Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

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

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


May 6

[edit]

Request on 05:11:13, 6 May 2025 for assistance on AfC submission by AndreaLivnat

[edit]


Hi, I am trying to publish this article. As I understand, it was declined: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject." It is based on an article in a acedemic yearbook (wrote it myself), giving all the necessary sources. I cant give the sources in the wikipedia article, because they are primary non published sources (I had access to Boris Gersmans estate, letters, private stuff). So I dont know what to do with it. I did my research as always, I am an historian, but cant publish it here. Please help me with this! Thank you very much in advance.


AndreaLivnat (talk) 05:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Non published sources, private stuff and letters CANNOt be used to cite an article here, yes you are correct you cannot publish it here, that would be original research. Theroadislong (talk) 07:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't feel bad, I can't get my article published and my subject person has been on national news several times! It's kind of ridiculous on here. AshGolden (talk) 01:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:17, 6 May 2025 review of submission by Dvalev

[edit]

Hello, I'm trying to understand why is the article rejected for a second time although I added more (secondary) references to it. I struggle to comprehend how is this article unsuited for the Wikipedia (a scientific discipline, related to philosophy, epistemology, math, IT), and on the other hand we have Wikipedia articles about random people who didn't contribute to anything nor didn't make any scientific or other discoveries; or even more random topics with colose to none references or importance. I believe that this article is important, and I'd love to get some help from the pros to get it published. Thank you. 

Dvalev (talk) 07:17, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not have articles based on purpoted "importance" but on notability; that is, significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. As the reviewer stated this article is a confusing mess and reads like an advertisement for one man's idea. As it stands the article has been rejected and won't be considered further. CoconutOctopus talk 08:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:27, 6 May 2025 review of submission by Teamworkers

[edit]

omar owns the make hijrah platform, and the make hijrah channel, he got thousands of Muslims to make hijrah because of it Teamworkers (talk) 07:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but the article does not show he is notable per Wikipedia's standards and you repeatedly re-submitted it without making the required improvements so I have rejected the draft and it can no longer be submitted. You have not responded to the COI notice I have left you, are you in any way related to Omar or the app? CoconutOctopus talk 08:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:41, 6 May 2025 review of submission by Naturenerd135

[edit]

Hello, my submission has been rejected as it doesn't have an encyclopaedic tone - I've tried to keep it as neutral as possible. Please can you advise which parts may need re-looking at or any other advice in how to make it acceptable? Thank you Naturenerd135 (talk) 07:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through the draft and I'm personally struggling to understand why the most recent reviewer declined for tone. @Gheus, did you click the wrong reason or am I missing something? CoconutOctopus talk 08:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"produces nature-inspired", "The brand", "partnered with", "It marked the first time in over 400 years", sounds like an advertisement to me (of course, you can resubmit if you disagree). Gheus (talk) 09:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:15, 6 May 2025 review of submission by Pistachio Tiffany

[edit]

Submission declined, kindly assist. Thank you. Pistachio Tiffany (talk) 08:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pistachio Tiffany, do you have a question about anything in particular? The decline reason has quite a few links that should help you out. StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you for your kind reply. I am not sure how I can get the submission to be accepted. Is there any way that you could suggest to me? Thank you in advanced! Pistachio Tiffany (talk) 08:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pistachio Tiffany: Refer to the basic notability criteria for biographies and the general notability guideline – requirement for significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The only sources I see here are a business directory entry, a puff piece, and announcements of awards that do not appear to be notable. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 08:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input. Those awards are by independent third parties and are notable in the legal sector which are LexisNexis and Asian Legal Business (ALB) by Thomson Reuters. Please explain what you are suggesting as puff piece so that I may clarify where necessary. Pistachio Tiffany (talk) 09:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are not notable in Wikipedia terms however, since we have no articles about them. Theroadislong (talk) 09:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LexisNexis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomson_Reuters
Kindly refer, thanks. Pistachio Tiffany (talk) 09:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
then add links to the draft! But the awards have no article? Theroadislong (talk) 09:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is, https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-hk/40under40/2024/yi-qing-loh
Thank you for your input. Pistachio Tiffany (talk) 09:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
that is a profile page, it confers zero notability. Theroadislong (talk) 09:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
that is by the website of LexisNexis, how is that a profile page? It is stated with clarity here, https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-sg/news-and-insights/40Under40 Pistachio Tiffany (talk) 09:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think what Theroadislong means here is that there are no articles in Wikipedia about these specific awards, because nobody has shown that these awards meet our notability standards. Awards do not inherit notability from the organisations that sponsor them. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 09:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that is because nobody edited them in, it does not mean is has no notability. Pistachio Tiffany (talk) 09:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but until that happens, we don't consider it notable. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
great, meaning as long as it has ben edited in then it could count as having notability. Thanks for your input. Pistachio Tiffany (talk) 09:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the entirety of Wikipedia's guidance on Notability, and genuinely taken the time to consider whether Ms Loh, and these awards, meet our requirements? — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 09:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you asked for a secondary source that is notable and I have provided them bearing in mind that it is a third party link that I have no control over. Am I missing something? Pistachio Tiffany (talk) 09:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The link I provided explains what "puff piece" means in contrast to unbiased journalism. The Glam Week article is really just a gallery of glamour shots supplemented by a friendly interview (free publicity). — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 09:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, it is a fact that the featured person is a beauty queen, lawyer and entrepreneur. Can you please explain further on the meaning of puff piece as the contents of the article are mere facts? Pistachio Tiffany (talk) 09:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The answers have already been provided in previous replies. Please read them carefully. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 09:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've gotten tons of replies now, but I'm still going to link you the page I think is most useful and give you the explanation that made sense to me! Have a look at WP:42, and then here's my spiel.
Your goal here is to establish that your subject is notable by Wikipedia standards, which are very specific. There's a bunch of different options, but in general the way to show that your subject is notable is to provide at least three sources which match the triple criteria in WP:42. Once you have those, you can use other sources for additional bits of information, but the WP:42-compatible sources are the most important - without those you can't have an article.
One thing that trips lots of people up is that interviews can't be used to show notability, because they're not independent. Wikipedia editors have also spent a lot of time and argument over which sources are reliable, and which are not - you can find a list of some frequently used ones at WP:RSPSS. If you've looked at a source against WP:42 and aren't sure whether it passes, you're welcome to link it to me and I'll have a peek. I hope this helps! StartGrammarTime (talk) 09:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
can you please review my draft and let me know what else is required? I have added many links under "External Links" other than "References" that are independent sources, are you able to see them? Pistachio Tiffany (talk) 10:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, a couple more things @Pistachio Tiffany because I can see you're working on your draft right now. Don't worry about external links - they're basically irrelevant in terms of your goal. You want references - you want good, solid sources. So just pause for a moment and read through the information I've given you about sources (WP:42!) and above all, don't resubmit until you have those sources and you've got them cited! If you keep resubmitting without making improvements, the draft will be rejected and all your work will be wasted. You don't want that. Just slow down, maybe grab a cup of tea or coffee, and then come back and do some assessing of the references you've got. There's no deadline, there's no rush, the draft will be there in an hour or a week or a month. StartGrammarTime (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:46, 6 May 2025 review of submission by Montreuxconvention

[edit]

I submitted as page as draft and it asked for secondary, strictly independent of the subject sources. Theses sources do not exists for the topic. even though the infomation is the truth how do i get around this? Montreuxconvention (talk) 09:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the ALB links, there is a tab for finalist and it can be seen there in the lists. Please refer to the External Links as I have edited and added relevant links for review and submission. Thank you very much. Pistachio Tiffany (talk) 09:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AlB? Montreuxconvention (talk) 09:51, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Asian Legal Business or is there any other sources that you are specifically referring to? Please let me know so that I may guide you on that. Thank you. Pistachio Tiffany (talk) 09:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are going to have to be more specific as i do not understand? Montreuxconvention (talk) 09:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Theses sources do not exists for the topic. even though the infomation is the truth how do i get around this?" you asked this? How can I assist? Is there any specific link that is not working? Pistachio Tiffany (talk) 09:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
there are links for the topic that work but they are primary link from the boat club about it self. there are not secondary links about it and i need secondary links for a submission. but the secondary links do not exists anywhere so how do i get around this problem. Montreuxconvention (talk) 10:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pistachio Tiffany, I think you're in the wrong thread here - @Montreuxconvention is asking about their own draft. Yours is the next one up :) StartGrammarTime (talk) 10:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for your input, can you please look into mine? Very much appreciated! Pistachio Tiffany (talk) 10:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pistachio Tiffany, [1] is my latest response that I hope will help you. StartGrammarTime (talk) 10:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the secondary links are in "External Links" and "References"
LexisNexis® 40 UNDER 40 2024 - Yi Qing Loh www.lexisnexis.com
ALB Malaysia Law Awards 2024 | Asian Legal Business www.legalbusinessonline.com (under FINALIST TAB : Managing Partner, Woman Lawyer and Rising Law Firm categories)
ALB Malaysia Law Awards 2025 | Asian Legal Business www.legalbusinessonline.com (under FINALIST TAB: ESG ans Sustainability Law Firm category)
ALB SE Asia Law Awards 2025 | Asian Legal Business www.legalbusinessonline.com (under FINALIST TAB: Managing Partner (Emerging Markets) category)
Miss Planet International 2024 Alphageant Wiki Top 18
Youtube Event Video of Miss Planet International 2024 - 4th Edition by Miss Planet International
LexisNexis Wikipedia under LexisNexis Asia Pistachio Tiffany (talk) 10:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pistachio Tiffany: please stop commenting in this thread. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I wasn't aware earlier. Pistachio Tiffany (talk) 10:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Montreuxconvention: if, as you say, secondary sources don't exist, then this organisation is not notable enough to justify its own article. It's not enough that something exists, for inclusion in Wikipedia it must have also received coverage in multiple secondary sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What happens if they do exist they just cannot be referenced due to the fact that they are physical paper? Montreuxconvention (talk) 10:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Montreuxconvention: offline sources (assuming that's what you mean by 'physical paper'?) are perfectly acceptable, as long as they otherwise meet our requirements, ie. are reliable, independent, secondary sources that have been published and remain accessible. In citing offline sources, you need to provide sufficient bibliographic details to allow the sources to be reliably identified for verification, see WP:OFFLINE for more on this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
how do you work out if they remain accessible? Montreuxconvention (talk) 10:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Montreuxconvention: that's also discussed in the guidance on published, but to give an example, the source cannot be only in a private archive which no one is allowed to access; similarly, if the only known copy of something is destroyed or its whereabouts cannot be determined, it would not be accessible (and to say that at one time it was accessible isn't enough). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Montreuxconvention (talk) 11:18, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:23, 6 May 2025 review of submission by Ms 2024 baiiiii

[edit]

how can i get this topic be reviewed, thanks Ms 2024 baiiiii (talk) 13:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can't, it has been rejected. Please see the messages left by reviewers. If you can fundamentally change the draft to address the concerns, the first step is to appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:59, 6 May 2025 review of submission by 157.125.74.221

[edit]

I'd like to understand why it's being declined, when the subject is neutral. Additionally, I believe it's quite important when mentioning regarding the growth of Employee Ownership and the link to one of it's board members, especially being a previous prominent member of the EU parliament. 157.125.74.221 (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have only summarized the routine activities of the company, not significant coverage in independent reliable sources that shows how the company is a notable company. 331dot (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:31, 6 May 2025 review of submission by Kaalsingh

[edit]

Dear Sir, can I start fresh . Since I am new & I am struggling with rules & regulation Kaalsingh (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have nothing at all to support the topic being notable in Wikipedia terms. Theroadislong (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaalsingh, if you decide to start over, I strongly recommend that you begin by finding several sources where people wholly unconnected with Yadav or Wise have chosen to write in sonme depthv about Yadav and been published in reliable sources: see WP:42 for more infoermation.
If you cannot find at least three sources that meet these criteria (and thus far you have none at all) then you will know that any further effort you put into this subject is a waste of your time, as no article will be accepted.
If you do find three or more such sources, then you can indeed begin again. Approach the editor who rejected your draft, present them with the sources you have found, and ask them to rescind the rejection.
If they agree, you almost ceratinly want to throw away all your existing text, and begin again: forget everything you know about Yadav, and write a neutral summary of what those independent sources say. Then submit the draft for review.
But I would even more strongly recommend that you put the whole idea of this article aside until you have gained more knowledge of Wikipedia. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank for you honest suggestions . Kaalsingh (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaalsingh, you have been told that this draft has been rejected and that if you keep trying to resubmit it for further review, you will be blocked for disruptive editing. It's time to let this go.
Is there a reason you are so desperate to have the draft accepted? I note your other draft appears to be about the same company - do you work for Wise? StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't work for this company. Though there are so may reliable references I have shared from top media houses still the article was getting rejected & this was making me feel upset. Was not able to understand where i am going wrong. Kaalsingh (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:34, 6 May 2025 review of submission by Baidaimeng

[edit]

I acquired electronic copies of some old reports and newspaper articles regarding Chik Wai Leung from some library archives. These documents are only accessible in their respective libraries. How should I cite these documents if they are single pages in larger documents but some information about those documents are missing? Baidaimeng (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be able to cite enough information that someone could locate these passages if they so wished. If it's a page of a larger book or document, you can cite the specific page number along with author, publisher, publication date, etc. 331dot (talk) 16:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:47, 6 May 2025 review of submission by Solenereboulet

[edit]

Hello,


I recently submitted a draft article about the company Advans, which was declined on May 3, 2025. I understand that the issue is mainly related to the sources not meeting the required criteria (depth, reliability, secondary, and independence). I would like to improve the draft and resubmit it, but I need some guidance to move forward properly.


Would someone be kind enough to:

- Point out one or two sources in the current draft that are considered acceptable according to Wikipedia’s standards;

- And one or two that are not acceptable, with a brief explanation?


This would really help me understand what’s expected, and what I should aim for or avoid. Also, if some parts of the draft are clearly problematic due to poor sourcing (or could be removed for now), please let me know.


Thanks a lot in advance for your help and your time!


Best regards, Solenereboulet (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Solenereboulet this article was just deleted via an WP:AfD discussion - WP:Articles for deletion/Advans - where you were given some robust feedback. Right now there are 29 sources and no reviewer is going to review all of them so my advice is to cut!, cut! cut! and it reads promotional to me. Best to make a simple draft using the best five-ish sources.. S0091 (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:59, 6 May 2025 review of submission by Teedadonn

[edit]

Please Can You Put "KTB" On Here, Its A Gang So It Should Be On Here. Teedadonn (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Totally unsourced and zero evidence of notability correctly so rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 17:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Teedadonn. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what some people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to write (in some depth) about the subject, and been publixhed in a reliable publication; and very little else.
Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what you, I, or any random person on the internet knows about the gang, and even less interest in what the gang wants to say about itself.
If you haven't got any independent, reliable, in-depth sources (see WP:42) there cannot be an article. ColinFine (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm apart of KTB so i know all bout it , and i got a 2 Article bout us on the internet , so please consider it please Teedadonn (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:47, 6 May 2025 review of submission by SVSWIKIPED

[edit]


The page submits but laters says its not submitted for review. Plz help.. I made an article on tests in the USA but everytime I submit, I see a yellow box saying successfully submitted for review but refresh from my inbox and see that it says it is not submitted. What is happening? SVSWIKIPED (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your post to provide a link to the draft as intended. I don't believe there are any notifications of submission. You have indeed successfully submitted it, you will get a notification when it is reviewed. 331dot (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:50, 6 May 2025 review of submission by Ellagracerr

[edit]

Hello! My article was denied as the sources weren't adequate. Can I have help determining if I just need more sources and to add depth, or if my sources are not considered 'independent'? Thanks so much!! Ellagracerr (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Ellagracerr. I suggest you look at WP:42, and evaluate each source against it.
The question to ask for each source is "Is this a place where somebody completely unconnected with the Incentives and with the organisations which create and maintain them, has chosen to write in depth about the incentives, and been publixshed in a reliable publication?" If the answer is No, the source is of little use, and cannot count towards establishing that the subject is notable in Wikipedia's sense. ColinFine (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's very helpful, thanks so much!! Ellagracerr (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:41, 6 May 2025 review of submission by 2600:6C5E:18F0:6AC0:4DC2:B51E:D9DF:F68

[edit]

It was a fun thing to put on there. It was going to be a part of a movie 2600:6C5E:18F0:6AC0:4DC2:B51E:D9DF:F68 (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately for your article, Wikipedia doesn't have articles just because they are "fun". If there are reliable sources to back it up we would accept it. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 01:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 7

[edit]

01:16, 7 May 2025 review of submission by SVSWIKIPED

[edit]

If I was making a article about state testing, would information from schoold districts like things about the EOG and if you can face retention be independent reliable sources? SVSWIKIPED (talk) 01:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SVSWIKIPED: No (connexion to subject). You'd need news reports about the standardised test. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 02:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I also found websites that rae not popular but seem to be independent like mathandreadinghelp.org so i am wondering if this would count and help my article to be accepted.
i was rejected off the basis that I did not provide resources that are independent so its important that i have a reliable and credible source that can be used and help the article get accepted.
I also included an article about helping kids prepare for an EOG by wilmingtonparent.com so please let me know if this is enough and good source that i can use to get this article approved. SVSWIKIPED (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SVSWIKIPED, have a look at WP:42 for guidance here. You will need to find at least three sources that match all three criteria in WP:42 to show that your subject is notable and should have an article here. Websites don't need to be super popular, but they do need to be reliable and independent. WP:42 has some more information about how you can tell whether a site is reliable and independent, and whether the coverage is considered significant. 04:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC) StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OH MY GOD THANKS! SVSWIKIPED (talk) 11:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:15, 7 May 2025 review of submission by 99.130.144.132

[edit]

I don't know how to add reliable sources or footnotes to my article. 99.130.144.132 (talk) 02:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:Referencing for beginners and WP:Reliable sources. I'll also note the draft is just a massive, impenetrable wall of text; separate it into paragraphs. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 02:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:03, 7 May 2025 review of submission by LbnSchoolResearcher

[edit]

I submitted a draft about stars college article, can u review it as soon as possible LbnSchoolResearcher (talk) 09:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has no deadlines; what's your hurry? Drafts are reviewed by volunteers in no particular order, please be patient. 331dot (talk) 09:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LbnSchoolResearcher: please take care not to remove the previous decline notices - doing that created extra work for the volunteer reviewers, and leads to longer review times. --bonadea contributions talk 12:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:51, 7 May 2025 review of submission by OttoBenjamin

[edit]

Hello everyone, I would like to adapt my article so that it meets the requirements. Unfortunately, I'm not sure what exactly the problem is. In the German Wiki it was accepted as it is. If someone could point me in the right direction it would be great. Br OttoBenjamin (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@OttoBenjamin: the problem with this draft is that it just tells us what the is and what it does, from the point of view of the provider. That is considered inherently promotional, see WP:YESPROMO, and Wikipedia does not allow promotion of any sort. In any case, we're not interested in what you want to say about your product, what we want to see is (summaries of) what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about this product and what makes it worthy of note. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:54, 7 May 2025 review of submission by Websfarm

[edit]

Afternoon, any help for understanding this refusal:

Promotional tone, editorializing and other words to watch Vague, generic, and speculative statements extrapolated from similar subjects Essay-like writing Hallucinations (plausible-sounding, but false information) and non-existent references Close paraphrasing Websfarm (talk) 14:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Websfarm: this was declined because it seems to have been drafted by LLM. This often creates all sorts of problems, including the ones listed in the decline notice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:00, 7 May 2025 review of submission by FloweryLion

[edit]

I have added additional different sources as well as someone helping me cut out a lot of the "promotional" language. How do I go about resubmitting it? FloweryLion (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FloweryLion: you can't resubmit, since it has been rejected (rather than merely declined); that's what rejection means. You may appeal directly to the rejecting reviewer, if you wish. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @FloweryLion. I echo what DoubleGrazing says. I see that an IP address (presumably you) has just added three citations to the draft - you'll need to convince @Theroadislong that the citations are now adequate to establish notability.
How come you are asking about a draft which you have not edited? Are you @Alex114721 using a different account? ColinFine (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yes I am, i lost my password to the other account and when they were supposed to send an email to reset it, but I never got one so I just made a new login. Additionally I was also the IP address that edited, i thought I was logged in but was not and didn't want to risk losing the changes I had made by logging in after the fact so I just published them under the IP address. FloweryLion (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are extermely poor, but please at least ensure they actually support the content, this [2] and this [3] appear not to? Theroadislong (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first source you linked here, talks about the style of pizza and how it is known only locally, rather than the larger scale that some see it deserves. i removed the second source you had listed here because it was only addressed bar pizza briefly. If you can, what qualifies as a better source? I've gone through many articles trying to find ones that are reliable. Do you have any advice on other sources that can be used? FloweryLion (talk) 19:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FlowerlyLion Are you associated with this style of pizza in some way, such as working for the Cape Cod Cafe(the main producer of this pizza)? 331dot (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I grew up eating it a lot and I am from the area where it is know to be most popular, so when I saw the list of all of the styles of pizza and bar pizza wasn't on there I wanted to change that. I am realizing now that it is a lot more than I thought it would be. FloweryLion (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, OK, @FloweryLion. I suggest you put a note on your user page User:FloweryLion explaining that you were previously Alex114721 but lost your password: that will avoid suspicious people like me chasing you with questions. (You could also put a corresponding note on User:Alex114721, but that's probably less important). ColinFine (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:26, 7 May 2025 review of submission by Cmertig26

[edit]

How can I make this topic notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia? Thank you. Cmertig26 (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can't "make it notable". He(you?) doesn't seem to be a notable person more broadly or more narrowly a notable musician. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about someone. 331dot (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cmertig26: well, they could maybe receive the Nobel Prize, or get elected to Congress, or perhaps become the Principal of a major research university. Or alternatively, get lots of coverage in independent and reliable secondary sources such as print or broadcast media. Is any of that on the cards? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to at least get the info from the draft back? It was deleted and i'm not sure how to get the article Cmertig26 (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:REFUND. ColinFine (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 8

[edit]

04:28, 8 May 2025 review of submission by Sahilm1331

[edit]

Hi, my article did not meet the criteria as it lacks multiple published sources that are indepth, reliable, secondary, and independant. Can anyone help me with how to make my article visible and correct through these measures 

Sahilm1331 (talk) 04:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sahilm1331 You have resubmitted it. That is one of the best ways of getting the help you seek 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:18, 8 May 2025 review of submission by Reshmaaaa

[edit]

Hey, I have incorporated multiple reliable and independent sources in international and local websites, citing the popularity and impact of the serial as well. Yet, it is being rejected on the same basis, when I have addressed the matter. I can give a detailed reference assessment, if required, to justify the acception of an article. Please look into it. Reshmaaaa (talk) 07:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of the reviewers who have "declined" (not rejected) on the basis of the sources being unreliable such as this which is non-bylined churnalism which is similar to WP:NEWSORGINDIA as well as this one which is the same.--CNMall41 (talk) 07:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Reshmaaaa, I've gone through your first five sources; I only speak English so I'll be relying on machine translation for non-English sources.
Source 1, from Samaa TV, is about an actor, not about the series; it does not provide reliable, independent or significant coverage (you need all three);
Source 2, from Dawn News, is the same;
Source 3, from ARYNews, has basically nothing about the series and so can't be used either;
Source 4, from Independent Urdu, is an interview with an actor, which is not independent;
Source 5, from The Nation, is mostly about an actor, and the over-the-top praise and lack of a named writer means it's hard to see as reliable or independent. There's really very little about the series itself, as well.
Although I am not an AfC reviewer, if you presented me these sources in an existing article I would be removing your edit and asking for better sources. I agree with the reviewers thus far; you need better sources. Have a look at WP:42 to get an idea of what you need in a source: you will need at least three sources that meet the triple criteria in WP:42 in order to show us that this series is notable by Wikipedia's standards. I hope this helps. StartGrammarTime (talk) 09:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @StartGrammarTime, let me make an assessment of majority series references below;
  1. [4] - This covers the female lead of the show, who made her debut with the series, briefly discussing the plot of the show.
  2. [5] - It is about the female lead as well, focusing on her background and how she managed to get a role in the series after becoming viral.
  3. [6] - covers the viewers reaction to released teasers of the show.
  4. [7] - focuses on the critics views regarding female lead role.
  5. [8] - shedding light on female lead incident where she went viral.
  6. [9] - focuses on the main leads of the show and their pairing as a couple.
  7. [10] - talks about plot of the story, where Abdul Bari, male lead takes a stand for her wife in the series.
  8. [11] - people's reaction on the finale of the show.
  9. [12] - written from the point of view regarding what should Pakistani people watch, where serial is listed and the plot is discussed in detail.
  10. [13] - Here the article is about the most watched Pakistani dramas digitally and the show is discussed there as well in detail.
  11. [14] - here it authenticates that show is being watched internationally by UK audience as well.
What else we should expect in the references section of a drama serial? All the references are covering the serial and it's title. Few sources have not mentioned the title but confirms the prevalence to the article. Express Tribune, Dawn, Samaa, Biz Asia, Urdu point are all reliable sources and looking one way or the other show has been covered from every aspect in the sources.Reshmaaaa (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fact you ignored the source assessment by the three reviewers who declined plus another editor opining here says a lot. No amount of editing will make it notable unfortunately so not sure what else to say to help you. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is declined by two editors. The first time it was declined, made sense to me cause it required improvement at that time but this time I'm quite confident. Also @StartGrammarTime is not an AFC reviewer, so I'm just discussing it here and taking opinions and Sorry but yours are not convincing with regards to weak sources. Reshmaaaa (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your reassessment suggests that you're missing the point entirely. The assessment is supposed to directly evaluate the sources for reliability, independence, and being significantly about the subject. You simply list what the source is, not connect it with these crucial concepts, which has nothing to do with a source assessment. I do not think this draft is near ready to be published. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll add more references and re-submit. Thanks. Reshmaaaa (talk) 04:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Reshmaaaa, did you read through WP:42? It will be very helpful to you, especially since it links to a lot of other policies. Remember that you need at least three sources which meet all three criteria in WP:42 to show the series is notable.
Adding more sources will not necessarily help you, since multiple reviewers are saying that the current sources don't show notability. Concentrate on better sources, evaluating them all against WP:42 and setting aside any that don't match. Reliable, independent, in-depth sources will give you most of what you'd want to put in your draft in any case, so lesser-quality sources can be replaced or discarded entirely. Happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Reshmaaaa:, Seems to be a case of WP:IDHT. Based on your edit history and the studio this show represents, I am going to say this is likely not your first/only account you have used to edit Wikipedia either. Please read WP:COI and WP:PAID and make the appropriate disclosure if applicable. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@StartGrammarTime I have and it's helpful, thanks. @CNMall41I have told you before I have been editing as an IP earlier but no idea about the things you're saying. Reshmaaaa (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Reshmaaaa: Allow me to demonstrate how you assess sources.
Of all the sources you present both here and on the draft, only one is an in-depth review of the show. The rest are more about the related actors/actresses while the show is trying to get a part as an extra crossing the street behind them. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:24, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:23, 8 May 2025 review of submission by Dead2late

[edit]

Not sure if I put the references in correctly, as the links are old and I do not know where to place them when archival or alternative links exist. Dead2late (talk) 07:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dead2late We do not do pre-reviews. Please submit for review and also continue to work on the draft. In general, just use the best references which meet WP:42 that you can find 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dead2late, can you tell us whether you're using the Visual Editor or Source Editor? The Source Editor will have HTML code and Wikipedia's coding when you're editing, and the Visual Editor won't. If you're using the Source Editor, it's fairly straightforward: simply add archive-url= |archive-date= into your cite template, so for example your very first source would become:

<ref name="POY">{{Cite web|title=POYi Judges 2022|url=https://www.poy.org/79/judges.html|website=Pictures of the Year International|access-date=2025-05-08|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240625015253/https://www.poy.org/79/judges.html|archive-date=2024-06-25}}</ref>

which becomes:

[1]

Make sure that at least one link works - if there's a page that's a 404 and no online archive exists, you may need to remove that citation or use a different template (Template:Cite news perhaps if you found it offline) so that the reviewer can access the reference and verify the information. Happy editing! 10:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC) StartGrammarTime (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "POYi Judges 2022". Pictures of the Year International. Archived from the original on 2024-06-25. Retrieved 2025-05-08.

10:36, 8 May 2025 review of submission by 2001:2042:2C2F:5100:44AC:E8F6:DC0B:FC8B

[edit]

I have no idea what to do with this. I cannot see the "formatting" errors etc. Regards, Kinga Práda 2001:2042:2C2F:5100:44AC:E8F6:DC0B:FC8B (talk) 10:36, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The formatting errors are not really a huge problem –they are fairly easily fixed, but you should be able to see that the lists of his works are weidly formatted, for instance.
More to the point, in order for this to be a viable article, there needs to be more independent and reliable sources, and the sources must be cited correctly. For example, the official website for Föreningen svenska tonsättare is listed as one source, but the link in the source leads to the main page fst.se, not to fst.se/tonsattare/stellan-sagvik which is where we can find information about Sagvik. (We don't expect our readers to search through a website to find the information – in particular not when it is a non-English website.)
There is also a bit of an issue with the writing style – it comes across as a CV rather than an encyclopedia article, and there are some Swenglishisms as well (though that's not hard to fix, and is not a reason the draft would be declined). Again, there should be more independent, reliable sources, and those are not hard to find! I just made a quick Google Scholar search, which yielded a respectable number of sources. Sources do not have to be in English to be acceptable, but they do have to meet the requirements outlined in the decline notice. --bonadea contributions talk 13:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:35, 8 May 2025 review of submission by Superiorpro

[edit]

why my submission is not accepted? Superiorpro (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission is actually located at Draft:The Ancient Ages. You were given a clear reason by the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually surprised it was merely declined rather than rejected. This is an encyclopedia, not a webhost. It looks a lot like you just wrote a story, loosely based on various religious concepts. Wikipedia contains articles about subjects, sourced by what reliable, independent parties have to say about those subjects. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:37, 8 May 2025 review of submission by 50.213.135.153

[edit]

Hello, I submitted an article for consideration. The article was generated using only information that was written in articles in newspapers, magazines or tv news stories with the sources provided. There were no other sources used yet the article was denied because of lack of sources. How do I get the article reconsidered with this information provided? 50.213.135.153 (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting. It's not that you're lacking sources, you're lacking sources that show this man is either a notable person broadly or more narrowly a notable musician. 331dot (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:12, 8 May 2025 review of submission by Theroninindex

[edit]

Hi there! I’m seeking another opinion on Draft:Jeffrey Prang, which was recently declined due to concerns about notability.

Prang is the elected Los Angeles County Assessor (the largest such agency in the U.S.) since 2014 and previously served four terms as Mayor of West Hollywood. He is also mentioned in other Wikipedia articles, including the Los Angeles County Assessor page.

The draft includes independent, reliable sources with significant coverage, such as two Los Angeles Times articles, reporting from the Beverly Press and WeHo Times, and official Los Angeles County reports and datasets.

I believe this meets both WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN guidelines. I’d really appreciate any additional feedback before resubmitting.

Thanks so much! Theroninindex (talk) 19:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:22, 8 May 2025 review of submission by Sam Arcayna

[edit]

Hello! I interviewed Mauricio himself since there is, quite literally, no information on him on the internet. I got in contact with him through my clarinet professor who knows him personally. If that's he's only source I have, will I not be able to publish this article? How can I change my citation to better show the article's credibility? Sam Arcayna (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sam Arcayna information about him doesn't have to be on the internet, print sources such as books and newspapers are equally acceptable. But, if the only source you have is an interview that you conducted with him then you really have to question if he meets the notability criteria. Nthep (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sam Arcayna Interviews with the subject are primary and non-independent sources, and are therefore useless for meeting Wikipedia's definition of notability. In addition, to meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy, all sources must be available to the public in some form (but not necessarily online). WP:MUSICBIO lists additional ways that a musician can meet the notability guidelines, although reliable sources are still required in any case. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sam Arcayna even if you could prove he meets notability guidelines, remove all content from the interview. Interviews conducted by wikipedia editors are not allowed as sources. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:16, 8 May 2025 review of submission by P.thechemist

[edit]

I don't really understand why my articles is beeing rejected, I have added all the references requested but it keeps getting rejected I would like to know what I should do to improve it... Thank you in advance for your help 

P.thechemist (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
what drafts you made wanna see them TheNonEditor (talk) 01:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's declined, not rejected.
Don't submit it till you have changed it though. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @P.thechemist. Most of your sources are not independent of Paradisi. 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) 21:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 9

[edit]

01:24, 9 May 2025 review of submission by TheNonEditor

[edit]

to get it accepted in the article space TheNonEditor (talk) 01:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you improve it first. Remove peacock terms, add inline citations, and more references in general. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
what are peacock terms TheNonEditor (talk) 02:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Terms used for promotion or are visibily biased Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TheNonEditor Example: "Mr Foo is a wonderful example of a hugely successful expert in Bar, and we were honoured with his visit to the highly esteemed Foo corporation, named as a tribute to his magnificence" 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 07:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @TheNonEditor. You have not a single independent source. 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) 21:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:24, 9 May 2025 review of submission by Kunalroyindia

[edit]

What should be done for the inclusion of this page on the Wikipedia main page? Kunalroyindia (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kunalroyindia: Your draft has been rejected and will not be considered for inclusion any further. There is no way for this current draft to make it to the main page of Wikipedia. Articles on the main page go through a rigorous process to ensure only the best articles are exhibited. cyberdog958Talk 04:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:56, 9 May 2025 review of submission by Manzoor Bargat

[edit]

میرا پیج کیوں نہیں بن رہا ہے Manzoor Bargat (talk) 05:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Manzoor Bargat: please communicate in English, thank you.
No article منظور برگٹ exists, at least not here on the English-language Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Courtesy link: User:Manzoor Bargat
Translation of the Arabic text above: "Why is my page not being created?"
Answer, in English: No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Manzoor Bargat Several points:
  • You created this draft on your user page. I have moved to to Draft:Manzoor Bargat
  • You are misusing Wikipedia as a web host. Please invest in your own web site
  • This is a blatant advert for yourself. Advertising is not what Wikipedia is for
  • I have rejected it as failing notability and contrary to Wikipedia's purpose
  • WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA applies
  • I have nominated it for Speedy Deletion as an advert
So, in answer to "Why is my page not being created?" it is not being created because you have a basic misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. Perhaps, if you ever become notable, someone will write an article about you. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 07:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:14, 9 May 2025 review of submission by Applum

[edit]

Hi, I have been contributing to a page for the eyewear company Oscar Wylee. It has been rejected a few times based on feedback such as a lack of reliable sources and formal language used. I was wondering if specific examples in the article can be given that should be cut out/altered. Also suggestions on how to get it submitted like its competitors have. Applum (talk) 07:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Applum: The draft has already been submitted, by an IP user, and will be reviewed again at some point. --bonadea contributions talk 08:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Applum, the two things I think will be most helpful for you (and your co-editors) to consider will be WP:NCORP, which tells you what kind of information a company needs to be considered notable by Wikipedia standards, and WP:42, which tells you what kind of sources you need to establish notability. Most companies go through their lives without becoming notable, so please don't be disappointed if this one doesn't. If you think competitors' articles are not up to Wikipedia's standards, you are most welcome to link them here or place some maintenance tags so other editors will see the problems and work on them. Happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 03:40, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:47, 9 May 2025 review of submission by AnotherViewpoint1

[edit]

This is purely a question to help me understand what I have to do to get this published, how come the latest update I have written has been rejected but this article is acceptable Kwik Fit AnotherViewpoint1 (talk) 09:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AnotherViewpoint1: never mind any other articles that may exist out there, they have come about in various means, and many pre-date our review processes and current notability etc. standards.
This draft has to demonstrate that the subject is notable according to the relevant notability guideline WP:NCORP. The sources currently cited are not enough to do that. Besides which, this draft merely describes what the company is and does, whereas we want to hear why independent and reliable third parties (mainly secondary sources) think this business is particularly worthy of note, bearing in mind that the vast majority of businesses are not. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:56, 9 May 2025 review of submission by Milindtopre12

[edit]

Kindly help me for citations Milindtopre12 (talk) 11:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Milindtopre12: can you be more specific, please? You have already created several citations, so clearly you know how it is done. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:09, 9 May 2025 review of submission by Skerdisulovari

[edit]

This draft is dedicated to my father. I never created before something like this in wikipedia. I collected and created everything with ChatGPT 4o (pro version), here is the link. https://chatgpt.com/s/dr_681e19e907908191b348a791117235f3 Skerdisulovari (talk) 15:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Skerdisulovari: I'm afraid you should absolutely not use ChatGPT or any other LLM/chatbot to create Wikipedia articles. Get rid of what you have, and start over, writing in your own words and basing the text entirely on reliable, independent, published sources that you have access to. Your First Article has more information. --bonadea contributions talk 15:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but everything written in the draft is true and correct, just I don't know how to provide the source for each information in draft. Let me know what to do more. Thank you! Skerdisulovari (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're supposed to write the text from the information in the source, not the other way round. If you're serious about trying to make a case for notability of this person, then you need to find reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage of your father, and then write the biography yourself using only those sources for the information. WP:PRIMARY sources for basic, non-controversial facts may be allowed after you demonstrate notability, but definitely not things you personally know. And no LLMs. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:25, 9 May 2025 review of submission by Tresormusic

[edit]

Hello, I would like to request a human review for Draft:Tresor Otshudi.

I believe the draft meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for musicians and educators: - The subject has been featured in multiple independent, reliable sources including Radio-Canada, Téléjournal, and BCCF. - He is a published author with two books available on Amazon. - He has led community choirs, educational outreach programs, and recorded music recognized internationally.

The previous automatic declines were likely triggered by earlier user page issues and draft inactivity, but the current version includes inline citations, neutral tone, and verifiable sources.

Could a human reviewer kindly take a look and let me know how to improve further if needed?

Thank you kindly, Tresormusic (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ALL reviewers are human, your draft fails WP:NSINGER, your own website, YouTube and interviews are NOT reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tresormusic: you did not in fact submit Draft:Tresor Otshudi for review – you just pasted a template containing a "delete" parameter into it. I've foxed the template, so the draft is now waiting for a real review. --bonadea contributions talk 15:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bonadea I love it when folk fox things! I was hoping to give an inhuman review. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
had me googling what to "fox" things meant! Theroadislong (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this particular broken template is known to be generated by ChatGPT. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:22, 9 May 2025 review of submission by TheBeast1221

[edit]

i need help please TheBeast1221 (talk) 21:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @TheBeast1221.
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.
Also see WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. ColinFine (talk) 21:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rejection means the end of the road, there is no indication of passing WP:NFILM?

22:11, 9 May 2025 review of submission by WillisBlackburn

[edit]

Draft was rejected because the subject purportedly does not meet the notability standard for academics.

The description of notability criterion 1 includes: "Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline."

How does Boyce's solving the common fixed point problem (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_fixed_point_problem) not meet this criterion? His work has been cited in papers and online for over 50 years.

A Google search for "Commuting Functions with No Common Fixed Point" (https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Commuting+Functions+with+No+Common+Fixed+Point%22) returns 94 results.

Recently:

https://mathoverflow.net/questions/473215/2-continuous-commuting-functions-doesnt-always-have-a-common-fixed-point

https://mathoverflow.net/questions/3332/two-commuting-mappings-in-the-disk

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/450803/how-prove-this-they-have-a-common-fixed-point

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1882990/common-fixed-point-for-two-functions 

WillisBlackburn (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to summarize the above: it seems inconsistent to take the view that the problem itself is notable, but the person who solved it is not. WillisBlackburn (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WillisBlackburn It is perfectly normal for a 'thing' to ne notable here, but not the instigator.
Please tell us with precision in a couple of short sentences what you feel makes Boyce pass WP:BIO. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 07:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 10

[edit]

01:55, 10 May 2025 review of submission by 154.91.43.54

[edit]

greetings, could you please kindly advise what is missing on this article to be accepted? the sources are from reliable (including government websites). Any guidance would be appreciated. Thank you very much 154.91.43.54 (talk) 01:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of these are usable. At most, they just show Conrad Warren exists. A biography on Wikipedia requires a lot more than a showing that someone exists or existed. Things like press releases, SEC filings, or LinkedIn profiles are not suitable sources for an article. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:28, 10 May 2025 review of submission by Iambksir

[edit]

please tell us how to write in content for this Iambksir (talk) 12:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell who "us" is, and/or if you are associated with this person. See WP:COI. Your draft is completely unsourced and has been correctly rejected. 331dot (talk) 12:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I now see you disclosed a COI- but only a single person should be operating your account. 331dot (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:28, 10 May 2025 review of submission by Blagarhogier

[edit]

i want to know why my draft has been declined Blagarhogier (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because as the decline states we can only accept articles written in English. Theroadislong (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please try at the Bulgarian Wikipedia bg:Начална страница. ColinFine (talk) 09:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:11, 10 May 2025 review of submission by RicochetRabbit

[edit]

Hello, there. This is an article originally written by another Wikipedian, so there may be fixes that I don't yet understand. However, it appears to have been rejected for lack of notability. The author was published by Putnam, a major New York house. The author received the Asian American Literary Award, the same award won by world-famous authors Chang-Rae Lee, Ha Jin, and Jhumpa Lahiri. So, Christina Chiu is notable. May I ask what the misunderstanding is? Thanks for your help. I appreciate your time. RicochetRabbit (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the messages left by the reviewer(not the actual decline message, the comments below it). 331dot (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @RicochetRabbit. For the purposes of Wikipedia, "notable" doesn't mean important, or famous, or popular, or influential, or any of those things; and it doesn't depend directly on what a person has done, said, or published.
It means, roughly, "enough independent material about the subject has been reliably published to base an article on, and the article should cite those sources. See WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 10:01, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. So it's not that the subject isn't deemed worthy, it's that documentation is difficult to verify. I will look at the link you gave me. I want to be helpful and there is another article I want to try soon, so thank you so much! RicochetRabbit (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I edit the article, but it's not ready to be re-considered, do I copy and paste the info to my sandbox and work on it there? I lost some edits today because I did not want to hit "publish". Thanks RicochetRabbit (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Publish changes" should be understood to mean "save". It does not mean "publish this to the encyclopedia". You should edit your draft and click publish. The button used to say save, but was changed to emphasize that all edits are public. 331dot (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:16, 10 May 2025 review of submission by X.hadiy.x

[edit]

i changed it 

X.hadiy.x (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@X.hadiy.x Jolly good. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 18:36, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:18, 10 May 2025 review of submission by X.hadiy.x

[edit]

what the reason for reject fully rewrited please look and check it and take decision X.hadiy.x (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the word Wikipedia randomly through the draft is absolutely pointless there is no evidence whatsoever that this person is notable. Did you use AI by any chance? Theroadislong (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@X.hadiy.x: No sources, no article, no debate. Draft:KKM Koya Musliyar is in a much better state sourcing-wise, but the vast majority of that article is still unsourced. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:14, 10 May 2025 review of submission by HeisenbergHacker

[edit]

Subject: Requesting Guidance on Draft Rejection – F-HUB Theory

Hello,

I’m reaching out for guidance following the rejection of my draft article titled “Feldt-Higgs Universal Bridge (F-HUB) Theory.” The review stated that the submission was “contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia,” with the comment that it was promotional or fringe science.

I completely understand that Wikipedia must uphold strict standards, especially when it comes to new or unconventional scientific theories. If this topic is considered too early for Wikipedia inclusion, I fully respect that. However, I was hoping for more specific feedback than a one-line rejection, as it leaves little opportunity to learn or improve.

To clarify: • I declared a conflict of interest and aimed to write with neutral tone and encyclopedic structure. • The theory has been peer-reviewed and published (DOI: 10.47191/ijcsrr/V8-i5-06). • It has been independently cited by a U.S.-based academic affiliated with Binghamton University, indexed on Google Scholar. • It has also been featured by Sciety, a reputable review platform supported by eLife and EMBO. • All sources are cited inline with proper referencing.

My intention is not to promote, but to document a theory that has already begun to receive independent academic attention. If there is a way to refine or reframe the draft to meet Wikipedia’s expectations, I would be grateful for your advice.

Thank you very much for your time and any direction you can offer.

— HeisenbergHacker HeisenbergHacker (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HeisenbergHacker There can be no uncertainty about this. "document a theory that has already begun to receive independent academic attention" has all thaty is required. The theory is not established. When and if it becomes established and has significant coverage n multiple independent reliable sources there is no issue. That time is not yet here. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 18:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:23, 10 May 2025 review of submission by X.hadiy.x

[edit]

I fixed 

X.hadiy.x (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You did not. This draft has been rejected and you will not be able to continue to submit it. CoconutOctopus talk 17:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will start reverting off any further requests for this draft. This is your third thread on the same draft, of which the second one has been responded to. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:50, 10 May 2025 review of submission by Kenitomolinos

[edit]

"Kenneth Mills (historian)" was created and posted by wikipedia editor John Wolfson. I wished to add a photograph and its caption, to enhance the wall of words. I mistakenly went ahead and did this myself, without logging in. I had no ill intent, nor did I miss to promote myself or cross conflict of interest guidelines. I did not change any other aspect of the article, as MediaKyle observed in then declining the page. How can I make amends and get the article in play once again? With many thanks for your consideration. Kenitomolinos (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kenitomolinos assuming the items referred to in the decline rationale have been fixed then all that is required is resubmission for review. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 18:47, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an undisclosed connection with the subject of the article? The photo that you list as your own work is clearly posed for you, you assure us you have no intent to "promote [my]self," and your username looks an awful lot like a diminutive of Kenneth plus the Spanish word for mills. You ought to review WP:COI and make any necessary disclosures. This doesn't necessarily mean the edit was wrong (since it appears you added a photo, rather than writing the whole thing), only that these things need to be disclosed because of our rules about transparency once you participated.
Submitting it to AFC wasn't a good idea, since no substantive changes were made that directly addressed the concerns that led to the article being returned to draft status. Repeatedly submitting an article with little to no change could possibly lead to the draft being rejected rather than simply declined, which is something to be avoided. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:10, 10 May 2025 review of submission by HarvResearch

[edit]

I have two projects in draft (AFC) over 2 months. Waiting before I add more projects. Is there a way to speed up reviews? HarvResearch (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid there's not, you will just have to be patient. There are currently over 3000 articles awaiting review and there are not that many reviewers! CoconutOctopus talk 19:18, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:36, 10 May 2025 review of submission by Fabianarcila

[edit]

I believe this program is highly important for the UCF and Orlando community. But the reason I am writing about it is because of the amount of information and documentation potential this project may have. It was made 30 years ago and there is a lot to talk about. How could I get it published?

Also, I am not being compensated in any way, I am just writing about this out of passion. Fabianarcila (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fabianarcila That is very pleasing. But what is your question? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:57, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What else should I do to get it published? I was told it doesn't have the enough relevance but there are many sources backing its existence. Fabianarcila (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You may not be compensated, but what is your connection with this topic?
You are telling us about this, which is actually not what is being looked for. You need to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:50, 10 May 2025 review of submission by Tehranmagazine

[edit]

hi i want to published my magazine portfolio in wikipedia but i dont know how to do it , i did submet an article but it get decline can you help me . tehran magzine published 29 years ago and my information is not complet whitout having wikipedia Tehranmagazine (talk) 22:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for article subjects to tell about themselves, and Wikipedia is not interested in helping to enhance search results or knowledge panels(for which a Wikipedia article is only one possible input).
If Farsi is your primary language, you may wish to edit the Farsi Wikipedia, a separate project with its own policies. 331dot (talk) 22:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Evan aside from the possible WP:AUTOBIO issues, there's not really an article there. It's just "Tehranmagazine/sandbox" written on a page. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:50, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 11

[edit]

05:05, 11 May 2025 review of submission by Jcol004

[edit]

I tried to keep the tone neutral and focused on SirSpade4’s contributions as a recognized content creator in Destiny 2 and GTA RP. I avoided promotional language and aimed to highlight his involvement in the community and collaborations with other creators. How can I do better? Jcol004 (talk) 05:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jcol004: It looks like your draft has been rejected and tagged for speedy deletion, so it won't be considered any further. I see you listed yourself as a fan of this streamer in the draft. Articles have to be based on what reliable sources say about a subject, not about what fans say about them. No reliable sources exist for this subject and he does not meet the notability requirements for having any article here. For video game streamers, only the most famous and prolific of them ever get written about in reliable sources, and unfortunately, this streamer is not one of them yet. cyberdog958Talk 06:43, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:19, 11 May 2025 review of submission by Richardsho

[edit]

This draft meets Wikipedia’s General Notability Guideline (GNG) based on significant, independent, and reliable coverage across respected media outlets.

Rick Sopher is a notable figure in the global finance sector:

  • He is Chairman of LCH Investments NV, the world’s oldest fund of hedge funds, and CEO of Edmond de Rothschild Capital Holdings Ltd—both notable institutions within the financial industry.
  • He has been extensively covered by reliable, independent sources, including:
    • Reuters – Quoted as Chairman in analysis of hedge fund fees and profits (2025).
    • Bloomberg – Provided commentary on fee structures in the hedge fund sector.
    • The Guardian and Institutional Investor – Cited in articles covering hedge fund rankings and annual performance.
  • He holds a non-executive directorship at RIT Capital Partners plc, reported in business media, which further demonstrates his leadership in publicly notable firms.
  • He was awarded the Chevalier de la Légion d’Honneur by French President Jacques Chirac in 2007—an internationally recognized distinction.
  • His interfaith contributions, including work with the Woolf Institute and initiatives in Jewish-Muslim dialogue, have been covered by sources such as Middle East Eye and the Center for Jewish History.

This combination of verifiable, secondary-source coverage and public distinction confirms his eligibility for a standalone Wikipedia article under notability guidelines.

Requesting acceptance of the draft. Richardsho (talk) 06:19, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Richardsho: None of the sources in the draft are actually about the subject. He is only mentioned in passing in many of them and many of them are primarily about the industry itself, not about the subject. Articles have to have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It doesn't look like the draft quite reaches that mark yet. cyberdog958Talk 06:31, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Highly appreciate your kind input. He has in-depth coverage here. Can it be used? Richardsho (talk) 06:54, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Richardsho: I wouldn't call a small excerpt in what looks like an industry magazine that doesn't actually appear to be about the subject in-depth coverage. cyberdog958Talk 07:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:40, 11 May 2025 review of submission by Dv24mail

[edit]

I need help editing this article and publishing it through the source. Dv24mail (talk) 09:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dv24mail: there is no evidence that the subject is notable enough to justify inclusion in the encyclopaedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:30, 11 May 2025 review of submission by Trecool zildjian

[edit]

Hey, why was I rejected? Trecool zildjian (talk) 11:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pure promotion. "All references will be attributed to Letterbomb's social media, confirmed, and real life interviews" is wholly unacceptable. 331dot (talk) 11:39, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Trecool zildjian: because there is absolutely nothing to suggest your band is the slightest bit notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Trecool zildjian. 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) 21:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:05, 11 May 2025 review of submission by Magubaneteejay

[edit]

I have been submitting the article multitudes of times with no success. There are other similar radio station written in the same manner but approved. please help. Magubaneteejay (talk) 12:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Magubaneteejay.
The other articles you are referring to have almost certainly never been "approved", but were created before our standards were raised. In an ideal world, some editors would go through them, either improving the articles, or deleting them if they cannot be brought up to standard; but this is a volunteer project, and editors do not often want to spend their time in that way.
We evaluate all new articles against our current criteria, not against existing and probably inadequate articles. Please see other stuff exists. ColinFine (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:57, 11 May 2025 review of submission by Magubaneteejay

[edit]

Please help with this article, I have removed LinkedIn as source Magubaneteejay (talk) 12:57, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have resubmitted the draft and it is pending. 331dot (talk) 14:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:48, 11 May 2025 review of submission by Valeriu863

[edit]

I'm just wondering what i need to do to get it approved? This person is the owner of a whole soccer club in Romania and also the president of the console of Botoșani. All the articles are from big news brands and he is a very known person in Romania. Valeriu863 (talk) 23:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Valeriu863, can I ask first whether you are connected to Valeriu Iftime? Your username is his name, so I'm wondering. Unfortunately your draft has been rejected, which often happens if you submit it repeatedly without making major improvements. If you think you can make major improvements now with more information, here's what you need to do.
To get a draft about a person accepted, there's a few things for you to read. The first and most important is WP:BLP, which is for biographies of living people; after that you should read WP:GNG, the general notability guidelines, and WP:BIO, which is about notable people. BIO has subsections, although I don't think Iftime fits any of them, so we're probably looking at the more general notability options. From there, your next step is WP:42, which tells you what you need in a source. Your goal is to prove that your subject is notable by Wikipedia's standards, and the way to do this is to provide at least three sources that match the criteria in WP:42. Your current sources are not sufficient, so you will need to find three more sources at minimum, and rewrite the draft based on those. If you do all that, you should then appeal to the reviewer who rejected your draft, and ask whether they will review it again. Good luck, and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 09:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No I’m not , it’s just a condience in name. I’ll check all those but I mean I don’t know what more I can do since the sources are from big news brands in the country and everything is super verifiable by a basic Google search. Valeriu863 (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Valeriu863, it doesn't matter how easy it is to find things via Google - you need to have the sources in the article itself. It also doesn't matter how big the news brand is - you need it to meet all three of the WP:42 criteria. Here's an example for you, using the first four sources you currently have:
Source 1, PNL, is the homepage of the site. You can't use this for notability because it's not reliable (no editorial oversight), it's not independent (it's his party), and it's not significant coverage (he is not mentioned on the homepage).
Source 2, FCBT, is also a homepage. All the previous problems apply here too; this isn't useful for you.
Source 3, Orangesport, is not independent (it's an interview); this is also not useful for you.
Source 4, GSP, is also not independent (interview); this is also not useful for you.
Hopefully this is enough for you to go through the rest of your sources, decide which if any to keep, and then find new sources that meet the criteria if there are any to be found. It may be that Iftime is just not notable by Wikipedia standards - most people aren't! But if he's not notable, then there can't be an article about him. StartGrammarTime (talk) 03:23, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After I edit it do I let the person who most recently declined know? Valeriu863 (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 12

[edit]

11:01, 12 May 2025 review of submission by Deliens

[edit]

Hello Everyone,

I have problems with Submitting my Draft for the English Version of the Atelier Brückner Wikipedia Page

We have also a German Wikipedia Site for the Company: Atelier Brückner

Its got declined 2 Times, What should i do to fix it???

Because we need urgently due a Opening an English Wikipedia Site of ATELIER BRÜCKNER

Best Regards,

Deliens Deliens (talk) 11:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Deliens, A few things. First of all, The German Wikipedia is completely independent and separate for the English one. Secondly, You do not need an article "urgently".
The biggest problem is that it has no references. We do not care about what the company has to say about itself, we want to know what other independent reliable sources say about the company. Also please remove all of the external links from the body of the article (the links beside the awards and projects). CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 11:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Deliens If you have any association with the subject please disclose that. You don't really "urgently" need an article(at most, you can "urgently" need to improve a really bad article, but that's off topic). Thehistorianisaac (talk) 01:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:25, 12 May 2025 review of submission by Smhfba

[edit]

I have created a page for Prof. Michael A. Celia. How do I add his photo to it? Smhfba (talk) 14:25, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Smhfba: do you own the copyright to the photo, or do you know for sure that it is not covered by copyright? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Smhfba: Ignore the photo for now. Images don't help drafts a whit (if anything, they are more likely to damage it) as the reviewers are looking more at your sources and article text. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:53, 12 May 2025 review of submission by 2601:188:C07E:360:30CA:268B:331A:2D75

[edit]

After multiple denials, I'd like to get a clearer reasoning other than the sources. I've added multiple that fit the necessary categories and just would like a clearer path to getting this approved. 2601:188:C07E:360:30CA:268B:331A:2D75 (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are the editor that created that draft- remember to log in when posting.
Press releases and routine announcements of business activities do not establish that this CU meets the definition of a notable organization.
The issue that you are having is that you are telling us what the credit union wants us to know about itself- which should be done on its own website, not here. A Wikipedia article summarizes what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about a topic, not what it wants to say about itself. 331dot (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:19, 12 May 2025 review of submission by Raventoarokasiojack

[edit]

i want to write about this person , he has very interesting stuff and im a big fan of his work Raventoarokasiojack (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. You only provide their own website and IMDB as sources, neither of which are acceptable sources. IMDB is user-generated. See reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:57, 12 May 2025 review of submission by Matthew John Drummond

[edit]

This page is in trouble. Matthew John Drummond (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. Do you have a question about it? 331dot (talk) 18:02, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:05, 12 May 2025 review of submission by Therian Controls

[edit]

Finding info, correcting any issues, & finding sources Therian Controls (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Therian Controls You have just expressed with precision that which you need to do. You have not, however, asked a question of us. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:40, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:14, 12 May 2025 review of submission by Therian Controls

[edit]

Cannot find any other sources as of writing this besides the official website (www.bluepointalert.com) and most sources seem to have the same info Therian Controls (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Therian Controls: Then you don't have the sources to support an article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:41, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:37, 12 May 2025 review of submission by Weavingowl

[edit]

Not understanding why the article is getting declined..first reviewing user said it was because it failed to meet academic notability, then when edited to fall into general notability category, same reviewing user declined it again saying that all of the articles i used cast doubt on his claims, which was not true - only one did and that was included in a criticism section which i thought offered good balance to such a claim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Melvin_Vopson Weavingowl (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Weavingowl The reviewer gave solid regions behind their thinking. Have you engaged in a dialogue with them? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:39, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:33, 12 May 2025 review of submission by Fahhxkjajfesiu

[edit]

I'd like to know where I should get information from, because the YouTube channel and fandom are the only places that information exists. Fahhxkjajfesiu (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fahhxkjajfesiu: - We're looking for in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the-subject news/review sources that discuss the subject at length, are written by identifiable authors, and are subject to fact-checking and other forms of robust editorial oversight. If those sources do not exist - and their YT channel (connexion to subject) and Fandom/Wikia (no editorial oversight) do not count - we can't even consider having an article for lack of sources to summarise. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's simple:
If those are the only sources that exist, the subject is not meant to have an article (for now) Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 13

[edit]

Follow-up on Karen Leigh Hopkins request

[edit]

Hello! I submitted a request for a new article on Karen Leigh Hopkins under the "Directors" section at [Requested Articles – Arts and Entertainment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Arts_and_entertainment#Directors). She's a notable film director, screenwriter, and producer with coverage in major outlets like The New York Times, Variety, and The Hollywood Reporter. Just following up to see if an editor might be able to take a look. Thanks so much!

Just for reference, the request for Karen Leigh Hopkins is under the "Directors" section of this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Arts_and_entertainment/Film,_radio_and_television#Directors

Appreciate any attention editors can give it. Helloitsmeif1212 (talk) Helloitsmeif1212 (talk) 02:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Helloitsmeif1212: I looked at your past contributions, and I don't see a draft about this individual and you only added it to the requested articles list. The requested articles list is notoriously backlogged and there are very few, if any, editors that actually write articles just from its listing there. If you are interested in this article being written, it is probably something that you will have to write yourself. cyberdog958Talk 02:52, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again for the guidance. I took your advice and created a sandbox draft with proper sourcing and a neutral tone. I also disclosed my COI. If you're willing, I'd really appreciate any feedback or a quick look: User:Helloitsmeif1212/KarenLeighHopkins. Thanks again! Helloitsmeif1212 (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:54, 13 May 2025 review of submission by 2601:8C:4182:9AB0:6891:986E:89A:E2AE

[edit]

Can you request to publish an article? 2601:8C:4182:9AB0:6891:986E:89A:E2AE (talk) 02:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP editor. Your draft was declined because there is only a singular source with a dead URL. The majority of the draft is completely unsourced. On top of that, there is already an existing article at Way Too Early about the same show. I recommend you merge your sourced content over into that article. cyberdog958Talk 03:00, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]


02:54, 13 May 2025 review of submission by 2601:8C:4182:9AB0:6891:986E:89A:E2AE

[edit]

(Note: combined sections that appear to be two drafts on the same subject)StartGrammarTime (talk) 03:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you request to publish an article? 2601:8C:4182:9AB0:6891:986E:89A:E2AE (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you request to publish an article? 2601:8C:4182:9AB0:6891:986E:89A:E2AE (talk) 02:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to both your questions, I can request it, but I choose not to. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 06:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:51, 13 May 2025 review of submission by Raiderz.R.DaBest

[edit]

Greetings, Editors

Although I value your input, I would like to make a few clarifications about your choice.

First of all, I can appreciate the worry regarding trustworthy sources. Nonetheless, the game's creators are acknowledged explicitly in the game itself (the logo appears right away), and I think that's a trustworthy source. I'm willing to find more reviews or interviews to support the references, even though I am aware that there might not be a lot of secondary literature on a Flash game like this.

Regarding the tone, I recognise that the writing may have seemed casual. But I think a big part of the game's identity is its narrative style, which is reflected in a lot of the language used in the submission. Nevertheless, I will be content. i'll Adapt the tone to Wikipedia's neutral and formal requirements. However, in order to help me with my revisions, I would appreciate more detailed input on which sections you thought were overly casual or promotional.

If you haven't already, I also advise you to play the game itself. The atmosphere and story of the game provide a lot of the context and tone, and I believe that playing it will help you better understand the strategy I used to write the piece.

I'm determined to make the required adjustments and submit an article that satisfies Wikipedia's requirements. I appreciate your time and advice, and I'm eager to make this submission better.

-Raider Raiderz.R.DaBest (talk) 03:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your link (it was missing the "Draft" prefix). Have a look at some of our Good Articles about video games to see the kind of coverage and tone that we're aiming for. And did you use a large language model ("AI") to write your request? ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 05:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ClaudineChionh Not only the request, but also the draft. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 06:24, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Raiderz.R.DaBest We wish to hear from you, yourself, in your own voice. We do not wish to converse with an AI Chatbot. If you have a question for us please use your own words, unvarnished by a Large Language Model 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 06:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are some serious fundamental issues with this article. We're primarily interested in what secondary sources say about the game. This is an article written entirely using WP:PRIMARY sources. Some uncontroversial details from such sources can be introduced once notability has been established.
By "tone" I don't believe anyone's talking about the narrative tone of the plot sections, but that this article does not read at all like something you would expect to find in an encyclopedia. In fact, I know shockingly little about the game after reading the article since 90% of it seems to be plot and gameplay tips. For all I know, this game could be like a Twisted Metal game or an open world-ish game like the Grand Theft Auto series or a vertical scroller like the old Spy Hunter game or something else entirely. I know nothing about the development, the release, or the reception of the game. In sum, I don't know what makes this Flash game series notable compared to any other series of Flash games, since it's never told to us. I only discovered this was even a 2D sidescroller by searching for a video of the game just now.
I definitely concur that LLMs were at least used to assist in places, but that's not as big a problem since this article would have to be fundamentally rewritten anyway. If you want to make a case for this game, start with only independent, neutral, coverage of the game, and write an article using only information from those sources. Only then, once that article can stand up on its own on the strength of the secondary sources, would it be appropriate to include those uncontroversial WP:PRIMARY details. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:07, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"We wish to hear from you, yourself, in your own voice. We do not wish to converse with an AI Chatbot. If you have a question for us please use your own words, unvarnished by a Large Language Model"
when i didn’t use AI, i was told my tone wasn’t formal enough. When I did use it, I was told AI isn’t allowed. now what?
"We're primarily interested in what secondary sources say about the game." it's a niche flash game, do you expect a news article about it?
also smokoko's website (the developers) is in the references list, i dont see how you could possibly miss that
"this article does not read at all like something you would expect to find in an encyclopedia. In fact, I know shockingly little about the game after reading the article since 90% of it seems to be plot and gameplay tips."
It’s a Flash game, not a physics sim. Most people playing it aren’t digging into hitboxes or damage values. they just want to know how it plays.
"For all I know, this game could be like a Twisted Metal game or an open world-ish game like the Grand Theft Auto series or a vertical scroller like the old Spy Hunter game or something else entirely. I know nothing about the development, the release, or the reception of the game. In sum, I don't know what makes this Flash game series notable compared to any other series of Flash games, since it's never told to us. I only discovered this was even a 2D sidescroller by searching for a video of the game just now."
yeah, it’s a 2D game. Smokoko mostly made 2D games until a few years ago. that shouldn't be surprising.
and this one part specifically: "I don't know what makes this Flash game series notable compared to any other series of Flash games, since it's never told to us."
If you’re saying small games with minimal coverage don’t belong on Wikipedia at all, then just say that.
"I definitely concur that LLMs were at least used to assist in places, but that's not as big a problem since this article would have to be fundamentally rewritten anyway. If you want to make a case for this game, start with only independent, neutral, coverage of the game, and write an article using only information from those sources. Only then, once that article can stand up on its own on the strength of the secondary sources, would it be appropriate to include those uncontroversial WP:PRIMARY details."
now that i’m speaking in my own voice instead of through a machine, will this be rejected for being "too informal" again? Raider (talk) 00:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't address this game specifically but I'll try to answer your general questions.
so be it then, i'll stop. Raider (talk) 04:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Smokoko's website, again, is a WP:PRIMARY source. As I said above, we're interested in what secondary sources say about the game far, far more than what Smokoko says about their own game. If there's no independent coverage of a game, then no, it is not suitable for Wikipedia. This is an an encyclopedia, not a social network or a promotional platform. No independent sources = no article.
"It’s a Flash game, not a physics sim."
"yeah, it’s a 2D game. Smokoko mostly made 2D games until a few years ago. that shouldn't be surprising."
What would the purpose of a Wikipedia article that expects readers to somehow already be intimately familiar with the subject? The fact is, even if the game were notable, the article did a poor job conveying key information about the game. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:55, 13 May 2025 review of submission by Thewisebaghera

[edit]

Request for Help Improving Claudia Carpentier Draft per Reviewer Feedback.

Hi everyone,

Any suggestions or edits to bring it closer to Wikipedia’s standards for neutrality and tone would be very welcome.

Thank you in advance! — Thewisebaghera Thewisebaghera (talk) 04:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewisebaghera Instead of writing what references say about Carpentier you have provided lists of stuff they have done. This draft needs a 100% rewrite. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 06:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:22, 13 May 2025 review of submission by 2601:8C:4182:9AB0:6891:986E:89A:E2AE

[edit]

Can you request to publish an article? 2601:8C:4182:9AB0:6891:986E:89A:E2AE (talk) 05:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2601:8C:4182:9AB0:6891:986E:89A:E2AE, this isn't an article, it's a single sentence. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 05:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:23, 13 May 2025 review of submission by 2601:8C:4182:9AB0:6891:986E:89A:E2AE

[edit]

Can you request to publish an article? 2601:8C:4182:9AB0:6891:986E:89A:E2AE (talk) 05:23, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2601:8C:4182:9AB0:6891:986E:89A:E2AE, as with your previous question, this isn't an article, it's a single sentence. You have been advised to read Your first article which you should do before submitting any more drafts. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 05:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can. I choose not to. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 06:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:18, 13 May 2025 review of submission by Vanessaaaaalong

[edit]

Would it help me to publish this article if I changed the title to the following two?

Canadian Ginseng (Panax Quinquefolius/North American Ginseng) or Canadian Ginseng/North American Ginseng (Panax Quinquefolius)

Thank you in advance for your kind help Vanessaaaaalong (talk) 06:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanessaaaaalong the draft title doesn't matter. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 06:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:19, 13 May 2025 review of submission by TheSettlor

[edit]

need advice getting this article up, a biblical flag TheSettlor (talk) 06:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 06:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TheSettlor Both drafts have been rejected. Neither will proceed further. Neither is appropriate for Wikipedia. A third submission of this material is likely to be seen as tendentious. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 06:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:36, 13 May 2025 review of submission by 114.143.187.10

[edit]

Hello,

I hope you’re well. I recently submitted a draft article for Calsoft, and it was declined with feedback indicating that the references currently included do not adequately establish notability as per Wikipedia’s guidelines.

I’ve reviewed the feedback carefully, revised the draft to maintain a neutral point of view, removed promotional content, and retained only information supported by independent, reliable, and verifiable sources. However, the draft continues to be declined for the same reasons.

I would sincerely appreciate if you could kindly clarify the following:

Based on the references I currently have (including coverage from The Times of India, StorageNewsletter, and MarTech Edge, among others), does this subject meet the eligibility for a standalone Wikipedia article?

If not, could you please advise specifically what kind of additional coverage or sources would be considered sufficient to establish notability for this company?

Would it be more appropriate at this stage to consider merging notable facts into a broader topic article (e.g., "List of IT companies in India") or continue refining this as a standalone entry?

I want to ensure I’m aligning with Wikipedia’s content policies and would greatly appreciate clear guidance on the next actionable steps to improve this submission in line with community standards.

Thank you in advance for your time and assistance.

Best regards, Shweta 114.143.187.10 (talk) 11:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're the account that created the draft, remember to log in when posting. If you're associated with the company, that needs to be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. You have not yet established that this company is a notable company as Wikipedia defines one, through summarizing what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about the company.
List articles are not for members of the list that lack standalone articles. 331dot (talk) 11:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:28, 13 May 2025 review of submission by Typing Fox

[edit]

Hello,

recently I created an article for the European University Alliance ENGAGE.EU which was declined. The argument for this was, that it needs "multiple published sources" ... After some research I wonder, why this article with 20 references was declined, although other European University Alliances were not - although they have nearly no references, for example: Aurora (university network) Utrecht Network EUCOR

Especially since there are already many mentions and dead links to ENGAGE.EU I think that there is an actual need for this article.

It would be great if you could reconsider to accept this article.

Best regards, TypingFox Typing Fox (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The whole url is not needed when linking to another Wikipedia article, I fixed this.
Please see other stuff exists. It could be that these other articles are also inappropriate and just not yet addressed by a volunteer. This cannot justify adding more inappropriate articles. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits.
Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something and its offerings. A Wikipedia article about an organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. This may be different from other language Wikipedias, which have their own policies. 331dot (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:43, 13 May 2025 review of submission by Jmartin2001

[edit]

why did this page get declined 

Jmartin2001 (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmartin2001: It was not declined – when you created it, it was with a "declined" template already in place. Did you use ChatGPT? That can cause that to happen (and it is also a reason for human reviewers to decline a draft, since LLM creations are not acceptable). --bonadea contributions talk 19:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmartin2001: you had submitted the draft on your user page. I've moved it into the draft space, it is now at Draft:RespirTek.
I've also posted a paid-editing query on your talk page, please read and respond to it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:24, 13 May 2025 review of submission by Elijohnson123

[edit]

This person is a state-wide elected official, what makes them not popular enough? Elijohnson123 (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Elijohnson123 Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN, fails WP:BIO. Popularity is not an acceptance criterion 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and linkedin.com and Twitter are not reliable, independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are not a statewide elected official, they hold no public office.
Please disclose your connection with him, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:30, 13 May 2025 review of submission by MaynardClark

[edit]

Subject: Help refining Draft:Maloney Properties — part of a broader effort to cover major Greater Boston housing/property firms

Hello helpful editors!

I am seeking constructive help to improve my Draft:Maloney Properties, which I submitted in the spirit of beginning a broader effort to ensure that major property management companies in the Greater Boston area are properly covered on Wikipedia.

I believe that Maloney Properties is a notable company based on its long history, role in affordable housing, and scale of management (11,000+ units). My intention is to either (a) refine the article to stand on its own, or (b) explore how it might be appropriately included or compared within a broader article on major New England or Boston-area property management firms.

I have explained more on my user talk page, but would really appreciate advice:

What are the best next steps for making this article or a version of it publishable?

Is a “comparative context” article (e.g., major Boston property management companies) advisable or welcome?

What kinds of reliable sources might strengthen the article or its framing?

I am eager to follow Wikipedia’s standards for notability, neutrality, and verifiability. I welcome collaboration or mentoring.

Thank you for your time and insights! MaynardClark (talk) 23:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 14

[edit]

00:32, 14 May 2025 review of submission by DcdmeQDm

[edit]

Hi, this is an article about the biggest sporting event in surfing occuring next year containing all the currently known information with sourcing directly from the the world surf league, the body that hosts the tour and professional surfing more broadly. What more is required? DcdmeQDm (talk) 00:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DcdmeQDm. What's required, and this is mandatory, are references to significant coverage of the 2026 event in several reliable published sources that are entirely independent of the World Surf League. Your three references are to things published by the league itself, and only independent sources establish notability. Cullen328 (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that's helpful. I will add more references discussing the event. DcdmeQDm (talk) 00:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

00:45, 14 May 2025 review of submission by Dart270

[edit]

Hello, this draft has been rejected a couple times for not citing biographical info. The last rejection mentioned the birthdate, so I just removed that, but I'm not sure if there are other items that need to be cited that aren't already cited. Any help is much appreciated. Dart270 (talk) 00:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also wondering if crunchbase.com or clay.com are considered reliable independent sources for tech executives bio information. Dart270 (talk) 00:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time to look into clay.com (or your article), but I can tell you right now crunchbase.com is definitely not reliable :). Thanks for asking! GoldRomean (talk) 00:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the link to the sources page! Dart270 (talk) 01:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! Please note that I linked to that page because you specifically mentioned Crunchbase, which is mentioned there. Not all sources are on it, and so it would not be really helpful for determining reliability of Gamezebo , DroidGamers, and Kongbakpao since they are not mentioned. GoldRomean (talk) 02:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:17, 14 May 2025 review of submission by AshGolden

[edit]

The reason I joined Wikipedia is because there are a lot of influential Black figures in our community that aren't on here, and I wanted to write about them so they don't go unrecognized. My first article is on Najah Roberts, who is the first Black woman and woman in general to own a Crypto exchange EVER in the U.S. That's historic and significant, and I feel is very worthy for an article. The last rejection comment I received was that person doesn't think she's "notable" enough to be on here, and I'm not sure why. Is it because she's Black? This woman has been on national news, Forbes, Black Enterprise, you name it. Half of my citations are from national news. Is CNBC, MSNBC and KTLA not credible enough? I've seen Wikipedia articles for less relevant topics, and this woman is actually an influential person. I've revised this article at nauseum and followed all of the instructions to make it read like an "encyclopedia", took out words that don't comply, cited all of my sources, etc. There's nothing left to revise, and at this point I'm starting to think there's a racial bias on here. Not sure what to do. I thought I was doing something good by contributing and this makes me want to not participate. AshGolden (talk) 01:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @AshGolden, the good news is that Wikipedia doesn't have a racial bias - but reliable sources might, and we can only summarize what reliable sources say. You may already have gone through some of the steps I'm going to outline, but bear with me.
Your goal here is to demonstrate that Roberts is notable by Wikipedia standards, which is what the reviewer referred to. It's entirely possible for someone to be esteemed, admired, a pioneer or a leader, and yet not be notable for Wikipedia. The only way to show that someone is notable here is to find a minimum of three sources that are reliable, independent, and contain significant coverage of the person. One thing that often trips people up is that interviews aren't independent and so can't be used. More info available at WP:42, which I think might be one of the most helpful pages on Wikipedia. Since your subject is a living person, you'll also need to pay attention to WP:BLP (biographies of living people policies) and WP:BIO (what makes a person notable).
I've skimmed through the first few sources you currently have, and so far all of them are based on interviews from Roberts - this means you can't use them to show she's notable, unfortunately. You're looking for things people have written about her off their own bat, without getting in contact with her. Something to keep in mind is that it may be too soon for her to have an article; you may need to wait until more people take notice of her and start writing about her. In the meantime you can keep the draft active by making an edit every five months or so - drafts are deleted after six months of no activity, but if you edit even just a space in then it'll stay active and once you have the sources, you're ready to go. I hope that helps! StartGrammarTime (talk) 01:50, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the insight! AshGolden (talk) 01:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention one more thing! Pinging you just in case, @AshGolden - you might be interested in having a chat to the editors over at Women In Red, who are focused on getting more biographies of women into Wikipedia. They may be able to give you some more tips and advice, and you may also find some other women you'd like to write an article about. There's certainly a lot of women who are notable by Wikipedia standards but don't yet have articles, and not enough editors to close the gap. I'm sure you'd be welcome there as someone working towards a similar goal. StartGrammarTime (talk) 02:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:24, 14 May 2025 review of submission by Gimmywp

[edit]

I understand the draft requires sources that are in-depth, reliable, secondary, and independent. I was wondering whether the articles from Gamezebo , DroidGamers ,Kongbakpao satisfy those criteria. If the issue lies in how the sources were cited or incorporated, I would be happy to revise the draft accordingly. However, if those sources are fundamentally insufficient as references, I understand that I may need to reconsider the approach. Gimmywp (talk) 01:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a page for reference on reliable sources Dart270 (talk) 01:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gimmywp None of the sources you mention are acceptable. First of all, Kongbakpao is a 1-person self-published blog, so it's not reliable. The Droid Gamers article and Gamezebo article were published on the same day and have similar titles and similar promotional content, indicating that both articles are likely sponsored news meant to promote CTW's service. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also see that the Kongbakpao article was published on the same day and is similarly promotional. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:14, 14 May 2025 review of submission by 2601:8C:4182:9AB0:2889:2D68:1245:F06D

[edit]

Can I submit a review? 2601:8C:4182:9AB0:2889:2D68:1245:F06D (talk) 02:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you already submitted the draft for review. Ca talk to me! 02:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:11, 14 May 2025 review of submission by 2601:8C:4182:9AB0:2889:2D68:1245:F06D

[edit]

Can I accept? 2601:8C:4182:9AB0:2889:2D68:1245:F06D (talk) 03:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop spamming the help desk. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:43, 14 May 2025 review of submission by Qntkhvn

[edit]

I believe this person now meets criteria 2 of WP:NPROF because of the recent 2025 Significant Contributor Award. Qntkhvn (talk) 03:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Qntkhvn
The draft has been rejected and will not be considered any further. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Qntkhvn: I'm afraid it is not clear how that award meets criterion 2, as it is an award given by an assciation to one of its own members – and the source doesn't verify that he has received it. --bonadea contributions talk 05:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:07, 14 May 2025 review of submission by Sedenora

[edit]

Can any edit help to edit this page to meet wikipedia guidelines, and to resubmit please? Help will be appreciated. Sedenora (talk) 05:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sedenora It has been rejected and will not be considered further Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. Can someone aid in the deletion of the draft please in that case? Sedenora (talk) 05:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sedenora: The draft will be deleted when it has not been edited for six months. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 05:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:10, 14 May 2025 review of submission by Adigesi

[edit]

Before rewriting draft I would like to clarify on my submission earlier. Can I present here itself or send a separate mail Adigesi (talk) 07:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a question, you ought to ask it here. I will note, however, that to have an article that about Sivakumar predicting the emission scandal, you will need to find reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage of Sivakumar's prediction. It's not even close to enough to cite Sivakumar's prediction; independent sources have to be talking about it as a prediction. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:18, 14 May 2025 review of submission by Zlkenney

[edit]

I'm not clear on how to improve my article to get it approved. I mirrored other stubs from the National Register of Historic Places listings in Little Rock. I tried to include the nomination form like some of the other listings have on their stub page, but was not able to source a PDF so I don't know how those stub pages did it. What is different about my stub in comparison and what do I need to do to get it approved like those? Zlkenney (talk) 09:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zlkenney Please see other stuff exists. Though understandable, it is a poor idea to use any random article as a model or example, as those too could be inappropriate and just not yet addressed by a volunteer. There are many ways inappropriate content can get past us and exist, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles, which have received community vetting.
Historical properties are likely notable, but you still need independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the property. You only have two sources, we usually look for at least three to pass this process. 331dot (talk) 09:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:25, 14 May 2025 review of submission by Writerperson12345

[edit]

I don't know what the problem with my source are as they are nationally recognized in Turkey. And are highly reliable sources. Is the reason because they are in Turkish and not English? Writerperson12345 (talk) 10:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Writerperson12345: they may be reliable, but two of the three (possibly all three) are primary sources. We need to see significant coverage of her in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and completely independent.
And no, it's not a problem that the sources are in Turkish. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which one of my 3 sources is an example of a secondary source. As you mentioned that one might be well? Writerperson12345 (talk) 10:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Writerperson12345: funnily enough, it was the one you just removed, Fanatik. I'm not entirely sure it's totally independent and/or reliable (it may be it's just a portal to sports news from other sources), and it doesn't provide any real coverage of Ataman, but at least it looks like it might be secondary. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just found 2 good sources like that one and changed them up with these two source. In one of them she is giving an interview. Do you think it is acceptable now? Writerperson12345 (talk) 10:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Writerperson12345: interviews are a primary source, because it's the subject talking (usually about themselves). Most interviews aren't also subject to any fact-checking or other editorial controls, so they may or may not be reliable (which means we have to assume they're not). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So what if I just use the fanatik one. would that work do you think? 2A02:FF0:22C:3FA5:5499:D0A7:A95:E3C9 (talk) 10:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, one source isn't enough, we normally expect at least three, and they must all squarely meet the standard laid out in the WP:GNG notability guideline.
Look, you probably don't want to hear this, but I'll have to be honest, it's quite unlikely that a junior athlete at the start of their career, and in a relatively low-profile team sport at that, is going to be notable enough to justify an article. Maybe give it a few years, and try again once the display cabinet starts getting filled with high-level medals and trophies? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was just trying to start my wiki articles with something easy? As I took inspiration from this wiki article where there's only one source and one sentence? https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilara_Bural%C4%B1
Its the same thing No? Writerperson12345 (talk) 10:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Turkish Wikipedia is a completely different project with their own policies and guidelines. If they accept such articles for publication, that's their business, but it has no bearing on us. The English Wikipedia's requirements for notability are probably the highest of them all, so it often happens that an article is accepted into one of our sister projects but declined here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok thank you! Writerperson12345 (talk) 11:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:39, 14 May 2025 review of submission by PEEZYBABY

[edit]

I'm trying to create an article and need help getting it accepted. I'm currently working on the artist profile "Prodbysinji" / "Siniša Bijelic" and i'm struggling with getting the image and the infobox done... PEEZYBABY (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't focus so much on the infobox and instead make sure you look through what things make a musician qualify for a Wikipedia article. I see you have a lot of citations in the article, but they all seem to be self-published primary sources. Wikipedia really relies on prominent third-pary media coverage of the subject. – macaddct1984 (talk | contribs) 13:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:12, 14 May 2025 review of submission by Joha4nnlo

[edit]

I need help sourcing correct links as I’m not good at researching! Joha4nnlo (talk) 13:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:19, 14 May 2025 review of submission by The BIue J

[edit]

Should be reviewed again. Some dumbass with the same name made it about him but I changed it to the real significant person. The BIue J (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1290380736"