia has articles when the topic has already arrived in terms of relevance, not because it may be relevant in the future. 331dot (talk) 08:06, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:56, 24 July 2025 review of submission by Iamasqurl

[edit]

I would like to know how to add my mythos to Wikipedia, I have been advised I need reliable references but I am not sure what that entails, I am not trying to promote, monetize, or any of the like. I have been advised I need references such as a BBC article or the like but how anyone would get that is beyond me unless you are internationally known. I will be happy to remove any type of link that points back to anything I have done in regards to this as it may seem self serving or a conflict of interest but this is a legitimate project that has active fans. I have been advised that my article is both a hoax and vandalism which I am unable to fathom. I assumed incorrectly this was a place I could post my growing mythos as other fantasy mythos are listed. If this is not the place please let me know. Thank you for your time. Iamasqurl (talk) 05:56, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Iamasqurl: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a free webhost for publishing your fiction writing; Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:01, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why Tidus from final fantasy is listed, or Pennywise, or Captain White, or d'Artagnan are in fact in Wikipedia? Because they are not fictional characters? I included no stories, songs, comics, etc just the basis of the mythos Iamasqurl (talk) 06:48, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My question was A: what is required to make it eligible for Wiki and B: if this is the place for it. You answered B but not A and your response is incorrect, every fictional character, world, time, place was just made up one day and the article you linked, informative seems some what gate keeping and condescending. I am not famous no, I do not have a huge following for my mythos, but it may be more appropriate and helpful to explain the requirements for getting your article or page approved for Wiki Iamasqurl (talk) 07:04, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Iamasqurl: yes, it is 'gatekeeping' – that's one of the reasons why we review drafts before they are allowed to be published.
Alright then, to answer 'A': notability is a key requirement for inclusion in the encyclopaedia; verifiability is another. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiabilty has no context or role in a fictional setting, there is no way to verify something that has never existed and has been created, please show me how you have verified Mickey Mouse. Notability I can understand which was what I was asking. The article needs to be about something that is well know like a viral tik tok and according to you needs to be verifiable as actual fact which invalidates every article Wiki has containing anything fictional Iamasqurl (talk) 07:25, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of articles on fictional characters, Superman, Mario, James T. Kirk. They are notable because they have been extensively discussed and analyzed by independent reliable sources.
You wrote "Legacy Sir Squirrel Von Dawn has become a symbol of forest vengeance and nature’s resistance against human destruction in the mythos, inspiring ongoing music, art, and collaborative storytelling projects." but offer no sources to support this claim or for most of the content in your draft. 331dot (talk) 08:01, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
so validity only means exposure? this I understand as I have very little exposure. Thank you. I have been a bit hampered by terminology I suppose as validity does not mean the same thing as article written about a fictional character. So If I understand correctly I need to have "people talking about it" to be able to post an article. Iamasqurl (talk) 08:07, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I understand that. I have no sources. Like any story it has to start somewhere. I have admitted this was not the correct forum. My issue is the reviewers and the hostile way of responding Iamasqurl (talk) 05:51, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Iamasqurl, Verifiability is a core content policy and applies to every acceptable Wikipedia article, including those about fictional characters. You mention Mickey Mouse as if nothing about him can be verified. And yet the article about the fictional mouse who has been around for 97 years contains references to 187 reliable sources verifying various assertions about Mickey. Read even 10% of the references at the end of Mickey Mouse and you might develop a better understanding of verifiability. Compliance with that core content policy is mandatory. No, people talking about it is inadequate. What is required are recognized published reliable sources devoting significant coverage to the character. We do not talk about validity much. Notability is the standard. Cullen328 (talk) 08:15, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you and that was more my point, at some point Disney said, lets make a Mouse, just one day made it. 97 years later there are numerous references. I am not disputing the my article should be rejected. According to the guidelines posted on Wiki, which I admit I did not read, it should have been rejected. I am concerned at the responses I have gotten. "You can't just make an article about something you made up one day", Well every fictional character, world, language, was just "made up one day". Or the fact when asking about what was needed to get my article accepted and what sources would be acceptable I was told "BBC" and then my article was flagged as Vandalism and a Hoax. I understand where I went wrong with my submission and agree with the rejection based on the requirements, but driving people away seems slightly counter productive. Iamasqurl (talk) 04:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I will again reiterate my point, I was just tagged by Doublegrazing as using double accounts, this is what I was referring too, the post was made 3 days ago I think but the moment I push back against his views and or comments he submits this. Just like my article that was flagged for vandalism the moment I confronted another reviewer. Reviewers need to be vetted and the choices they make need to be looked at. I have nothing against Double grazer except the way they respond to people but suddenly I am on notice, coincidentally after I disagreed with them, for having multiple accounts, which I do not. So a new user who may not know the requirements, may ask actual valid question, and may not like responses such as "you can't post an article you made up one day" without context are attacked? This is the review process you embrace in a forum that clearly states "to make the sum of all human knowledge freely available to every person on the planet" Iamasqurl (talk) 07:10, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Verifiabilty has no context or role in a fictional setting", really? So, reductio ad absurdum, anyone can say anything they want about a fictional concept, and it all must be accepted because the concept is fictional? Alright, Mickey Mouse is a duck. Captain America is a gay icon created by Tom of Finland. Hamlet was actually murdered by Iago (the parrot, not the Shakespeare character). I have many more like these. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:17, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will note the obvious gaming on Draft talk:Sir Squirrel Von Dawn. qcne (talk) 09:45, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not real sure what you mean. My article is a mythos I have have created and spent quite some time on. Yes it is currently not notable and may never be. And yes this was the wrong forum for it. But the simple fact you claimed my page was Vandalism, which by Wikipedias own terms it is not, and a Hoax, which unless you have an alternate definition of hoax it is not, because I confronted you on your replies to me tells me you did it out of spite. The fact your response to the question "you really took time to do that" was "it didn't take that long" emphatically shows the problem I am discussing Iamasqurl (talk) 05:46, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am fairly positive Milne did not write a story about Winnie the Pooh and Piglet (SPOILERS) eating Eyore and slaughtering some teenagers. It depends on context. You can say whatever you want about a fictional character, Captain America was a treasonous Hydra member in one story. You can validate ownership, who created the character, what has previously been written about the character but as something of fiction it can be changed at any time. You are not discussing validation, you are talking history, you are talking published works with many years of history. And again my issue is not with the rejection, it's with the response that I have received from certain people that do the reviews . Possibly the terminology possibly not. My issue is that for someone who may be new to Wikipedia, with what they consider a valid article, the interaction with someone they may consider the face of Wikipedia and possibly the first interaction with Wikipedia may be discouraging. Instead of mentorship and guidance to assist in creating a valid article I have seen, well what we are seeing here from certain people. As a forum to make the sum of all human knowledge freely available to every person on the planet, you would think contributions would be welcome. Iamasqurl (talk) 05:41, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your contributions are welcome. But that doesn't mean that you can do whatever you want. You certainly wouldn't be aware of the various policies that we have, and that's fine, but once you are told, you should try to listen to what you are being told. No one has been rude to you- which is hard to judge via text communication which is difficult to convey emotion with. I don't see where anyone said your writing was "vandalism"(maybe I missed it). It was tagged as a hoax, but that has been removed. That can happen for many reasons- mostly related to the fact that different people can see things differently and disagree in good faith. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:57, 24 July 2025 review of submission by SHLAKW

[edit]

Subject: Relevance of the Drakhan Conlang for Wikipedia

I respectfully disagree with the assessment that Drakhan “is not relevant” for inclusion. In fact, Drakhan meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria for constructed languages for the following reasons:

Independent Coverage

Drakhan has been discussed in at least two independent, secondary sources (e.g. the Conlang Journal issue on objectivist languages, and the online linguistics magazine NeoLinguist).

It has appeared in at least one peer‑reviewed conference proceeding (the 2024 International Conference on Constructed Languages), which demonstrates scholarly interest.

Unique Linguistic Features

Its complete elimination of subjective markers and introspective vocabulary is a novel typological innovation.

The strictly male‑perspective lexicon and “two‑root, seven‑letter” compounding rule set Drakhan apart from all other documented conlangs.

Cultural and Technical Impact

A small but active Drakhan community uses the language for technical documentation and online role‑play, generating measurable traffic on GitHub and Discord.

The Drakjal symbol system has been implemented in an open‑source font (Drakjal.ttf), now downloaded over 1,000 times.

Verifiability and Sources

All claims can be backed by reliable sources. I can supply direct citations to the Conlang Journal (Vol. 8, 2023) and the 2024 ICCL proceedings (pp. 45–52).

Because Drakhan satisfies both WP:NATLANG (as a naturally inspired constructed language) and WP:CONLANG (as a language with clear independent coverage and usage), I believe it merits its own article. I will gladly expand the entry to include properly formatted citations and secondary‑source quotations.

Please let me know if you need further source details or draft improvements. SHLAKW (talk) 06:57, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SHLAKW: you say sources exist, so why aren't they cited in the draft? It's not our job as reviewers to go searching for them, nor is it enough for you to assert that they exist, you need to produce them as evidence.
And even if the subject proves to be notable, this draft would require a major rewrite, because it is not written as an encyclopaedia article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:02, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:20, 24 July 2025 review of submission by Priya Sharma0

[edit]

Hello,

I have created a draft article titled "Draft:Md_Sakib_Raza" about a youth political leader from Bihar, currently serving as the President of the Student RJD unit at RKK College, Purnia.

I have added multiple reliable sources from major Indian news outlets (e.g., Dainik Bhaskar, Hindustan) that cover his appointment, expansion of student leadership, and his work for student welfare. These are **independent, third-party, and non-promotional** references.

Please let me know if the article now meets the general notability guidelines, and what more is required if not.

Thank you. Priya Sharma0 (talk) 08:20, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have already resubmitted the draft, the next reviewer will leave you feedback if it is not accepted. 331dot (talk) 08:31, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Priya Sharma0 Actually, there was something wrong with the way you submitted it- you can try again by clicking the blue "resubmit" button at the bottom of the last review- but you haven't really fundamentally changed the draft to address prior concerns. You only have a few sources that just detail this young man's appointment to his position, no sources with significant coverage- coverage that goes beyond just documenting his activities and goes into detail about how he is notable as a person(he does not meet the narrower notable politician definition as he does not hold public office) 331dot (talk) 08:36, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:18, 24 July 2025 review of submission by Krisshkarthick DN

[edit]

Need to know why article got declined. What will be the solution Krisshkarthick DN (talk) 09:18, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Krisshkarthick DN You had the words "article got declined" where a link to your draft should have gone(thus you linked to a nonexistent page with the title "article got declined". I fixed this for you.
Wikipedia is not a place for people to write about themselves, see the autobiography policy. You have no citations in the draft, you should be summarizing what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about you, showing how you are a notable creative professional or notable actor. This is usually very difficult for people to do about themselves. 331dot (talk) 09:31, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:01, 24 July 2025 review of submission by Msmraqeeb

[edit]

Please make me clear which section I've fault and also tell me what are needed to add in my article. Thanks Msmraqeeb (talk) 10:01, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Msmraqeeb. No indication this person meets our criteria. I have rejected it on that basis. qcne (talk) 10:29, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:44, 24 July 2025 review of submission by Sofia kavtaradze13

[edit]

all this is true why you don’t post it i am famous person Sofia kavtaradze13 (talk) 11:44, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Sofia kavtaradze13. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what several people, wholly unconnected with the subject, have independently chosen to publish about ths subject in reliable publications, and very little else.
If you are trying to write about yourself (which is strongly discouraged, as it is almost never successful - see autobiography) then you need to find several sources which meet all the criteria in WP:42. Then you need to effectively forget everything that you know about yourself, and write a neutral summary of what those sources say.
Do you see why it is difficult to succeed? ColinFine (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:49, 24 July 2025 review of submission by Sofia kavtaradze13

[edit]

why Sofia kavtaradze13 (talk) 11:49, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sofia kavtaradze13 No indication you meet our criteria for inclusion: Wikipedia:Notability (people). qcne (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:03, 24 July 2025 review of submission by Littleclown27

[edit]

I’ve made edits and added reliable sources and inline citations to address previous concerns. However, when I click “Resubmit,” the system immediately declines them without a new review. I believe it may be related to the AFC code or timestamp issue. Littleclown27 (talk) 13:03, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have resubmitted. @Littleclown27.
I have restored the Decline notice that you removed after the last review. Please do not remove such notices. ColinFine (talk) 22:37, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok! Apologies. Littleclown27 (talk) 05:56, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:23, 24 July 2025 review of submission by 75.158.193.110

[edit]

I'm struggling with the current feedback. I believe the language being used is very neutral and hasn't been written by AI. Please let me know if there is a certain section that is not neutral in your perspective, or should be reworked. As well, all of the sources are third-party (Government, third-party watchdogs like Charity Intelligence, or news agencies). I removed one source (Hospital News), since I thought the language in those articles might be seen as too promotional. Thanks. 75.158.193.110 (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the creator of the draft, remember to log in when posting.
If you are associated with this charity, that must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID.
Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about an organization, its offerings, and what it sees as its own history. 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. 331dot (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When a draft is declined as "promotional" or "like an advert", it is usually because it reads as what the subject wants the world to know about themselves. But 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) 22:42, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:14, 24 July 2025 review of submission by 217.163.101.38

[edit]

While short, the entry appears we refenced to me including a number of respect sites in the music world. What more would I need to do to get this article approved? 217.163.101.38 (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can't use Discogs or Last.fm. We can't use interviews to establish notability. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (music). qcne (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:24, 24 July 2025 review of submission by Lucas Henrique Noll

[edit]

translate the page from Portuguese to English, as it is important content that has not yet been translated Lucas Henrique Noll (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucas Henrique Noll You need to translate the text, as draft author. qcne (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:30, 24 July 2025 review of submission by Sashwattanay

[edit]

Dear Sir/Madam,

I need help with publishing the following article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:%C3%89ric_Gourgoulhon

It was recently declined by RangersRus‬ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RangersRus), stating 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".

However I would like to disagree. I mention this two published academic books (by Springer) with citation of the publisher's webpage. These two widely read books alone would make Eric (subject of the Wikipedia article) a notable figure. Plus, toward the end of the article, I also cite links to his appearances in popular media (his podcast series on RadioFrance and his interview by the notable journalist Alain Cirou).

I request a reconsideration of my article. Thank you.

Regards, Sashwat Tanay Sashwattanay (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We had a discussion in #wikipedia-en-help. Potentially this person might meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics) criterion #2 as a holder of the CNRS Silver Medal. @Sashwattanay will see if they can gather any evidence of book reviews etc to satisfy criterion #1. I don't think he meets #7.
Some general advice for @Sashwattanay: your draft still has lots and lots of primary sources, and it would be better if you could show notability through three really strong secondary sources that are specifically not interviews.
Pinging @RangersRus, @Caleb Stanford, @Ldm1954. qcne (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am dubious about WP:NPROF#C2. The silver medal is a mid-career award from his employer, and as such I would not consider it as prestigious as one from a major national or international society. The books alone also do not necessarily lead to a pass, many academics publish books. The books would need to have major reviews and lead to a pass of WP:NAUTHOR. Giving lectures is also not something major, WP:MILL for academics, and many have blogs.
Looking back at when I reviewed the page on July 14, while some sources have been added there were 7 duplicates, and one of the major ones is his own web page (self-published). The page is still of very low quality, with far, far too many sources of his and/or his employer, and not enough independent. He might pass WP:NPROF#C1 based upon a quick hand count in Google Scholar; I estimate his h-factor to be 40-50 which is decent although care is needed about team papers. It would be good if he had a Scopus h-factor included in the page.
Back on July 14 I did suggest reading WP:NPROF carefully. From what I see the editor has not done this. The page still fails to be specific about where and how he is notable (without bragging). As one example, the SageManifolds is mentioned, with a source to his employers web page, that does not prove any notability. A highly cited (> 100) review would provide weight. If I was to re-review this now (or review it at WP:NPP) it would not pass for general quality control. The editor really has to read WP:NPROF and also WP:GNG. I cleaned up the duplicates, but I am not going to write this.
N.B., WP:NPROF does not have the same WP:SIGCOV requirements etc as WP:GNG of course. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:45, 24 July 2025 review of submission by SamEzek

[edit]

Hi all, I work alongside Professor Adrian Wilson who has numerous patents to his name and is the most famous knee surgeon in the world (just Google "number one knee surgeon") yet I can't seem to create the right layout for a Wikipedia page.

Could anyone advise me or provide tangible help.

Thanks SamEzek (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SamEzek: DISCLOSE. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:05, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What you have created is mostly just a list of his achievements and reads more like a CV than an encyclopaedia article. Most of it is also unsourced, which is super problematic in a blp. It looks like you have written the article backwards.
It is very hard to write a Wikipedia article without first spending a while editing and learning how Wikipedia works, and it is especially hard when you have a conflict of interest. My suggestion at this point would be, once you have disclosed your COI on your userpage, to delete most of what you have written and rewrite the article forwards. -- NotCharizard 🗨 17:22, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:30, 24 July 2025 review of submission by Zom00000

[edit]

The alst reviewer mentioned that I have "attitude of IDHT and I am doing advertising in my article". First I have changed the WHOLE article tone to NEUTRAL (confirmed by ChatGPT) and I only listed stuff that they told me to include...

I have added Beign Elected and becing Chair at many jobs and I have added many awards includeing 5 back to back ASRM star awards.

I am trying to address the reviewer's concerns but not sure what to do at this point.

I have article on NY times with my main photo in it. I have TV interviews (non paid for) ,.. if i list them, they say it is adversiting, If I don't the reviewers say "I dont have enough" ...

I am not using Wikipedia for advertising... I already advertise on social media and MANY other platforms.

Thank you for your help Zom00000 (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Zom00000. Please don't use ChatGPT to review what you've written- ChatGPT simply is not very good. How does this person meet our criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (academics)? qcne (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I only used it to confirm the "NEUTRALITY" of the tone of the article.
I appreciate your help and I will look (again) on Wikipedia:Notability (academics) Zom00000 (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Zom00000. Given that new users usually have difficulty understanding just what Wikipedia means by "neutral", it is very unlikely that ChatGPT will be able to check this reliably, since it works only with surface patterns, and has no "understanding".
"Neutral" is about the sources as well as the content. If a draft fairly summarises what a source says, but the source is based on the words of the subject or their associates (an interview or a press release), then the draft will not be "neutral". 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) 15:53, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I APPRECIATE YOUR HELP! Zom00000 (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:57, 24 July 2025 review of submission by Sbandyopa

[edit]

There are some flags on this page asking for more complete citations for verification. I checked all the sources and they are complete. All the references are clickable and go to the right pages. Please advise what to do to remove this flag. I cannot fix something if I do not know what to fix and how to fix it.

Also for the sake of full disclosure, I edited this page and I am the subject, but I am not the original creator/editor of this article. The original creator was a stranger who I did not know. My edits corrected some inaccuracies and provided missing references. Sbandyopa (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbandyopa This help desk is for drafts but this is an article. Even so, I suggest starting a discussion on the article's talk page. S0091 (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:02, 24 July 2025 review of submission by MTBEditor2007

[edit]

Hi, I’m reaching out because I’m a bit confused about what I’m supposed to do with sourcing. From the beginning, I’ve made sure to include citations from reliable, independent sources. While not every source goes into extreme depth, mainly because this is a relatively niche topic, they do directly support the statements made in the article. These sources come from some of the most reputable voices in the cycling industry and are neutral in tone; they are not promotional toward Pivot Cycles.

However, after having my draft repeatedly declined with the same generic feedback, I decided to strip it down to just the introduction paragraph in hopes of avoiding further issues. At this point, I’m unsure how to improve the sourcing, given that I’m already using some of the most credible information available within this niche industry. I’d really appreciate clarification on what exactly is lacking or what types of sources would be considered acceptable in this context.

Also, I’ve noticed many existing Wikipedia pages with little to no sourcing at all, so I’m struggling to understand why the standards seem so much stricter for this article.

Thanks for your time and help. MTBEditor2007 (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MTBEditor2007 as far as other articles, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There are tons of poor articles that do not meet today's standards because standards have changes over time and things get by when they should not. If you are looking for an article to get a baseline, Good articles are better to place to look. At far as Draft:Pivot Cycles, the Forbes articles are not reliable sources because they were written by a contributor rather than staff (see WP:FORBESCON) so not useful and should be removed. Interviews, press releases, what those involved state, etc. are primary sources and not independent so not helpful for notability and should only be used very sparingly. I suggest reading WP:NCORP from top to bottom. S0091 (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:07, 24 July 2025 review of submission by Henrique960

[edit]

Why was my page rejected? Henrique960 (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your link for proper display(you need the "Draft:" portion)
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.
The reason was left by the reviewer- you have not shown that this musician is a notable musician. 331dot (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You had two drafts on the same topic, I assume you mean this one. 331dot (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:34, 24 July 2025 review of submission by Dabs 313

[edit]

how can i improve the article so it is published Dabs 313 (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dabs 313 see Your first article and WP:PROMO. What you wrote serves no other purpose than to promote Attila Paladi which is not allowed as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not LinkedIn or the like. S0091 (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
what edits can i make so it doesn't look like promo, since he is somewhat of a public figure, that's why we decided to create the article Dabs 313 (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dabs 313 Who is "we"? S0091 (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is an attempt at a paid disclosure on their user page, we is probably them and Mr. Paladi. 331dot (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:BOSS and WP:PROUD, and have Mr. Paladi read them, too. 331dot (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yes i did do the paid disclosure did i do it incorrect Dabs 313 (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it. 331dot (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
so the article was rejected, ive disclosed that ive been paid what else do i need to do to get the article published,
he has to be notable Dabs 313 (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He does not seem to be notable, as you have not provided independent reliable sources with significant coverage of him. Did you read WP:BOSS? As it says, "your company or boss is likely not notable". If you just want to tell the world about Mr. Paladi, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:05, 24 July 2025 review of submission by Aaron Craven

[edit]

This draft has a COI and while it very likely qualifies as a notable person, another editor has to edit and submit it. Is there an editor who can do this? Aaron Craven (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Craven The draft process is the correct way for someone to submit a draft about a subject where one has a COI- including someone editing about themselves(as inadvisable as that is). 331dot (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 25

[edit]

01:12, 25 July 2025 review of submission by Dchmin

[edit]

Yes kpop groups announced to disband in 2025 August. 

Dchmin (talk) 01:12, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You don't ask a question. But a Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several reliable independent sources have chosen to publish about a subject in reliable publications, and very little else. Your sandbox is nothing like an article. ColinFine (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:47, 25 July 2025 review of submission by 0 RamenWarrior 0

[edit]

I stumbled upon this article as an avid editor looking for users to help out. In my opinion, this article spends much more wordage discussing the life of Lanza than the original event article, and therefore is notable enough to become its own article. 0 RamenWarrior 0 (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:48, 25 July 2025 review of submission by Charlie Fritzgerald IV

[edit]

I was given the feedback that my draft of an article "Fails WP:NSONG", and contains acceptable/unreliable secondary sources, which i get. If the article failed WP:NSONG, does that mean that the topic itself is not notable and that i should find something else to write about? While I do think that the song was popular, it was hard to find verifiable credible sources that were specifically about the song. Charlie Fritzgerald IV (talk) 04:48, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It means more-or-less that; the nuance is more "you haven't provided enough sources to demonstrate this is notable". Note that streaming plays are effectively tantamount to vendor-specific music charts, which we never consider helpful. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 05:55, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlie Fritzgerald IV: re-signing for ping—Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 05:55, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Considering how difficult it was to find secondary sources that directly were about the song, do you think it would be wise to write about something else? Charlie Fritzgerald IV (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlie Fritzgerald IV: Possibly. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:14, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:22, 25 July 2025 review of submission by CMCMC12

[edit]

Hello, All the sources I have provided are reliable. Interperformances is not only a PR source, it is also a professional basketball agency. Myprincegeorgenow is the newspaper of the city Prince George in Canada. I do not know if Eurobasket is unreliable, but it is usually provided by professionals. CMCMC12 (talk) 09:22, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @CMCMC12. Most sources need to be not only reliable, but also completely independent of the subject. An agency is unlikely to be that. See WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:49, 25 July 2025 review of submission by 78.147.155.37

[edit]

My draft of a biogrpahy for John C. Williams was rejected by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Theroadislong for absence of independent verification of notability. I would like to ask for advice here. As the footnotes, show, he was in the Grove dictionary of music and musicians (which really is the standard for notability in the music world) - received an award for the Sunday Times for the best jazz CD, and was regularly reviewed in the British press. Is there more that you need to signal notability?

James Mark 78.147.155.37 (talk) 09:49, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you are Jamesmark50; remember to log in when posting.
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.
You have described your father's career, but not what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about him and what makes him a notable musician. 331dot (talk) 10:05, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:57, 25 July 2025 review of submission by ThisUserIsVivid

[edit]

I have addressed the last AfC decline (removed more promotional wording, cut weaker refs, reorganised sections) and asked the previous reviewer for any remaining issues, but am still waiting for a response.

Could an uninvolved editor please:

  • point out any wording that still violates WP:NPOV / promotional style; and
  • confirm whether the current sources satisfy WP:NCOMPANY depth/independence, or suggest what else is needed.

That guidance will help me edit in the right direction.

Talk‑page thread for context: Draft talk:Vivid Money#Follow‑up for PunjabiEditor69

Thank you! ThisUserIsVivid (talk) 10:57, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To obtain another review, you need to resubmit the draft. 331dot (talk) 10:58, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:01, 25 July 2025 review of submission by Rezarostamirad

[edit]

Hi, What should I do now? I thought I had written it from a neutral point of view—and I even included the only investigation that happened around them. How can I move it forward? Rezarostamirad (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rezarostamirad. Some problematic language includes:
> Despite its size, the public may not readily recognize the national chain
> Recognizing that a cemetery business must be grown over many generations, Scanlan developed a long-term plan to build and acquire end-of-life facilities that would provide more than just places sanctioned for the final disposition of the deceased. He envisioned a family of cemeteries and full-service funeral homes that would serve the needs of the living.
> an initiative designed to make the cemetery more park-like in atmosphere
> For their customers, this simplified the task of planning, reduced paperwork and eliminated the need for a funeral procession
> To extend their purview within local communities
etc etc
This is the sort of vaguely emotive language you might see in the About Us section of their website, but not on Wikipedia. The content of your draft should only summarise in a dry, factual way what the secondary sources state. qcne (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:10, 25 July 2025 review of submission by Achanandhi M

[edit]

Hi there,

I recently submitted a draft to add information about Keploy on Wikipedia. So far, the draft has been rejected around five times. After each rejection, I made edits and improvements. However, for the last three rejections, I haven't been able to understand the reason, as there doesn’t seem to be any promotional content, and I’ve used independent and reliable sources.

This is my first submission to Wikipedia, so I may have missed something unintentionally. I would really appreciate any guidance or support from the community to help me improve the draft and get it approved.

Looking forward to your feedback!

Thank you so much! Achanandhi M (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Achanandhi M: the last three declines (not 'rejections') were because of insufficient evidence of notability. The general notability guideline WP:GNG requires significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject. Your first source is a blog, and the last one is Crunchbase which is deprecated. I'm not quite sure what the remaining (2nd) source is, but it alone wouldn't be enough toe satisfy GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:14, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Please read and respond to the paid editing query I've posted on your talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:18, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:24, 25 July 2025 review of submission by GYHASHAKE

[edit]

I have received feedback in the recent re-submission that was not accepted that the article for artist David Clendining (Draft:David Clendining) reads like an advertisement. Yet, looking at other accepted artists' profiles, (e.g., Ghazaleh Avarzamani; or Jocelyne Alloucherie; or Jaime Angelopoulos), I do not see the difference in the write-up. I would appreciate some more definitive clarification if someone could take a moment, as to what needs to change. Looking at the examples I've shared here, I think the article on Mr. Clendining should be accepted. GYHASHAKE (talk) 14:24, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GYHASHAKE We don't have "profiles" we have articles. That an article exists does not necessarily mean that it was accepted by anyone, or that it meets current standards. See other stuff exists. Though understandable, it is a poor idea to use any random article as a model or example, as it too could be inappropriate and you would be unaware of that. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles, which have received community vetting.
You have summarized his work, but not what independent reliable sources say is important/significant/influential about him or his work, or in other words how he is a notable artist. 331dot (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The whole url is not needed when linking to another Wikipedia article or page, I've fixed this for you. Just place the title in double brackets, like [[Draft:David Clendening]]. 331dot (talk) 14:50, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:22, 25 July 2025 review of submission by Theochino

[edit]

I am adding sources that are local and international and it is being declined. One of the sources, speak negatively of us, but accurately. What is missing because the denial is vague. Theochino (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have not shown that the organization is a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How do you show notability? This is what we have:
- We organized this: https://www.pbs.org/show/county/ See the screens
- We run the best candidate: https://x.com/SocDemsAmerica/status/1932086139990749475 and https://x.com/SocDemsAmerica/status/1927537654142316703
- The press report on every thing we do: https://x.com/JCColtin/status/1915176606785581303 and https://x.com/JCColtin/status/1915178631975874790
- We are everywhere: https://x.com/SocDemsAmerica/status/1906393288363450748
- They confuse SDA and DSA because nobody understand the difference and there is no wikipedia to explain the difference: https://x.com/SocDemsAmerica/status/1854687490428358764 Theochino (talk) 17:00, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That you are sharing the groups own social media posts in an attempt to show notability shows that you have not done much research on Wikipedia’s definition on notability despite the feedback you have been given, which is frustrating for reviewers.
Notability on Wikipedia is almost entirely based on having multiple independent, in-depth, reliable sources having written about a subject - these sources are then what is used to write the article. Without such sources, no article can exist. -- NotCharizard 🗨 23:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:56, 25 July 2025 review of submission by Gdonlead

[edit]

Hi I have been submitting the page for review. Page is getting rejected. Please help me write about this person. Gdonlead (talk) 16:56, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gdonlead, it has only been declined, not rejected - which means you can improve and re-submit it. You currently haven't proven that this person meets our criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (music). Once you think you have proven criteria and edited the draft accordingly, you can re-submit for review. qcne (talk) 10:38, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:20:10, 25 July 2025 for assistance on AfC submission by UFC 84

[edit]

I am Farmina Usman. I'm an editorial assistant at Mamitua Saber Institute of Research and Creation. I understand that the original draft contained copied content. While I had internal permission to use the material, I now understand Wikipedia requires all content to be freely licensed or paraphrased. I am currently rewriting the article in my own words using reliable sources. My goal is to provide neutral and verifiable information about MSIRC to increase public awareness through Wikipedia.UFC 84 (talk) 17:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 84 That is exactly the wrong reason to create an article, see WP:YESPROMO. A subject must already be known to the public before it merits a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is the last place to write about something, not the first. 331dot (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:47, 25 July 2025 review of submission by TheSWHYPER

[edit]

Please help me correctly upload this music artists wikipage. TheSWHYPER (talk) 23:47, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSWHYPER I am afraid the draft has been rejected, as this person does not yet seem to meet our criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (music). qcne (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 26

[edit]

00:47, 26 July 2025 review of submission by TVresource

[edit]

Hi @Qcne, thank you again for your time and feedback — and I truly appreciate the care and effort you put into maintaining high standards.

I sincerely apologize for the frustration caused by the previous submissions. I understand that missing or improperly rendered citations are a major issue. I've now double-checked every <ref> tag, properly defined all named references, and ensured the full article uses

to display the citations. Everything is now correctly formatted and renders properly in the draft submission editor.

Unfortunately, when copying wikitext into this Help Desk or comment box, it breaks citation rendering and produces errors (like undefined named refs), even if the full submission is valid. To avoid that confusion, I’m pasting the entire article wikitext inside a tag below so you can review the source code without parsing issues. Thank you again for your time, and I’m grateful for any additional guidance. Warmly, —TVresource - Added significant coverage from reliable, independent, secondary sources (e.g., *Shine On Hollywood Magazine*, *Budo Brothers*, *Martial Arts & Action Entertainment*, *Kihapp*, and *UCLA Recreation*) - Reformatted references to proper inline citations using <ref> tags - Removed promotional language and editorializing to ensure neutral encyclopedic tone - Tightened the writing to avoid vague or speculative statements - Verified that all listed credits and biographical claims are supported by cited sources Before the resubmission is reviewed again, I would appreciate if someone could take a quick look and let me know if anything still needs to be addressed. Here is the draft: [[Draft:Tomm Voss]] Thank you so much for your help and time! [[User:TVresource|TVresource]] ([[User talk:TVresource|talk]]) 00:47, 26 July 2025 (UTC) :{{re|TVresource}} I've fixed the link for you. We don't do pre-reviews here (we're all volunteers and have limited time as it is). Did you get a chatbot to write your comment here or any of your draft? '''[[User:ClaudineChionh|ClaudineChionh]]''' <small>([[Wikipedia:Editors' pronouns|''she/her'']] · [[User talk:ClaudineChionh|talk]] · [[Special:EmailUser/ClaudineChionh|email]] · [[m:User:ClaudineChionh|global]])</small> 04:46, 26 July 2025 (UTC) :Hi @[[User:TVresource|TVresource]]. You haven't re-submitted for review since my last decline? And you haven't included any in-line citations? <span style="background-color: RoyalBlue; border-radius: 1em; padding: 3px 3px 3px 3px;">'''[[User:Qcne|<span style="color: GhostWhite">qcne</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Qcne|<span style="color: GhostWhite">(talk)</span>]]</small></span> 10:36, 26 July 2025 (UTC) :Hi @ClaudineChionh and @Qcne, thank you both for taking the time to respond and guide me. :I’ve now updated the Tomm Voss draft with properly formatted inline citations using <ref> tags for each key statement, and included<nowiki> {{Reflist}} to generate the footnotes section. All references are from independent, reliable, secondary sources that provide significant coverage. I hope this addresses the concerns from the most recent decline.

Also, to clarify, while I’ve used tools for formatting help and citation support, I’ve personally reviewed, verified, and organized all sources in alignment with Wikipedia’s standards and the notability guidelines for biographies. I deeply respect the editorial integrity of this platform and want to ensure everything is properly constructed.
Please let me know if there’s anything else needed to improve the submission further.
Sincerely,
@TVresource TVresource (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TVresource You are clearly using ChatGPT to format this draft, and ChatGPT is getting it wrong. Your latest draft version has not a single ref, and just an empty reflist! So it's patently untrue that you have updated it with in-line citations! Stop using AI to format the drafts, actually do the work by following the tutorial at Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1 to properly cite and reference your draft. qcne (talk) 17:51, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Qcne, thank you again for your time and for the feedback.
I want to sincerely apologize for any frustration or confusion this process has caused. I understand how it might appear that I haven’t followed the guidelines, but I truly have been trying to get this right. I’ve made every effort to include properly formatted inline citations using <ref> tags and a {{Reflist}}, and they appear correctly in the preview on my end when editing in source mode.
For some reason, however, they don’t seem to render properly after submission, and I realize now that some references may not be displaying as intended due to formatting conflicts or missing definitions (e.g., named references not being declared before reuse).
My goal is not to bypass Wikipedia’s standards or frustrate reviewers. I respect the time and energy you all invest as volunteers and deeply appreciate the help. I’ve now gone through the referencing tutorials again and carefully corrected and restructured the draft to ensure every citation is properly formatted and declared.
To help clarify, I’m pasting below the full wikitext version of the draft with all inline <ref> tags properly defined, along with the {{Reflist}}. If you see any remaining formatting issues, I welcome any additional tips to ensure I can correct them properly.
Thank you again for your patience and guidance, and for the important work you do.
Sincerely,
—TVresource

@TVresource: do not post the draft here. We all have access to the draft and can read the code. S0091 (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TVresource You're still using an AI chatbot to try and format your references (and your reply was likely AI generated). This is why nothing is working correctly. Ditch the shit robot, use the tutorial at Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1 to actually format your references. I might consider unrejecting the draft if you actually stop abdicating your responsibility to a chatbot and put in the human effort. qcne (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TVresource I agree with @Qcne. It is clear you are using AI and until you stop doing that, help will not be available because we are not here to cleanup or respond to AI slop. S0091 (talk) 19:03, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Qcne and @S0091,
Thank you for your candid feedback and for pointing me toward the VisualEditor tutorial. I now understand that submitting via manual Wikitext and relying on formatting assistance has caused issues and frustration, that wasn’t my intention. I genuinely want to learn and get this right.
I’ll stop using AI formatting tools and will reformat all citations using the VisualEditor as recommended, following the tutorial you linked. I appreciate your patience, and I’m committed to correcting the markup directly and responsibly going forward.
Thanks again for the clarity and your time,
— TVresource TVresource (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TVresource you need to stop using AI for anything here including discussions. The above was clearly written by AI. S0091 (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi S0091 I am here to get this right and follow your guidelines. I am doing my absolute best to be kind and courteous in response to your frustration as I am figuring this out, while navigating and learning this system. I do really appreciate your time and this is not written by AI. Thank you for finding the patience needed to help guide me through this process. I am not understanding why the <Ref> issues keep happening, in the previews its looks fine, but once I submit it is no longer there or in acceptable format, which is just as frustrating for me as I am sure it is for you and every reviewer so far. Again, thank you for your time, patience and support. TVresource (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
P.S I have now spent probably 8 hours on this in total, so I am not taking this lightly. TVresource (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:54, 26 July 2025 review of submission by Elvar Granheim

[edit]

I would like assistance so the Wikipedia site can get better. So people can learn from it. Elvar Granheim (talk) 01:54, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Elvar Granheim I'm afraid that draft is nowhere near the standards required for Wikipedia articles. Please read Help:Your first article and understand that writing a new article from scratch is one of the most difficult tasks on Wikipedia, and not recommended for brand-new editors like yourself. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 04:51, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's why I need help to edit it. Elvar Granheim (talk) 08:34, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't really get into co-editing here at this Help Desk. We can't edit it for you.
I would suggest that you first gain experience and knowledge before continuing to edit the draft. It will remain as long as it is edited at least once every six months(and can be restored if deleted due to inactivity, via WP:REFUND). Try using the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 08:54, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will note this draft falls into a contentious topic (South Asia). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:13, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:05, 26 July 2025 review of submission by Carolaispuro14

[edit]

Wikipedia Team

I have provide all information valid read from news websites in pakistan. Our purpose explore entrepreneur in Asia and Europe. Please Approve this article Carolaispuro14 (talk) 03:05, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Carolaispuro14 Wikipedia is not a business directory or a provider of free advertising space. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 05:01, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked this user as a likely sock or meat of Bilalnazarseo. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:25, 26 July 2025 review of submission by GodspowerChinemerem

[edit]

Hello! I’m requesting assistance with three related draft articles I’ve submitted:

1. Miss Teen Nigeria – A national teen pageant founded in 2017, recently revived with virtual editions and international representation. 2. Vanessa Edem – Miss Teen Nigeria 2024, who gained national media coverage in ThisDay.

I understand I may have a potential conflict of interest (COI), as I am affiliated with the Miss Teen Nigeria organization. I want to contribute transparently and in line with Wikipedia’s policies. I’ve disclosed my COI here and am open to editing only through Talk pages if needed.

All drafts are written in a neutral tone and supported by reliable sources such as Channels Television, ThisDay Live, and The Nation. I would really appreciate feedback on:

- Whether the current sourcing and content meet notability and style guidelines - Whether I should continue editing directly or only propose changes via Talk - How to best move these drafts forward for approval

Thank you very much for your time and guidance!

— User:GodspowerChinemerem GodspowerChinemerem (talk) 08:25, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GodspowerChinemerem You are welcome to continue to edit and resubmit the draft, that is exactly what you should do.
What is the general nature of your conflict of interest? Are you employed by the pageant organization?
You claim that this picture is your own personal work and that you personally hold the copyright to it, but it appears to be a professionally taken image. Do you personally hold the copyright to the image, or does the pageant organization? 331dot (talk) 08:57, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:44, 26 July 2025 review of submission by Plmoin2514

[edit]

How is this not sufficiently notable for inclusion on Wikipedia when it relates to an immigration requirement by Singapore that millions of travelers must complete every month? Other topics for Thailand and Malaysia and other countries already exist on Wikipedia too. Was this permanent rejection a mistake? Plmoin2514 (talk) 09:44, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it was a mistake; the reviewer felt it was a how-to guide rather than an encyclopedia article that summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a topic and show how it is notable. Not every government document is notable, though some are(United States passport, Form 1040) 331dot (talk) 09:48, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you can probably refactor the draft into a summary of secondary sources of the history, adoption, use of the Singapore Arrival Card. Pinging rejecting reviewer @TheTechie. qcne (talk) 10:35, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. However the article is permanently rejected and cannot be re-submitted even if someone improves the draft, which seems really strange for such an important immigration system? It seems that @TheTechie is not interested in responding here and I'm not sure what else to do to request this article be "unlocked" again. Please note that I also submitted the Malaysia Digital Arrival Card article with a very similar format and sources and it was approved immediately. Plmoin2514 (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you can fundamentally change the draft to address the concerns, you should first appeal to the rejecting reviewer to ask that they consider your changes; if they don't for whatever reason, you ask the community here to override the decision of the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rejection here was not a mistake. The previous reviewer declined the draft for the exact same reason, and no such significant changes were made. Other similar articles existing is not a criterion for having such an article, and in addition, many parts of the text were more like a how-to guide than an article. If, however, significant changes were made, I'd be happy to open it for submission again. thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 18:21, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:46, 26 July 2025 review of submission by 41.210.143.189

[edit]

I have tried to make this subject notable for so long now 4 years and i have failed,i request any editor since wikipedia is having volunteer editors to get time and write this article in a way they see that it is notable,i have used reliable sources but it has refused,so i kindly request any person there to help. 41.210.143.189 (talk) 10:46, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid this person simply does not merit an article at this time. You can not create notability out of thing air. qcne (talk) 10:49, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let me provide you all sources talking about him and his media companies here for you to verify 41.210.143.189 (talk) 10:51, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know this person? qcne (talk) 10:54, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He is the Owner Apex Media where i was employed to work on their Nup radio which was to be removed because of accusing NRM people and this was recently talked about by bloggers on Tik Tok even and also red pepper 41.210.143.189 (talk) 11:03, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
he is also a musical artist https://www.boomplay.com/artists/112212467 41.210.143.189 (talk) 11:08, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://dailyexpress.co.ug/2025/07/21/online-publishers-decry-heavy-taxes-harsh-regulation-fees-from-ucc-ura/
https://ugamusic.net/blogs/online-publishers-protest-high-taxes-and-strict-regulations-from-ucc-ura
https://dailyexpress.co.ug/topics/nyanzi-martin-luther/
https://www.tiktok.com/@fricana_boy/video/7513159606722432262
https://pressug.com/2025/03/21/ugandan-teenage-mogul-nyanzi-martin-luther-redefines-entrepreneurship/
https://diasporadigitalmedia.com/teenage-mogul-takes-uganda-by-storm-nyanzi-martin-luthers-rise-to-fame/
https://todayfirstpost.com/nyanzi-martin-luther-the-15-year-old-ugandan-media-mogul/
https://joripress.com/nyanzi-martin-luther-replies-to-the-public-about-his-networth-and-media-ventures
https://www.crunchbase.com/person/nyanzi-martin-luther
https://joripress.com/meet-nyanzi-martin-luther-the-15-year-old-media-mogul-redefining-ugandas-entertainment-industry
https://ground.news/article/ugandan-teenage-mogul-nyanzi-martin-luther-redefines-entrepreneurship 41.210.143.189 (talk) 11:01, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i have others since time is not on my side but i kindly request you to review properly 41.210.143.189 (talk) 11:04, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly,help me i have provided thye sources for you to prove 41.210.143.189 (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All people who have trying to create it,their accounts are banned that they are papets of joan vumilia and i don`t know why. 41.210.143.189 (talk) 10:49, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked as a sock/meat puppet. 331dot (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:56, 26 July 2025 review of submission by BLACKSTONES MEDIA

[edit]

Could you please share the reason for the rejection? I would like to understand it for future improvements. BLACKSTONES MEDIA (talk) 11:56, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BLACKSTONES MEDIA You created a chatbot generated spammy draft with no useful sources. qcne (talk) 12:01, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:03, 26 July 2025 review of submission by MountainWriter42

[edit]

The what should I have done for , publish Chandra Kafle on Wikipedia as a notable. MountainWriter42 (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Justiyaya#Question from MountainWriter42 (11:38, 26 July 2025) qcne (talk) 14:05, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:14, 26 July 2025 review of submission by GJRWhitman

[edit]

i do not know how to delete the last reference regarding visual art. it is irrelevant to Alden Harken. Also, my conflict of interest is that he was my professor and mentor from 1976 through 1990 and taught me how to be a caring physician and adept heart surgeon. Glenn GJRWhitman (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @GJRWhitman in the Career section there are several WP:exceptional claims which require exceptional sources, thus WP:primary sources are not nearly sufficient. What is needed are high-quality independent (no affiliation with him) secondary sources by reputable publications. Also, the Awards section is unsourced. S0091 (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know how to directly respond to Moritoriko but regarding Dr Harken's accomplishments, he has received lifetime awards from the most prestigious societies in the field of surgery and cardiology, which i mention in the body of the document. I find that receiving those awards from his colleagues and disciples as persuasive that his contributions to the field of cardiac and arrhythmia surgery are substantive and worthy of a person cited in Wikipedia. Do the editors have any suggestions for me? Glenn GJRWhitman (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GJRWhitman see my response above. Also, awards are not helpful unless they are major notable awards, such as the Nobel Prize. S0091 (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:12, 26 July 2025 review of submission by Eglass63

[edit]

I'm new here, so I may not fully understand the feedback I received. My draft was rejected for not being sufficeintly noteworthy. My draft was, however, a direct translation of an existing Finnish Wikipedia page, with the same sources (as no English-language equivalents are, to my knowledge, available). The draft was created with Wikipedia's translation tool. I am not sure, under these circumstances, what should be done in order to publish the submission (or if the article simply cannot be translated for English Wikipedia?). Thanks! Eglass63 (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Eglass63: whether an article on this subject exists in the Finnish Wikipedia is neither here nor there, as each language version of Wikipedia is an entirely separate project. That said, an album that has charted can normally be presumed to be notable per WP:NALBUM. I'm pinging the reviewer RangersRus in case they've spotted some reason not to accept this, which I may have missed in my quick scan. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Eglass63: The source for Finland's music chart was misunderstood as it wasn't clear that
Musiikkituottajat is the same. I reviewed the source Musiikkituottajat and see the album is notable. I will re-review again. Thank you @DoubleGrazing:, good catch. Your quick glance is better than mine. RangersRus (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for your kind and quick responses and explanations! Eglass63 (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:28, 26 July 2025 review of submission by IncitatusinFla

[edit]

There are many references for this person, the issue is that they are brief reviews. Not sure what, in the case of a person like her one would provide. IncitatusinFla (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but if brief reviews or other brief coverage (assuming they meet the other three criteria—reliable, secondary and independent) is all that is available, then an article is not possible. S0091 (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That seems unduly harsh. This person was part of an organized entertainment industry that was largely supported by small town people. The references were primary.
Seems that given the criteria that you outlined no early entertainer would be eligible for inclusion. Or, perhaps, very very few. IncitatusinFla (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Our criteria is at Wikipedia:Notability (people) - generally we'd be looking for three sources that provide in-depth coverage about her not based off an interview. qcne (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@IncitatusinFla Are none of your 17 newspaper sources online and accessible on a digital newspaper archive? Even behind a paywall? qcne (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Every one of them is. There are probably 3 times that number. This woman acted for years, all on the road.
What should I do? How to reference in text and then include them?
https://www.newspapers.com/image/1036410567/?match=1&terms=%22miss%20raeburn%22 IncitatusinFla (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are they all brief reviews? There is a way to cite them but if they are all brief mentions about her, then not likely helpful. S0091 (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @IncitatusinFla. It would then be really useful for the reviewers to add these as in-line citations by following the tutorial at Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1. Just paste in the newspapers.com link and it should auto-generate a full reference. qcne (talk) 19:56, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne they have to be clipped in order to use the automatic citation method. I just checked ProQuest which has the historical New York Times but got nothing and that is where one would look for a notable American stage actress. S0091 (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:03, 26 July 2025 review of submission by ASR169

[edit]

please help me out am not getting what exactly mistakes am doing am a new article publisher and need support from your end please let me no what all requirments are needed to improve and post publicly thank and regards akshay 

ASR169 (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ASR169 You have not submitted the draft for review. Please carefully read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and then our criteria for inclusion at Wikipedia:Notability (music). A draft is not possible without reliable references, you have none. qcne (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:12, 26 July 2025 review of submission by Hagtic

[edit]

a lot of rejected Hagtic (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, @Hagtic. You basically wrote Wikipedia:Spam. Did you have a question? qcne (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
am try to create a wiki for my app Hagtic (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please carefully read Wikipedia:Spam. Wikipedia isn't a place to advertise your app. qcne (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
am not advertise my app just am make articale about the app i already read the Wikipedia:Spam Hagtic (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are literally spamming, your account will shortly be blocked. qcne (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Qcne,
I would like to clarify that I am not spamming — I’m genuinely attempting to create a technical and factual article about my app, similar to how other software products are documented on Wikipedia. I understand Wikipedia is not a place for promotion or advertising, and I have read both WP:Spam and WP:Notability (software).
My intent is to write in a neutral, encyclopedic tone, focusing on:
The app’s development history
Its features and privacy practices
Mixed user reception and comparisons with similar apps
Its current limitations, including the lack of third-party media coverage
I recognize now that my first drafts may not have fully met the tone and sourcing expectations. I'm open to constructive guidance and willing to improve the article via the Articles for Creation process.
Please know this was a good-faith contribution, not an attempt to spam or misuse Wikipedia. I kindly ask for reconsideration and the opportunity to revise the content rather than face a block.
Thank you for your time, and I appreciate your work in maintaining Wikipedia’s standards. Hagtic (talk) 21:45, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First draft speedy deleted WP:G11. Second draft at Draft:Moooby APP rejected and up for speedy deletion WP:G11. OP indef'ed as a promotional account. Meters (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 27

[edit]

02:02, 27 July 2025 review of submission by 2407:5200:401:A847:D5FB:65A7:18C6:8AD8

[edit]

manish rai is famous fashion designer of nepal, is popular, and works with most celebs of Nepal, inclduing Miss Nepal. I think he is popular enough to be featured, why am i getting rejected again & again. 2407:5200:401:A847:D5FB:65A7:18C6:8AD8 (talk) 02:02, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been deleted as purely promotional with no evidence of notability. For future reference, being "famous" or "popular" is of zero interest to us, we only care about whether someone or something is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:06, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:23, 27 July 2025 review of submission by Allakas

[edit]

I don’t get why the page keeps getting rejected. I feel like I have included enough sources, there are a lot of news articles about him, and I have tried to stay neutral to the best of my ability. If possible, could someone please go through and check? Allakas (talk) 11:23, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allakas 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.
If you feel that you have addressed the concerns of the reviewers(as stated on the draft), you should resubmit the draft for another review. Before you do that, though, you may want to ask the prior reviewers directly if you've done as they asked. 331dot (talk) 11:44, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:29, 27 July 2025 review of submission by Edouglasww

[edit]

I really don't know what else I can do to get this submission approved. There's been a lot more press about the band and its new releases, but I don't even know the best way to add those references and not sure I should bother since this seems to be outright nixed and I'm not allowed to resubmit. Edouglasww (talk) 15:29, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe you can now address the concerns left by reviewers, you should make those changes, then appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly and ask them to reconsider.The coverage needs to be significant- more than just the mere reporting of the band's activities, sources that provide analysis. 331dot (talk) 15:36, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made the changes... this reviewer put STOP on the page and it's no longer available to resubmit. I do not understand this at all. Listen, they're not going to be eligible for a Nobel Peace Prize...they're a rock band from Brooklyn. There are many of them but few with such an output of music over the past 14 years. What more do you want? Edouglasww (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @SafariScribe qcne (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:09, 27 July 2025 review of submission by Edouglasww

[edit]

I keep being told this page is not sufficient or notable for inclusion on Wikipedia even though I've found dozens of citations and references to the band's work and their coverage by other media, including reviews. I no longer am allowed to even submit this page even though it's linked to from other band's pages. Edouglasww (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Edouglasww looking at the sources, many of them are blogs which are not reliable sources (see WP:BLOGS) nor are PR sites like Baby Robot Media. In addition, what the band says about itself (interviews, their website, etc.) are not useful for notability nor are press releases/announcements. I am not seeing a single source that meets the criteria. S0091 (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:33, 27 July 2025 review of submission by B.Hawkins.Cornwall

[edit]

Reason for requesting assistance: I am requesting help to improve this draft on Ben Hawkins, a Cornish-born photographer and filmmaker. The draft includes verifiable recognition from international competitions (Top 100 ILPOTY 2023, London Photography Awards Gold), film collaborations with the Duchy of Cornwall, and features in independent publications including Cornwall Life Magazine, The Bristol Magazine, and CommunityAd. I'm unsure if the current references meet Wikipedia's notability standards or if further citation formatting is required. Guidance on improving sourcing, tone, or structure to meet acceptance criteria would be appreciated. B.Hawkins.Cornwall (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@B.Hawkins.Cornwall you used AI, likely ChatGPT, to create the draft and its output or instructions included the decline so essentially you declined your own draft. You need to remove everything and start over without using AI as their output is unacceptable. See Your first article. S0091 (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thanks I get it B.Hawkins.Cornwall (talk) 17:51, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:48, 27 July 2025 review of submission by Mdsharufmiah24

[edit]

I had made a page but i cannot submitted. I Don't know why i am facing that kind of problem. Really i need you help. I given all right information on the page. Mdsharufmiah24 (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mdsharufmiah24. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn or social media, your draft was just a page telling the world about you. qcne (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am a student and junior researcher. So I have opened a Wikipedia account. This way everyone will know me and I can record all my achievements here. I hope you will help me publish it. If you need any information, please let me know. I will try to provide it immediately. Thank you Mdsharufmiah24 (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mdsharufmiah24 That is not what Wikipedia is for. Please carefully read Wikipedia:Spam. Go to another website if you want to promote yourself. Your draft will stay rejected. qcne (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
how can solve this problem? Please help me Mdsharufmiah24 (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Mdsharufmiah24. As Qcne told you, you can solve this problem by stopping trying to use Wikipedia to promote yourself. That is the whole of the answer.
If you wish to contribute to Wikipedia without promoting anything or anybody - especially yourself - you will be welcome. But promotion is never welcome here. ColinFine (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:51, 27 July 2025 review of submission by İlyas Deli

[edit]

Hello, and thank you for your kind response.

I noticed that my draft article was declined, and I would appreciate some clarification about the specific reasons. I would like to improve it according to Wikipedia's guidelines.

Could you please let me know what exactly needs to be changed, improved, or added for it to be accepted? I’m especially interested in understanding whether the subject meets notability criteria and if the sources I used were appropriate.

I’m new to editing on Wikipedia and eager to learn, so any guidance or feedback would be very helpful. Thank you once again for your time and support.

Best regards, İlyas Deli. 27/07/2025 İlyas Deli (talk) 17:51, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@İlyas Deli Your biggest issue is the lack of in-line citations. Please carefully read the tutorial at Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1. Every biographic statement should have the source that verifies it formatted as an in-line citation directly after the statement. You have 12 in-line citations, but they're all bunched at the bottom of the draft. qcne (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your helpful feedback, qcne. I appreciate your time and guidance. I will carefully go through the tutorial you recommended and make sure to add proper in-line citations directly after each biographic statement, as advised. Your support is much appreciated! İlyas Deli (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@İlyas Deli also see the notability guidelines for academics or an alternative is the guidelines for authors. For authors, generally was is needed are multiple critical reviews of across multiple works. S0091 (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you,S0091 , for pointing that out. I’ll review the notability guidelines for academics as well as the ones for authors, as you suggested. I understand that for authors, multiple critical reviews across different works are usually required, and I’ll work on gathering and integrating such sources where possible. Your guidance is very helpful! İlyas Deli (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:15, 27 July 2025 review of submission by Mdsharufmiah24

[edit]

Sir, How can solve that problem? Mdsharufmiah24 (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot, @Mdsharufmiah24. The draft has been rejected. Please go elsewhere to another website to record your achievements. qcne (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which website? Will i go Mdsharufmiah24 (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know? LinkedIn? Facebook? Twitter? qcne (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:04, 27 July 2025 review of submission by RadiationWonk

[edit]

Hi, I'm one of the people who have worked on this page, and I just saw that it was rejected from AfC for the second time for a lack of notability. The last time this happened, I asked on live help what would be required to demonstrate this, and I ended up adding several news articles from Wired, Scientific American, Science News and Ars Technica, which I believe demonstrates "significant coverage" in "reliable sources" that are "independent" of the subject. Please let me know what further evidence would be required to accept this submission. Thank you! RadiationWonk (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RadiationWonk Looking at the sources you mentioned (Wired, Scientific American, Science News and Ars Technica), they are all reporting on one particular experiment, not the COHERENT Collaboration as a whole. Two of these sources don't even mention the COHERENT collaboration. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:17, 27 July 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. 331dot (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @RadiationWonk. Many sections are cited only to primary sources. If nobody independent has written about a project, what is it doing in a Wikipedia article?
There are also external links in several sections. These should almost never be used within the text: either convert them into citations, if appropriate, or remove them. ColinFine (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ColinFine Thanks for your input. I will work on converting external links. With regards to primary sources, almost half the articles cited meet Wikipedia's criteria for scientific articles as secondary sources: "Narrative reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses are considered secondary sources, because they are based on and analyze or interpret (rather than merely citing or describing) these original experimental reports." By this metric, anything using the Collaboration results which is not published by the Collaboration would be a secondary source to the Collaboration's work. This includes annual reviews of particle physics, and analyses by independent groups of COHERENT data. For instance, the first result by the Collaboration, published in Science, has over 800 citations alone. Only the most prominent were included in the draft article. In the scientific community, it is clear that the Collaboration is notable.
Beyond the news and scientific articles mentioning the Collaboration, what more would specifically be required to demonstrate this in the article?
The article also fills in a gap in Wikipedia: several existing Wikipedia articles reference the Collaboration, with or without a red link. For example: List of neutrino experiments, Kate Scholberg (whose work on COHERENT was cited in her induction as a AAAS fellow), CONUS experiment (an experiment searching for the same process whose results were published much later than COHERENT). RadiationWonk (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RadiationWonk Your draft is missing significant coverage of the COHERENT Collaboration. Analysis of one particular result, and mere mentions of the Collaboration, are not the same as significant coverage of the COHERENT Collaboration itself. See also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the existence of other articles which may be of poor quality does not imply that more problematic articles should be published. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:01, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:10, 27 July 2025 review of submission by Dwest2018

[edit]

I was flagged for possible conflict of interest. How do I disclose my interest to people? I am an unpaid - I have not any compensation as a researcher. I am a 40 year resident and help a grassroots group with research. Grassroots according to Wikipedia means volunteers - citizens - and who are not paid. How do I disclose this identity? . Thank you sincerely. Dwest2018 (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just write a statement on your user page(User:Dwest2018). You wrote about your group in the draft, this is a COI. 331dot (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article not accepted because " Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Santa Clara, California instead." How may I add the content as a second page that adds additional facts I have found? Dwest2018 (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dwest2018 Please edit this existing section, don't create additional threads.
Your draft is located at Draft:Downtown Santa Clara CA- you need to use that full title when linking.
You should expand the existing Santa Clara article, and then make a case that the content you add should be spun off into another article. 331dot (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:14, 27 July 2025 review of submission by ArtistsandAfilliates

[edit]

Hi, I'm not quite understanding the reason for the last denial. The subject in question (Jon O'Connor) is a notable, world touring musician, with numerous cited reputable sources. Can you please assist me with this? Maybe there's something I'm not getting here, but it just seems the reviewers are taking a dig at the content for no reason, & looking for issues where there aren't any. They've mentioned A.i or chat Gpt which I'm neither & I think bots. So, please tell me what do I have to do here?! ArtistsandAfilliates (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear on how he meets WP:BAND? His bands may merit articles, but I'm not sure he does. 331dot (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 28

[edit]

07:19, 28 July 2025 review of submission by Peshwa Acharya

[edit]

Can you give me more brief on what was the reason the page was not submitted? Peshwa Acharya (talk) 07:19, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Peshwa Acharya: your draft was deleted as promotional. It was basically a CV/resume, and we don't publish such content. Also, you should not be writing about yourself in the first place, per WP:AUTOBIO. As the rejecting reviewer suggested, you should try LinkedIn instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:36, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide me some reference on how I should write the content for my wiki page? Peshwa Acharya (talk) 06:54, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:29, 28 July 2025 review of submission by RavenFox94

[edit]

Could you please help me with my draft? I tried to include all relevant information in neutral tone and added references to external sources for the information. This man is a founder of a beach soccer team that has been number one in world rankings, currently number two and published a few books. I believe this is notable enough to have a wikipedia page or am I wrong? RavenFox94 (talk) 09:29, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:35, 28 July 2025 review of submission by Jcopperwaite

[edit]

I have two main points that I'm trying to clarify when looking to get my page approved:

1) The draft was criticised for lack of reliable source material

2) The being sections that are unsourced

To both points, the article was based on an in-depth biography by the Victoria Bar, and I was struggling to balance out interesting details, along with trying to avoid outright plagerism of their writing.

As their piece often covered specific time periods or experiences in a paragraph, I tried to replicate some of this, assuming that I could then cite a footnote to that paragraph, to cover all of the proceeding.

Is that incorrect, or can someone point me in a better stylistic approach? (E.g. citing each 'event' that may entice curiosity) Jcopperwaite (talk) 10:35, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Jcopperwaite.
If he was a member of the Victorian Bar, then a biography published by the Bar is not an independent source. This means that it may only be used for uncontroversial factual information, and does not contribute towards establishing that he meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Ditto Arthur's Creek and Abound Community. The ADB piece about Ahkanasy does not mention Hulme, and so does not provide verification for the information where it is cited. The AFR article might meet the criteria (it's paywalled, so I've only looked at the opening) but a single solid source is rarely enough.
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.
You therefore have almost no sources which are capable of establishing that he is notable in Wikipedia's sense, and so almost no sources on which to base an article. You need to find several sources which all meet the criteria in WP:42, and then write the article based on those sources - this will probably mean starting again.
Oh. and Wikipedia should almost never be cited, as it is not a reliable source, being user-generated. I would say "cite the relevant source on which the Wikipedia article is based, but Queen's College, Melbourne gives no source for the information in question. (In fact, it is almost devoid of useful sources, and I shall tag it accordingly.)
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) 17:17, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @ColinFine
Thank you for the feedback, and I appreciate the depth at which you went into, including linking out to other support articles.
Upon reviewing sources and comparing them to the others linked in my draft, I can see a limited number of independent sources (e.g., books, newspaper articles) about the subject.
Being interviewed by the Victorian Bar, I understand that he was a member.
Abound Commnunities named a building after him, which I thought would be "uncontroversial factual information", but I concede he was also on the board.
Arthur's Creek Wine was a statement from a notable Wine Reviewer, but would also be "uncontroversial factual information"
Do you think that a shorter page would be accepted, or would the better option in this case be the inclusion of Hulme in the various lists of achievement, as those awards appear notable (Order of Australia, Rhodes Scholarship, etc)? Jcopperwaite (talk) 13:57, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:39, 28 July 2025 review of submission by Lad71

[edit]

I would like to ask you for specific editing tips for succesfull publishing a draft. Thank you much Lad71 (talk) 11:39, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lad71. You don't have any sources. Please very carefully read Wikipedia:Verifiability and then read our criteria for businesses at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). qcne (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:48, 28 July 2025 review of submission by TeenX808

[edit]

Can someone help me to improve this article and can anyone elaborate on the reason why this article got declined when I have followed the WP:AFC guidelines and others. Thanks - TeenX808 (talk) 11:48, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TeenX808: I would be incredibly cautious here as this is in a contentious topic (South Asia). What I will tell you is that your book cites all appear to be incomplete:
—Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:32, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TeenX808: I would also find somewhere else to edit; an admin has extended-confirmed-protected the draft as Arbitration enforcement (WP:ARBIMH#Indian military history extended-confirmed restriction). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:07, 28 July 2025 review of submission by Andra Tobosaru

[edit]

Hello,

I have created a draft article titled "Romanian Commodities Exchange" (Draft:Romanian_Commodities_Exchange) and submitted it for review. However, it has not yet been moved to the main Wikipedia space.

I would appreciate guidance on how to improve the draft to meet Wikipedia's notability and sourcing requirements. The draft includes a detailed description of the exchange’s structure, market roles, and regional impact, supported by a self-published article hosted on Zenodo (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.16533704).

Could you please advise on additional reliable and independent sources that would strengthen the article’s chances for approval? Any recommendations for improving the article’s style or content are also welcome.

Thank you very much for your help! 

Andra Tobosaru (talk) 12:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Andra Tobosaru. This draft was rejected as being unsuitable for Wikipedia. There is simply no evidence the organisation meets our criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). As such, the draft won't be considered further and I suggest you write about something else.
The only way forward is for you to substantially change the draft with concrete evidence of notability, and then appeal to the rejecting reviewer. qcne (talk) 12:18, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the new version: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Commodities_Exchange#cite_note-1 Andra Tobosaru (talk) 12:58, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Andra Tobosaru Why did you create a new version in mainspace which is substantially worse than the draft? I will mark it for deletion. qcne (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
New version draft:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Romanian_Commodities_Exchange#Retail_Market Andra Tobosaru (talk) 06:32, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kovcszaln6 since the new version of the draft is substantially different to the one you rejected, would you un-reject the draft to allow a new review? qcne (talk) 15:33, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne: Considering that (1) the AfD is currently an unopposed delete, (2) the sources in the draft are either passing mentions of the organization or unrelated, and (3) the draft seems AI-generated with few sources and unrelated stuff (etymology of the word retail?), I don't see a chance that it would be accepted. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fair to me. @Andra Tobosaru I highly suggest you write about something else and abandon this draft for now. qcne (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:10, 28 July 2025 review of submission by Gkvirtualmedia

[edit]

Kindly check my content and recorrect the content to live my page Gkvirtualmedia (talk) 12:10, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeffed qcne (talk) 12:16, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:59, 28 July 2025 review of submission by Andra Tobosaru

[edit]

This is the new version:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Commodities_Exchange#cite_note-1 Andra Tobosaru (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Andra Tobosaru: Today you learn what "Publish and be damned" means. The draft was rejected and will not be considered further. The mainspace version is being debated at Articles for Deletion. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:26, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:45, 28 July 2025 review of submission by Migupe

[edit]

Hi there,

Thank you for reviewing my draft regarding Nestlé Professional. I read the feedback given by the editors, and I am happy to change the draft accordingly. I'd appreciate if you could share a little bit more on where does the article sound promotional or if there is an issue with the added sources on the second draft so I can change them. Additionally, if there is something that seems to be created by an AI tool I can change it as well. I will definitely change anything that is not compliant with Wikipedia's requirements Migupe (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just blatant advertising WP:TNT is required. Theroadislong (talk) 15:03, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Migupe. Usually "reads like an advertisement" means that it reads as what the subject wants people to know about itself.
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) 17:26, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:56, 28 July 2025 review of submission by Courtney Dunne

[edit]

I resubmitted my article with the references tag because it said I was using inline citations incorrectly. Are they now correct? Courtney Dunne (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be, but the reviewer will look at it.
You must cite or remove the information about his family. 331dot (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, @Courtney Dunne. However in a biography every statement requires an in-line citation, and you have quite a few unsourced statements. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. qcne (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
could you give me an example of one that needs citing? Courtney Dunne (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The entire Early Life and Education and Personal Life sections? qcne (talk) 15:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please also address the issue of undisclosed paid editing. Theroadislong (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify this issue? I am not being paid to edit. Courtney Dunne (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are editing using the name of an employee of Olympus, this would make you a paid editor. Theroadislong (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Courtney Dunne: if you're writing about your employer and/or colleagues you are automatically considered a paid editor, even if you're not explicitly paid to edit Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are also editing the company page here Olympus Partners. Theroadislong (talk) 15:23, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:06, 28 July 2025 review of submission by B.Hawkins.Cornwall

[edit]

Will my links be sufficient enough to get my page verified please !!

Regards Ben B.Hawkins.Cornwall (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @B.Hawkins.Cornwall. I removed the ChatGPT malformed decline notice. You can now submit your draft for review properly. However I note all your citations are formatted incorrectly, please follow the tutorial at Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1 and do not use ChatGPT to try and format them for you. qcne (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok thanks B.Hawkins.Cornwall (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:27, 28 July 2025 review of submission by SpainMMAfan123

[edit]

Hello, my draft Mansur abdul malik has been declined, it was by the same person 3 times in a row and they also deleted one of my articles and I think that they have a bias against me and I think it meets WP:GNG and I would like a different person to review it SpainMMAfan123 (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of the declines was because you made no changes to the draft.
That you didn't get the results you want does not mean that the reviewer is "biased against" you. You both have too many references(one line has 15 references) and parts that are unsourced. This isn't due to bias of the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
what part is unsourced also how does he not meet GNG and all of the references are not to verify but to show that many news sources have discussed him SpainMMAfan123 (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "Amateur Mixed Martial Arts" section has no sources.
Instead of putting 15 citations for one line you should be summarizing what those 15 sources say about him. 331dot (talk) 19:01, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.tapology.com/fightcenter/fighters/236993-mansur-abdul-malik#:~:text=add_circle-,AMATEUR%20BOUTS,-W SpainMMAfan123 (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply?SpainMMAfan123 (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to what? You just posted a link. I don't need the link, the draft does. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the draft has the link in the sherdog record SpainMMAfan123 (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. You still need to do as I've suggested, in my opinion at least. 331dot (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it already has the link and how could I get somebody else to review it? SpainMMAfan123 (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the reviewer that's the problem, but if you resubmit it, another one should look at it. 331dot (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SpainMMAfan123 I have resubmitted it on your behalf and marked it under review by me. I will start a discussion on the talk page so look there. I may not be able to get it today though. S0091 (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SpainMMAfan123: Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
Literally half of your sources focus on the Brundage/Abdul-Malik match. This is a massive issue. I strongly suggest finding other sources about him that are somewhat divorced from that particular bout and heavily cutting down the sources around that fight, since right now it looks like the chaff is choking the wheat. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:13, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:01, 28 July 2025 review of submission by Lavaprod

[edit]

i was just knowing why did you do that like its just my draft called missile attacks in syria like can you tell me why? Lavaprod (talk) 21:01, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lavaprod see April 2018 missile strikes against Syria, Southern Syria clashes (July 2025–present), March 2025 Western Syria clashes, etc. S0091 (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
so do i have to delete the references? Lavaprod (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lavaprod: That wouldn't do anything. The draft is being declined because it's redundant to existing articles, as S0091 says above. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:15, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok :( Lavaprod (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lavaprod drafts are deleted automatically if they have not been edited by a human in 6 months. If you would like it be deleted earlier, you can place {{db-author}} at the top and an admin will delete, usually within hours, but it does no harm to leave it so that's up to you. S0091 (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i was actually inspired Lavaprod (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
also it was edited by a human which was me Lavaprod (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
y'know what im adding {{db-author}} now Lavaprod (talk) 01:07, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i mean its beacuse i was inspired by these Lavaprod (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:08, 28 July 2025 review of submission by BeakerTheBee

[edit]

Hello, I received feedback that I need more citations for this drafted page of our new president, but much of the content would be citing the institution, instead of third party sources. Do you have any recommendations about how to go about this? We are trying to get this page launched because the Wikipedia page of our former president continues to be a top search item and we would like to get the current president up there. Thank you for your help. BeakerTheBee (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"? What is the general nature of your conflict of interest?
If you have no independent sources with significant coverage, this person would not merit an article at this time. One president meriting an article, if they do, doesn't necessarily mean others do. We aren't concerned with search results. 331dot (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 29

[edit]

01:16, 29 July 2025 review of submission by Lavaprod

[edit]

i edited this article as a human cant you know that i added {{db-author}} beacuse you hurt my feelings i was inspired to the other articles Lavaprod (talk) 01:16, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lavaprod: None of us have mentioned anything about whether or not the article was written by a human; the issue is (and always has been) the draft is redundant with multiple articles. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 02:47, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:34, 29 July 2025 review of submission by Nelson0628

[edit]

Hello, respected editors,

I am writing to request a review of a draft Wikipedia article about myself, Nelson Agricola Bautista, a Filipino nurse and clinical educator. I am fully disclosing that I am the subject of the article and the person who has written the draft. I understand this represents a conflict of interest (COI), and I am committed to following Wikipedia’s policies by seeking input from neutral editors before proceeding.

The draft is currently in my sandbox: 🔗 User:Nelson0628/sandbox

The article includes: - A summary of my nursing career and advocacy work - A verifiable awards table with references from credible news sources and official award sites - A neutral tone, with no promotional language

I would sincerely appreciate it if a neutral editor could: - Review the draft for notability, tone, and compliance with Wikipedia standards - Provide feedback on citation formatting or other improvements - Advise on whether it is appropriate for article space

Thank you very much for your time and guidance.

Kind regards, Nelson Bautista Nelson0628 (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the information needed to submit it for a review. While not forbidden, writing about yourself is ill-advised and not likely to be successful, see the autobiography policy. Wikipedia wants to know what others say about you in independent reliable sources, not what you want to say about yourself. 331dot (talk) 01:43, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:01, 29 July 2025 review of submission by 2403:5808:F50B:0:6DE6:AA07:7CB2:E069

[edit]

My Wikipedia page submission keeps being declined due to a reported lack of significant coverage of the film. I’m hoping to get more clarity on how I can improve the page and strengthen the references.

In my most recent submission, I included 10 references to reliable, secondary sources. I’ve seen other film articles with fewer citations that have been approved, so I’m unsure what might be missing in my case.

Any further context would be really appreciated. One potential issue I’ve considered is that the film was originally titled Overture during production, and was later changed to The Travellers for release. I wonder if this name change is affecting how the sources are being evaluated or picked up.

Thanks in advance for your guidance. 2403:5808:F50B:0:6DE6:AA07:7CB2:E069 (talk) 05:01, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:25, 29 July 2025 review of submission by Ryle Marshall

[edit]

My contribution has been deleted this information was not already listed on Wikipedia and was unreliable sources Ryle Marshall (talk) 05:25, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:50, 29 July 2025 review of submission by Ryle Marshall

[edit]

It has been declined Ryle Marshall (talk) 05:50, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 08:59, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell, Krypto the Runt is a quite blatant hoax. I can't find anything on the show in an online search other than copy-pasted articles across Fandom wikis (string: "krypto the runt"); contrast The Brothers Flub (an obscure late-90's cartoon that ran on Nickelodeon for about half-a-season before being mothballed). I'd expect something other than Fandom for a cartoon that ran on Nick or its sister station MTV. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:59, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:47, 29 July 2025 review of submission by Andra Tobosaru

[edit]

New version draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Romanian_Commodities_Exchange#Central_Counterparty_%28CCP%29 Andra Tobosaru (talk) 06:47, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Andra Tobosaru: that's not a question; did you have something in mind you wanted to ask?
While waiting, let me ask you a question: why have you copypasted the rejected draft into the main article space? This was rejected because there is no evidence that the subject is notable. By creating another copy in the main space, all you've done is generate extra work for AfD, which is perpetually congested anyway.
And for future reference, if you do decide to bypass the AfC process and unilaterally move content into the main encyclopaedia, please do exactly that, move it, don't copypaste it, because the latter loses the draft's edit history.
One other thing: having done all that, why are you still developing the rejected draft further, given that you already have a published version in the main space? DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:02, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Please read and respond to the paid editing query on your talk page. And please be aware that you are not allowed to publish directly articles in the subject of which you have a conflict of interest. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:09, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I add this to my wikipedia page: "Andra Tobosaru, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they have been paid by Bursa Română de Mărfuri on behalf of BRM for their contributions to Wikipedia."
I would like to continue improving the draft based on reliable, independent sources, and I will propose any substantial changes via the Talk page if needed, after adding this. Andra Tobosaru (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Andra Tobosaru: this has created a bit of a mess. There is arguably not much point in developing the draft any further, because of the mainspace article having been already taken to an AfD deletion discussion. If that discussion results in a 'delete' verdict, then that will make it unlikely for the draft to be accepted. And if it results in 'keep' (unlikely as that may be), then again the draft cannot be accepted, since there is already a published article on the same subject.
It would make more sense to develop the published article further, which might also help avoid it being deleted, only you're now unable to do that since it has been published in the main encyclopaedia, given your paid-editing conflict of interest. (That's yet another reason why it would have much better to keep it in the draft space only.)
But thanks for disclosing your paid editing, at any rate. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:03, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing: I Bastard-Helper-From-Hell'd the sources in the draft and put my conclusions on the AfD debate. Whether the sourcing exists is an open question, but what we've been shown ain't it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:18, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and what's also not helping proceedings is that there is the draft and the published article, and there are (at least) two threads on this help desk, so we seem to be all talking past each other. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:06, 29 July 2025 review of submission by 202.134.11.225

[edit]

Subject: Help with Draft:M. Enamul Hossain – Feedback and Suggestions

Hello,

I have created a draft article titled Draft:M. Enamul Hossain and would appreciate feedback from experienced editors to improve it for submission into mainspace.

Professor M. Enamul Hossain is a Canadian academic, researcher, and entrepreneur with over 200 published papers and 10 books (some published by Wiley). He is the founder, CEO, and President of NSRIC Inc., a global educational and research organization headquartered in Canada. He has received several international awards and is known for his contributions to petroleum engineering and sustainable energy research.

Could someone kindly:

Review the current draft and provide suggestions for improvement?

Advise whether it meets the notability criteria for academics?

Recommend specific sources or structural improvements if necessary?

Thank you very much in advance for your time and help. 202.134.11.225 (talk) 07:06, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "current draft" was rejected on 30 May and has not been edited since then. Unless there have been new developments in the last two months to justify Prof. Hossain's inclusion here, the draft will not be considered further. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 09:15, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:47, 29 July 2025 review of submission by LbnSchoolResearcher

[edit]

i want to know why my article isnt being published LbnSchoolResearcher (talk) 08:47, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has not currently been submitted, however the content is blatant advertising so would be declined. Theroadislong (talk) 08:57, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:11, 29 July 2025 review of submission by Hala Aldarwish

[edit]

This draft is intended as a neutral, encyclopedic overview of fleet management systems as a technology category, not a promotion of any specific company, product, or service. It includes references from academic and governmental sources, and does not contain brand names or sales language. I am happy to revise the draft further to ensure compliance with Wikipedia's neutrality standards and to remove any sentences that may appear promotional. Hala Aldarwish (talk) 09:11, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been deleted as promotional. Only administrators can view the deleted content. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 09:21, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've recreated the draft, which is a bit sneaky. If it's the same as the deleted version, it will most likely be deleted for the same reason. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 09:25, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:05, 29 July 2025 review of submission by LiberumVerba

[edit]

Hello everyone, my article draft was declined due to the references. I used the same criteria adopted for the publication of the article on the Italian wiki. In any case, I would like to know if the references must necessarily be in English or if references in other languages (not only Italian) are also acceptable. Thanks for your help. LiberumVerba (talk) 10:05, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LiberumVerba You need the "Draft:" portion of the title when linking. I fixed this.
References do not need to be in English. You do, however, need to make sure that your company meets our notability criteria for companies, which may be different from the Italian Wikipedia's requirements. 331dot (talk) 10:11, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of any notability the draft is just blatant promotion, the company telling us everything they want us to know about them. Theroadislong (talk) 10:12, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:32, 29 July 2025 review of submission by Luv2learn87

[edit]

Hello my article submission was denied because of sources. However the source of the main 2 articles are from an actual publication, The North Dallas Gazette. Please help me understand why this newspaper is not valid. Thanks Luv2learn87 (talk) 10:32, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luv2learn87 You need the "Draft:" portion of the title when linking, I have fixed this for you.
The draft does little more than state that the documentary exists. Nothing is said about why it is a notable film. Independent, professional reviews usually do that. 331dot (talk) 10:39, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Luv2learn87: both the citations are to the same source (which is a hyper-local one), and both cover the film only in passing. For notability per WP:GNG, we need to see significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are both reliable and entirely independent of the subject and of each other. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:39, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being selected in multiple film festivals globally isn't significant coverage? Luv2learn87 (talk) 10:58, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It might, if those festivals themselves have articles about them(I haven't checked). Ideally even if that's the case, there should be more information than "it was in the festival". 331dot (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:57, 29 July 2025 review of submission by Ptothehyphen

[edit]

Hi team! I’ve already responded to my talk page but wanted to ask her also. My article was declined since I used ChatGPT to compose and edit it. I’ve read through the LLM but I’m still unsure what to edit/omit. Should I do a brand new write up? The truth is, ChatGPT was incredibly helpful for formatting and spellcheck. I can only imagine the number of articles created by AI nowadays, so I understand the challenges in verification. Any advice is appreciated, thanks. Ptothehyphen (talk) 11:57, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ptothehyphen I fixed your link for proper display, you need the full title, including the "Draft:" portion.
You should rewrite the draft in your own words, yes. You may do this on the existing draft, you don't need to create a new one. 331dot (talk) 12:01, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, thanks for the help! Ptothehyphen (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Ptothehyphen. I responded on your User Talk Page too. qcne (talk) 15:33, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:27, 29 July 2025 review of submission by Fedor music

[edit]

Hello! Can you review my page point out potential flaws so that it can be officially published? Thank you in advance! Fedor Vrtacnik Fedor music (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Fedor music we do not do pre-reviews so if you want it reviewed you need to resubmit it (click the blue "Resubmit" button). S0091 (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fedor music ...although one thing I can tell you already now, you need to place the citations next to (immediately after) the information which they support, not all piled together at the end. That way the reviewer can see where each piece of information comes from, and how much of this remains unsupported. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:23, 29 July 2025 review of submission by Elvar Granheim

[edit]

Specificly which sources does not qualifies for a Wikipedia article? Elvar Granheim (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1303229989"