Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

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

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


May 10

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

i changed it 

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit]

I fixed 

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

May 11

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

Pure promotion. "All references will be attributed to Letterbomb's social media, confirmed, and real life interviews" is wholly unacceptable. 331dot (talk) 11:39, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Trecool zildjian: because there is absolutely nothing to suggest your band is the slightest bit notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Trecool zildjian. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

May 12

[edit]

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

[edit]

Hello Everyone,

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

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

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

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

Best Regards,

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

May 13

[edit]

Follow-up on Karen Leigh Hopkins request

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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


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

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

[edit]

Greetings, Editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit]

Request for Help Improving Claudia Carpentier Draft per Reviewer Feedback.

Hi everyone,

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

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you in advance for your time and assistance.

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

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

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

[edit]

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit]

why did this page get declined 

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

Hello helpful editors!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 14

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

[edit]

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

@The BIue J: Please treat your fellow editors with respect. The draft was created about an obviously non-notable person, yes, but that does not make it appropriate for you to hijack an existing draft and change it entirely. Since there is no indication that the voice actor you wrote about is notable, and there are no sources in your version of the draft, there would be no point in reviewing it. --bonadea contributions talk 14:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@The BIue J: if this draft was originally about an Andrew McDonough, a high school student, and you want to write about another Andrew McDonough, a voice actor, then you should create a different draft and not hijack an existing one. Of course, if there's no evidence that either Andrew McDonough is even remotely notable, then I guess that point is somewhat academic. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:43, 14 May 2025 review of submission by AleoHQ

[edit]

I named my account AleoHQ which is a nickname used by Aleo on X, but I'm not an organisation, I'm just a community member and I never received any funds from Aleo. AleoHQ (talk) 13:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AleoHQ: that seems hard to believe (you even included 'HQ' in your name), but be that as it may, I strongly recommend you changing your name at the soonest.
I've also posted a conflict-of-interest (COI) query on your talk page, please read it carefully and action as needed. Even if you're not paid by Aleo to edit this draft, you may still come under our paid-editing rules, and even if you don't, you may still have a COI of different kind which needs to be disclosed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to occupy "Aleo" but it is already. I just wanted a cool nickname.
I can't rename my profile because its new (or idk how to) AleoHQ (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS. Aleo would be equally unacceptable. 331dot (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am really sorry about this inconvenience, I'm only in the beginning of understanding Wikipedia ethics, I just sent a request for renaming. Thanks a lot for your help. AleoHQ (talk) 15:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:18, 14 May 2025 review of submission by Squirrelyadams

[edit]

Please link this talk page to Albion College's wiki page Squirrelyadams (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for asking about drafts in the draft process. You want the more general Help Desk. 331dot (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:20, 14 May 2025 review of submission by The BIue J

[edit]

I am asking for it to be reviewed once again. I think it is actually culturally relevent and is important enough to be added. I also don't see the harm in adding it if it wasn't. It is an impressive feat and I believe it makes Gregg Nigl worthy of a wiki article. The BIue J (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Blue J: Unless he gets written about for something else, we're going to err towards not annihilating his privacy with a Wikipedia article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:38, 14 May 2025 review of submission by Annap1991

[edit]

what else can i do? Annap1991 (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Annap1991: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Neither of your sources are any good, both being too sparse - MusicBrainz is a tracklist, while Deezer is a too-short-to-cite biography. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok Annap1991 (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:45, 14 May 2025 review of submission by 102.218.37.251

[edit]

Article..can't be approved 102.218.37.251 (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it has been rejected. Do you have a question? 331dot (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. One source, no matter how good it is, is not enough to support a Wikipedia article, and especially not in articles about still-living or recently-departed people. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I merged Draft:High cloud feedback into cloud feedback

[edit]

Feel free to undo if you object. Sorry I don’t know how to get rid of the draft if no-one objects. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLARed it to Cloud feedback and moved it to mainspace, tagging the one in draftspace for G6. Sophisticatedevening🍷(talk) 18:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:20, 14 May 2025 review of submission by WhisperToMe

[edit]

@ToadetteEdit: Hi! I saw the decline reasons at Draft:Avon_Central_School_District. If it is alright, is it OK if I understand how each criterion needs to be met?

I would like to respond to each one:

  • 1. "in-depth" - The articles cited have the school district as the main topic, so they are all in-depth. #1 from WROC-TV, #2 from WROC-TV, and 3 from Democrat and Chronicle
  • 2. "reliable" - Democrat and Chronicle is a newspaper of record of the region. WROC-TV is a local news station, and should be reliable for reporting on local issues (Rochesterfirst.com is the website of WROC-TV, which is owned by Nexstar Media Group, Inc.).
  • 3. "independent of the subject" - Both WROC-TV and Democrat and Chronicle are independent of the subject.
  • 4. "secondary" - My understanding is that a newspaper article or TV reporting can be considered secondary and not primary if some kind of analysis is present in the reporting, rather than straight news reporting. For example, Wikipedia:No_original_research#Secondary talks about secondary sources analyzing other sources, and 1 and 2 refer to an audit report.

Also, I see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#School_districts states: ""Populated, legally-recognized places" include school districts, which conveys near-presumptive notability to school districts per Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)." and in turn, Wikipedia:Notability_(geographic_features) in turn reads: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." So my belief is that the topic should be considered notable anyway

I submitted to AFC because the person who started the draft suggested I do that. (I did not start the draft, but I expanded another user's draft)

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 18:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:05, 14 May 2025 review of submission by Anubha23

[edit]

I have used the citations correctly, can you please help me with guidance on how to edit this article so that it gets published? Should I delete all the IMDB and Spotify citations as someone had commented that they are not valid.

- Anubha Anubha23 (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this article is not even close to being ready because there's not a single usable citation here. Unusable Spotify/IMDB cites make up 11 of the 15 sources. Two are just store listings for a song. Another one is just a database listing of Dutta from a company he's been affiliated with, so that's not independent or significant coverage. The only theoretically helpful source is the link to the Times of India article about Ventilator, but it doesn't even mention Dutta.
In addition, the article describes him as having produced the movie Ventilator, but the movie's own Wikipedia article doesn't think he's the producer, and upon further search, it appears he's the CEO of a company that did production, which is a very different thing than having produced it himself.
You need sources that are independent of Dutta, reliable, and that provide significant coverage of Dutta (and not just the movie, of Dutta himself). Until there, there can be no article. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:06, 14 May 2025 review of submission by 5.54.225.115

[edit]

Are You Like my article ? Chris Nick Stassinopoulos 5.54.225.115 (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant advertising. Wikipedia is not the place to try sell your CD. CoconutOctopus talk 19:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:41, 14 May 2025 review of submission by Weveriowa

[edit]

As a novice editor in Wikipedia, I made the error of working on a Spanish language article in the English page, and I received a notice that the English page was strictly for English. The notice says that the notice will not be removed until the editing is accepted, but I WILL NOT BE RESUMBITTING. Can someone please remove that notice? It makes using the sandbox very clumsy. Weveriowa (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the notice for you. Alternatively, you can request the page's deletion using {{G7}}. Ca talk to me! 02:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:53, 14 May 2025 review of submission by Tomsacco

[edit]

My draft was declined due to lack of reliable sources, but I don't know what needed to be reliably cited. How can I know what to cite and how to cite it? My guess is the "Early Life" portion of the page but I don't have a written source for some of that info. I know the subject of the page which is how I know. Tomsacco (talk) 22:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tomsacco I fixed your header to provide a link to your draft as intended(you inadvertently placed a link to a page called "citing sources").
From your username, I assume that you are a relative. Please disclose that as WP:COI instructs.
Your draft is sourced only to her own work. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources say about the topic. Information that is not in a published, verifiable source cannot be in an article. We can't accept your personal knowledge as a source. You need sources that show how she is a notable academic. 331dot (talk) 23:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the term "rising star" would be a strong indicator that she doesn't yet merit an article. Wikipedia is the last place to write about something, not the first. A person must have already arrived and be recognized by independent sources to draw the coverage needed for an article. If you just want to tell the world about Alexandra, you ahoukd use social media or other website with less stringent requirements. 331dot (talk) 23:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:58, 14 May 2025 review of submission by BeastBoy-X

[edit]

I have submitted this template but it was declined, is it because it was in a article page (must be moved to Template page) or it's just What it is? ⟨⟨Beastboy-𝕏-Talk!⟩⟩ 23:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is already plenty of welcome templates on Wikipedia, so creating new ones aren't really a priority. Still, your's seem well-made and AfC is the correct place to submit templates (despite its name). Perhaps @ToadetteEdit can clarify. Ca talk to me! 02:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 15

[edit]

04:28, 15 May 2025 review of submission by Chamber Music Queen

[edit]

I am trying to be clear that the references are solid. He was a very well known musician with a big impact and career. Reference no.6 is from Time Magazine; and the other reference no.6 is from the Northwest Music Archives. Please let me know what I can do. THANKS! Chamber Music Queen (talk) 04:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chamber Music Queen: I think you need to go through the citations and make sure they're correctly constructed. Eg. the first and last one probably have valid URLs within them, but they're oddly obscured by some chrome-extension prefix blurb. Source #5 is quite non-specific: it seems to be an archive, of some sort, but what in this draft, if anything, does it actually support? RE #7, Google Docs is not a source; the actual item you're citing apears to be a concert programme, so please cite it as such (you can possibly then show Google Docs as its online location). There may be issues with the other citations as well. (And please remove all inline external links from the text, of which there are currently several.)
Don't forget, Wikipedia articles should summarise what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about a subject. I get the feeling that here you've written what you know about the subject, and then tagged on some sources that may or may not support that.
Also please remember to disclose your conflict of interest separately and clearly for each subject in which you have one. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:18, 15 May 2025 review of submission by Thepasssurfer

[edit]

Hi, I’ve drafted a neutral article about a media brand with significant news coverage (7News, NBN, Daily Mail etc.). I’m connected to the subject and would appreciate a volunteer editor to review and consider submitting it. Thanks in advance! Thepasssurfer (talk) 05:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thepasssurfer You need the full title, including the "Draft:" portion, when linking. I fixed this.
You have already submitted the draft for a review and it is pending.
You will need to formally disclose your connection with the brand, see conflict of interest. If you are compensated by the brand in any manner for any reason, the Terms of Use require disclosure, see the paid editing policy. 331dot (talk) 08:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to review and decline the draft, please see it or your user talk page for more information. 331dot (talk) 08:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:17, 15 May 2025 review of submission by 64.226.154.133

[edit]

How is this not relevant? 64.226.154.133 (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Almost nothing in the draft is sourced, and it reads like a resume, without any indication of what makes Mr. Spadaro a notable person as Wikipedia defines one. 331dot (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have made an article about a us veteran and it was claimed to be not good for inclusion. How do I make it easier for people to interact with? 64.226.154.133 (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make a new thread for every post, just edit this existing thread. Not all military veterans merit Wikipedia articles. You need to summarize what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about him, showing how he is a notable person. 331dot (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:28, 15 May 2025 review of submission by HHSILVER

[edit]

Hi. There was a response that said my entry was written by a large language model and this is not the case. I am not sure what to do. The post is about a relevant and important issue in LA post fires and it's time sensitive and I would like to get it up and get it right. I am also having some technical issues with links and images. Appreciate your assitance. HHSILVER (talk) 14:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I advise you read WP:SOAP. Wikipedia is not the place for you to advertise or to host a moral crusade. The article has been nominated for deletion and likely will be removed. CoconutOctopus talk 15:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:54, 15 May 2025 review of submission by 142.127.155.80

[edit]

Hi there -- the reviewer asked two questions about sources when they declined the article. I can clarify the inclusion of both sources, but I can't seem figure out how to reply to the reviewer. 142.127.155.80 (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to respond here. Pinging @MediaKyle: so he will see the response. --bonadea contributions talk 15:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. That draft did confuse me a little so I'm glad that you reached out, I looked up his name at the time and it seems like notability could be established but the sourcing threw me off. If you want to start a discussion at Draft talk:Robert Roy (Bob) Gardiner we can talk about it there, or if it's easier for you to answer here that's fine too. I can probably tidy the article up for you once I know where the sources are. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:17, 15 May 2025 review of submission by Kelvin snooper

[edit]

Why was my article was rejected, because every detail I included was true K.D.Muleya (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kelvin snooper You need the full title of the draft when linking, I've fixed this. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:24, 15 May 2025 review of submission by Clau

[edit]

Hi! I tried to improve my draft by adding some new sources/footnotes. Is the article rerady to be resubmitted? Also, I don't know how to add versions of this article in other languages (Belarussian, Russian, Polish) - is this possible only after this draft has been accepted for the main space? Clau (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clau We don't do pre-review reviews here, the best way to get feedback is to resubmit the draft.
You are free to create articles about this person on other projects, subject to their rules and policies. Every language Wikipedia is its own project. It could even be that this subject is acceptable on the other versions, but not here.(I don't know, I'm speaking hypothetically.) 331dot (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks! Clau (talk) 11:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:28, 15 May 2025 review of submission by Matthew John Drummond

[edit]

What else should I add to my Draft of Rocky Hollow. Matthew John Drummond (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection typically is the end of the line for a draft. If you can address the concerns of reviewers, the first step is to appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IMO what would be needed are multi-paragraph reviews (that is, a person unconnected with the film, acting as a reviewer, gives their opinion and viewpoints) entirely about the film - that is, reviews from newspapers, published magazines, published books, and/or academic journal articles, and not from self-published websites or books. However I couldn't find any on Newspapers.com. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:59, 15 May 2025 review of submission by Rafaelthegreat

[edit]

please give an understandable essay about my draft, and give feedback as well Rafaelthegreat (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources on regular elementary and middle schools that prove notability are not likely to exist (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools states: "Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability usually get merged or redirected to the school district authority that operates them (generally the case in North America)[...]"). Notability would mean in-depth articles, from a nationally published magazine or newspaper or academic journal, discussing the school and its programs in depth. "David Thomas King School" should be a redirect to Edmonton Public Schools. If some Edmonton-area newspaper articles talk about the school in-depth, some of that information could be added to "Edmonton Public Schools" and/or the article on the Edmonton neighborhood the school resides in. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rafaelthegreat, please don't post the same question multiple pages.
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) 16:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 16

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

It has been rejected and will not be considered any further. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

All suggestions and recommendations appreciated.

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

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

[edit]

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

@Mattraub I fear you have a basic misunderstanding of referencing. Many, most, of the references you have used do not mention brown. Of those that do, one is by Brown and we have no interest in what he says, and the others are passing mentions. PR Newswire is deprecated. Please measure your references agains WP:42 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mattraub I see you have declared under WP:PAID. Please be aware that the payment you receive must pay for you to learn all the rules, policies and procedures here. You are expected to know them. I have an expectation that a paid editor should be capable of having an article accepted after being declined once, and with no further help. After all, as a volunteer, I have no interest in helping you pay your groceries bill. It is disappointing to see your belief that this draft (not page) meets Wikipedia's standards when patently it does not. And you have used HTML markup as well. That "works" but is not good practice. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mattraub, My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia.
And that is without a conflict of interest: editors with a COI are likely to find it even more frustrating if they have not spent time learning the (rather singular) skills required for creating Wikipedia articles. ColinFine (talk) 23:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 17

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

Hello,

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. You have not shown how the singer meets the definition of a notable musician through a summary of independent reliable sources with significant coverage. You only cited Spotify, which is meaningless towards notability as anyone can post music online. 331dot (talk) 16:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further, or indeed published in the encyclopaedia (if that's what you mean by 'uploading'). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1290873324"