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
Jun 2025
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

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


May 16

[edit]

03:45, 16 May 2025 review of submission by Tizzythewhale

[edit]

help me to publish this article Tizzythewhale (talk) 03:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has been rejected and will not be considered any further. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And also on the buzzy/weaselly side of things in its lede, I might add. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 10:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:11, 16 May 2025 review of submission by Ameer khan 1995

[edit]

I have posted one draft movie review it's got rejected why 

Ameer khan 1995 (talk) 12:11, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ameer khan 1995: we don't host movie reviews, this is an encyclopaedia. You can try your luck at some film site or social media platform. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:43, 16 May 2025 review of submission by Tmarturano

[edit]

Hello - I am trying to address rejection of an article based on this feedback:

"This person is probably notable but the page needs a few changes. There doesn't need to be a list of his articles at the end, and his own articles shouldn't be used as refs. This line "He then transitioned into the corporate world, taking on significant roles within Fortune 500 companies" isn't really clear, was he a corporate lawyer or something?"

The editor seems to raise three new issues (I had already corrected issues from a prior editor):

(1) there doesn't need to be "a list of his articles at the end" — as it references "his articles" I am not sure whether this is referring to: (a) the "Further Reading" section (which was added at the prior editor's suggestion) which contains article "about him"; or (b) the "Bibliography Scholarly" which contains articles "by him"? Which do you recommend I remove?

(2) "his own articles shouldn't be used as references" — the only article that matches that description is one by Lemke (reference notes 14-16) in which the subject of the article was a co-author — it is used to support the fact that he founded and was an editor at the Texas Education Review, which is where the article was published. The article is about the process of launching that journal, and was written by the founders of the journal (one of which is the subject). As he was the founder and editor-in-chief, he will of necessity be the "source" of that information although (a) the primary author was another person; and (b) it was published in a scholarly journal. I cannot find any other source for that fact. Should I just delete that information and reference?

(3) As for — "He then transitioned into the corporate world, taking on significant roles within Fortune 500 companies" isn't really clear — I propose replacing that language with a quote form the source at reference note 22 "After forming a law partnership with Tim Tuggey, Ruth Kelleher Agather, and Stanley Rosenberg in 1996, in 2001, Calvoz went on to work as in-house counsel with 3M Company, and subsequently served as Executive Committee Member, Europe for Travelocity, based in its London Office."

All suggestions and recommendations appreciated.

Thank you! Tmarturano (talk) 14:43, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:06, 16 May 2025 review of submission by Sunny Bergenova

[edit]

Hello,

My draft about Miras Zhugunussov was declined, and I was ready to let it go. But recently, I discovered that my original text was copied word for word and published on the Wikitia platform, without my permission or credit. That made me realize how much this work mattered to me.

I would now like to improve the draft so that it can eventually meet Wikipedia’s notability and sourcing standards. I’ve seen similar articles approved with what appear to be equivalent sources (such as artist profiles from Kazakhstan), so I’m unsure how to move forward.

Could someone please guide me on what exactly needs to be improved in terms of references and structure?

Thank you so much for your time and help. Sunny Bergenova (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Sunny Bergenova. When you hit "Publish" you agreed to irrevocably release your tuxt under a couple of licences. In other words, you declared publicly "I consent to anybody copying, using, or altering my words in any way and for any purpose, as long as they provide attribution". Assuming Wikitia give such attribution (I haven't checked), you have already consented to their copying it.
As for the draft: a Wikipedia article should be a summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications and very little else. You need to go through your sources, eliminating most of the ones which do not meet the triple criteria in WP:42 - and remove any information which is then unsourced. ColinFine (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello.
Thanks a lot for your quick answer.
Just to confirm: if I keep editing my article draft, it won’t be deleted, right? Sunny Bergenova (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:58, 16 May 2025 review of submission by Inspired Insomniac

[edit]

My article was rejected with the following justification: "This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner."

This is an obscenely vague sort of criticism. If there are areas of improvement that could be specifically described, I would appreciate it. I'm left wondering what opinion exactly the reviewer thinks I'm disguising as fact. I reference all opinions and criticisms made by leading figures in the field. Please, the more precise the feedback, the better. I'm very surprised at this turn of events and it is likely to affect an assessment this was for.

Inspired Insomniac (talk) 18:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Inspired Insomniac Your comment "This is an obscenely vague sort of criticism" means that people think twice about offering you an answer. It is damnably rude. Even so, I have a hide like a rhinoceros, so I will tell you what is awry.
You have written a very nice magazine article. You talk to the reader about the topic. It's very nice for a magazine. Regrettably, that is not what writing for Wikipedia requires. It requires neutral, non narrative, dull-but-worthy, flat prose. Instead of saying what you wish to say, and finding references, whcih is WP:BACKWARDS, research gthe references and what they say about the subject. Marshall this into a storyboard, state in your own words what they say, use them to cite it, and there is your Wikipedia article.
You have not so much disguised opinions as facts, you have concealed the facts with loose, magazine-style prose.
I am very happy if you disagree with me. However, you need to be aware that the consensus which drives Wikipedia may disagree with you. I do wonder why you didn't engage with the reviewer instead of coming here to complain about the review. They might have offered a little more information, of course they might, but they didn't. Me? I'd have asked them. Since I would have, I am. @GoldRomean: do you have anything to add, either to my reply here or to your review that might help the creating editor, please? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Inspired Insomniac By the way, relying on publishing an article on Wikipedia for an assessment is very unwise. Are you part of a student project? If so, your tutor needs to adjust their thinking. I will leave you a message on your user talk page about this 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. Timtrent put it very nicely, and I'm not sure I could say it better - this is a great essay, but not quite a Wikipedia article. Although I do agree that the decline reason was quite vague, what I read, is not an article on HDA, but (I'm not quite sure how to put this) rather a summary of and collection of what different people have had to say on it (Philosopher Maël Lemoine questions, Further, Justin Garson uses, Rachel Cooper has argued, Furthermore, Andreas De Block and Jonathan Sholl question, and Notably, Christopher Boorse continues).
More specific issues include Draft:Harmful_Dysfunction_Analysis#Defining_dysfunction. A quote and what looks like an unsourced personal analysis of it is great for an Engish essay, but maybe not for Wikipedia. Best, GoldRomean (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GoldRomean thank you for your gracious response. It perturbs me that this appears to be an article submitted for an educational assessment, but I have left the creating editor advice on their talk page. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:38, 16 May 2025 review of submission by Oliviagarvey

[edit]

Why did my article get declined Oliviagarvey (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oliviagarvey Because Draft:Logan Taylor has no sources that back up any claims or demonstrate that Taylor meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. It looks like a mostly fictional story that was generated by AI. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:58, 16 May 2025 review of submission by Smailasg

[edit]

I want to find out why my article wasn't approved, to take notes for next time. Smailasg (talk) 20:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a blatant hoax. If you want to tell the world about your fictional story, you should use a website designed for publishing works of fiction. 331dot (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:44, 16 May 2025 review of submission by Yaw Lapigee

[edit]

I have provided most of the credible sources of links to help verify "Dela Botri's" page but it seems you still doubting the credibitlity of the links I provided. Is it that you don't know "ghanaweb.com", "myjoyonline.com" or "dailyguidenetwork.com"? All the above mentioned sites are the most credible and top leading websites in Ghana. So please crosscheck the links again to verify the page. Thank you Yaw Lapigee (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yaw Lapigee You are somewhat in error over the quality of your references. I have left a comment on your draft. Perhaps, after you have handled the issues raised, and either replaced the faux references wth ones which pass WP:42 or removed the facts that are now unreferenced you will resubmit.
Please be aware that we do not have rules based upon geography. We have universal, global rules about sources 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay but can you please resend the part which is not properly refrenced so i work on that? Thank you Yaw Lapigee (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Read the comment on the draft, Yaw Lapigee, and start there. Many, perhaps most, of your references do not pass muster 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:11, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright.
Thank you. Yaw Lapigee (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:28, 16 May 2025 review of submission by Mattraub

[edit]

My draft was rejected due to not having reliable, notable sources but there are sources such as National Public Radio, Hollywood Reporter, and others. I believe this page is to Wikipedia's standards. Mattraub (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattraub I fear you have a basic misunderstanding of referencing. Many, most, of the references you have used do not mention brown. Of those that do, one is by Brown and we have no interest in what he says, and the others are passing mentions. PR Newswire is deprecated. Please measure your references agains WP:42 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mattraub I see you have declared under WP:PAID. Please be aware that the payment you receive must pay for you to learn all the rules, policies and procedures here. You are expected to know them. I have an expectation that a paid editor should be capable of having an article accepted after being declined once, and with no further help. After all, as a volunteer, I have no interest in helping you pay your groceries bill. It is disappointing to see your belief that this draft (not page) meets Wikipedia's standards when patently it does not. And you have used HTML markup as well. That "works" but is not good practice. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mattraub, 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.
And that is without a conflict of interest: editors with a COI are likely to find it even more frustrating if they have not spent time learning the (rather singular) skills required for creating Wikipedia articles. ColinFine (talk) 23:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 17

[edit]

02:00, 17 May 2025 review of submission by BigRedRonVegas

[edit]

How can I improve this for approval? Is there a problem with layout or content or both BigRedRonVegas (talk) 02:00, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BigRedRonVegas, it has been rejected, which usually means the end of the road. Your biggest problem is that you have not shown how this person is notable by Wikipedia standards, which is the basic requirement. Out of the possible ways a person might be notable, seen at WP:BASIC and WP:GNG, which are you saying your subject meets? Meadowlark (talk) 04:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:25, 17 May 2025 review of submission by Drmetagroove

[edit]

I cannot readily understand why there is a continued declining of this article (lately by Fade258) on the 'notability' grounds. It is as if this recent reviewer took no notice of the extensive revisions made as a result of the previous critique of the 'notability' issue, including issues of independence of the sources from the subject. These presented now are such that amongst sources independent of her there are referenced more than 23 international journals (mostly academic and peer reviewed) that discuss her work in detail; more than 5 international books; and her work is published by >10 publishers from at least 5 countries (a new edition of one of her works is not yet included, published in China). She qualifies not only as a creative worker (and links to 25 major works of electronic literature are provided), but also as a senior academic. Note that my revision largely separated a few useful online sites that can be imagined to be '1st party' sites, from the vast majority that are independent. I have communicated these concerns to Fade258, but I would appreciate guidance as to what else I can/should do. It seems rather pointless to just keep adding more independent articles, when there are a large number (judged by most Wikipedia pages I have seen) already. THanks for your. help. 

Drmetagroove (talk) 02:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmetagroove You have created a list of stuff, a great swathe of bibliography. You have also written "[[Blue|There has also been considerable critical discussion of specific works: Word Migrants ; Ecliptical; Keys Round Her Tongue; The Erotics of Geography; Heimlich Unheimlich}}" with WP:CITEKILL. That and other areas like ity is lazy writing. You have assumed that listing entities which have offered reviews etc is sufficient. We need something else. Indeed, you have written this WP:BACKWARDS.
What we require is referencing which speaks about the subject and for you to summarise what those references say, in a storyboard from which you write the article. This it needs a top down abd bottom up rewrite.
You do not help your cause by adding material nor by adding references. You help your cause by writing starting with your chosen references and working from there. I recognise that youi will attempt to salvage this draft and edit it. Instead, rewrite it please 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmetagroove I have left some helpful comments on the draft 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:36, 17 May 2025 review of submission by Khompitoon

[edit]

ดีบักการบริหารส่วนบำรุงรักษาเครื่องจักรและเทคโนโลยี Khompitoon (talk) 07:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Khompitoon: this is the English-language Wikipedia, please communicate in English.
That is not a question. Do you have one in mind you would like to ask?
Your draft, such as it was, was clearly not a viable encyclopaedia article, therefore I have deleted it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:41, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:51, 17 May 2025 review of submission by Newbieabby

[edit]

How to make it notable for a separate article Newbieabby (talk) 09:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic- you can't "make it notable". It either is notable according to a summary of independent reliable sources or it isn't. The last reviewer apparently sees this as unlikely to occur, so they rejected the draft, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:36, 17 May 2025 review of submission by Joha4nnlo

[edit]

What do i do if theres barely any sources i can put in for the show? The only things i added so far is the iMDB thing (which isn’t a source ik) and the shows website on the network… there’s not really any sources but that and it‘ll get rejected if I don’t add proper sources Joha4nnlo (talk) 13:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Joha4nnlo: the simple answer is, you should cite the sources that have provided the information in the draft. What are they? You only have one 'citation', which isn't a citation at all, it's just an explanatory note.
More fundamentally, given that Wikipedia articles are meant to summarise what reliable sources have previously published, if you cannot find such sources, you cannot summarise them, and therefore cannot draft a Wikipedia article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the citations all came from the fandom wiki & instagram of the show, and im not sure if those count as sources. apologies, this is my first time doing a wikipedia page by myself 😅 Joha4nnlo (talk) 14:23, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Joha4nnlo A firm suggestion is to read HELP:YFA, followed by WP:REFB and WP:CITE.
FAndoms and Instagram are broadly useless to your endeavours 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 14:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:15, 17 May 2025 review of submission by J. Muijsers

[edit]

Hello,

Shadows of Tehran is a book based on true events. I can elaborate on the events in the book, but do I then find resources for the true events? For example, Ricardo, the protagonist, was briefly part of MEK, not because of his beliefs but because of their action-willingness. Do I add sources about MEK to make it more in-depth? J. Muijsers (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@J. Muijsers, While it may be based on true events the article's references should show why that book is notable, not what happens in it. The majority of your draft is unsourced. For example, without a source how do we know the author actually served? If you want to see a good example, look at The Lightning Thief article. Best, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 14:23, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! J. Muijsers (talk) 14:43, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, it appears his military records are sealed, and this is why I can not find any sources to support the statement that he served, but it would belong in this article. What should I do in this case? J. Muijsers (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there are no sources, then it can't be included. That is the way the Wikipedia works. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 16:46, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:44, 17 May 2025 review of submission by Michael03913

[edit]

I am currently working on this species Wikipedia's page, however the draft cannot be accepted due to lack of enough resource. This is a very surprising result as there are only one paper which was about the discoveries of this new species in 2023. I am curious about what to do when we faced problem like this if I still want to introduce this species to the Wikipedia community. Thank you. Michael03913 (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael03913: you need to provide evidence that this species has been accepted, per WP:NSPECIES.
Also, the draft is supported by a single citation in the lead section, with the vast majority of the contents unreferenced. How is the reader supposed to know where all that information is coming from? Even if you're supporting the whole draft with that one source, you should cite it at least once in every section, as a bare minimum (every paragraph would be better). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for your information! Michael03913 (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:44, 17 May 2025 review of submission by 2001:1708:70B:7B00:A5E2:9FF1:F988:96B

[edit]

Hello, is there a way to have the page uploaded if I edit it or is it just not possibile to upload it? 2001:1708:70B:7B00:A5E2:9FF1:F988:96B (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. You have not shown how the singer meets the definition of a notable musician through a summary of independent reliable sources with significant coverage. You only cited Spotify, which is meaningless towards notability as anyone can post music online. 331dot (talk) 16:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further, or indeed published in the encyclopaedia (if that's what you mean by 'uploading'). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:16, 17 May 2025 review of submission by Khaushi

[edit]

Hello, I’ve updated the draft article on Cherambane, a village in Kodagu district, Karnataka. The current version includes references and external links to reliable sources, covering geography, economy (including agriculture and plantations), and transportation access. I would appreciate assistance from experienced editors in reviewing the full page. Specifically: Are there any sections or sources that should be removed, corrected, or improved 

Are the external links appropriate and in line with Wikipedia guidelines?
Is the page neutral and verifiable

Suggestions to improve the structure, tone, or formatting are most welcome. Thank you in advance for your time and guidance! Khaushi (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Khaushi It is imperfect, but has been Accepted by a reviewer 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Thanks. Could you please help me understand what areas could be improved? Khaushi (talk) 05:13, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Khaushi This 'post acceptance' question is better asked at WP:TEAHOUSE in the futire, since they handle articles and we handle pre-acceptance drafts. However, I will mention the main issue that I see when looking at the article, the reference scheme is duplicated and thus confusing. References should all be citations. See WP:CITE and the output should be contained in the References section, attracted by {{Reflist}}. External links shoudl be reserved for external links. Your references numbers (currently) 4 thru 7 are malformed, and those numbered (again currently) 10, 11, 13, 14. 16, 17 are of doubtful reliability. The version I refer to is this: permalink to version in discussion 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback and the headsup about WP:Teahouse I’ll post there next time. I’ll fix the citation issues, clean up the formatting with

, and review the questionable sources you flagged. Appreciate the help! Khaushi (talk) 16:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:10, 17 May 2025 review of submission by SMArchives

[edit]

What is the reason for declined submission please. Please guide, thank you. SMArchives (talk) 21:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SMArchives for reasons of your own, probably by using AI, you generated a malformed decline template when you created your sandbox. So you declined your own submission. The malformed template also prevented further review. I have removed it for you. Why on earth did you add it in thge first place? Enquiring minds want to know. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SMArchives no Declined (truly declined) with reasons given now on the draft by an actual reviewer. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:12, 17 May 2025 review of submission by Prrooo

[edit]

hello, thank you for reviewing my article. Getting resources for Hindu spiritual gurus is difficult since most of them are in different languages (eg Bengali). I have tried to mostly use web links of resources that are easier for anyone to review its authenticity. I was thinking of modelling the page based on another similar Hindu guru's page: "Ram Thakur". The only reference is something from their own organisation's website. In South Asia, the guru I am writing an article about has over a million disciples and I just wanted a stub or small article so that he is more easily discoverable on the internet. I would really appreciate it if you could kindly give me some feedback to make it better. Happy to make it shorter since there are limited English references. Prrooo (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] 

Prrooo (talk) 21:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Prrooo, each article is considered individually. There are nearly seven million articles, and this is a volunteer project, so there are many articles of low quality. That another article of low quality has not been addressed or removed yet doesn't mean that other articles will be accepted that are similarly sparse. If you must model after another article, you should be looking at WP:GA, or even WP:FA, which are articles that have been reviewed by the community. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that articles don't have to be in English to be used as sources, though it's generally preferred where feasible. The most important thing is that the article is verifiable, independent, and provides significant converage of the subject. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you CoffeeCrumbs for your feedback. I wanted at least a small wikipedia stub article (small one) that is about this particular person since his name is often confused with people with a similar name. I tried to provide references in English and Bengali which are available. Is it possible for you to kindly take a look and let me know if there are any other feedback points. Apologies for the trouble. Prrooo (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @CoffeeCrumbs for your feedback. I wanted at least a small wikipedia stub article (small one) that is about this particular person since his name is often confused with people with a similar name. I tried to provide references in English and Bengali which are available. Is it possible for you to kindly take a look and let me know if there are any other feedback points. Apologies for the trouble Prrooo (talk) 00:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:30, 17 May 2025 review of submission by 134.6.218.50

[edit]

I need help filling in bare references in order to correct the issue raised by the reviewer who recently declined my submission. I don't know how to do this myself. 134.6.218.50 (talk) 23:30, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! @Johannes Maximilian, that isn't an AfC requirement, and WP:AFCSTANDARDS explicitly says that it shouldn't be a reason for declining a draft. If needed, Wikipedia:reFill can be used to fix them semi-automatically. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, User:Chaotic Enby I am going to resubmit based on your prior message. Please feel free to use Refill to fill in those references. Thank you so much. 108.146.89.58 (talk) 23:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done! I ran reFill and manually fixed the few that were left. I will leave the review for someone else. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with bare references is a very fundamental one that goes beyond the symptoms of said citing strategy: It remains unclear whether the sources were actually used. In most cases, bare references are rather slap-on than anything else, and it can quickly give the illusion of a well-referenced article that in reality has just copy-pasted urls instead of proper footnotes. A single bare reference shouldn't be a decline reason, but an entire article that likely hasn't been based on a proper source evalutation? Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 07:15, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I interpreted WP:AFCSTANDARDS as meaning that couldn't be, by itself, a reason for declining. Since it seems like we are in disagreement, do you mind if I ask for a third opinion on WT:AFC? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 18

[edit]

00:20, 18 May 2025 review of submission by ElPython

[edit]

Hello! My draft was recently denied due to the sources, and I am curious what sources are the problem? I used similar sources to other articles related to speech and debate. ElPython (talk) 00:20, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ElPython You should engage in the first instance with the declining reviewer, since they know what was in their mind. What I see when looking at the draft is that your list of Notes is hard to verify, and the list of references shows that the appear not to be citations. Mine was a very cursory look. @ToadetteEdit: do you wish to add any commentary please? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:33, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:08, 18 May 2025 review of submission by 73.174.159.239

[edit]

Hi, please accept this Article, as it is about a deceased singer who had significant influence on the entertainment industry. Her production team wants her legacy to live on. Thanks. 73.174.159.239 (talk) 01:08, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

73.174.159.239: (Are you Thetradings? If so, please log in before editing or commenting.) That is sad news about Gloria, but Wikipedia is not a memorial. Both this draft and a previous draft from November were rejected because they do not meet the basic notability criteria for biographies and the reviewers of the drafts could not independently find any evidence that she had significant influence on the entertainment industry. In addition, I find it hard to believe that her team would want this photo appearing next to any biography of her. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 02:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Her production team wants her legacy to live on" - If you are being payed to edit, you must reveal this. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 08:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. This is more suitable for a personal webpage rather than Wikipedia, both due to lack of acceptable sources and hagiographical tone. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And based on what myself and a reviewer have seen doing WP:BEFORE, it's probable this is some sort of hoax. (There are social media posts from her that post-date both dates of her alleged death (March 14, April 5), one of which discusses her pregnancy as if it's current, which makes no sense if she died days/weeks earlier in childbirth.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:51, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:32, 18 May 2025 review of submission by 128.75.76.42

[edit]

too short 128.75.76.42 (talk) 04:32, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. This is a one-sentence "article" that includes links to a bunch of .app pages. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:04, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:34, 18 May 2025 review of submission by 2001:1708:70B:7B00:85A5:D5F5:B052:4980

[edit]

a 2001:1708:70B:7B00:85A5:D5F5:B052:4980 (talk) 08:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What question do you have? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 08:45, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the earlier thread about this draft above. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:08, 18 May 2025 review of submission by Ferdous

[edit]

On 11 May 2025, I created the article Gram Chikitsalay. As an experienced user—having created thousands of articles on Bangla Wikipedia, where I also hold sysop rights—I published it directly in the main namespace. However, a few hours later, user:CharlieMehta moved the page to Draft:Gram Chikitsalay, stating it was "Not ready for mainspace, incubate in draftspace," citing the need for additional sources.

I subsequently added more citations and submitted the draft for review on 12 May 2025. Then, at 15:38 on 18 May 2025, user:Kovcszaln6 declined the submission, stating: "exists – Submission is duplicated by another article already in mainspace," referring to a version created on 14 May 2025 at 02:47 by user:ItsKhan_Aman.

Frankly, this experience has been disheartening. It feels like my time and effort have been disregarded. It’s extremely frustrating to see meaningful contributions treated in this manner. ferdous 12:08, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferdous: You are welcome to merge anything that's not in the mainspace article into the mainspace article. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 12:23, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferdous: just so I understand better where you're coming from, what would you say should have been done differently here (assuming, that is, that CharlieMehta was right to draftify your article, and that the version by ItsKhan_Aman was fit to be published, neither of which I have looked into)? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:31, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing: Thank you for your thoughtful question. In hindsight, I think this situation could have been handled with more communication and coordination. Even if draftification was appropriate, a brief note or discussion before moving the page might have encouraged collaboration instead of parallel efforts. Once a duplicate article appeared, there could have been an opportunity to consolidate rather than discard one version. I’m not questioning the policies, but I do feel the process could be more inclusive and considerate of contributors’ time and intentions—especially when they are actively working on improving the content. I understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, but collaboration also involves communication. That’s all I had hoped for. ferdous 14:42, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferdous: yes, I can see why that would be frustrating, but I think this was mainly a case of unfortunate timing, and a little bit of the way the system is structured, and I honestly don't see how the problem could have been avoided.
When your article was draftified, a message was automatically posted by the moving script on your talk page to say so. That's pretty standard practice when draftifying; I don't think anything else needed to be done at that time.
When an article by the same title was later created in the main space again, this wasn't a case of a 'duplicate' appearing, as such, it was rather a main space article being published on a subject on which a draft also existed in the draft space. When that article was being created, a message should have flagged up the presence of this draft, but I don't know whether the author didn't notice it or simply disregarded it. At this point, neither the user who draftified your article, nor anyone at AfC, had any involvement in this matter (that I can see at least) and probably were blissfully ignorant of the whole thing.
When you submitted your draft, the main space article didn't yet exist, so you weren't alerted to its existence.
There was then (regrettably, but understandably given that we have well over pending 3,000 drafts in the system) a time lapse of two days between you submitting the draft and it being reviewed, by which time the main space article had been published. At this point the AfC system did flag up its presence to the reviewer, who didn't really have any other choice but to decline the submission, since we couldn't have two articles on the same subject.
Please do correct me if I've got something wrong, or missed out on something germane. Otherwise we should probably file this under 'bad luck' -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the entire draft is written by AI anyway (100% in GPTZero, and it was quite obvious from a read). There's quite a lot of WP:PEACOCK phrasing in there. Paragraphs like Through this gripping narrative, Gram Chikitsalaya explores the complexities of rural healthcare, the ethical questions surrounding unqualified medical practitioners, and the challenges of introducing modern medicine in communities where traditions run deep. With a mix of drama, humor, and social commentary, the series raises important questions about survival, trust, and the fine line between faith and science in the medical world are inappropriate in an article. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And far more at home in a program-listing/boxset-back-cover blurb--which is exactly where this prose belongs. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 10:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:07, 18 May 2025 review of submission by Iceman101184

[edit]

I have cited many relevent sources. i would love help improving this entry from more experienced Wikipedia editors/authors. Iceman101184 (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Iceman101184 Most of your sources do not exist and their URLs mostly lead to 404 error pages. Did you use AI to generate references? To meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, the draft should contain independent sources that focus on Nelson Nash rather than Infinite Banking. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:24, 18 May 2025 review of submission by 206.176.151.163

[edit]

Hello, I’m requesting assistance for my draft. My page was rejected according to reviewer FuzzyMagma that I used an LLM, which I did not. I also provided many sources for my draft. Would anyone be able to assist me in this matter ? 206.176.151.163 (talk) 16:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted.
I ran the lead through a checker and it came back 100% AI generated. 331dot (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That’s weird though, because I didn’t use AI Dangermanmeetz (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way to fix this issue ? I don’t want to constantly submit and then someone erroneously claims I used an LLM. Dangermanmeetz (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:46, 18 May 2025 review of submission by Bottyguy

[edit]

Hi, I've added some additional citations for this article, including a book reference, and a more in depth article from the Philadelphia Inquirer newspaper. I'm not sure how much deeper citation I can obtain for a sandwich. Most of the sandwiches in the list of sandwiches aren't deeper sourced. Bottyguy (talk) 16:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That other inappropriate articles exist does not justify adding more inappropriate articles. See other stuff exists. If you tell us whicn other articles you're referring to, we can take action. We're only as good as the people who choose to help.
If you have no other sources, the sandwich likely does not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:29, 18 May 2025 review of submission by Karvlig

[edit]

Hello,

I created this page to meet criterion 8 for academic pages -- "The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area." Jonsson is the co-editor of a major journal, the Journal of Modern History. Karvlig (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need the "Draft:" portion of the title when linking, I fixed this. 331dot (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The draft says very little beyond his work. 331dot (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Karvlig Accepted as a stub. There needs to be a substantial expansion, but I agree that Jonsson passes the criterion you cite 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:07, 18 May 2025 review of submission by Kyledestroyeryt

[edit]

what needs changing? Kyledestroyeryt (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been rejected and won't be able to be resubmitted. Unfortunately, you (like almost all of us!) are simply not notable enough for a Wikipedia article about yourself. See WP:BIO. CoconutOctopus talk 18:13, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:34, 18 May 2025 review of submission by 178.174.193.182

[edit]

1. I have inserted doi references. How to make these visible?

'2. I have a photo of L.B. How do I upload? 178.174.193.182 (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Photos are not relevant to the draft process, which only considers the text and sources. Photos can wait until the draft is accepted. 331dot (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 19

[edit]

02:05, 19 May 2025 review of submission by 2607:FEA8:5620:4100:C5FE:9B03:914D:9BAA

[edit]

ww 2607:FEA8:5620:4100:C5FE:9B03:914D:9BAA (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question?
If you believe that you have found and added suitable sources, you should ask the editor who last rejected the draft, @Rich Smith to reconsider the draft. ColinFine (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. This article is entirely sourced to sources that merely speculate about a hypothetical Windows 12. We do not deal in rumourmongering and wild guesses. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:00, 19 May 2025 Protest of declined article - 'Stuart Lyndon'

[edit]

Hi, I would like to protest a decision made in February to decline an article I created for New Zealander racing driver Stuart Lyndon. Draft:Stuart Lyndon


While I do agree that there are fewer sources than I would have liked, the thing is, the notability page says: "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject [which I have], excluding database sources. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article."

Furthermore, this is New Zealand's first NASCAR driver. New Zealand's first Formula 1 driver, Thomas Pitt Cholmondeley-Tapper, has an article consisting of seven (7) sentences and 4 sources. Surely that makes him notable?

It also doesn't help that he was killed at the young age of 35. The first NZ drivers in many motorsports lived long lives; Thomas Tapper (F1) was 90, Simon Crafar (MotoGP) is 56, so of course they would have more of a chance to be included in motorsport literature.

Lyndon was unfortunate enough to die in Atlanta on a day where most stock car fans were watching the NASCAR race at Riverside, CA. No footage was publicly available until 2019. Honestly, outright refusal is unfair when you consider the litany of drivers who have been approved pages.

For example, another non-American ARCA driver was killed in 1985: Francis Affleck - and he has an article that is much smaller.

Following his death, Atlanta International Raceway took steps to improve safety by fixing the track design that took his life. Today, superspeedways don't use dirt walls, largely as a result of his accident.

Kiwinascarfan197 (talk) 03:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiwinascarfan197: It looks like you have done some work on the draft, including adding at least one source, since it was declined. You are free to submit it for review again – protesting against the draft's decline in February is less likely to end in its being accepted than resubmitting it in an improved state. --bonadea contributions talk 15:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Kiwinascarfan197. I echo Bonadea's advice to resubmit. But note that is New Zealand's first NASCAR driver. New Zealand's first Formula 1 driver does not in any way contribute to notability as Wikipedia uses the word.
You refer to "approved pages": they are probably not. Wikipedia has thousands and thousands of seriously substandard articles, most of which were created long before the current standards for notability were decided and started being enforced: unfortunately, as this is a volunteer project, few people are willing to spend much time wading through these, improving or deleting them: see other stuff exists. To take Thomas Pitt Cholmondeley-Tapper, thank you for pointing out this example. I have tagged it as inadequately sourced, and possibly not notable. ColinFine (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:53, 19 May 2025 review of submission by HRShami

[edit]

My draft has been rejected based on "citations not indicating notability". However, Muhammad N. S. Hadi is a fellow of American Society of Civil Engineers and Engineers Australia and thus meets point 3 of WP:NACADEMIC. Can someone please take a second look at this? I did not resubmit because there were no major edits after the draft was declined. Thank you. HRShami (talk) 03:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HRShami: I tentatively agree that this person may well be notable. However, rather than asking us to overrule the review, I think it would better (not to mention more courteous) if you were to approach the reviewer directly to discuss this. If you still don't get nowhere, come back here and we'll consider it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Call me a pedant but...it was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted. Theroadislong (talk) 09:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:54, 19 May 2025 review of submission by Mattias18978

[edit]

Hi, My draft says it needs reliable sources, how can I show my sources? Mattias18978 (talk) 04:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:REFB. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:22, 19 May 2025 review of submission by 128.75.76.42

[edit]

Hello, I’ve updated the draft article on Infinite Mac.I would appreciate assistance from experienced editors in reviewing the full page. Specifically: Are there any sections or sources that should be removed, corrected, or improved 

Are the external links appropriate and in line with Wikipedia guidelines?
Is the page neutral and verifiable

Suggestions to improve the structure, tone, or formatting are most welcome. Thank you in advance for your time and guidance! 128.75.76.42 (talk) 08:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is in Russian, whereas this is the English-language Wikipedia. You need to either translate it into English (and reference it properly), or submit it to ru.wiki instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:54, 19 May 2025 review of submission by Тимерхан

[edit]

I added more links approving importance of article. Please help to check article. I would be glad to get feedback Тимерхан (talk) 08:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to resubmit the draft to get another check on it. 331dot (talk) 10:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:17, 19 May 2025 review of submission by Corrupt98876

[edit]

Is my page good enough to get accepted Corrupt98876 (talk) 10:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do pre-review reviews here- please wait for a reviewer to examine the draft. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:26, 19 May 2025 review of submission by 217.165.159.215

[edit]

Hi, I'm new to creating a page on Wikipedia but have had my account for a while. I didn't see the need to add a page until I saw that our UAE-based media outfit Expat Media does not have a dedicated media page here. I just feel this reflects poorly on Wikipedia's accurate representation of licensed media companies in the UAE. Can someone please guide me on how to improve my submission. So far I've submitted it twice and have been rejected, saying it lacks "reliable sources". I do have at least three external references there from other outfits, but stories that focus solely on the media company's merits are published on the news website. You will not be able to ask a competitor media outfit to mention, let alone publish, your media outfit's news. That's just the fact. So I was suggesting to the editors to run through the news articles that have been mentioned in the submission as these will have story, video and photo evidences. 217.165.159.215 (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do have at least three external references there from other outfits. The two that I see, from theglobalfilipinomagazine and dubaiurlaub, are both self-promotional/interview articles that fall under WP:DEPENDENTCOVERAGE. You will not be able to ask a competitor media outfit to mention, let alone publish, your media outfit's news. Reputable news outlets break stories which others report on; companies may also be the subject of news themselves, which could produce reliably sourced coverage from other outlets. – macaddct1984 (talk | contribs) 13:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Please note that "X does not have a ... page here" is not a persuasive argument. Wikipedia only accepts articles about subjects which meet its own definition of notability - and most companies (most people, most bands, most schools, etc) do not.
If you wish to write an article about Expat Nedia, it is your responsibility to find the places where people wholly unconnected with Expat Media have chosen to publish in depth about it in reliable publications. If you can find several such sources, then write a summary of what those indpendent sources say - nothing else. If you cannot find several such sources, then you cannot establish that the company is notable as Wikipedia uses the word, and you are wasting you time trying further. ColinFine (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
stories that focus solely on the media company's merits are published on the news website Wikipedia is not interested in stories that focus on the media company's merit, and definitely not if they are published by the company themselves. --bonadea contributions talk 20:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:37, 19 May 2025 review of submission by Kures48

[edit]

Hello,

My subject is clearly notable, he is an elected official and major candidate running for governor of New Mexico. This is backed up by dozens of sources and news articles from major reputable organizations. I don't understand why this is rejected. Kures48 (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kures48, How can you confirm this? — 🦅White-tailed eagleTalk to the eagleStalking eagle 16:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kures48: This was rejected because it reads more like a political advert than an encyclopaedia article; I blame this on over-detail more than anything. I should also note that this draft falls into a contentious topic (post-1992 politics of the United States). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jeske,
Thank you for the feedback, I'll re-edit and make it seem less like a political advert. Kures48 (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Kures48. It may help to remember that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:22, 19 May 2025 review of submission by Solenereboulet

[edit]

Hello, I'm seeking help and guidance after the second rejection of Draft:Advans, which was submitted through the Articles for Creation process. The draft was written following a previous deletion discussion, and every effort was made to follow the notability guidelines strictly, especially regarding the sourcing requirements.

This latest version of the draft uses academic sources from Cairn.info (a respected peer-reviewed journal platform), articles from Jeune Afrique (a major pan-African media outlet), and data from development finance institutions like FMO, all offering independent, non-trivial coverage of the company. There is no promotional tone, and the content is intentionally brief and neutral.

However, the draft was again declined without specific feedback on which references are acceptable or not. Would it be possible to get help identifying : One or two sources in the draft that do meet the standards, and one or two that clearly don’t…nso I can better understand how to proceed and whether the draft has a chance to meet the notability threshold ?

Thanks in advance for your time, Solenereboulet (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cairn.info may be respected, but the article cited is co-authored by Falgon, so it is not independent. 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.
I have not looked at the other sources, but the titles of the next two suggest that they are routine business announcements, rather than in-depth coverage (though I may be wrong about that). ColinFine (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:25, 19 May 2025 review of submission by E.Dolber

[edit]

Hello! I recently submitted a draft article about On Board Experiential (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:On_Board_Experiential), and it was declined with the reason: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." I would really appreciate any guidance on how to revise the article so it better complies with Wikipedia’s content and sourcing standards.

This is my first article submission, and I’ve tried to use a mix of third-party sources such as Ad Age, MediaPost, Billboard, LA Times, and Event Marketer, along with clearly attributed primary sources for factual claims about services or office locations.

I have disclosed my paid relationship with the company on my user and draft talk pages, in accordance with Wikipedia’s Terms of Use.

Can someone help me:

  • Understand which types of sources may not meet the reliability threshold?
  • Identify any specific sections that need stronger sourcing or trimming?
  • Get feedback on tone or structure that may be holding back the draft?

Thanks so much in advance for any advice or support.

— E.Dolber 18:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that those of us who are here for free are reluctant to help someone who is getting paid to be here; you should first learn what is being looked for before diving in.
That said, awards are meaningless towards establishing notability unless the award itself merits an article, like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award. Most if not all of the awards in the draft should just be removed.
Wikipedia is not a place for a company to just tell about itself, its offerings, and what it considers to be its own history. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the subject. Please see WP:ORG. 331dot (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
== Follow-up: On Board Experiential draft ==
Thank you, 331dot, for taking the time to review my submission and provide clear feedback — I really appreciate the insights.
As someone new to contributing, especially under the paid editing disclosure requirements, your guidance is helpful in helping me better understand what’s expected for company-related articles. I now see that I need to focus less on company-provided details (such as services, awards, and client lists) and more on summarizing what independent, reliable sources say about the organization — particularly those that provide significant coverage.
I’ll revisit the draft with that in mind, trimming non-notable awards and self-sourced sections, and I’ll refocus the article based on truly independent, substantive sources. Thank you again for pointing me to the notability and sourcing policies — I’m committed to revising the article to align with Wikipedia’s standards.
Best, E.Dolber ~~~~~ E.Dolber (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:29, 19 May 2025 review of submission by Compphilus

[edit]

I have submitted 3 different pages. One of them says that I don't have the right sources. I am unsure what is necessary with the current sources I have submitted. Is there anyone that can help me get these 3 pages public facing? Compphilus (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are just telling what ATT does, only sourced to its website. Instead, a Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about (in this case) an organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something.
If you are associated with this organization, that must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Compphilus: Did you see the response you got last time you asked this question? It's here. (Note that that's an archived page, so please do not post any responses there. Feel free to post in this thread if you have questions.) --bonadea contributions talk 20:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:49, 19 May 2025 review of submission by Letmeknoww

[edit]

Rejection of my article Letmeknoww (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Letmeknoww: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. We don't cite Wikipedia (circular reference) or YouTube (connexion to subject). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:53, 19 May 2025 review of submission by Mgtibbits

[edit]

Requesting second review of declined article (no reason given)

Hello, I’m requesting a second opinion on this declined draft:

User:Mgtibbits/Monica Tibbits-Nutt. It was declined without a reason. The subject is a cabinet-level government official with significant coverage in sources like Smart Cities Dive, NBC Boston, CommonWealth Beacon, and WBUR. A reconsideration request has been added to the top of the draft. Thank you very much! Mgtibbits (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mgtibbits: You have no contributions to the English-language Wikipedia other than this thread, and the page you link to has never existed. You also don't have any edits to any other Wikimedia Foundation-run wikis beyond this thread. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That said, I have found the relevant draft: Draft:Monica Tibbits-Nutt. What is your connexion to MassDOTComms (talk · contribs) (which I should note is a blatant username violation)? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jéské,
Thank you again for your response and for reviewing the draft.
To clarify: I am Monica Tibbits-Nutt, the Secretary and CEO of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. I was not aware that the user MassDOTComms was created, though I understand your concerns and agree that the username violates Wikipedia’s naming policies. However, once I became aware of the username violation and the issues with that earlier draft, I made it a priority to address them directly and appropriately.
I have had my own account since 2021, I have acknowledged my conflict of interest, and written a new draft that follows Wikipedia’s standards for neutrality, sourcing, and notability. I’ve placed that draft in my user space, where I’m working toward submitting it to the Teahouse for review by a neutral editor once I meet the participation requirements.
In the meantime, I’ve posted a reconsideration request on the current draft to understand any additional issues and am making good-faith edits elsewhere across Wikipedia to reach autoconfirmed status. My goal is to ensure the article is developed ethically and in line with the community’s expectations.
I appreciate your time, and thank you again for your guidance. Mgtibbits (talk) 15:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As before, there's nothing in your userspace and no edits other than to this page. (Contribution histories on Wikipedia are public, so they'd show up if you actually did those edits. Are you working at a different, non-Wikimedia-Foundation-run wiki? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible that you're only looking at a page preview? You need to click the button that says "Publish page" for the sandbox page to be created. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's more likely they're editing on a non-Wikipedia site such as EverybodyWiki or an internal wiki. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:30, 19 May 2025 review of submission by Crimsonsage626

[edit]

I would like you to remove all evidence of me trying to publish this article (Sha ir-Jekar) from your site. It comes up as spam when you google search. Crimsonsage626 (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Sha ir-Jekar
@Crimsonsage626: If Google is indexing a draft, something has gone horribly wrong. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano Google sees Wikipedia:AfC sorting/Culture/Philosophy and religion The google search snippet says Draft:Sha ir-Jekar (Occult), Start, 2025-05-19, 2025-05-18, Crimsonsage626 (12), 4921, 2 past declines. Possible spam. Draft:Muhammad Ajmal Raza Qadri (Renowned ..., though that entity no longer appears on the AfC sorting page
@Crimsonsage626 Why are you making this request? The draft has been rejected and will not proceed further. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent: Wikipedia:AfC sorting and its various subpages strike me as something that should default to NOINDEX for the exact same reasons draftspace is. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano I agree. I have no idea whom to tell 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Crimsonsage626 You need to understand what happens when you publish material here. "...you agree to our Terms of Use and agree to irrevocably release your text under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and GFDL..." Part of the correct attribution is that your words are attributed to you. What you are asking is that someone else unring the bell you have rung. Since one cannot unring a bell I foresee disappointment in your life.
Google does not index drafts. The page it indexes does not show your draft. A search in the last few minutes showed that int no longer appeared.
Now, since you are anonymous with your user name you are not connected to anything unless you choose to reveal to the world that User:Crimsonsage626 Is Arthur-Sixpence Featherstonehaugh-Beauchamp-Colmondely (someone I have made up and thus someone I donut you are).
Thus, I ask you with great respect, since you are linked to nothing whatsoever, "What are you so upset about?" And a secondary respectful question, since no-one made you attempt this draft, "Why do you feel that folk should clear up behind you?" That draft will vanish in six months, unless someone edits it which resets the clock. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:18, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:31, 19 May 2025 review of submission by 102.218.37.251

[edit]

Why is my article being declined 102.218.37.251 (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because from a look, your sources don't really discuss Kratel (and the one that does was authored by him or on his behalf), and three of them completely lack any content what-so-ever. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:44, 19 May 2025 review of submission by Terrorry

[edit]

edit Terrorry 20:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Terrorry This revision was rejected. Now you have added more material and no references. No reference = no article.
If you want to appeal the rejection please ask the reviewer who rejected it. Otherwise it will not go any further. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Terrorry And do not upload pictures where you do not have the rights, formal rights, to upload them please. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:15, 19 May 2025 review of submission by 152.133.8.4

[edit]

to find what is reason of stop? 152.133.8.4 (talk) 21:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is hagiographical in tone and improperly sourced. You cannot just slap 49 references onto the end of the article and expect that to be acceptable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 20

[edit]

02:01, 20 May 2025 review of submission by Marzana.safat

[edit]

I submitted a draft for the article titled NeelChokro: Blue Circle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:NeelChokro:_Blue_Circle) over three weeks ago, and I was hoping to get it published soon. The article is about a Bangladeshi film, and I believe it meets Wikipedia's content guidelines, including neutrality and verifiability.

I would greatly appreciate it if someone could review the draft and assist in moving it toward publication. If further information or sources are needed, I am more than happy to provide them.

Thank you for your time and assistance. Marzana.safat (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Marzana.safat: The draft will be reviewed at some point. Repeatedly asking for preferential treatment ([1], [2], [3], [4]) is disruptive – please do not do that. What is your connection to the film? --bonadea contributions talk 05:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Bonadea,
Thank you for your response. I apologise if my previous inquiries seemed disruptive; that was never my intention. As a new contributor to Wikipedia, I have been actively seeking guidance from the relevant people to understand what I might have been doing wrong. I was eager to learn and improve my approach in submitting content. This is my first film entry submission, and having it published would be an invaluable learning experience for me. I would be able to apply the knowledge gained from this to other topics on my bucket list in the future.
Thank you for your understanding. Marzana.safat (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:41, 20 May 2025 review of submission by Phnnws

[edit]

Hello, I recently submitted this wiki article, but it was rejected despite including multiple reliable sources as references. I would appreciate some clarity on the specific reasons for the rejection so I can better understand what needs to be improved. Could you please provide guidance on whether the issue was with the content, notability, source formatting or something else? Thank you in advance for your help. Phnnws (talk) 05:41, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Phnnws: Your draft was declined, not rejected, which means you have an opportunity to improve the draft and submit it again. The majority of the sources are the website itself talking about it self. Such sources are not helpful and do not convey that the subject is notable. The draft needed to be sourced by reliable sources that are actually about the subject, not just mentioning it in an article about something unrelated. Also, based on your username, do you have a conflict-of-interest? If you do, it has to be disclosed per Wikipedia policy. cyberdog958Talk 06:00, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:04, 20 May 2025 review of submission by Ameer khan 1995

[edit]

All telugu poets need to be recognized Ameer khan 1995 (talk) 07:04, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ameer khan 1995: there's no page titled Telugu language authors (or Draft:Telugu language authors).
And that's not a question. Did you have one in mind you wanted to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have published a article about an author how much time it will take to approve it Ameer khan 1995 (talk) 07:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Courtesy link: Draft:Paravastu Chinnayya Soori
@Ameer khan 1995: Your draft was declined because there is already an existing article about the subject at Paravastu Chinnayasuri. Also, your draft is written with an essay-like prose and not written with an encyclopedic tone. cyberdog958Talk 07:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ameer khan 1995: In addition, the draft you submitted had been copied from an external source, violating the copyright of that source. Wikipedia cannot host copyrighted material, for legal reasons, so the draft has unfortunately been tagged for deletion. --bonadea contributions talk 07:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:09, 20 May 2025 review of submission by FehrScaper

[edit]

This page was recently rejected, citing the reason that Offiah's own publications are not independent reliable sources. But the publications cited that are Offiah's own are all from peer reviewed journals - so I don't understand why these are not independent reliable sources? The other references are webpages about her - but she didn't write the content of these - so I'm assuming these aren't what are being defined as her "own publications"? FehrScaper (talk) 11:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add - I've just noticed that the draft text I submitted for review isn't the same as is now there. The text has been edited and more references added since I last worked on it. Is there a way to find out who made these edits? They must have been made after I submitted it for review, and before it was reviewed. FehrScaper (talk) 12:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @FehrScaper, when we say independent we mean 'unconnected to the subject' - as in the information should not come directly fro, the subject, their family or friends, their employees or employers, etc. You can find more information at WP:42, which tells you about the three criteria your sources should meet.
If you select 'view history' on the top right of your screen when viewing your draft, you can see who else has edited it and what changes they have made. Happy editing! Meadowlark (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That makes more sense - I have used some webpages from the employer. I'll try and sort that out. Although someone else has made over 250 edits since I submitted the draft, so my corrections could get undone again... FehrScaper (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @FehrScaper. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FehrScaper, it might also be a good idea to go talk to the other editor - you can look in the 'history' link next to your draft title up above, or on the draft page like I mentioned, and there will be a 'talk' page for the other editor that you could try saying hello on. Usually working on an article that's in mainspace you will have many other editors working with you, and any mistakes are swiftly corrected, but draftspace is more of an intimate realm and people often work alone. If you have concerns about how they're editing the draft, having a talk to them is your best course of action! They are most likely trying to help you get it accepted, but they are also a new editor and writing new articles is an extremely difficult task for newer editors. Meadowlark (talk) 00:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:31, 20 May 2025 review of submission by Deadeater.42

[edit]

I have checked and added references for the wikipedia article. I don't understand what else is needed. The article is important for its relation with axion dark matter experiments that already have a wikipedia page. And it's similar in length and quality to the 'helioscope' page. Deadeater.42 (talk) 13:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the experiments have an article(not a "page"), my suggestion would be to expand that article first, then discuss on its talk page making a separate article if need be. 331dot (talk) 14:35, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:35, 20 May 2025 review of submission by Adn0009

[edit]

all of the information in my article is legit with reliable sources attached with it still my articles gets rejected by the reviewers whats their problem Adn0009 (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Adn0009, their problem is that your draft has no inline citations and your sources are not reliable by Wikipedia's standards. This means your draft is effectively unreferenced and cannot possibly be accepted. Before resubmitting, please read through WP:42 and referencing for beginners and follow the advice you'll find there. Keep in mind that if you keep resubmitting without making some big improvements, the next reviewer may decide that the draft cannot be improved and simply reject it - which means the end of the road, no more resubmissions. Meadowlark (talk) 13:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Adn0009. A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else. ColinFine (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:22, 20 May 2025 review of submission by Tony.Molica

[edit]

I received a review of my Draft, and the Conflict of Interest policy was flagged. Before submitting, I did put a Conflict of Interest disclosure on the page's "Talk" section. Is there somewhere else that this disclosure should be located?

This article was written in neutral, informational tone - only facts about Bond and not trying to sell or push products. Bond is a global presence in the world of Friction Stir Welding technology. Comparing this to other company wiki pages believed this to be on track. Any insights to get this closer to approval would be very much appreciated. Thank you. 

Tony.Molica (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tony.Molica: What you see as "neutral" reads to us as "skewed in favour of the company". This is because your conflict of interest affects your perception of what is neutral. This page still reads like an investors' brochure. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:35, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From the very first sentence with it's spam link, this draft is just blatant advertising, it tells us everything the company would like us to know and reads nothing like an encyclopaedia article. Theroadislong (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Working on updating the neutrality, and adding additional 3rd party sources. Tony.Molica (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Working on updating the neutrality, and adding additional 3rd party sources. Tony.Molica (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Tony.Molica. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 17:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Working on updating. Tony.Molica (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would would suggest putting a disclosure on your user page(User:Tony.Molica). If you are employed by Bond, the Terms of Use require you to disclose your employment, see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tony.Molica Your status is not a simple COI. You have presented yourself as a paid editor in your opening question. I have left a formal question on your user talk page. Please use your pay to learn with precision about what is required, and implement it. That includes making the correct declaration.
If your manager has suggested that you write this article please read WP:BOSS and show it to them. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:56, 20 May 2025 review of submission by Ashoksravn

[edit]

why my page was not published i need a help an d please help to published my page Ashoksravn (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://example.com/ekka-shooting-complete is a fake source have you used AI here by any chance? Theroadislong (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ashoksravn: I've blocked a few users as sock puppets of Ekka Movie who've been trying to get this published in the last week or so under different titles. Can you give me one good reason why I shouldn't block you, too, given that you're clearly all in it together? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, they hopped onto #wikipedia-en-help earlier and tried to vomit the draft into it; they got killed off the network. Turns out posting a line-by-line draft into IRC causes the network's bots to view it as spam and kick-ban the offender, who knew? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano Bonus level achieved! 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:13, 20 May 2025 review of submission by Mr. Benz86

[edit]
Deleted as a blatant hoax 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am requesting for my Wiki page, which had just been published on May 20, 2025, to be removed. Thank you! Mr. Benz86 (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Benz86 It has been deleted as a blatant hoax. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

21:49, 20 May 2025 review of submission by Changerequestchicago

[edit]

I am looking for assistance on how to get this article published. What do I need to do here? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Changerequestchicago (talk) 21:49, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please disclose your connection with this person, see conflict of interest and paid editing.
Rejection is typically the end of the line for a draft, but if you can fundamentally change the draft to address the concerns of reviewers, you should first appeal to the last reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:52, 20 May 2025 review of submission by Brandonlindo

[edit]

I would like to request assistance with the edits needed to resubmit this article draft. Am I being asked to include additional sources, and could someone clarify the issue with the “Affiliations” section? Should that section be removed entirely or revised? Additionally, could you explain the concern regarding Prof. Stuart Conway’s role as an advisory board member? I would greatly appreciate more detailed guidance on the edits required for publication.

I would also like to add a image of Professor Stuart Conway to this infobox, but I'm unsure on how to add the image. If someone could walk me through it, I would greatly appreciate it!

Thank you. Brandonlindo (talk) 22:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Brandonlindo Please engage in conversation with the editor who declined the draft. We are unable to offer a better opinion than they have already.
Pictures are problematic. If you "found it" somewhere then someone else owns the copyright. If you took it then you own the copyright. To upload it you either have to be the copyright owner or be licenced by them to upload it here,. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 21

[edit]

Request for neutral editor review: Connie Willis draft

[edit]

Hello editors,

I’m Connie Willis, and I’ve drafted a biography about myself in my sandbox:

🔗 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ConnieWillis/sandbox

I understand Wikipedia discourages autobiographies, so I am kindly asking a neutral editor to review it and, if appropriate, submit it through the proper process.

The draft is fully formatted, neutral in tone, and backed by third-party sources including Coast to Coast AM, interviews, and podcasts. If it needs improvement, I’m happy to revise.

Thank you so much for your time and guidance.

—ConnieWillis ConnieWillis (talk) 23:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ConnieWillis Your draft was declined because it did not contain significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources to demonstrate that you meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. By "independent" we mean that the source should be completely unconnected to the subject, so interviews and organizations that you are part of are not independent sources. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Though it is not absolutely forbidden, it is inadvisable for you to write about yourself here, see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 08:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @ConnieWillis. One of the things that makes autobiography so hard in Wikipedia is that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
The job of the writer of an article is to find those independent sources, and then forget everything they may know about the subject, and write a neutral summary of what those sources say. ColinFine (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ConnieWillis: Another aspect of autobiographies that 331dot and ColinFine didn't mention is that our standards for biographical content when it comes to living people are stricter. Every claim that could potentially be challenged by a reasonable person MUST be sourced to a strong third-party published source that explicitly corroborates the claim or (failing that) removed wholesale. This is not negotiable. Neither of your sources are third-party either (one is her employer, the other is an interview with her on a podcast). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:49, 21 May 2025 review of submission by Charles George (OTT consultant)

[edit]

I want create a page and include the details please help me with this Charles George (OTT consultant) (talk) 03:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you been written about by news outlets, not counting interviews, quotes, or name-drops? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 04:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Charles George (OTT consultant) Do you pass WP:BIO? If so, though almost no-one succeeds in writing their autobiography (inability to be neutral, unable to stand back far enough to avoid puffery, etc etc) then go ahead. If not, then please waste no-one's time including your own. Your user name suggests that you are an "Over-The-Top" consultant. This suggests that you are used to optimising your clients' offerings and may seek to optimise your own.
We do not have pages where you can say what you please about yourself. We have articles which summarise what others have been reported as saying about topics, people, things, in significant coverage (greater than three decent paragraphs) in multiple secondary sources es which are independent of the subject of the article. Achieve that and there is no problem. Faiks to achieve that and there is no article. Engage in promotional activities and there is a strong probability of removal of editing privileges. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 07:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Charles George (OTT consultant) You need to be aware, also, that creation of any article for a client means that you must make a full declaration under WP:PAID, and that making such a declaration does not absolve any editor froth rules, policies and procedures of Wikipedia. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 07:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:58, 21 May 2025 review of submission by Artmovementrevolution

[edit]

i need asistance in writting the article in a format expected of an encyclopedia article Artmovementrevolution (talk) 07:58, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft tells about this movement- not summarizes what independent reliable sources say about it. I suggest you look at some other articles about schools of art- impressionism maybe- to get an idea of what is being looked for. 331dot (talk) 08:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:49, 21 May 2025 review of submission by Polparioritsas

[edit]

I want to delete the draft due to confict Polparioritsas (talk) 08:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to delete the draft merely due to a conflict of interest; the draft process is the correct way for someone to submit a draft about a topic for which they have a conflict of interest. However, if you would like it deleted, I can do so. 331dot (talk) 10:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:00, 21 May 2025 review of submission by XRsensei

[edit]

Hi! I’m affiliated with AMAZE and have submitted a draft article about the company at User:XRsensei/sandbox through the Articles for Creation process. The article is fully cited with independent coverage from sources like TechCrunch, Billboard, CNN, and Fast Company, and written in a neutral tone.

If any reviewer has time to take a look or provide early feedback, I’d be sincerely grateful. Thank you! XRsensei (talk) 10:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

XRsensei I fixed your link so you didn't link to a page called "Request for review of sandbox draft: AMAZE (User:XRsensei/sandbox)". Please disclose the general nature of your affiliation on your user page, see conflict of interest and paid editing(which includes employment).
You have submitted it for review and it is pending; the reviewer will leave you feedback. 331dot (talk) 10:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@XRsensei I have reviewed it. NeoGaze (talk) 10:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NeoGaze I respectfully disagree with the result of your review; the article just summarizes the routine business activities of the company and its offerings; the award mentioned lacks an article itself, meaning that it doesn't contribute to notability either. 331dot (talk) 10:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot To me it appears this company fullfills the primary criteria of notability specifically for organizations and companies. Granted, a couple of citations are needed, but these refer to minor parts of the article, and can be added later on. If you think I have misinterpreted something or made a mistake, please tell me more clearly what I did wrong, thanks. NeoGaze (talk) 11:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I misspoke in that the Webby Awards have an article, so maybe that's enough, but the bulk of the article is just routine coverage that does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH. Personally I would not have accepted it until that was slimmed down, given the COI/PAID of the editor, but the award is probably enough to prevent a successful AfD, so I won't take further action. 331dot (talk) 11:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:14, 21 May 2025 review of submission by Sspccomms

[edit]

Hi, I was wondering if there could be some elaboration or help with the sources for this page in order to get it approved. Sspccomms (talk) 11:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User soft blocked for username. 331dot (talk) 11:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:06, 21 May 2025 review of submission by Cavaliere ospitaliero

[edit]

I'm tring to write this voice. what should i add? 

Cavaliere ospitaliero (talk) 13:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:11, 21 May 2025 review of submission by Theriazz123

[edit]

I would like assistance on how to submit my draft? Theriazz123 (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Theriazz123: The lot of your sources are the usual pre-release publicity blitz that doesn't help for eligibility (routine coverage). Wait until the film releases and gets professional reviews, then come back and write an article based on those reviews. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:35, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:22, 21 May 2025 review of submission by Luigimartin0737

[edit]

I have been declined Luigimartin0737 (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have rejected your draft and nominated for deletion as it purely a promotional piece about you and in no way resembles an article; I strongly urge you to read WP:YFA and WP:AUTOBIO. CoconutOctopus talk 17:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Luigimartin0737: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. No sources, no article, no debate. The draft as written is also hagiographical in tone. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:00, 21 May 2025 review of submission by Fnoing

[edit]

I am new to editing wikipedia, i would like to have the widely popular game that i am obsessed with have a wikipedia page and would like some form of guidance or help on how to make that happen.Fnoing (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fnoing The draft has been rejected, typically meaning it won't be considered further. Popularity does not by itself confer notability. Please see the messages left by reviewers. If you just want to tell the world about the game, you should use social media or other website with less stringent requirements(like a gaming wiki). 331dot (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:20, 21 May 2025 review of submission by 92.17.18.171

[edit]

Because it's not finished with review. 92.17.18.171 (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are mistaken. It is finished. It has been rejected. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:41, 21 May 2025 review of submission by AnniesWiki91

[edit]

What is the issue with this? I don't see any peacocking and there are plenty references. AnniesWiki91 (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused why this is not notable enough when similar companies (Rebag etc) have pages. AnniesWiki91 (talk) 19:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AnniesWiki91 I have merged your two questions. Please do not create multiple threads.
"Plenty of references" there maybe. Do they pass WP:42. Please engage with the rejecting reviewer directly.
Please also read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Historically there are many articles which should not be here. But there are relatively few folk to remove them, let alone find them. Please feel free to flag those you mention for deletion 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AnniesWiki91: Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
As for Rebag, you might notice that it has maintenance tags on the top of it. It was also never drafted. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebag, @Jéské Couriano. Thank you @AnniesWiki91 for drawing this to our attention. Now the community will reach a conclusion. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 07:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:48, 21 May 2025 review of submission by EncyclopedianWP

[edit]

Sources and expansion EncyclopedianWP (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't really ask a question, but you resubmitted your draft. 331dot (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:12, 21 May 2025 review of submission by Catjwjj

[edit]

Hello, I have a lot of 1980s (pre internet) material on John's career including performances and itinerary how can submit this information for review, or does it all have to be on the internet. John had a special performance in Manchester performed in his memory by BBC.

He would have died 40 years ago next month 

Catjwjj (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Catjwjj Non online material is fine as a reference. Please read WP:CITE on how to cite it (as well as online material). References must pass wp:42, so please measure what you wish to use against that.
Internet archives tend to be digitising older material, so a search might bear fruit. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:17, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:49, 21 May 2025 review of submission by Cinematic Quill

[edit]

My article is declined with note imdb is not good source - should I remove it (proof of successful movies). What is the best sources to use in article? Cinematic Quill (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:32, 21 May 2025 review of submission by Khh57

[edit]

I do't understand why my sources are not considered to be reputable. Khh57 (talk) 22:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:44, 21 May 2025 review of submission by Irisandlilian

[edit]

I created a page in my sandbox that already exists as a stub and would like to publish it. However, since the page already exists I am unable to publish it, how do I work around this? Irisandlilian (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 22

[edit]

00:29, 22 May 2025 review of submission by N Valle2002

[edit]

All I'm doing is translating an already made post that has been appoved, why would you decline mine when its already approved but in Italian, i just want to put it out there in English. N Valle2002 (talk) 00:29, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@N Valle2002: Because each Wikipedia project has its own standards and practices, and the English-language Wikipedia tends to be amongst the strictest when it comes to sourcing and verification. What works for the Italian-language Wikipedia (or indeed, most other Wikipediae) won't cut it for the English Wikipedia. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 05:48, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:43, 22 May 2025 review of submission by Spworld2

[edit]

An important article on the Indian state of Kerala, This article has been edited and is ready, but I have a small doubt about the title. Can you help me publish this? Spworld2 (talk) 04:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Spworld2: This draft has been rejected as contrary to Wikipedia's purpose and will not be considered further. We don't host essays, and this draft falls into a contentious topic (Indian Subcontinent). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 05:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:55, 22 May 2025 review of submission by VANSHIKA002

[edit]

CAN YOU TELL HOW SHOULD I MODIFY IT? VANSHIKA002 (talk) 06:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where to even begin with this. It's not an article in any meaningful way, it's just kind of an odd, vaguely sourced list of concepts, possibly assembled by AI. It has already been rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:27, 22 May 2025 review of submission by Bardumarche

[edit]

The article creation was rejected, but I'm unclear as to why, given a number of reputable secondary independent sources, as well as citations from other authors of the significance of this writer. Am I permitted to know precisely on what criterion this article creation was rejected? Bardumarche (talk) 07:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1291600284"