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


April 19

[edit]

00:07, 19 April 2025 review of submission by Mohamed Farah Tahar

[edit]

My biography and my photo to use my page 

Mohamed Farah Tahar (talk) 00:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The submission is nothing more than your name. If you intend to base the article on your one paragraph bio you've written on your user page, there's no indication that this article would meet Wikipedia's definition of WP:NOTABLE and even if there were, you haven't provided a single source substantiating any fact in that paragraph. Writing a WP:AUTO is strongly discouraged as even an experienced editor would have trouble forgetting everything they know about themself to only source information from reliable sources. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

00:51, 19 April 2025 review of submission by Sharky Pitts

[edit]

Hi! Thank you for reviewing my page so quickly! I'm wondering what i can do to format the significant coverage better, which is the reason my page was declined. I may have written it in a way that downplays their significance. Sharky Pitts is the main subject of several of the podcasts listed in review ( books closed/ so your kind of a big deal/like for like). Her works and career have been written about by outside sources, ie Substack article written about "I Sing The Body Electric". Her instagram podcast is talked about in her books closed interview along with her famous on the road approach to tattooing. Should i remove the other smaller features? They seem equally as significant. Sharky Pitts (talk) 00:51, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also added these links to the my User page, perhaps this is where I made the lack of significance mistake. I was told early on that Wikipedia is all about the editing and i didn't fully understand...till now lol. But honestly this is fun! As a researcher the ridged structure is welcome! Sharky Pitts (talk) 02:45, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sharky Pitts: User:Sharky Pitts/sandbox was declined because there is no evidence that you are notable by Wikipedia standards. Besides which, most of the draft is unreferenced, which is completely unacceptable esp. in an article on a living person.
In any case, you shouldn't really be writing about yourself, please see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:00, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:38, 19 April 2025 review of submission by Izmaiqbalmemon

[edit]

I recently submitted my page request. similar pages of civil servants have been approved with less information such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoaib_Mir_Memon , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rizwan_Ahmed_(civil_servant)

however mine hasn't. can anyone please advise how to improve it to get approved? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ghulam_Muhammad_Memon 

Izmaiqbalmemon (talk) 06:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Izmaiqbalmemon: as the reviewer said, civil servants are not automatically notable. Whether articles exist on others who hold/held similar positions is immaterial, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Also, not all of the c. 7m articles in the English Wikipedia were "approved" in any sense of the word. In order to be accepted, this draft has to demonstrate that the subject is notable per WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:09, 19 April 2025 review of submission by TumusiimeRK

[edit]

my article has been declined because they say it is written as an advertisement TumusiimeRK (talk) 08:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TumusiimeRK: that's because the draft only tells us what this institute is and does, and with no indication that it is notable per WP:ORG; this is inherently promotional, see WP:YESPROMO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:12, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the guidance, so what should i add or how should i write it. TumusiimeRK (talk) 08:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @TumusiimeRK. The thing to remember is that Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what the Institute says or wants to say about itself, or what it's members or associates say about it. Wikipedia is only interested in what people wholly unconnected with the Institute have chosen to publish about it in reliable sources.
It looks to me as if every one of your sources is from the Institute or from a body associated with it.
You need to discard those sources, and find places where people have written about the orgaanisation - most likely in academic papers, books and journals, perhaps in major newspapers.
If you cannot find such sources then you will know that the Institute does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and not to spend any more time on it. If you can find such sources (realistically, at least three) then you almost certainly need to throw away all your existing text, and write a summary of what those sources have said about the institute.
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) 16:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thank you so much for the advise, I'm looking forward to doing better on the article. Thank you. TumusiimeRK (talk) 06:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:51, 19 April 2025 review of submission by Jishnuraj korattikkal

[edit]

Could you please suggest the changes needed to make it acceptable? Jishnuraj korattikkal (talk) 08:51, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jishnuraj korattikkal: this draft has been rejected (twice), and will therefore not be considered further.
What is your relationship with this subject? I have asked this on your talk page, but you haven't yet responded; please do so now. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing : Can I resubmit the draft after mentioning about the relationship with the subject ? Jishnuraj korattikkal (talk) 08:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing: Please guide me through the process. Jishnuraj korattikkal (talk) 08:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You need to disclose your relationship with the subject regardless. You clearly have one, as you took a picture of him and he posed for you. 331dot (talk) 08:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please tell me where to mention the relationship, becuase when I checked in the talks section I was not able to find any. Jishnuraj korattikkal (talk) 08:59, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The best place is on your user page(click your username, currently in red, above). You may also say it right here. See WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 09:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing: The relationship I have with him is a patient doctor relationship. I had been to his cleanic for ear checkup and I got inspired by his work and thought of letting other also know about him. Jishnuraj korattikkal (talk) 11:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he must have made quite an impression on you. It would never occur to me to want to write a Wikipedia article about my doctor, carry out all that research, take his photo, etc.
Anyway, please stop now, and find another topic to write about. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing: Everyone may not share the same thought process, but I had a different experience with this doctor. I visited him with a very concerning issue, and he patiently listened to my concerns and treated my condition. Not all doctors I've met have been this responsive or receptive. It wasn't just one visit that impressed me—I had to return a few times to get the issue fully resolved. I was looking for advice to work through this, and although you couldn't assist, I truly appreciate all the information you provided. Jishnuraj korattikkal (talk) 11:58, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:19, 19 April 2025 review of submission by Ali Alam Qamar (AAQ)

[edit]

I am requesting assistance with reviewing my updated draft article on Ali Alam Qamar (linked to my sandbox). The previous submission was declined due to concerns about notability and insufficient secondary sources. I have now revised the article to:

Include citations from independent, reliable publications (e.g., The News, Dawn, Business Recorder, Cambridge Judge Business School)

Focus on verifiable accomplishments like the PSX listing of Zarea.pk, STZA licensing, and public policy appointments

Remove promotional language and maintain a neutral tone throughout

I have also disclosed a conflict of interest, so I’m reaching out here to request a neutral review before formal resubmission. Thank you for your guidance. 

Ali Alam Qamar (AAQ) (talk) 10:19, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You need to submit for review, we don't do pre-review reviews! Theroadislong (talk) 10:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ali Alam Qamar (AAQ): to clarify, the previous version was rejected (twice), not just declined. That means the end of the road. And while you are allowed to create a new draft if sufficient evidence of notability has come to light, this new draft doesn't seem to present such evidence.
Where have you disclosed your conflict of interest (or should I say conflicts, since you are also writing about your business, at Draft:Zarea Limited)? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification.
Understood that the previous version was rejected and cannot be resubmitted. I’ve now created a new draft that reflects substantial changes, including:
Updated and independent references from The News, Dawn, Business Recorder, and Cambridge Judge Business School
A fully rewritten, neutral version that avoids promotional tone
Removal of direct submissions — I’ll proceed only through the Articles for Creation process
I’ve also updated my user page with a full disclosure of my conflict of interest regarding both myself and Zarea Limited. I will not submit the article myself and will rely on the AfC process for independent evaluation.
Appreciate your guidance and happy to follow any further suggestions you may have.
Best regards,
Ali Alam Qamar Ali Alam Qamar (AAQ) (talk) 10:34, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And the same again...

Thank you for your clarification and guidance.

I acknowledge that the previous version was rejected and understand it cannot be reused. I’ve now drafted a new version which I intend to submit via the Articles for Creation (AfC) process, not for pre-review. The revised draft makes a stronger case for notability, in line with Wikipedia’s Notability guidelines, particularly as they relate to people and organizations.

Specifically:

The draft is supported by multiple independent, reliable, and secondary sources with significant coverage of the subject, including:

The News International (PSX listing of Zarea)

Dawn, The Nation, and Business Recorder (coverage of business leadership and public role)

Cambridge Judge Business School (profiled as an alumnus and entrepreneur)

These sources are not affiliated with the subject, are published by credible organizations, and provide coverage beyond trivial mentions — satisfying the notability requirements outlined in WP:N, WP:BIO, and WP:ORG.

I have also updated my user page with a clear conflict of interest disclosure regarding both myself and Zarea Limited, in accordance with WP:COI. I will not directly submit articles in mainspace and will only proceed through community review channels.

Thank you again, and I welcome any further suggestions to help ensure the draft is fully policy-compliant.

Kind regards, Ali Alam Qamar (AAQ) 

Ali Alam Qamar (AAQ) (talk) 10:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:57, 19 April 2025 review of submission by Hassnain Raza786

[edit]

I am seeking guidance on how to improve and possibly resubmit my draft article on Imtiaz Rafi Butt. The draft was declined due to notability and tone issues. While there are no in-depth third-party written profiles currently available, the subject has given multiple interviews on independent platforms including Geo News, GNN, and Samaa TV. I’ve declared my COI and want to ensure I’m following best practices. Could you please advise whether these interviews help establish notability and whether a revision or future resubmission is appropriate? Hassnain Raza786 (talk) 10:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hassnain Raza786: no, interviews do not contribute towards notability per WP:GNG, because they are primary sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:20, 19 April 2025 review of submission by Blaada

[edit]

The draft has been declined twice because of invalid citations. I need help for that. ßﾚααdα (talk) 11:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Blaada: no it hasn't. It was first declined for insufficient referencing, and then for lack of evidence of notability. You've since resubmitted it, so you will get an assessment once a reviewer gets around to it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:23, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be glad if you help improving the draft. Thanks ßﾚααdα (talk) 11:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Blaada: nope, that's your job. If you have specific questions about the draft or the review process, you may of course ask those here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:23, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just need help to take a look if the draft is good at this time. ßﾚααdα (talk) 12:29, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Blaada. I'm afraid that you have made the classic set of mistakes that inexperienced editors often make when they try the challenging task of creating a new article. Most of your sources are the university and the government that set it up.
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.
What have independent commentators written about the University, in books, in academic journals, even in major newspapers? If the answer is "very little", then a Wikipedia article about it is not possible. (I don't know whether Sheelwant Singh is independent of the University or not, but even if he is, the place in the book you linked to is only a passing mention, not an in-depth discussion of the university.) ColinFine (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:17, 19 April 2025 review of submission by Heatrave

[edit]

I will like to know what the notice was for. This is the first time I have seen this. I don't know what it means or what to do. Send help Heatrave (talk) 12:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Heatrave: what notice?
This draft has been rejected, because you keep tendentiously resubmitting it without any attempt to improve it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:31, 19 April 2025 review of submission by 112.207.190.173

[edit]

Can you help me to edit the biography so that it will be accepted? 112.207.190.173 (talk) 12:31, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what the reviewer is taking about is peacock words. Things like "charming town" and "has a story that's as captivating as any script." are not acceptable. For example in Personal Life it should read "Julian Alturas, grew up in town of Bato, Camarines Sur." Good luck, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 13:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:41, 19 April 2025 review of submission by Sotamana

[edit]

I don't quite understand how to submit a draft for review. I placed the code {{AfC submission|||ts=20250419124143|u=Sotamana|ns=4}} at the top of the draft, but all that seems to happen is that this appear as if it were content of the page, and there is no indication of that it is being considered for review. I don't seen any button that could lead to submission for review. How can I make sure that the submission is properly triggered? Sorry for the basic question. Sotamana (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sotamana, you have one edit. I do not know which draft you are referring to. The code to submit a draft is {{subst:submit}}. The code will automatically add the draft to the list of drafts needing review. You don't need to press a button, unless a) you used the article wizard b) You are re-submitting; both would show the button in the template. Hope that helps, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 13:19, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing the user is referring to their pt.wiki article pt:Carla Castelo.
@Sotamana: the Portuguese Wikipedia is a completely separate project, if you have questions about it you need to ask them there. Also, note that templates (such as the submit one you mention) may not work the same across different language versions of Wikipedia, in fact it is quite likely they won't. I don't even know if the Portuguese version has a corresponding template at all. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I didn't bother to check that far. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 13:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:48, 19 April 2025 review of submission by Terehele

[edit]

Hi, I created a draft about Piero di Pasquale, an Italian journalist and television author. The submission was declined. I’d like help understanding what’s missing or how I can improve it so it can be accepted. Thank you! Terehele (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Terehele: I declined this back in January, because it was just a blank page. Now you have content, but you haven't submitted it for review. When you do, you will get an assessment. (We don't do on-demand reviews here at the help desk.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Actually, I can tell you straight away that this would be declined, because the draft is completely unreferenced. Where is all that information coming from, and how do we know it's true? See WP:REFB for advice on referencing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:23, 19 April 2025 review of submission by Tan0777

[edit]

Hello,

I’ve made several updates to this draft including new citations from independent and reliable sources such as The Hans India, Jagran, The Pioneer, and Bizz Buzz. I believe these demonstrate significant coverage of Madhusree Hatial’s contributions to cultural preservation.

Could someone please review the draft again and let me know if anything further is needed to meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines?

Thank you!

Tan0777 Tan0777 (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tan0777 To get another review, you need to resubmit the draft. 331dot (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please go through it once, because this time if the article gets denied, it would get deleted, that's why I need to be sure before submitting. 2409:40E0:39:77D7:842F:425E:79F7:CF7D (talk) 09:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remember to log in. It's not true that drafts are deleted after a decline. We don't do pre-review reviews here, as that is redundant. 331dot (talk) 09:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:15, 19 April 2025 review of submission by YapPro

[edit]

how can i nominate this draft for deletion 

YapPro (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@YapPro, If you would like I can request deletion for you. P.S. For future reference, it would fall under Speedy Deletion, WP:G7 Author requests deletion. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 17:39, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yes please
thanks! YapPro (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:46, 19 April 2025 review of submission by 74.213.241.248

[edit]

What is the list of sources you accept for citations Thank you 74.213.241.248 (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please log in before posting- I'm not sure what the exact title of your draft is so I can't fix the link to it in the header(you need the full, exact title, including the "Draft:" portion). We don't have a list of acceptable sources- which would be difficult to assemble.. We do have a list of commonly discussed sources, but these include ones that are not acceptable as well as some that are. This might give you an idea of what is acceptable and what is not, but it is not an exhaustive list. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:47, 19 April 2025 review of submission by MoonlitDunes

[edit]

New Article Rejected - Trying to find sources that qualify}}


I am trying to make an article for a museum I am currently working for, but it was rejected for not having the correct sources? I am not really sure what else I can use as a source, it's not a big museum so it doesn't have grand opening in-depth type pages on independent sites or anything, it's mostly just local news articles and small mentions in larger publications. What can I use to get the correct citations? Examples of what I can use to get it published? The museum is really struggling right now with all the budget cuts and all going on so any publicity we can get is desperately needed, and I think the cause (and a lot of the historical artifacts we have) are important enough that it deserves an article. MoonlitDunes (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MoonlitDunes You had text where the title of your draft should go, creating a link. I fixed this for you.
If there are no independent reliable sources that provide on their own significant coverage of your museum, it would not be a notable organization in a Wikipedia sense. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion, see WP:PROMO. Unfortunately you will have to look elsewhere to promote your museum. 331dot (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It has been covered by multiple other sources, many of which I've been including links to. Newspapers, fish and wildlife, there was a segment I believe on a PBS show, a gentleman who worked on it came in a few weeks ago to take new footage for an updated show he's doing for Amazon, but I have no idea when that's going to be out. It hasn't really been on national news to the best of my knowledge, though I am reaching out to see if there are larger publications that have done stories on it so I can get that information. I'm still very new to this and am not entirely sure where to look or what's considered 'big enough'. MoonlitDunes (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources must be independent of the subject, and discuss the subject in depth, showing how it is a notable organization. Interviews with museum personnel or the reporting of its activities are not significant coverage.(WP:ORGDEPTH) 331dot (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha! What kind of sources would you recommend for that? Particular publications or anything like that? Also, should I just put them at the end, or do I need to put the links on the specific section they refer to? Thank you! MoonlitDunes (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have particular publications to recommend- anything where the source on its own(not an interview or based on materials from the museum) chooses to provide in depth coverage of the museum itself, not merely documenting its exhibits. Is it recognized as an authority on its area of coverage? Has it had a particular influence on study of the topic according to others? Stuff like that. 331dot (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, I'll see if I can find sources like that to add. It's the primary source of information for the Guadalupe-Nipomo dunes, basically the only authority on the Dunes ecology, geography and all that, so I believe so, and is the main source of information when it comes to the study of the ecology and geography of the area so I think so. I'll get in touch with a few people and see what I can find for good sources. MoonlitDunes (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:27, 19 April 2025 review of submission by Bhcdjjdsh

[edit]

I’m working on a draft article for Laniakea Technologies, a technology company founded in 2021 that develops decentralized software, notably Laniakea OS. The draft is based on a variety of sources, including recent additions, and I’d greatly appreciate feedback or assistance to ensure it meets Wikipedia’s standards for notability, neutrality, and reliable sourcing. Specific Requests Notability Review: The article cites multiple sources, including industry publications and news outlets, to establish notability (e.g., InfoNetInsider, TimeBulletins, BizNewsReporter). Could editors review whether these sources sufficiently meet WP:GNG for a technology company?

Source Reliability: I’ve added three new references: TexasNewsMagazine discussing potential applications in space exploration.

TimeBulletins covering Laniakea TV’s virtual reality content.

BizNewsReporter providing insights from the OS creators. Are these sources considered reliable per WP:RS, or should I seek additional ones?

Content Balance: The article covers the company’s history, products, and technological focus (blockchain, AI, decentralization). Is the tone appropriately neutral, or are there areas that seem promotional?

Formatting and Structure: The draft includes an infobox, history section, external links, and references. Are there improvements needed for MOS compliance or category suggestions beyond those listed (e.g., Category:Mexican technology companies, Category:Blockchain technology)?

Reference Integration: I’ve added one sentence per new reference as requested. Could editors confirm if these are well-integrated and properly formatted?

How You Can Help Copyediting: Suggestions to improve clarity or conciseness.

Source Evaluation: Guidance on whether cited sources are sufficient or if more primary/secondary sources are needed.

Notability Discussion: Input on whether the company meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria for organizations.

Technical Assistance: Help with citation templates or infobox parameters if errors are present.

I’m happy to collaborate and make revisions based on feedback. The draft is available [insert link to draft if applicable, or note it’s in the provided text], and I’d be grateful for any insights from editors experienced with technology or business articles. Thank you in advance for your time and expertise! Best regards, Bhcdjjdsh (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bhcdjjdsh We would prefer to communicate with you directly, and not an AI chatbot. I will note that the draft was rejected, typically meaning that it will not be considered further. If you work for this company, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:01, 19 April 2025 review of submission by Deechach

[edit]

Hi, This is all new to me. I tried by adding the references but Iit seems that I did it wrong. Need help with this. Thanks Deechach (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deechach Please see Referencing for beginners. I am wondering, what is the general nature of your conflict of interest? Are you writing about yourself? 331dot (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:16, 19 April 2025 review of submission by REalR2

[edit]

Why did it get rejected? REalR2 (talk) 23:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No sources, amd written like a personal essay. 331dot (talk) 23:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 20

[edit]

09:15, 20 April 2025 review of submission by Mjonellepeter

[edit]

Hi, I’ve resubmitted my draft titled ‘City Mayor Fair Debate Framework’ after addressing the initial feedback. May I kindly request a review when available? Thank you! Mjonellepeter (talk) 09:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission is active and awaiting review. Making a request for a review has no effect; reviews are conducted by volunteers in no particular order. Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjonellepeter It is devoid of meaningful referencing and has beed no Declined correctly by a reviewer. Please seek references prior to any resubmission. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:15, 20 April 2025 review of submission by মোঃ আছিফুল হাসান রাফি

[edit]

Hey there, it's famous local football tournament in Tangail, Bangladesh. It has a great fans and followers in it's local area and in the whole country as well. You can visit it's Facebook page to see it's popularity. It's not just an tournament, also emotion to so may of us, who studied there and participating here. You can't just reject it just after a few minutes of applying without checking carefully. Kindly check again, and reconsider, it's a humble request. Also, tell me what to add/provide for it to get accepted. মোঃ আছিফুল হাসান রাফি (talk) 09:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You claim to have personally created and personally own the copyright to the logo of the tournament. Please clarify.
That you did not get the result you wanted does not mean it was not checked. Popularity or local interest are not indicators that this event meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable event. The text of the draft is entirely unsourced. An article must summarize what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about the topic. The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further at this time. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:24, 20 April 2025 review of submission by Vignes Karthic V B A

[edit]

Greetings, I would like to know why the article written by me was declined? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Yogakudil_Sivayogi 

Vignes Karthic V B A (talk) 09:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Facts are largely unsourced from reliable, independent sources, the tone is extremely promotional, and large parts seem to be written in the form of a question and answer format that is only tangentially related to the biography of the subject. I suspect that this would have to be fundamentally rewritten to be able to make a case for notability. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:09, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:25, 20 April 2025 review of submission by AMWikiContributor

[edit]

Requesting Advice on Draft:AM Technology

Hello DreamRimmer, Thank you for reviewing the draft article for AM Technology. I understand it was not accepted due to concerns around notability and promotional tone.

I’ve now rewritten the article in a more neutral, encyclopedic style and focused only on verifiable information. I’ve also removed any marketing language and ensured the content follows Wikipedia guidelines.

Before I resubmit it for review, I would greatly appreciate any advice you might have on what could still be improved or what specific types of reliable sources would make the draft stronger.

Thank you for your time and guidance! 

AMWikiContributor (talk) 15:25, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft gives no indication of passing WP:NCORP and has been rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 15:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And you have an obvious conflict of interest (COI) which must be disclosed. I've posted instructions on your talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request to move draft to mainspace

[edit]

Hello! I would like to request the review and publication of my draft article about Anatoly Winston Miles, Latvian art expert and founder of the Slow Art movement.

The draft is located at:

User:Anatolijs Vinstons Mailss/Draft

The article is biographical, original, properly formatted, and includes a licensed photo from Wikimedia Commons.

Please consider moving it to the mainspace as:

Anatoly Winston Miles

Thank you for your time!

— Anatolijs Vinstons Mailss (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anatolijs Vinstons Mailss, You have not submitted the draft for review. To submit a draft add {{subst:Submit}} to the source code (Press edit source). Secondly, it will not be accepted, even though it is well written, because it needs to be verifiable and show that you are notable. See the help page on how to cite. Happy editing, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 17:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Anatolijs Vinstons Mailss The picture is, or appears to be, a picture of the uploader, you, but there is no evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather than the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Evidence of any transfer of licencing must be sent via c:COM:VRT. I have requested speedy deletion on Wikimedia Commons. It is a breach of copyright as it stands at present.
I see it has been no Declined, with the lack of acceptable references cited as a rationale. Please study that rationale. However, writing your autobiography here is a two edged sword. You are likely to discover:
  • that you fail our notability criteria
  • that you cannot write objectively about yourself. Very few people are able to.
I wish you well with this project, but feel youi havce embarked on the hardest possible task here 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:53, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:41, 20 April 2025 review of submission by Hmo90

[edit]

What shall i edit to make the article meet tge Wikipedia standards Hmo90 (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection means that there is nothing more you can do. 331dot (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:03, 20 April 2025 review of submission by Cperiz

[edit]

I'm not clear why the references in the submitted article are not enough coverage to be submitted to wikipedia. I've included blogs as well as results pages from the CASA organization. Would help to know what is required here? Thanks! Cperiz (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cperiz Have you read Wikipedia:Notability (music)? You have been pointed at it twice, so, if you have missed it, please read it. If youi have read it then please read it again.
Blogs are a big problem because they have little or no managerial oversight, so are not reliable sources. Interviews are primary sources. Spotify is deprecated as a source.
All this information and more could have been gleaned from either of the two reviewers who declined the draft.
You have work to do. Please research the notability first. If it is a notable topic please only then do the extra work to verify it for us. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:47, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 21

[edit]

07:00, 21 April 2025 review of submission by Punjabiinfo

[edit]

it is an existing artist profile, how to make it more reliable for submission Punjabiinfo (talk) 07:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Punjabiinfo: there is zero evidence that this person is notable. Also, the referencing is very weak, and the citations are piled at the end as opposed to inline like they should be. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Punjabiinfo We don't have "profiles" here, not a single one- we have articles. 331dot (talk) 07:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:07, 21 April 2025 review of submission by Tinymaheer

[edit]

Hey what do I edit can you please tell me Tinymaheer (talk) 09:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you wrote the draft with AI or a large language model(LLM). This is problematic for several reasons, see WP:LLM. 331dot (talk) 09:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Re-review of Draft:John Kenneth Paranada

[edit]

Hello! I recently resubmitted Draft:John Kenneth Paranada after addressing the previous decline comments. I've carefully revised the article to ensure that it now includes multiple reliable, independent secondary sources that provide significant coverage of the subject.

I’ve removed non-compliant references (such as YouTube) and clarified citations. I'd be very grateful if an AfC reviewer could kindly take another look when possible.

Thank you for your time and support!

Best wishes, User:Johnparanada Johnparanada (talk) 10:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnparanada: you have resubmitted the draft, so it will be reviewed when a reviewer happens to pick it up, which may take a while as we have c. 2,700 pending drafts to review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the quick reply, @DoubleGrazing! Totally understand the queue and really appreciate all the work you and the reviewers do. I’ll be patient and look forward to any feedback when it comes.
All the best,
Johnparanada (talk) Johnparanada (talk) 10:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnparanada no Declined with a full rationale and a suggestion of a total rewrite. The image is the copyright of others and is being dealt with on Wikimedia Commons. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 11:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:31, 21 April 2025 review of submission by ΧΧΓΚομ

[edit]

I am the creator of Aio's comics and I want to publish for the world to know.Please consider my request. ΧΧΓΚομ (talk) 11:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy if you gave a second chance to Aio and all my other creations.I want the world to know them and I want you to give them a chance.

ΧΧΓΚομ (talk) 11:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ΧΧΓΚομ: please don't start multiple threads.
This draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a platform for you to promote your creations. Also, Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:41, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want for them to have a kind of database for fans to look up information they want.I want my creations to have an audience that enjoys my stories. ΧΧΓΚομ (talk) 11:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ΧΧΓΚομ: sure, you can want that. You'll just have to find a different platform for that. Maybe try Fandom or similar sites? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you for mercy.I asked for a second chance.You ruthless,heartless monster reject my request.I wish for you to perish in the most horrible and terrifying way possible.You disrespectful barbarian British!Go get ran over by a train,you filthy uncivilised British,you monster that rejects the wisdom of Greece!At last,our great country of Hellas gets squashed by the Imperialists Westeners.So go cry in the corner for having literally no unique culture and being an ancient statue thief!Your country's existence makes me lose faith in the human race!Ζήτω το Έθνος!Κάτω το ΝΑΤΟ και οι Δυτικοί!!!!! ΧΧΓΚομ (talk) 12:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not British, but otherwise pretty spot-on. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Είδες; Παραδέχεσαι ότι οι Έλληνες είναι απ' τους λίγους άξιους λαούς σ'αυτόν τον πλανήτη!ΖΗΤΩ ΤΟ ΕΘΝΟΣ!!!!ΕΛΕΥΘΕΡΙΑ Ή ΘΑΝΑΤΟΣ!!!!!!!! ΧΧΓΚομ (talk) 12:12, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ΧΧΓΚομ Oh dear, you seem to have been blocked. What a pity. never mind. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given the Greek responce above is blatant nationalist ranting, it's not a great loss. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:43, 21 April 2025 review of submission by 164.100.203.24

[edit]

how can i submit references if government links are not considered 164.100.203.24 (talk) 11:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can you use reliable primary sources within reason to support non-contentious information, but they cannot be used to establish notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, IP user. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
If there are no such independent reliable sources, then an article is not possible. ColinFine (talk) 13:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:56, 21 April 2025 review of submission by ΧΧΓΚομ

[edit]

I want to gove this draft a second chance.I want my creations to be unleashed into the world and for people to enjoy them. ΧΧΓΚομ (talk) 11:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ΧΧΓΚομ: okay, I think you need to stop this, before you get yourself blocked. If your only objective here is to promote your own creations (or possibly troll us, I'm not quite sure which), that will only ever end one way. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:02, 21 April 2025 review of submission by 157.15.23.84

[edit]

why my text is not approved 157.15.23.84 (talk) 12:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is in Bengali, whereas this is the English-language Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:04, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:23, 21 April 2025 review of submission by Walwel24

[edit]

I would like to know more specifically why this article for creation was declined. How do I know what actually needs to be corrected when the explanation is so vague? Please advise. Walwel24 (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you missed it, but you were given a specific reason below the general reason, "Please include inline citations to prove all of your claims. Furthermore, as this seems to be your only article, I find it possible that this is WP:PAID. If so, please state this." 331dot (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For help with referencing, see Referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:05, 21 April 2025 review of submission by Celinesalloum3

[edit]

I am just learning how to create wikipedia page, this person is an athlete and a very good football player in Lebanon, I want to create the account perfectly. How do I do it? Celinesalloum3 (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We're reluctant to help you earn money(I'd put a paid disclosure on your user page as well). If you're being paid, you need to do the work to learn what is needed. That said, you only have two sources, and every substantive claim about a living person needs a source, per WP:BLP. 331dot (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Celinesalloum3. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable places and very little else. If you cannot find such independent sources with substantial coverage, there can be no article.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:23, 21 April 2025 review of submission by Folsom WikiDude

[edit]

I added more sources - am I doing anything else wrong? Folsom WikiDude (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Folsom WikiDude: you've resubmitted this draft, and will get an assessment once a reviewer gets around to it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 22

[edit]

00:48, 22 April 2025 review of submission by BlakeVarnadoeAuthor

[edit]

I am an author and id like someone to draft my page for me BlakeVarnadoeAuthor (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BlakeVarnadoeAuthor, you can make a request at Requested articles, but be aware that it may take a very long time before someone writes an article about you - we are all volunteers and choose to write articles on subjects that interest us. My advice for you is to concentrate on your career and work on writing some great books, because that will make people much more interested in writing about you. StartGrammarTime (talk) 03:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @BlakeVarnadoeAuthor. I would second the advice from StartGrammarTime; and I would also caution you that if Wikipedia ever has an article about you (whoever writes it), the article will not belong to you, will not be controlled by you, and will not necessarily say what you would like it to say. See an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. ColinFine (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am an author, too, @BlakeVarnadoeAuthor, but I knew before, during, and after writing what I am certain is a great, meaningful, necessary, readable, unputdownable book, that I do not qualify for a Wikipedia article. I do not pass WP:NAUTHOR, you see. It is more likely that I will walk to the South Pole than that I will have an article written about me. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:32, 22 April 2025 review of submission by Vsbn

[edit]

Article publishing Vsbn (talk) 01:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vsbn: that's not a question; did you have one in mind you'd like to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Vsbn. Please note that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
Also not that writing about yourself is strongly discouraged, and very rarely successful. ColinFine (talk) 14:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:43, 22 April 2025 review of submission by Fede130509

[edit]

I just have a question about the sources when are reliable or not, like for example NYCFC and Transfermarkt sources are not reliables and why? Because that's any source I have for this player Fede130509 (talk) 03:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NYCFC is a WP:PRIMARY source here; it is not an independent observer of Shore. As for Transfermarkt, given that much of the information is user-generated, and the Wikipedia community is not satisfied with the transparency of their fact-checking, the longstanding consensus is that Transfermarkt is not a reliable source. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:21, 22 April 2025 review of submission by Clive Adams

[edit]

You will see that after creating a great deal of content with supporting links that I almost gave up over the last 6 months in having this page published. Are there too many links? I am simply attempting to produce a page that reflects the work and history of this individual. It seems to me that I won't get by the 'bots'. Can you assist? Clive Adams (talk) 08:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Clive Adams: who are you calling a 'bot'? I guess me, among other reviewers, since I've been involved in reviewing this.
This draft has a number of issues, including but not only 'links'. Why are you asking about links in particular? And what do you mean by 'links' – wikilinks? Inline external links? References? Sorry if that's meant to be obvious, but I see hundreds of drafts every month, and don't remember the background to this particular one. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for making the assumption the reply was automated, it was very fast thank you. Due to the fact this person is a 'backing singer' means he is cited the way most support roles are, very little. The reason I mentioned too many links, most are not quality but referencing. I assume in my' reference section' 3, 5, 6 and 7 are notable. I understand and appreciate the volume of work you must get through. Clive Adams (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Clive Adams. "A page that reflects the work and history of this individual" may not be quite what Wikipedia requires: rather, "An article which summarises what people wholly unconnected with this individual have chosen to publish about him in reliable publications". See WP:42.
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Colin, Thank you. I believe in my page my' reference section' 3, 5, 6 and 7 are notable. Tee Green performs vital support in the music industry which is why I went on this crusade to get all the detail in one place, he is hardly mentioned in books and article but is heard on over 170 million albums! I have made some edits to make the content read in a more formal way, I appreciate you help. Clive Adams (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This requires WP:TNT and re-writing in a dry neutral tone, for instance "Tee Green, blessed with a four and a half octave vocal range" is clearly NOT appropriate for an encyclopaedia. Theroadislong (talk) 16:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Clive Adams Guinness World Records is a primary source so not useful for notability, #5 is ok, #6 is not a reliable source (seems like a blog, no About Us page and otherwise there's no evidence of editorial oversight, etc.) and similar for #7 and because they accept paid placements (This website accepts various forms of compensation by way of cash advertising, sponsorship, paid posts and insertions, and other forms of compensations including CDs, DVDs, concert tickets, film tickets, and experiences. The compensation received may influence the advertising content topics, or posts made on this website.), their independence is questionable. S0091 (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 5, 6 and 7 have the same quote, and the final para is identical, strongly suggesting they all share the same source, such as a press release. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:17, 22 April 2025 review of submission by Bibiana T

[edit]

Hello! I would like to see about my draft I submitted 5 weeks ago. I just want to make sure it was not declined and if it meets the standards. If not I would love to ask for feedback so I can improve it and write it better. Would anyone have time to help me with the check? Thank you so much! Bibiana T (talk) 14:17, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bibiana T: your draft is awaiting new review. We don't provide pre-reviews here at the help desk, and without carrying out one I couldn't tell if it meets the standards. Please be patient and wait until a reviewer gets around to it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answer. Have a nice rest of the day Bibiana T (talk) 14:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:09, 22 April 2025 review of submission by 157.130.94.250

[edit]

Hi,

I am really struggling here and have tried several times without very much advice/feedback. We are a knowledge management software company that is SIGNIFICANTLY larger and more notable than many competitors who have Wikipedia pages below. I would really appreciate very tactical advice on how to improve this page please!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomfire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EGain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elium 

157.130.94.250 (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Every single source fails WP:ORGCRIT (routine coverage like funding announcements, press releases, based on what those affiliated what company say such as interviews, trade publications, etc.). As far as other articles, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. S0091 (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications; and very little else.
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:11, 22 April 2025 review of submission by 105.160.63.165

[edit]

Am requesting because i ned help on how to make it a best article 

105.160.63.165 (talk) 18:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not going to happen. This draft has been rejected and will not proceed further. If you want to see what makes a great article please look at any article from WP:FA 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:12, 22 April 2025 review of submission by 132.238.107.247

[edit]

Why was the article taken down? 132.238.107.247 (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean Draft:Andrew Canda, it was merely declined with rationale. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:23, 22 April 2025 review of submission by Mirwis Hashimi

[edit]

Hi! I’ve created a draft article in my sandbox here: User:Mirwis Hashimi/sandbox. I’m a new user and don’t have access to the Move tool yet. Could someone please move it to Draft:Fazel Jamil Hashimi for review? Thank you! Mirwis Hashimi (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Sophisticatedevening🍷(talk) 19:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:24, 22 April 2025 review of submission by Sophie - the Professional Writer

[edit]

How can I publish my content on Wikipedia Sophie - the Professional Writer (talk) 20:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why my article was rejected and deleted? Sophie - the Professional Writer (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sophie - the Professional Writer It has not yet been deleted. However, it is a blatant advertisement in my view. If a patrolling administrator agrees with my it will be deleted. If not, then not 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sophie - the Professional Writer You appear to me to be engaged in promotional work, likely for reward. You have chosen to post a question here without answering the question oon your user talk page. The fundamental element of that is If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sophie - the Professional Writer - repinging. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:44, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:32, 22 April 2025 review of submission by Madler77

[edit]

I would like to create new profiles for publication on Wikipedia. I believe the subjects are notable and qualify. I work with these individuals and would like to disclose that upfront, nevertheless they are worthy of articles on Wikipedia. The information provided is confounding and I am requesting help. Teahouse will not respond because I am newly registered. Can anyone help me? I have already been scammed out of $6,000 by an company pretending to write Wikipedia articles. Please help. Madler77 (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Madler77 Please make a report using the information at WP:SCAM.
When you have done that please read WP:COI and WP:PAID. From those you will have a good understanding of how to start 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Teahouse is unfortunately protected due to an abusive user. Once you have some edits and time has passed, you'll be able to post there.
I'm confused, you say you were scammed, but now you want to be a paid editor? Was it your employer that scammed you? 331dot (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I am not a paid editor, but I work for the company and people for whom I would like to submit profiles. How do I begin?
I was scammed by an outside company that posed as writers connected to Wikipedia. They have now disappeared. Madler77 (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are a paid editor under our rules. Please see the links provided to you above.
We don't have profiles here, not a single one. We have articles. They should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the subject, showing how it is notable as Wikipedia uses the word, see a notable company and a notable person. 331dot (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I meant "Article". I believe there are significant reliable sources showing how the subject is notable, but I haven't a clue as to how to submit it for review. You provide massive amounts of information but over the head of this novice. I have an article with links written. How/where do I post it? Madler77 (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Madler77 yes, you are paid editor so the next thing you need to do is make the disclosure as instructed at WP:PAID, then read Your first article. S0091 (talk) 22:42, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Madler77, do you mean you have an article written on your computer (say in Word, or Google docs, or similar) that you wish to have as a draft here? Or do you mean you have written a draft on Wikipedia and are not sure of next steps?
If it is the first, the easiest way to do it will be to create a draft: in your address bar, go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:CompanyNameGoesHere (obviously changing the bit after Draft: to your company's name) and select 'Start the Draft:' page (first linked option). Then use Referencing for beginners to cite your sources, and there should be a submit button on your draft for when you are ready. Note that your sources should conform to WP:42.
If you have a draft on Wikipedia and don't know what to do next, link that here and someone will be able to put a submit button on it for you.
Either way, please read and act upon WP:PAID as your very first course of action. This is vitally important to get done before you begin/continue work on your draft. We are here to help if you have further questions. Happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 03:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Madler77. To add to what others have said:
If you are a new user, and have written a draft of an article outside Wikipedia which you are hoping to upload, it is very likely that you have written it backwards. If you have, the best thing to do may be to start again.
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) 11:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:09, 22 April 2025 review of submission by Ricky Benitez

[edit]

My draft submission was declined for notability reasons, but I have references from the same site David Singleton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Singleton_(basketball)) has, in fact I have more references from various news publication outlets. How is it that he got published and I was denied? Thank you Ricky Benitez (talk) 21:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see other stuff exists. There are many ways to get inappropriate articles past us, this cannot justify adding more.
Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves. Please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 21:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:31, 22 April 2025 review of submission by Mirwis Hashimi

[edit]

Dear AfC Help Desk,

I am seeking assistance with my draft article "Fazel Jamil Hashimi" (Draft:Fazel_Jamil_Hashimi). My submission was declined, and I made the necessary edits. However, I cannot find the "Resubmit" button to resubmit my draft for review.

I have saved the changes to my draft and am now ready for it to be reconsidered, but the resubmission option seems unavailable. Could you please guide me on how to proceed? Is there another way to submit my draft for review, or is there a step I might have missed?

Thank you for your help.

Best regards, Mirwis Hashimi Mirwis Hashimi (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mirwis Hashimi I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft as intended. 331dot (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You had removed the decline message, perhaps inadvertently. I restored it so you can now resubmit. 331dot (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:11, 22 April 2025 review of submission by Prrooo

[edit]

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

References do not need to be in English as long as they meet all requirements of being reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"just wanted a stub or small article so that he is more easily discoverable on the internet" is a promotional purpose. This process is usually voluntary. You are able to directly create articles or move the draft into the encyclopedia yourself, though you run the risk of it being nominated for deletion. 331dot (talk) 22:27, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:07, 22 April 2025 review of submission by Hwantaw

[edit]

Hi, I'd appreciate help with finding a way to get this draft accepted as notable. Thank you. Hwantaw (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Find reliable secondary sources. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 23

[edit]

03:05, 23 April 2025 review of submission by Ricky Benitez

[edit]

How can I get my draft published? I have multiple verifiable references of significant coverage from notable news outlets and yet I have been getting denied when submitting my draft for publication? Any ideas? Ricky Benitez (talk) 03:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ricky Benitez: Refer to WP:Autobiography and User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
As for the David Singleton article, that was created directly in article space and never drafted. Frankly, it's in dire need of shears. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 03:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I see thank you for your feedback it is very constructive. Ricky Benitez (talk) 20:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:34, 23 April 2025 review of submission by Seddy346

[edit]

Clarification on Draft: Geoff Carter flagged as AI-generated Hello My draft Draft:Geoff Carter was recently declined, first due to concerns regarding insufficient citations, and then with concerns that it may have been generated by AI or a large language model. I want to clarify that I am the subject's daughter and wrote the article myself based on my own knowledge together with referencing of reliable sources including the Australian War Memorial and the Royal Australian Artillery Historical Company (which I added in when I received the first notice about lack of citations). I recieved the message about the article being declined after I added in the citations. I've been working carefully, and with assistance, to meet tone, sourcing and formatting requirements (which is hard for a first time user!). I've also replied to a reviewer on the Talk page. Would someone be willing to take a second look or offer guidance about what I need to do to move forward and have this published? Thank you.

Seddy346 (talk) 04:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Seddy346: when you copypaste the entire input from ChatGPT, including its instructions, into the draft, it makes it quite obvious that you've used AI. How much you've used it, is difficult for us to say, but clearly some, and that is already a red flag.
Anyway, you have resubmitted the draft, so it will be reviewed again, once a reviewer gets around to it.
Please do not remove earlier reviews or comments, they must stay with the draft until it is accepted.
Finally, as you clearly have a conflict of interest in this subject you must disclose this. I have posted instructions on your talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:06, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DoubleGrazing
I am a first-time user/editor of Wikipedia. I didn't intend to insert input from ChatGPT, I was trying to get instructions on how to include references and inadvertently carried a short amount of text across and pasted it in. As soon as I saw I'd done this I deleted it. I accept that it may be difficult for you to assess the authenticity or validity of the content in the article without researching it, but I can assure you the content is accurate and correct. The later changes I made were to add in references to confirm these details. I also confirmed my relationship to the subject many times, and used independent, reliable sources (once I worked out how to do this) including the Australian War Memorial. I'll leave this alone for now until it can be reviewed again.
Thank you.
@DoubleGrazing: Seddy346 (talk) 06:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to AI issues that DoubleGrazing brought up -- it's hard to deny AI usage when you accidentally copied and pasted an additional part of your discussion with ChatGPT -- you're highlighting another part of the problem here. Wikipedia entries may not be written using one's "own knowledge." It's very hard to write an article about someone you're connected with, because you literally have to ignore everything you may personally know when writing the article. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CoffeeCrumbs
I see your point, but my father was a public figure and there's a great deal of information about him on multiple reputable websites, including the Australian War Memorial. Perhaps it was a mistake for me to say the information is also based on my own personal knowledge. That's also true but all of the information in the draft is drawn from public records, not from an article I started from scratch myself based on just my memories. As a first time editor/users I'm finding this whole experience extremely difficult and frustrating. I've explained where I went wrong with ChatGPT in the reply to DoubleGrazing, above. I wasn't using ChatGPT for content, I was using it to ask me how to reference articles. Anyhow this is a pretty unfriendly place to be, and I think it's becoming all too hard. @CoffeeCrumbs: Seddy346 (talk) 06:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you feel that way, but this is a serious project, not a fandom Wiki, and the bar for reliability and independence is high at English Wikipedia. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CoffeeCrumbs this comment is offensive. As must be clear from the seriousness of the entry, the seniority of the person I'm trying to write about, his achievements and his legacy. I appreciate the importance of reliability and independence. Writing about a distinguished senior Army officer is hardly a work of fandom. I appreciate you're trying maintain standards here, but some tact and sensitivity wouldn't go astray.
@CoffeeCrumbs: Seddy346 (talk) 08:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My comment had nothing to do with anything about the worth of the subject, only that our standards are necessarily far above a fandom Wiki. You keep saying how hard it is and how mean we are and frustrated you are, but if you don't understand something, you should be asking questions ahead of time, not simply writing it and waiting for people to clean up. And not of chatbots, which are notorious for being inaccurate on details and frequent hallucinations.
That obituary you're closely paraphrasing rather than stating in your own words, it says it's written by Paul Stevens on a website owned by the Royal Australian Artillery Historical Company, which claims ownership of the copyright and requires a condition of use that is not compatible with Wikipedia (the Royal Australian Artillery Historical Company says that it can only be used commercially with written permission, but copyrighted material on Wikipedia must be allowed to be used commercially without any permission required, so long as the work is attributed). The WMF and its projects, including English Wikipedia, take a hard line on copyright infringement for important legal reasons, while you gloss over it and dimiss the exercise as "tedious." CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Seddy346, at the moment your major problem is your lack of reliable sources. What you're trying to do is to show us that your subject is notable by Wikipedia standards, which is not the same thing as important, or worthy - it just means there's been some discussion of them. The way to show notability is to find at least three sources that meet the triple criteria of WP:42. After that you can use all sorts of other sources to add other information, but the notability component is essential.
From what I can see, all your sources bar the first are pretty much just naming him - they will not help with notability. The first source is an obituary - do you know who wrote it? Without it coming from an independent source, it will also be of no use to you.
If your father was a public figure, there will hopefully be some newspaper articles about him, or mentions of him in books, or that sort of thing. This is what you are looking for. Whatever you find, assess it against WP:42 - if it meets all three criteria, use it in your draft! And if not, keep looking. I hope this helps :) StartGrammarTime (talk) 06:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK StartGrammarTime, I'd done a quick search and have found some online media articles. I'll add this to the article and see where that gets me. Thank you. I'm very frustrated but I do appreciate it. :-)
@StartGrammarTime: Seddy346 (talk) 07:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Seddy346, if it helps at all to know, getting a draft to become an article is one of the hardest (and yes, most frustrating!) things to do on Wikipedia. Easily 90% of editors have never tried to create an article, even after being here for years. I'm one of them! Articles about people are harder still, because as you can imagine it would be very painful to the person and/or their loved ones if we allowed cruel or hurtful information to get past us.
Unfortunately for you, although I believe you were only using ChatGPT for referencing help, we are currently experiencing an avalanche of people using it to basically write their whole drafts - and ChatGPT is absolutely atrocious at writing Wikipedia articles, to the point where it would often be better just to delete the whole thing and start again. People often deny their use of ChatGPT to boot, even when it's blatantly obvious, and so some frustration is building up here on the help desk as well. I'm sorry this is making it a more unpleasant experience for you.
If you find sources you're uncertain about, you're welcome to head over to my talk page and link me, and I'll have a look at it and give you an idea of whether it's a good one or whether it's more dubious. I'm also Australian and always love to see more Aussie content! StartGrammarTime (talk) 07:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
StartGrammarTime, I agree with you wholeheartedly about ChatGPT. I'm not a journalist but I've written numerous media articles over the years, without the support of AI, and I know ChatGPT's limitations and general atrocious-ness. However, without it I wouldn't even have begun to understand the maze of navigating my way through Wikipedia. And I'm still not there. I'm still trying to work out how to declare my conflict of interest, that's not straightforward either. I was just talking with a journalist friend saying how aggravating this all is and how angry I feel, I imagine all the editors are feeling angry too, so it's just a shower of rage all around. Time to cool off. And I'll look for your talk page too.
@StarGrammarTime: Seddy346 (talk) 07:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Seddy346: I'm really sorry about piling on with yet another issue, but the draft is a very close paraphrase of the obituary you have used as the main source. I'm afraid the structure and phrasing are so similar that it constitutes a copyright violation of the source, as well as plagiarism. I understand that this was unintentional and I know it is hard to summarise a source without closely paraphrasing it, but all the same it is necessary to do that. I will post some more information about avoiding copyright violations and plagiarism at your user talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 07:43, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bonadea, OMG, the original obituary came from the family. You're not to know that, of course, and it would be too tedious to try to prove it. I do appreciate the spirit in which you sent this message, so thank you for that. I'll go back and try to edit it now. I'm trying to see if I can get the article published before ANZAC Day!
@Bonadea: Seddy346 (talk) 07:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @Seddy346. I'm afraid that you're having a common experience of people who try the very challenging task of creating a new Wikipedia article before spending time learning how Wikipedia works.
If the original obituary came from the family, then it is a primary source, and may only be cited in limited ways in an article. 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) 11:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:52, 23 April 2025 review of submission by HumanR1ghts4a11

[edit]

I've made a number of amendments now and the article keeps getting rejected. I understand that Ann has no awards per se, but I feel there is more than adequate links to prove she has been a life-time campaigner to seek justice for the travesty at Gosport and lesser articles exist on wiki for like minded campaigners.

In addition, it keeps getting stated that the tone is incorrect, however I have had it read by neutral parties and have removed emotive language. If there is no chance of this being published then I will give up but if there is someone who can make the necessary amendments rather than just closing it down with vague assumptions that would be helpful. I am not finding the process very collaborative at all.

Help! HumanR1ghts4a11 (talk) 05:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It reads like a personal essay, full of personal opinion and WP:SYNTH, not an encyclopedia entry, and it definitely has most of the hallmarks of a chatbot-written article. Many facts in it are completely unsourced. This is far more than a simple matter of making some amendments. Any bits of useful information that are located in there are better added to Gosport War Memorial Hospital 1990s opioid deaths scandal, so long as they are well-sourced and actually match what the source is saying. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You also need to disclose any WP:COI you have with the subjects in the article. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:24, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please also see other stuff exists. Each article or draft is considered on its own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and just not yet addressed by a volunteer. There are many ways to get inappropriate content past us, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. If you would like to help us, please identify these other "lesser" articles so we can take action. We're only as good as the people who choose to help us identify and address inappropriate content.
We want to collaborate with you, and we can answer your questions, but we don't do co-editing here, you need to do the work; a draft does not need to be 100% complete to pass this process, but it does need to meet certain standards. Rejection(after being declined) typically means that the draft will not be considered further. If you can address the concerns about notability, the first thing to do is to appeal to the rejecting reviewer. 331dot (talk) 08:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:15, 23 April 2025 review of submission by 46.117.210.235

[edit]

My article got rejected due to insufficient reliable resources, however I included multiple links to official websites like Github, Microsoft and others. 46.117.210.235 (talk) 09:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting. If you are the creator of the draft, you declared a conflict of interest. What is the general nature of it?
Your draft does little more than tell of the existence of this software and describe its features. The main purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability- in this case, probably a a notable product. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your references are bare urls; please see Referencing for Beginners. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:34, 23 April 2025 review of submission by 82.8.141.222

[edit]

Kamilla Rakhimova Камилла Рахимова

Rakhimova at the 2023 US Open Full name Kamilla Stanislavovna Rakhimova Country (sports) Russia Born 28 August 2001 (age 23) Yekaterinburg, Russia Height 1.70 m (5 ft 7 in) Plays Right (two-handed backhand) Prize money US$ 2,015,619 Singles Career record 216–153 Career titles 1 WTA Challenger Tour Highest ranking No. 61 (21 October 2024) Current ranking No. 61 (9 December 2024) Grand Slam singles results Australian Open 2R (2024) French Open 3R (2023) Wimbledon 1R (2023) US Open 3R (2021) Doubles Career record 109–76 Career titles 3 Highest ranking No. 65 (6 June 2022) Current ranking No. 82 (9 December 2024) Grand Slam doubles results Australian Open QF (2025) French Open 1R (2022, 2023, 2024) Wimbledon 2R (2024) US Open 3R (2023) Last updated on: 9 December 2024. Kamilla Stanislavovna Rakhimova (‹The template Lang-rus is being considered for deletion.› Russian: Камилла Станиславовна Рахимова, IPA: [kɐˈmʲiɫə rɐˈxʲiməvə]; born 28 August 2001) is a Russian professional tennis player. She has a career-high WTA rankings of No. 61 in singles, achieved on 21 October 2024, and No. 65 in doubles, attained on 6 June 2022.[1]

Rakhimova has won three doubles titles on the WTA Tour along with two doubles titles on the WTA Challenger Tour as well as one WTA Challenger Tour singles title. 82.8.141.222 (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a non-sequitur. The draft has been rejected due to repeated resubmissions without improvement and will not be considered further. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano: The IP also has a draft on the above tennis player with an existing article, but with additional WP:MADEUP LLM-generated material. Based on other LLM-generated drafts, it appears that they are not here to build an encyclopedia. --Finngall talk 16:13, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:17, 23 April 2025 review of submission by 209.53.30.27

[edit]

We have looked at several non-profit societies and they use their incorporated society names for their articles. We have been blocked for doing this. 209.53.30.27 (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't properly linked to a draft, but if you are blocked, you need to return to your account and follow the provided instructions to request to be unblocked. Do not further evade your block. Also see other stuff exists; each draft or article is judged on their own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and just not yet addressed. 331dot (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IP editor, the other non-profit societies have no power over what their article is named or what's in it. In fact they have less power than other editors, because anyone working for them is either a paid editor or has a conflict of interest and has to make edit requests for unaffiliated editors to implement (or otherwise). They may even wish the article didn't exist, because we strive for neutrality and will not ignore controversies or things they may not want people to know about. Those links may be of further help to you; please have a look so you can get a better understanding of what's happening. StartGrammarTime (talk) 03:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:16, 23 April 2025 review of submission by SimplyRukky

[edit]

Hi. Please I need help with improving this article 

SimplyRukky (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @SimplyRukky. What help are you looking for?
Please note that a Wikipedia article should be a summary of what people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
I am not interested in spending time wading through all the citations in your draft - it looks rather like a REFBOMB to me.
Suggestion: remove every citation which does not say anything about Adenubi himself. Remove most citations which only mention him in passing. Remove most citations which are written or published by Adenubi or VFD, or based on an interview or press release from them.
Then see if the remaining citations are sufficient to establish that he meets notability.
If you can find such sources, then you probably need to throw away your text and write a neutral summary of what those sources say. Don't include any information which is not in a reliable source.
If you can't find suitable sources, give up, as he is probably not notable by Wikipedia's criteria. ColinFine (talk) 10:03, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:18, 23 April 2025 review of submission by SimplyRukky

[edit]

Hi, please I need help with improving this article SimplyRukky (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do co-editing here; if you have specific questions, please ask.
You identify yourself as a freelance copy writer, but deny that you are a paid editor. Please clarify. Is this person your client? 331dot (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:40, 23 April 2025 review of submission by Wlaak

[edit]

Hello!

I have this warning on the template: "The page Aramean people redirects to Arameans. Please ensure it is not a copy or that this page is located at the correct title."

I am wondering how I can remove this redirect, as my draft focuses on the modern Aramean people whilst the redirect to Arameans focuses solely on the ancient ones, thus I thought renaming it to "History of the Arameans" would avoid confusion and clarity but it was reverted. 

Wlaak (talk) 22:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Wlaak! If your draft is accepted, the reviewing editor will move it and sort out any redirects/title changes as appropriate - you don't need to worry about that bit, just focus on getting the draft in good shape so it can be accepted :) StartGrammarTime (talk) 03:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
aha okay, thank you! Wlaak (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 24

[edit]

00:49, 24 April 2025 review of submission by 2001:1970:49DE:8C00:431:B5B8:9FD9:3D2E

[edit]

Historically speaking, Srpski Odjek did exist as a 'bona fide' ethnic community paper in Colorado back in 1902. To substantiate more than what is written is impossible after such a long time.... 2001:1970:49DE:8C00:431:B5B8:9FD9:3D2E (talk) 00:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's an argument against notability, then. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:13, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Existence is not enough for the subject of a Wikipedia article. An article should be a summary of what people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish in reliable publications, and little else. Such sources might exist for this paper, but unless you can locate them, no article is possible. Sorry. ColinFine (talk) 10:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:50, 24 April 2025 review of submission by Shivi042022

[edit]

my Draft is rejected and i don't know how to fix it Shivi042022 (talk) 06:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was declined not rejected, (though it probably should be rejected), it requires significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources, you have none at all and the tone is totally inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. Theroadislong (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Shivi042022. A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish in reliable publications; and little else.
You have no reliable sources at all (Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and may not be cited). See WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 10:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:35, 24 April 2025 review of submission by Sinkla95

[edit]

Hello, I was wondering if there is maybe a more specific reason as to why this article is percieved as an ad? I used as many third-party references as possible and wrote neutraly about the company. What else can I do to make this a published article? Sinkla95 (talk) 07:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sinkla95: this draft is basically a brochure, telling the world what the company does, and how excellent it is. Much of it is sourced to the company's own materials or other primary sources. We have no interest in what the company wants to say about itself. We are almost exclusively interested in see what others, esp. reliable and independent secondary sources, have said about this business and what makes it worthy of note. Your job is merely to summarise their coverage, which would result in an altogether different draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:38, 24 April 2025 review of submission by Dopolnila Sen

[edit]

Hi, can I delite this arcticle so I can post it in Slovenian Wikipedia? Dopolnila Sen (talk) 08:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is deleted or not has no impact on if you post it in the Slovenian Wikipedia; but if you want it deleted, we can do so. Drafts are deleted after six months of inactivity, or can be done at the author's request. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:12, 24 April 2025 review of submission by Started 1959

[edit]

Hello - I have an edit tag/suggestion which says Orphans. Can you tell me what this means? I think it must mean where words split at the ends of line. If so, is there an article on how to fix this issue? Thanks! Kate Started 1959 (talk) 09:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This help desk is to ask about drafts in the draft process, to ask about articles, please use the more general help desk. That said, the orphan tag has been removed. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Started 1959, I'm going to teach you my favourite Wikipedia trick - if you type WP: followed by the term you're unsure about in the search box, it almost always takes you to a page explaining that term or demonstrating how to perform maintenance relating to it. For example: WP:ORPHAN. Happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 10:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:53, 24 April 2025 review of submission by Balsam Cottonwood

[edit]

The draft was declined on April 24, 2025. I'm sure the reasons are valid, but I would like help improving this draft before I resubmit it. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ♰ 09:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Balsam Cottonwood! Do you have specific questions we can help with? StartGrammarTime (talk) 10:04, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this isn't all, but there is no up-close image of Queste on Wikimedia Commons. There are images of Magyk, Flyte, Physik, and Syren, and one image of all seven covers in the series, but none only of the cover of Queste, which is needed for the infobox. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ♰ 10:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Balsam Cottonwood: an infobox isn't required for the draft to be accepted, nor is a cover image a requirement for the infobox to be there. I wouldn't worry about that, at least not at this stage. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:54, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Balsam Cottonwood: WP:BOOKCRIT #1 requires two or more non-trivial reviews. The Kirkus one is pretty superficial, and reads like a back-cover blurb. The New Book Recommendation piece is more extensive, but still essentially just a description of the book. I can't access the Booklist one, but in any case it alone wouldn't be enough. I think you need at least one more solid review (assuming none of the other criteria of BOOKCRIT is met).
Fandom is user-generated and therefore not considered reliable source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, I can't find anything else. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ♰ 10:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Balsam Cottonwood: then it's perfectly possible, likely even, that this book isn't notable. Most books aren't. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But most of the other books in the Septimus Heap series do have their own articles — specifically Magyk, Flyte, Physik, and Syren. Wouldn't it be kind of strange to leave out the other three forever? 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ♰ 11:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe strange, @Balsam Cottonwood, but if it happens that the others have been written about and this not, then this is the expected outcome. There are many examples of bands where some of the members are individually notable, but others not.
The other thing to think about is whether the other articles you mention are themselves adequately sourced. Flyte, for example, has just four sources, the two of which that I can see are short, not substantial reviews, so I have tagged it as needing more citations, and possibly failing notability ColinFine (talk) 12:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ♰ 00:40, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:17, 24 April 2025 review of submission by Mowabhaibro

[edit]

not about myself but i just want to create a page to establish my film here officially and i need help in creating a article as i dont know really how to and i have all the proofs links to show the film and the members who are involved 

Mowabhaibro (talk) 10:17, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mowabhaibro: I'm going to start by advising against this. It sounds like you're wanting to promote your film, and promotion of any sort is not allowed on Wikipedia. In any case, you have a conflict of interest in this subject, which must be disclosed before you do anything else; I will post instructions on your talk page. And to have any chance of being accepted, your film must be notable, by either the general WP:GNG or the special WP:NFILM guideline; either bar is high, and most films would not pass.
If you still want to proceed, despite all that and against my advice, you can find pretty much all the advice you need at WP:YFA. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Mowabhaibro. "to establish my film here officially" is a purpose which is contrary to the purposes of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is only interested in subjects which have already been written about, in some depth, by people wholly unconnected with the subject. ColinFine (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:24, 24 April 2025 review of submission by Lenawagner

[edit]

Hello!

My article about William Garfield Walker was declined but I have since revised the content, incorporated reliable sources, and corrected the text accordingly. I am ready to work on my article further based on any feedback provided! I am happy to learn and to publish my article! Lenawagner (talk) 10:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lenawagner: if you feel that you've sufficiently addressed the reason(s) for the previous decline, then you can resubmit your draft for another review. That said, I noticed that all your sources are primary, and cannot therefore establish notability (that being the reason why this was declined earlier) per the WP:GNG guideline. You may be able to show that the special WP:MUSICBIO guideline is satisfied instead, but note that this requires significant career achievements. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thank you! I will check out the musicbio guideline! I believe I used a lot of secondary sources already, if I am correct! Thank you for your feedback, I will work on it again!
Best,
Lena Lenawagner (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Lenawagner. Sources which are written, published, or based on the words of, Walker or his associates or associated institutions, are necessarily primary. 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) 21:27, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:01, 24 April 2025 review of submission by 120.159.88.216

[edit]

My recent article submission was declined; "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article..." and I would like to find out what I need to add to the article.

I used the German National Mountain Bike Championships as a template, it was published in 2021 and only has one reference to a page of race results. The United States National Mountain Bike Championships, Dutch National Mountain Bike Championships and French National Mountain Bike Championships articles also appear to be carbon copies.

Please halp :) 120.159.88.216 (talk) 13:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting. You need the full title, including the "Draft:" portion, when linking. I fixed this. 331dot (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, Thank you Reephill (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see other stuff exists. It could be that these other articles shouldn't exist either and we just haven't gotten around to removing them yet. There are many ways to get inappropriate content past us, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles, which have been checked by the community. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information about why it doesn't matter if other pages already exist and that I should use an article classified as good. Reephill (talk) 01:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:59, 24 April 2025 review of submission by Mahamudracollective

[edit]

Hello AfC volunteers,

Draft:Rahat Mahajan was resubmitted on 31 March. I have addressed the previous feedback by rewriting the draft in neutral language, removing promotional wording, and adding citations from independent, reliable sources for every substantive claim.

The two reviewers who initially commented—Flat Out and CNMall41—were each pinged (most recently on 18 April), but I have not received a response. Could another reviewer please take a look or advise on next steps?

I have disclosed my COI and paid editing status on my user page. Thank you for your time and assistance.

— Mahamudracollective (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Mahamudracollective. Reviewers are volunteers. There is no way to predict when a reviewer will decide to look at your draft. Attempts to get a faster review are not likely to be successful, and may annoy reviewers. Please be patient. ColinFine (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reminder, ColinFine. I’m new to the Articles for Creation process and still learning, so I appreciate your guidance and the reviewers’ time. I’ll wait patiently for the next review.
— Mahamudracollective (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mahamudracollective I fixed your header so it links to your draft as intended, it should only contain the full title of the draft and no other text. 331dot (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mahamudracollective Thank you for making your paid editor declaration. That was essential to any future acceptance of your draft. By pure serendipity you second review took place, and it was no Declined again 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mahamudracollective:, you resubmitted it after it was declined; however, you made no improvements. Why?--CNMall41 (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear CNMall41,
I did it completely by mistake, as I thought I would be able to start editing after clicking on "Resubmit." The previous edit warring issue was also for the exact same reason—I wasn't aware of the policy and was simply cleaning up the draft for resubmission, with no wrong or misconstrued intention.
I'm so incredibly sorry. I'm completely new to this and doing my best to follow all the guidelines and advice given and immediately making amends as you may have noticed, but I’m making these mistakes due to my lack of experience using Wikipedia.
I would be really grateful if you gave me another opportunity to edit the draft, as I've done a lot of research on the subject and it would be sad to let it all go to naught. Thank you for your time and understanding.
--Mahamudracollective (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. You are free to submit the draft again once you have finished improving it based on the feedback received from reviewers. Please do not resubmit prior to that time as it will simply be declined. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:21, 24 April 2025 review of submission by Muchclag

[edit]

I have all but finished this article ready for review, however I would like to add a photograph from the National Portrait Gallery (https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/person/mp54893/montagu-grant-wilkinson) if possible, but cannot seem to find the correct licence to use. Any assistance would be appreciated! Muchclag (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Images are not relevant to the draft process, which only considers the text and sources. Images can wait until the draft is accepted. 331dot (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks for the prompt response Muchclag (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:35, 24 April 2025 review of submission by Compphilus

[edit]

I have 3 entries that I am trying to upload and 2 of them are not being uploaded. Are you able to help me get them uploaded. Thank you, Stephen Compphilus (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see two drafts, you have not submitted Draft:Stephen Diacrussi. The draft in your sandbox has been declined but may be resubmitted. 331dot (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
However, both drafts are completely unacceptable as articles in their present state. 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.
Start with the independent reliable sources, then forget everything that you personally know about the subject, and write a summary of what those sources say (only), citing them as you go.
Do you have a connection with Diacrussi and ATT? If you have, you should declare your conflict of interest on your user page. If you are in any way employed or remunerated by or on behalf of ATT, then you must make a formal declaration of your status as a paid editor ColinFine (talk) 21:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:55, 24 April 2025 review of submission by Mahamudracollective

[edit]

I resubmitted the same document by mistake and was going to work on the document. I thought I would be able to start working on it after I clicked resubmit. Sincere apologies, I am completely new to this so making lots of mistakes but have done my best to adhere to all the guidelines and advice given. Mahamudracollective (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mahamudracollective, You can still work on it. Once you are sure that it is good, place subst:Submit in the source code. Do not get rid of the rejection and declines. Best, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 01:10, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understood CF-501 Falcon, thanks a ton for the advice. Really appreciate it. Mahamudracollective (talk) 01:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 25

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1287260462"