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
June 2025
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

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


June 23

[edit]

00:03, 23 June 2025 review of submission by DcdmeQDm

[edit]

Hi, I really can't tell why this submission was declined. 4 different independent news sources are linked. This is also the single most important event for a major sport. Additionally, the 2025 tour has a wikipedia, as do all previous years, so I don't see why 2026 shouldn't?

How many independent sources would be required to be sufficient? I had assumed 4 news sources would be enough but happy to add more. DcdmeQDm (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia" is the name of this entire website, not its individual parts which are called articles.
The draft does little more than describe the event, there is no indication that it is a notable event as Wikipedia defines one. It may very well be once it occurs and independent sources give it significant coverage. For it to merit an article before it occurs, you would need sources that discuss the coverage and importance of it now(like 2028 Summer Olympics or even 2032 Summer Olympics). You don't have that currently. 331dot (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of major news sources discussing the upcoming 2026 tour including major changes to the competition system linked. If the 5 articles from 4 news sources are insufficient, would you have an idea of how many news sources are typically required to demonstrate that a topic is sufficiently notable for a wikipedia article? I've already added two more but I'm not sure if that's enough. DcdmeQDm (talk) 00:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changes to the event would best go in an article about the event in general, at least before the specific event merits an article.
There is not a specific number of sources needed to pass this process, but most reviewers look for at least three. But the sources need to show the notability of the topic. Describing the format of the event doesn't do that. 331dot (talk) 01:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:19, 23 June 2025 review of submission by Sonali Nawale

[edit]

hello, as i am trying to add references in draft but not understand how and where need to add ,also i want exact that what required in draft 

Sonali Nawale (talk) 05:19, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sonali Nawale: I don't understand the latter part of your question, could you please rephrase?
Regarding referencing, you've already added two citations which are correctly constructed, they're just in the wrong place, at the start of the text. You need to place the citations inline, following the statement which they support, so that it is clear to the reader where each piece of information comes from.
As for what needs to be thus supported, the answer is pretty much everything. So when you say that this person was born on August 13, 1955, where did you get that DOB from? And so on. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:30, 23 June 2025 review of submission by 2603:6013:9E41:8865:758B:1D03:CF1B:4A2B

[edit]

A wikipedia on Faygo Baby 2603:6013:9E41:8865:758B:1D03:CF1B:4A2B (talk) 05:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a question, but in case you're wanting to know about the progress of Draft:Faygo Baby, that draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:16, 23 June 2025 review of submission by Dharanishvnd

[edit]

why reject my submission Dharanishvnd (talk) 08:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:59, 23 June 2025 review of submission by Merged account

[edit]

Dear Reviewers, could you please give me some help regarding my sources that I use in the above article? I am quite confused, because most reviewers pointed out that the sources are not reliable, independent, secondary & in-depth. However, except using the official website as source for the president`s history, I can not identify that there is anything not independed (or not secondary or not reliable). The last reviewer pointed out in addition that the sources need in addition "significant coverage". In my understanding, this is the same with "in-depth", but the first referenced book "Company chronicles East Asia" is quite in-depth enough. I start getting the impression that reviewers can`t access to the content of this source and therefore conclude that it is not in-depth enough. Kindly be asked to give me your advice per source, so I understand better which of the source is not adequate. Merged account (talk) 08:59, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Merged account: with the possible exception of source #1, these are mostly primary sources: #2 is produced in collaboration with JETRO and the German businesses; #3 says it is based on interviews; #4 is Correns itself; and #6 is the US gov't. Meanwhile #5 is a secondary source, yes, but it makes no mention of Correns (that I could find at least). I don't know what #1 is or how independent it is of its subject(s), but even if it fully meets the WP:GNG, it alone isn't enough to satisfy it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:20, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing, thank you very much for your feedback per source! I`ve also read WP:GNG again and understood now that even if the publishing source is independent, interviews with primary sources are still an issue. So I will exchange now most of the sources. Regarding involvement of JETRO, I have a different opinion, since Correns was not a member of this organization at the time when the book was published (and probably it is still the same situation). One additional question: How to enable reviewers to read source 1? It is an antique book and reviewers certainly don`t want to purchase it. Maybe there is a place where I can share a copy of the relevant page(s) without violating copyright law? Same question regarding a purchased report of the Teikoku databank. If it`s behind a paywall, can it be still helpful to use it as reference? Looking forward to your advise! Merged account (talk) 08:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Merged account: RE source #1, I looked up OAV, and it turns out to be Ostasiatischer Verein, or the German Asia-Pacific Business Association. To my mind, this makes that source similar to the JETRO one, #2, ie. not entirely independent. Business associations writing about businesses is a bit like the Bundesliga writing about its constituent teams: they may technically be at an arm's length, but it's not a very long arm.
Sources behind paywalls are acceptable, but it would be helpful if you could treat them effectively as offline sources (see WP:OFFLINE), in the sense of citing them with sufficient detail to give the reviewer a good idea of what the source is and says, and the extent of its coverage. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing: Thank you again for elaborating your review with further details. I really appreciate it a lot and will study WP:Offline now. About OAV: Yes, that is comparable with JETRO. Just, to my knowledge, CORRENS was never a member of OAV. So I believe it is not so much like the Bundesliga example, since there is no dependency on each other. But thanks again, I will point this out in the reference next time. Merged account (talk) 04:59, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:58, 23 June 2025 review of submission by Schaubia

[edit]

I need to understand why the resources are not enough for the article acceptance. Please assist! Schaubia (talk) 09:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, for example, an entire paragraph of "Research" is unsourced. Everything in the draft should be cited to reliable sources or removed. I also noticed that your draft has a somewhat promotional tone which should probably be fixed, such as "expanding his expertise" "leading figure" "outstanding research", etc. Cheers, GoldRomean (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:08, 23 June 2025 review of submission by Revelly

[edit]

could you share more details, do you want to add complete details and submit? Revelly (talk) 11:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Revelly, I am afraid Wikipedia does not publish original research. qcne (talk) 11:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:21, 23 June 2025 review of submission by Hillaryasher

[edit]

Hi! I’ve been working on submitting a Wikipedia article for Ari Chambers for nearly seven months, and it has once again been declined — this time due to concerns over the reliability of references. I’ve spoken with multiple volunteers via the live chat help desk, and each time I’ve been reassured that the sources I’ve used meet Wikipedia’s standards for reliable references. Ari Chambers is a well-known journalist and on-air talent who regularly reports on the WNBA and women’s sports, currently contributing to ESPN platforms. Given her notability and consistent media presence — especially during the current WNBA season — I believe the article meets Wikipedia’s guidelines for inclusion. I’ve also noticed that other journalists with similar credentials and coverage have existing pages. I’m passionate about helping elevate the visibility of women in sports media, and I would truly appreciate any further guidance or insight into what specific changes need to be made in order for this article to be approved. I’m more than willing to make the necessary edits, but would love some clearer direction. Hillaryasher (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that it was accepted. 331dot (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:27, 23 June 2025 review of submission by Kures48

[edit]

Hello, has this submission been fully rejected? can I still submit edits for review? Kures48 (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may continue to edit it; if you are able to fundamentally change the draft to address the concerns of reviewers, you may then appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly and ask them to reconsider. 331dot (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:36, 23 June 2025 review of submission by Prettylittleunicorn73

[edit]

Is this legal for the Federal Reserve? Prettylittleunicorn73 (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Prettylittleunicorn73. Do you have a question about drafts on Wikipedia..? qcne (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:02, 23 June 2025 review of submission by 2405:201:0:6807:F986:DAF2:9FAC:7E14

[edit]

i have been making changes in my wikipedia page but no matter what the draft is being declined can we please get a proper guidance on how do i not make any mistakes and the draft gets accepted 2405:201:0:6807:F986:DAF2:9FAC:7E14 (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Usually films meet the notability criteria with reviews by nationally known reputable critics/publications. Sources like press releases (i.e. trailers, teasers, etc.) are primary sources so cannot be used to establish notability. S0091 (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:10, 23 June 2025 review of submission by Shvan1

[edit]

Sarkawt Zaki is a prominent figure in Kurdistan and the head of the organizing committee of the PUK . Shvan1 (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Shvan1 It is mandatory that biographic articles of living people have in-line citations that reference every piece of biographic information. Please carefully read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and then follow the tutorial at Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/1. This draft cannot be accepted without in-line citations to reliable, published sources. qcne (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:59, 23 June 2025 review of submission by Ejm-Samson

[edit]

Trying to increase the visibility for Mr. Mezas as I've seen for other athletes with similar experience and presence. Not sure what the criteria is. I've added more web references. Any guidance would be appreciated. Ejm-Samson (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ejm-Samson. The criteria for sportspeople is at Wikipedia:Notability (sports). But please note that "Trying to increase the visibility" is the definition of promotion which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. qcne (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understood - my terminology might be incorrect. It's more about a reliable source of truth for all things. Thank you Ejm-Samson (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ejm-Samson I'd recommend having a read of read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and then follow the tutorial at Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/1 which will show you how to put citations in-line with the text. qcne (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:24, 23 June 2025 review of submission by Sliceofretro

[edit]

Sources were rejected, but I took them directly from the Clubs page, the owners of the stadium itself. Sliceofretro (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sliceofretro, indeed: that means the sources are not independent of the club. We need sources that are fully independent. See Wikipedia:Independent sources. qcne (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:16, 23 June 2025 review of submission by Feodorovnassz

[edit]

hi!! I am curious why the subject I have written about is not notable enough for a wiki page despite the fact other figures like marie of hesse and by rhine have gotten one, which in my personal thought, have the same amount of notablity. Feodorovnassz (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited at Wikipedia, so the fact that she had notable relatives (such as Empress Maria Alexandrovna) does not automatically make Johanna notable. There used to be an article about Johanna of Hesse and by Rhine, but it was deleted after a (well-attended) community discussion, which concluded that there was no information about her to be found in reliable sources, beyond the fact that she existed, and died very young. And that is apparent from your draft as well, I'm afraid. --bonadea contributions talk 19:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:48, 23 June 2025 review of submission by BabyMomOnline

[edit]

I'm trying to create this Wikipedia entry that was flagged for deletion, but it didn't list criteria for the flagging, so I'm not sure what to improve/change. BabyMomOnline (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BabyMomOnline Since you declined your own draft you really ought to know what is wrong with it. The most important thing wrong with it is the AI generated template at the top. Please delete that and place {{subst:submit}} instead. While doing that rewrite all the AI generated elements 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:45, 23 June 2025 review of submission by Temstime

[edit]
Temstime (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Temstime Since you declined your own draft you really ought to know what is wrong with it. The most important thing wrong with it is the AI generated template at the top. Please delete that and place {{subst:submit}} instead. While doing that rewrite all the AI generated elements 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Temstime The other major thing wromg is that you have wrotten your autobiography, never a wise thing. If you believe that Wikipedia will enhance your reputation please think again. Wikipedia adds no value to you. You must add value to Wikipedia. Passing WP:BIO does that. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:53, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:57, 23 June 2025 review of submission by Sasschill

[edit]

Why is this not accepted? I tried to cite as much as I could, and I did cite where I got some information which was from interviews on youtube, but my feedback was that it wasn't valid. Is there anything I can do to improve this? Sasschill (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Did you read the comment @Rusalkii left on your draft? It's pretty well explained there - you don't have sources about Robert Keating that are independent of the band and provide significant coverage of him as an individual. Rusalkii did suggest adding some of the material to the existing page about the band though. Lijil (talk) 04:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 24

[edit]

07:36, 24 June 2025 review of submission by 58.232.254.80

[edit]

Hi! I recently submitted a draft for Sergey Nazarov, which was declined with the reason that the references do not show that the subject qualifies for an article. (Draft:Sergey Nazarov)

Sergey Nazarov has received coverage in major publications, including Bloomberg, Fortune, ZDNet, MIT Technology Review, and more, which were cited in the draft. Some of these sources are already referenced on the Chainlink Wikipedia page.

I’d like to better understand: 1) What specific criteria or type of secondary coverage would help establish notability? 2) Are there issues with how the current references are used? 3) Would additional context around Chainlink’s impact be helpful, or is that considered out of context for a personal page?

Would be helpful for me to know how I can improve the draft. Thanks! 58.232.254.80 (talk) 07:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the creator, remember to log in when posting. The whole url is not needed when linking to another article or page on Wikipedia, I fixed this for you.
You have just documented his work and activities- instead, you need to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about him, showing how he is a notable person. "Significant coverage" is that which goes beyond merely telling what he does and goes into detail about what the source sees as important/significant/influential about him. You wrote that he attended an event hosted by Trump; what was said is the significance of doing so? Did he advise Trump about a particular policy or law, or otherwise influence the event? He co-founded a company- many people found companies, but what is said to be the significance of him doing so? That is what is being looked for. 331dot (talk) 07:44, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:01, 24 June 2025 review of submission by Ayushpandey100

[edit]

Why was he rejected? He is a young investor and he also has a channel by the name of allstocknews and he is a businessman and many of his friends belong to a political party. Ayushpandey100 (talk) 08:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not Ayush Pandey, you need to change your username immediately via Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS, as you cannot use his name as your username unless you are him.
The draft was pure promotion and has been deleted. The draft was competely unsourced with no indication he meets the definition of a notable person. If you are Ayush Pandey, be aware that Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 08:04, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:34, 24 June 2025 review of submission by 90.204.192.49

[edit]

Sorry but I'm a bit confused about what you need to complete the submission - can you clrarify please ? 90.204.192.49 (talk) 10:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor. Your submission has nothing other than the words Brady Kent. Hopefully you understand we cannot have an encyclopaedic article that consists only of it's title?
You need to write the content of your draft first and then submit it for review. Let me know if that makes sense? qcne (talk) 10:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:05, 24 June 2025 review of submission by Zoe Upson

[edit]

Hi, please can you let me know why my page was deleted? Thank you in advance. Zoe Upson (talk) 12:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Zoe Upson. Your draft is pending deletion for spam. A deletion + reject may be a bit premature (pinging @Lemonaka), but the draft you have written is certainly promotional and very few of your sources verify the claims in the draft.
Please very carefully read Wikipedia:Autobiography which outlines why writing about yourself is a really bad idea on Wikipedia. Then very carefully read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons to understand the criteria we require for sourcing articles about living people.
Let us know if you have any further questions. qcne (talk) 12:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believed they just came here in order to spam, broadly. -Lemonaka 14:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:20, 24 June 2025 review of submission by 188.39.66.253

[edit]

Hi there, my apologies for resubmitting without making the necessary edits. May I ask for some guidance on what needs to be changed to qualify for submission? 188.39.66.253 (talk) 13:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is the general nature of your conflict of interest? 331dot (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I’m a fan of Brighton RFC and have followed Oliver Simpson’s progress this season. I thought his journey, especially as captain at Portsmouth, college and semi-pro experience, and county-level selection meet the notability threshold for rugby players. I have no personal or financial connection to him, and I’ve tried to write the article with a neutral tone and references. Would appreciate any feedback or things I need to change. 188.39.66.253 (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I have missed a reply, but has what I put given you context? 188.39.66.253 (talk) 07:49, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merely being a fan would not be a conflict of interest, unless you are associated with the team or Mr. Simpson in some way(such as by editing at their request).
Much of the personal life section is unsourced; claims like "He is known for his ever-changing hairstyles, which have become a fixture of his on and off field image" need a source- as does other parts of the draft like "a pattern that has echoed Simpson’s curious knack for personal honours amid collective misfortune.". 331dot (talk) 08:25, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You also cite the website of the business he works at, but nothing on their website mentions him that I could see, at least. 331dot (talk) 08:26, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:43, 24 June 2025 review of submission by AzaJones

[edit]

Can you please help me understand what is needed to be fixed. It is not entirely clear what is needed, it mentioned being able to validate the Date of Birth or remove it, so I have removed it. What else now needs to be done please?

This is not a very straight forward process AzaJones (talk) 13:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @AzaJones. Writing a Wikipedia article is very challenging, and probably the most difficult task a new editor can do! I am not surprised you are not finding it straightforward. Our rules on biographies state that every single piece of biographic information must be verified by a reliable, published, source with an in-line citation. Large parts of your draft have no citations at all. If there are no reliable, published, sources for the information in your draft, that information must not be include. qcne (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:36, 24 June 2025 review of submission by Aditya anu

[edit]

The film is a well-known one. I have submitted authentic news articles as references. Please consider for publishing. Aditya anu (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Aditya anu. Please do not use The Times of India to source entertainment-related drafts. We're looking for mainstream reviews in independent, secondary, reliable publications which specifically are not based on paid-for promotions or press releases. qcne (talk) 15:23, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:01, 24 June 2025 review of submission by Johnny Prey

[edit]

Hello, I am requesting help regarding the article draft for Select VoiceCom (SVC), which was recently removed. I believe the subject meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines based on its contributions to the BPO industry in the Philippines, credible sourcing, and industry recognition. I would like to understand what specific areas fell short—whether in sourcing, tone, or structure—so I can revise and resubmit the article properly. I’m open to suggestions and willing to make the necessary improvements to meet Wikipedia's standards. Any guidance or restoration for improvement would be appreciated. Johnny Prey (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Johnny Prey. Please don't write comments using AI chatbots. Your draft was declined because it did not provide evidence of meeting our criteria at Your, plus was very obviously written by an AI chatbot. Your draft is little more than an advertising brochure for the company. We're not interested in being an advertising platform for the company: we want to see what independent, mainstream secondary sources have to say about the company through some sort of in-depth critical coverage.
Again, please do not use AI to write on Wikipedia. qcne (talk) 15:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:58, 24 June 2025 review of submission by Grampaging

[edit]

What can i do next? Grampaging (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection means there is nothing more you can do. No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic.
You took a picture of him, what is your connection to him? 331dot (talk) 16:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i am his PR manager Grampaging (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This must be formally disclosed as a paid editing relationship, see WP:PAID. This is a Terms of Use requirement and mandatory. 331dot (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:16, 24 June 2025 review of submission by 160.152.109.160

[edit]

Make your research 160.152.109.160 (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there- did you have a question? qcne (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:39, 24 June 2025 review of submission by Mguenego.usparis

[edit]

Hello, can you explain me how my article can look like an advertisement? Because I don't see how it looks like it. It was written in a neutral way. It the translation of the same Wikipédia page in French. Thank you. Mguenego.usparis (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The French Wikipedia is a separate project, with its own editors and policies, so what is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here.
I think it is mostly the tone that causes it to read like an advertisement; this may be because it is a translation. 331dot (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @331dot, thank you for your answer. Well noted.
So what can I do to publish it ? Should I change totally the tone so that it's not the same page as in French, even though it's a translation? Mguenego.usparis (talk) 13:34, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The article here does not necessarily need to be a direct copy of the French article. 331dot (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guidance Request for “QashqAI Voice” Draft

[edit]

Hello, I’m requesting support and advice for improving the draft article about QashqAI Voice, a multilingual, AI-powered cultural preservation project recently acknowledged by OpenAI and submitted to UNESCO under the 2003 Convention.

I’m the founder and would appreciate help to align the article with Wikipedia’s notability and formatting standards. Reliable sources (UNESCO, GitHub, Internet Archive) are available upon request.

Thank you very much! S.Aslani2025 (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@S.Aslani2025: can you please link to the draft in question? All I can find in your edit history is User:S.Aslani2025/Sandbox, which appears to be about you, and not about any project. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@S.Aslani2025 okay, based on your comment on my talk page, that sandbox draft is indeed what you were referring to. That was rejected already, and will not be considered further. I also draw your attention to the message posted on your talk page which explains that autobiographies are very strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:58, 24 June 2025 review of submission by 2600:1700:4811:5F0:204F:3126:E836:35E9

[edit]

Hi! My draft was declined today. They said it was because an article on the same topic already exists, but i can’t find one. Thanks! 2600:1700:4811:5F0:204F:3126:E836:35E9 (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor. The article Mini already has a really comprehensive list of models, I think you'd be better off improving that article instead of creating a new List of article (Lists have special requirements: Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone_lists). qcne (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i just saw that. thanks! would it be ok if i replaced the table in that article with the one i just made? 2600:1700:4811:5F0:204F:3126:E836:35E9 (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would not - your draft does not have as much information as the existing sections. qcne (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:04, 24 June 2025 review of submission by Thomaseuteneuer

[edit]

Hello, I am puzzled as to why this article was declined. I just need more specific information. Mr. Condit is not a world leader, but he has been a local leader in media for 30 years, in charity concert promotions, and most recently in the campaign to get Pete Rose into the hall of fame. He even worked on a Presidential campaign in 1996 although we are still searching for references which, at this distance from the event, are hard to find. Still, I wonder why John Jeffrey Condit is not considered a notable person. Can you help me with more specific reasons and give me some more insight as to how I might help hiim quality for the Wiki standards? (Thomaseuteneuer is preparing the article.) Thomaseuteneuer (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thomaseuteneuer: because 'notability', which is the reason why this draft was declined, in the Wikipedia parlance does not mean being famous or having done a lot of stuff or having got one's face and name about or even having worked on a presidential campaign; it means (in most cases, per the general guideline WP:GNG) having been significantly covered in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent. This excludes anything where he is being interviewed or commenting on things, passing mentions, routine reporting such as career moves, as well as anything based on press releases or other such publicity materials. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Thomaseuteneuer (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance with improving QashqAI Voice draft

[edit]

Dear DoubleGrazing,

Thank you for your clarification and for pointing out that the draft I linked – located at User:S.Aslani2025/Sandbox – has already been reviewed and rejected.

To help me address the issues and improve the submission, could you please share more details about the reasons behind its rejection? For example:

• Were notability concerns cited? • Was the issue insufficient reliable sources? • Or was it flagged for conflict-of-interest?

I want to ensure the article adheres fully to Wikipedia’s policies. I am prepared to:

1. Add high-quality, third-party references (such as UNESCO, academic publications, press coverage). 2. Reformat the article for encyclopedic style. 3. Disclose any potential COI clearly in the talk page.

Any specific guidance or examples you can offer would be greatly appreciated. Your assistance is incredibly helpful as I work to align the draft with Wikipedia’s requirements.

Thank you again for your time and support.

Warm regards, — S.As­lani2025 S.Aslani2025 (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@S.Aslani2025: Chatbot-written requests will not be entertained. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jéské,

Thank you for your message and clarification. I would like to kindly confirm that the QashqAI Voice draft was personally written and reviewed by me, Siefollah Aslani. While I may have used tools to assist with structure and clarity, the content, ideas, and editing were all done manually.

The purpose of this article is to share an important, community-driven initiative that supports endangered language preservation and accessibility. I welcome your suggestions for how to improve the draft so it meets Wikipedia’s standards.

Thank you again for your time and support.

Best regards, Siefollah Aslani S.Aslani2025 (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Irrespective of the authorship of the draft, chatbot-written requests will not be entertained. We want to speak with you, not an AI trying to pass itself off as you. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:49, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“Dear Jéské, thank you for your message. I fully understand your policy. I would like to clarify that I, Siefollah Aslani, am the sole author of this draft and responsible for the QashqAI Voice project. All texts were written with full awareness and represent my lived experience and initiative. I’m happy to continue this process as a verified contributor and answer any questions you may have.” S.Aslani2025 (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@S.Aslani2025 Please stop communicating with us via an AI chatbot. qcne (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no draft about QashqAI Voice that I can see. All I can see are articles about the Qashqai people and the Nissan Qashqai (string for internal search: [qashqai]). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Qcne, Thanks, I understand now. I’ll make sure to write personally from now on. I only wanted to share about my cultural project. Best regards, Siefollah S.Aslani2025 (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jéské, Thanks for your reply. I thought I had submitted the draft, but maybe it didn’t save correctly. I will try again and make sure it's visible. Thanks for your help! – Siefollah S.Aslani2025 (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@S.Aslani2025 Please follow the process at Wikipedia:Article wizard and do not use AI at any point. qcne (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Qcne, Thanks for the clarification 🙏 I understand now and will follow the Article Wizard process from here — no AI involved. Sorry again if it caused confusion. Best regards, Siefollah 😊 S.Aslani2025 (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:32, 24 June 2025 review of submission by Kuzeyakkaya

[edit]

I have submitted twice. After it was declined at first,I added more references and fixed any sentence that could come out as biased,however it was declined again. They now also said it has grammar mistakes but I can't see any. Kuzeyakkaya (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A draft does not need to have perfect grammar to be accepted. I do agree that the draft reads as an essay- it's telling, not summarizing. 331dot (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:28, 24 June 2025 review of submission by Giovanni Fariselli

[edit]

I am unsure why this page has been signalled as insufficiently referenced, and rejected as a consequence. The subject was a significant New Zealand businessman and the founder of one the the country's most well known brands / manufacturers of confectionery. The page references reputable newspapers such as the Otago Daily Times, The Oamaru Mail, The Wellington Post as well as the NZ Chamber of Commerce. I can see numerous Wikipedia pages that have fewer and more scant references. Thanks for your help. Giovanni Fariselli (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
At least some of the sources(like the biography of him by his business) are not independent. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:00, 24 June 2025 review of submission by Leofaya

[edit]

I need help to understand why we got flagged for our submission if you can assist with any info would be appreciated. Leofaya (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a connection with this person, that must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. I see that you took a very professional picture of her where she posed for you.
You have documented her work, but not what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about her and what makes her a notable person. You call her work innovativebut don't say who says that and why. 331dot (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:07, 24 June 2025 review of submission by Bdblakley29

[edit]

I need help finding reliable sources for this article Bdblakley29 (talk) 23:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Disturbing" is very subjective. We already have List of banned books which is more objective a criteria. 331dot (talk) 23:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bdblakley29: How does one define "most disturbing"? Is it due to sheer painfulness? Is it for disturbing sexual content? Is it for naked political heterodoxy or for affecting impressionable minds? What about for LGBTQ+ connexions? What qualifies as "disturbing" varies from culture to culture and even person to person. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is true but there are some things (gore, rape, pedophilia, etc.) that are universally considered disturbing. Bdblakley29 (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also the List of banned books is somewhat broad, whilst this list is more defined Bdblakley29 (talk) 23:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You might find that isn't as universal as you think if done against the "right" sort of people. When it comes to something being done to someone a reader hates, they'll happily look the other way. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bdblakely29 That's not true at all(or the books wouldn't have been written in the first place). Nothing is universal. I would suggest refocusing your effort to be about more objective criteria like "Books deemed to have excessive gore" or something like that, something that independent reliable sources might state. What is "disturbing" is just an opinion, it is not objective. 331dot (talk) 08:30, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 25

[edit]

00:41, 25 June 2025 review of submission by BioneerAssistant

[edit]

Hello, my draft Draft:Han-Oh Park was rejected. Could you please review it and advise what specific issues I need to address to meet Wikipedia's notability and sourcing standards? Thank you! BioneerAssistant (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:54, 25 June 2025 review of submission by Ranjeetsharmajournalist

[edit]

Why this article nominated for deletation. 

Ranjeetsharmajournalist (talk) 02:54, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ranjeetsharmajournalist As a journalist you do need to follow threads. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Real Khabar where the reason is stated with precision 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 06:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:50, 25 June 2025 review of submission by Shubham Bhakta Shrestha

[edit]

Subject: Help with Callbreak article: sourcing challenge

Hi, I'm working on a draft article for Callbreak, a popular South Asian trick-taking card game widely played in Nepal, India, and Bangladesh, both offline and digitally. While the game has major cultural significance, it's been difficult to find in-depth secondary sources beyond how-to guides or app listings. I've found brief mentions in books like Gaming Culture(s), but not many detailed academic or news articles. Given that Callbreak is passed down informally and has grown mainly through oral tradition and mobile platforms, how can I best establish notability under these circumstances? Would regional publications or ethnographic sources be acceptable? I believe documenting Callbreak would add value to Wikipedia’s coverage of traditional games.

Thanks in advance for any advice! Shubham. 2400:1A00:4B4C:C88B:31A5:E6EC:48D:9464 (talk) 04:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Non English language sources are acceptable. We cannot use oral traditions as references. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 06:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:01, 25 June 2025 review of submission by Jodysetiawan23

[edit]

"Could you please review this article and provide your valuable feedback? Additionally, any guidance on the process of creating such an article would be greatly appreciated. Jodysetiawan23 (talk) 05:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jodysetiawan23 Thsi draft has been rejected and will not proceed further. General advice is available in this essay, one of many on article creation. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 06:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:57, 25 June 2025 review of submission by Articlesmukesh

[edit]

Hello, 

       We need a person for us who ca create articles of our movies

Thanks Articlesmukesh (talk) 06:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the appropiate place to request the creation of articles, specially if it involves movies with which you have a conflict of interest. NeoGaze (talk) 11:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:32, 25 June 2025 review of submission by Jjamtshokkarma

[edit]

Reason for requesting assistance: Hello! I’m seeking guidance on how to proceed with a draft biography for Ms. Kanni Wignaraja, a senior UN official. The article has been declined multiple times due to concerns about notability and reliable sourcing. However, the current version now includes: • Significant coverage from independent, secondary sources including Project Syndicate, Nikkei Asia, Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation, and CNBC • References to authored publications and global media interviews • A new section on Ms. Wignaraja’s 2025 briefing to the UN Security Council, cited using UN Press and WebTV • Cleaned and properly formatted citations with reduced reliance on primary sources

I’ve tried to retain factual integrity while aligning with Wikipedia’s policies. I’d deeply appreciate feedback from experienced editors on whether the draft now meets notability and verifiability standards under WP:BIO and WP:GNG — and what final adjustments might help it move forward without changing the core content.

Thank you in advance for your time and support!

Best, Karma Jjamtshokkarma (talk) 09:32, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look at the draft myself. NeoGaze (talk) 12:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:13, 25 June 2025 review of submission by Joshua Hart Author

[edit]

Hello,

I am trying to create a Wikipedia page for myself as an author, but my draft keeps getting declined. I have attempted to follow the notability and sourcing guidelines as best I can, but I may still be missing something important.

Could someone please advise me on how to improve my draft so that it meets the necessary standards? I would really appreciate any guidance or specific suggestions on what needs to be changed or added.

Thank you again for your help.

— Joshua Hart 

Joshua Hart Author (talk) 10:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Joshua Hart Author. A few issues here;
1) You created this draft with the help of an AI chatbot, which added a malformed decline notice. Do not use AI chatbots to create draft articles or content on Wikipedia.
2) Your original draft was deleted as unambiguous advertising but you re-created it mostly the same as the draft above. You also have a sandbox version of the draft which is much the same as the other two drafts.
3) You have simply not provided enough evidence you meet our Wikipedia:Notability (people) criteria.
4) We also highly discourage you from writing an article about yourself. qcne (talk) 10:40, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:59, 25 June 2025 review of submission by Joshua Hart Author

[edit]

Hello,

I have resubmitted my draft article about author Joshua Hart at User:Joshua Hart Author/sandbox. I have rewritten the draft to address the previous concerns.

I appreciate any further guidance or feedback on the resubmission. Thank you for your time and support.

Many thanks Joshua Hart Author 

Joshua Hart Author (talk) 10:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Hart Author: I posted yesterday a message on your talk page about autobiographies, did you read it? TL;DNR = they are very strongly discouraged.
Also, I must say you're getting dangerously close to a promotion-only account, and may find yourself blocked. Promotion of any kind is not allowed on Wikipedia. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You still used an AI chatbot to write the draft, and there is still no indication you meet our notability criteria. qcne (talk) 11:30, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You also asked for, and were given advice at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Please move User:Joshua Hart Author/sandbox to Draft:Joshua Hart. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:23, 25 June 2025 review of submission by Shahrihana776

[edit]

My draft was not accepted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nepa_AB#cite_note-ResearchLive2016-2

I’d appreciate guidance on what kinds of references are considered acceptable for approval. Additionally, if it's possible to get clarity on which of the currently submitted references are not considered strong or reliable, that would be really helpful for improving the draft. Shahrihana776 (talk) 11:23, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Shahrihana776: the sources cited in your draft as just routine business reporting such as finances, appointments, new markets, etc. Those are invariably based on press releases or otherwise information supplied by the company in question, and therefore do not contribute towards notability. Per the WP:NCORP guideline, we want to see significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:35, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Shahrihana776. A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else.
Start by finding several sources which meet all the criteria in WP:42: if you can find several, then write a neutral summary of what those sources say - ignore anything which the subject or their associates say. ColinFine (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:26, 25 June 2025 review of submission by PhoebeDeans

[edit]

My page got rejected and I do not know why. I would like to resubmit but need to know what I need to edit if someone can please let me know?

Thank you. PhoebeDeans (talk) 11:26, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on your talk page. You basically wrote a bunch of promotional AI-generated slop, this isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. qcne (talk) 11:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:53, 25 June 2025 review of submission by Renuka JPR

[edit]

We need help to Move Kiara Jian's Page to move to Wikipedia main page Renuka JPR (talk) 11:53, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"? I see that you took a picture of her where she posed for you. If you are associated with her, that must be formally disclosed, please see conflict of interest and paid editing("paid editing" includes employment in any capacity). Disclosing paid editing is a Terms of Use requirement.
Please see the messages left on the draft by reviewers, which describe what needs to be done for the draft to be accepted. Note that if accepted, it would not be "her page", but an article about her. 331dot (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:10, 25 June 2025 review of submission by Satishsahu123456

[edit]

Please Told me reason for rejection. Satishsahu123456 (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Satishsahu123456, it looks like you generated an incomplete draft with a lot of template fields using an AI chatbot? qcne (talk) 12:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Satishsahu123456.
Trying to write an article without first finding suitable sources (which meet all the criteria in WP:42) is like trying to build a house without first surveying the site to make sure it is fit to build on: it will probably fall down, and your work will be wasted. Please see WP:YFA and WP:N. ColinFine (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:12, 25 June 2025 review of submission by Lascuraluca

[edit]

I recently submitted an article about Flashnet, a company specializing in smart street lighting and IoT infrastructure. However, the submission was not accepted, with the feedback indicating that the references provided were not considered sufficiently in-depth, reliable, secondary, or independent.

I have carefully reviewed the references used in the draft and believe they comply with Wikipedia’s notability and sourcing guidelines. Specifically:

The sources are independent of the company (e.g., press coverage, third-party industry publications).

They are secondary sources, offering analysis or reporting, not primary announcements.

They come from reliable outlets with editorial oversight.

Several articles provide in-depth information about Flashnet’s technology, partnerships, and role in international smart city projects.

I am reaching out to request assistance in better understanding which specific references may not meet the requirements, or whether there are particular aspects of the article that need improvement to align with Wikipedia’s standards. I would greatly appreciate your guidance on how to strengthen the submission and ensure it is appropriate for inclusion.

Thank you in advance for your time and support. Lascuraluca (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The actual reason of the decline is that it appears this company is not notable enough for a wikipedia article. You need to add more context and sources to clearly prove it is indeed notable. Otherwise every company under the sun would have its own article, no matter how rutine their activity would be. If you want more details on organizations and notability, check this page. Hope my reply answers your doubts. NeoGaze (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Lascuraluca. None of the sources cited is independent of Flashnet. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
You need several sources which meet the criteria in WP:42: without those, you cannot meet the criteria for notability.
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.
Do you have a connection with Flashnet? ColinFine (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:18, 25 June 2025 review of submission by Ayiritoronto

[edit]

The subject has multiple press articles from the National newspaper in Nigeria. How to proceed Ayiritoronto (talk) 13:18, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, and the reason given checks out: "After many declines and quick resubmissions (hiding the declines in one case) on a non-notable subject with concerns regarding AI-generated text, I'm rejecting this draft". I recommend you focus on something else. If you still want to create an article on the subject, wait some more so it gains more coverage, and thus gains more notoriety. NeoGaze (talk) 13:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:25, 25 June 2025 review of submission by Pdanese

[edit]

I'm at a loss of how to "rectify" the rejection, so any suggestions are appreciated.

As far as using LLMs, I asked ChatGPT for variations on two idioms (state border => state line and state-controlled hunting => regulated hunting), but that doesn't seem egregious and it's tantamount to consulting a thesaurus (or other people).

The only thing that I can think of as being a legitimate criticism is the "close paraphrasing" issue because I used prose hews closely to some of the original source material. But from my perspective, there are only so many ways to describe this information in a coherent fashion.

Thanks for any suggestions! Pdanese (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pdanese I will make a note on the draft for you so other reviewers know you state did not use an LLM to construct the draft. The other issue is meeting notability as almost all the sources are a government which is considered a primary source so cannot be used to establish notability. See Your first article for some guidance. S0091 (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
I ran the first paragraph through zeroGPT and it came back 100% certain AI generated. If you say you didn't, okay, the tools aren't perfect. 331dot (talk) 16:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. And apologies for misusing declined vs. rejected. Pdanese (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the additional question.
I'm not sure if there is anything that I can do with respect to using primary sources--instead of secondary sources.
Aside from my references from the State of Connecticut (admittedly primary references), there really are not many other sources (aside from the few that I used in my draft).
Do you have any suggestions? Or is this just a situation where my proposed article isn't appropriate due to the lack of secondary sources?
Thanks again.
Pdanese (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Pdanese. A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and little else. (See WP:42). If there are few or no such sources, then there cannot be an article. ColinFine (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Thanks. Pdanese (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pdanese it should at least be covered in the Suffield, Connecticut article in the Geography section, similar to Metacomet Ridge and you can use primary sources there. Also, try Google Books and Google Scholar. S0091 (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestions. Pdanese (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:56, 25 June 2025 review of submission by Profberger

[edit]

I am attempting to submit a page Draft:David Evans Shaw as a biography. I have made two attempts. The first editors critique I understood and I removed issues related to "puffery". On the second submission, I have received a rejection based on the comment that it needs to be written in a more neutral voice eg "encyclopaedic" there is also a mention of more varied references. I believe I have cited significant verifiable references and I have gone through and further tried to make the tone neutral but am struggling to understand what about the article is problematic. Could someone take a look and give me some assistance to get this over the "neutral" hurdle? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:David_Evans_Shaw Thanks in advance Profberger (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:44, 25 June 2025 review of submission by 2603:3026:2C0:100:3836:2729:F051:CAD5

[edit]

My apologies, I thought it was asking for my name, the title should be Positional Release Therapy, This is a therapy that started in 1955 and is taking on traction around the world. I have never done this before, but was really interested and wanted others to be able to look it up. Can you help me change the title and guide me on what details you'd like for the article. 2603:3026:2C0:100:3836:2729:F051:CAD5 (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will rename it shortly(even though the specific title of a draft is not particularly relevant). Writing about medical topics has stricter standards of sourcing, see WP:MEDRS. You need to show that the topic is notable- Wikipedia is not a mere database of things that exist. 331dot (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:49, 25 June 2025 review of submission by Drlmshillito

[edit]

I appreciated the comments on the first draft by user Gheus, and I went through and added new and better citations as they suggested. However, when I resubmitted the draft today it has now been deleted with the reason 'G11 Unambiguous advertising or promotion: self-written vanity page' - this is not true, you can see from my history my identity is public and I am not Chris Fowler! I write Wikipedia articles every now and then on archaeology and notable archaeologists and this article follows the same template (you can see in my page creation history). Prof. Chris Fowler definitely meets the criteria for notability for academics (Full Professor, several books published, editorship of a major academic journal etc). Is there any way to get this draft back? I spent a lot of time on it, and he is actually one of the most high profile British prehistorians in the UK. The reason for deletion is not true, and this is easily checked by looking at my profile and my Wikipedia history. Shouldn't this have been raised on the talk page if there was any query? Drlmshillito 19:49, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not Chris Fowler, that only means that the self-written part is incorrect. Quite frankly I might have thought the same. I agree that the draft met the speedy deletion criteria; that means it can be deleted without delay or discussion if an admin feels the criteria are met. It can be restored but you will need to change your approach and summarize what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about him, showing how he is a notable academic. Please read that carefully. 331dot (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the quick response, much appreciated. I followed the Wikipedia:Notability (academics) guidelines and particularly criteria 1 (significant impact in their scholarly discipline), using the suggested evidence 1a "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work", I did link to 2 independent book reviews of the most notable work, and also the google scholar page that shows the citations. This is exactly what is suggested so I would appreciate clarity on why it wasn't acceptable? They also meet criteria 5, which was demonstrated by linking to the university staff page (which is standard on many other academic biographies). [[User:Drlmshillito|Drlmshillito]] (talk) 11:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:18, 25 June 2025 review of submission by Binsen2323

[edit]

If possible, I'd like someone to take a look at my draft again before I resubmit. Any feedback would be appreciated! Draft:AuditBoard Binsen2323 (talk) 20:18, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Binsen2323 The whole url is not needed when linking to another page or article on Wikipedia, I fixed this. The header also provides a link.
We don't do pre-review reviews here; the best way to get feedback is to resubmit the draft. If you have specific questions, we can help with that. 331dot (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Binsen2323. I notice that the "Products" section is cited only to Auditboard's own website.
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.
Unless an independent source has discussed a product (not just mentioned or listed it) why would an encyclopaedia take note of it.
More generally, almost all your cited sources should meet the triple criteria in WP:42. (I haven't looked to see whether the others do, or whether there are other problems with the draft). ColinFine (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:07, 25 June 2025 review of submission by AlterixWiki

[edit]

Im just posting about a random asteroid with not much information AlterixWiki (talk) 22:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @AlterixWiki. If there is "not much information" about a subject, then the subject is not notable in Wikipedia's sense. ColinFine (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then it wouldn't make sense if its called “wikipedia” but it dosent include some lesser known things AlterixWiki (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Second of all how come theres this many things that nobody even knows but they have wiki pages bug other things with the same conditions dont? AlterixWiki (talk) 22:21, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I meant but AlterixWiki (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:50, 25 June 2025 review of submission by Winterspier

[edit]

I would like my revised submission to be reviewed. I have made changes to reflect the input. advice and requirements from the first review.

I think that it wil now integrate well with existing material in Wikipedia. Can it be reviewed in that perspectiv and not just as a stand-alone article? 

Winterspier (talk) 23:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Winterspier. If you think you have addressed the problems, you are welcome to resubmit (though you only seem to have added one citation, so I'm dubious that you have changed the evidence for notability significantly.)
There is no concept of reviewing articles in integration with existing material. Every article must stand on its own. ColinFine (talk) 09:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am resubmitting the entire content by inserting it into the stub for Edward Wyndham as a member of the Virginia House of Burgesses. I have made links to existing material. I have added a further citation. There are more (for biographical depth) in the Wikitree entry for Edward Wyndham. There are more (for historical and political depth) in Wikipedia and elsewhere. I am trying to avoid writing "original research" in this entry and also overloading an entry on a member of the Virginia House of Burgesses. I have not cited Wikitree as a source. I am making this assessment on what I can see to be current Wikipedia practice. See Adam Thoroughgood entries and references in Wikipedia and Wikitree as an example. Winterspier (talk) 21:42, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 26

[edit]

01:12, 26 June 2025 review of submission by Based5290

[edit]

I'm seeing three solid sources which should be enough to satisfy WP:GNG, so could I get more clarification on the decline? Based5290 :3 (talk) 01:12, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Three sources is not enough except perhaps for the barests of stubs, which is not the case of this draft. Please add more. NeoGaze (talk) 08:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:30, 26 June 2025 review of submission by ClBlanche

[edit]

Hello! I added links, that I found, with the proofs. Please tell me if they are enough to try publishing the article again? Could someone review my draft? Thanks for the feedback! ClBlanche (talk) 01:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ClBlanche: we don't do on-demand reviews here at the help desk, you will have to resubmit the draft in order to get a review. But based on a quick glance, the sources look very flaky to me, I doubt they will be enough to satisfy the WP:NCORP notability guideline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:42, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:27, 26 June 2025 review of submission by EditorCreator5

[edit]

Hello, I need help getting my page published, do you have any advice or know who I can go to to help me? I would really appreciate it. Heidi 

EditorCreator5 (talk) 02:27, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EditorCreator5: what I can tell you is that there is far too much unreferenced information in your draft. Pretty much every statement you make must be clearly backed up by an inline citation to a reliable published source. Even if you know something to be true, it cannot go into the draft unless it can be verified form a reliable source. From this it follows that you should only really be summarising what published sources have said about this person, not writing what you know about him. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:38, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your response! Ok, I will work on that. I was using other peoples pages as a guide, and it seemed the information I was saying was similar to that of others. Now I cannot find my page, do they delete it completely if it isn't approved within a certain amount of time? EditorCreator5 (talk) 12:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops I found it. I will make changes. EditorCreator5 (talk) 12:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:06, 26 June 2025 review of submission by 2409:40F2:1B:9D30:8000:0:0:0

[edit]

Article creation 2409:40F2:1B:9D30:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 06:06, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:32, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:25, 26 June 2025 review of submission by Letmeknowanand

[edit]

please help me to approve the page - what should I include Letmeknowanand (talk) 07:25, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Letmeknowanand: nothing, I have rejected this draft, since it provides no evidence that the person is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:31, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:34, 26 June 2025 review of submission by AnuttarJain

[edit]

I provide full sources but my draft not published, AnuttarJain (talk) 09:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please disclose your relationship with the monk; you took a picture of him.
Your references are not in line next to the text they are supporting, an absolute necessity when editing about living people(see WP:BLP). Please see referencing for beginners. Your sources don't seem to be reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:40, 26 June 2025 review of submission by 49.146.134.218

[edit]

The draft keeps getting rejected because of references concerns despite it already being well-referenced enough from various verified sources. It also gets rejected because of notability when in fact the institution is very notable in the province for its standards of academics and its students. 49.146.134.218 (talk) 10:40, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the creator of the draft, remember to log in when posting.
The draft was only rejected the final time- it was declined before that(declined means it may be resubmitted, rejected means it can't be). You kept resubmitting without making any substantive improvements. It is not sufficiently referenced to demonstrate that the school is a notable organization. If it is notable for its academics, you have not provided independent sources that discuss that. Having notable students(which isn't indicated in the draft either) would not help as notability is not inherited by association. 331dot (talk) 10:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, this draft was declined multiple times for lack of evidence of notability, and other reasons. It was eventually rejected because of repeated resubmissions without any attempt at improving it. That tells the reviewers that you are either unable or unwilling to address the decline reasons, which makes it pointless to keep reviewing the draft; this is why I finally rejected it.
As for notability, we can only assess this based on the sources cited in the draft, and they are insufficient for satisfying the WP:ORG notability guideline. There is no such thing as "very notable ... for its standards of academics and its students", this is not part of the notability criteria. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:59, 26 June 2025 review of submission by Razmi Azmi

[edit]

I need this page published for my grandfather who is currently on very hard jobs and this would make him very happy Razmi Azmi (talk) 10:59, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Razmi Azmi I fixed your header to link to your draft as intended.
Unfortunately, your draft cannot be accepted because it is completely unsourced. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about a person. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they are a notable person. If you just want to tell the world about your grandfather, you should do that on social media or other website with less strict requirements. 331dot (talk) 11:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:39, 26 June 2025 review of submission by Marces1972

[edit]

Hello I am so disappointed to have my submission rejected as been a donaer for several years through business I have worked ofor, I did extensive research to make sure it followed the exact same tone and path as my peers - no advertising or promotion just a little paragraph about me and my accomplishments. Please advise what I have done wrong? Marces1972 (talk) 11:39, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marces1972 Whether you donate or not has no impact on a draft being accepted or not; donations are collected by the Wikimedia Foundation to operate the computers Wikipedia is on, as well as other Foundation activities; we editors don't see the money.
Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about their own accomplishments. That is promotional. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves, please see the autobiography policy. Our articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the subject.
The draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. It was completely unsourced(I assume because it is you telling about yourself). If you want to tell about yourself, you should use social media. If you patterned what you did on other articles(a poor, if understandable, idea, see other stuff exists) please tell us what those articles are so we can take action. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 11:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:51, 26 June 2025 review of submission by 2601:240:D200:AEB0:B50E:6309:35C8:41DD

[edit]

Hello,

I am hoping to understand why my draft is being declined. After my initial submission, I was told I violated WP:SOLUTIONS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOLUTIONS

I have since removed all use of the word 'Solutions' in my draft. Additionally, I have changed wording so it doesn't mention benefits of this technology, but it focus on features and intended uses.

Any help would be great! Thank you so much.

Joe 2601:240:D200:AEB0:B50E:6309:35C8:41DD (talk) 13:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(If you're Jberenz, please log into your account.)
This draft was declined because the sources do not show that the subject is notable enough to justify an article. It is also inherently promotional, because it is you telling the world about your business, its history and what it does. We want instead to see what independent and reliable secondary sources have on their own initiative said about what makes the business worthy of note; however, your draft cites no such sources. (The solutions comment was an additional observation to the promotionality reason.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:28, 26 June 2025 review of submission by Sama.hf123

[edit]

Hi all,

I’ve significantly revised the draft article for Yazan Haifawi, a Jordanian musician, and would appreciate any feedback or assistance in assessing its notability and sourcing. Based on previous feedback, I have: • Removed non-reliable or self-published sources (e.g., social media, personal websites) • Eliminated the Wikipedia citation to Aziz Maraka’s page • Rewritten content to maintain a neutral, encyclopedic tone • Added reliable, third-party sources including Jordan News and Scene Now • Ensured all citations are properly formatted and independently verifiable

If any additional improvements are needed before resubmission, I’d be very grateful for guidance. Thank you in advance! Sama.hf123 (talk) 15:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sama.hf123 you have submitted the draft so a reviewer will take a look. S0091 (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:29, 26 June 2025 review of submission by Aswinidoreswamy

[edit]

This submission was rejected with the reason: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. This is the first time I ever created an article and I am unclear about the actual reason. Can you guide me? Ashwini Doreswamy (talk) 15:29, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aswinidoreswamy Wikipedia is not a place to post a resume. Please see Your First Article and the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 15:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:59, 26 June 2025 review of submission by 207.60.81.46

[edit]

Hi! I just started my wikipedia journey, so I would love any guidance you can provide. This was my first page, and I'm confused why it was declined. I want to start making pages for Canadian startups, because I find it so hard to distinguish between real vs fake companies on Instagram, and thought this would be a good way of helping others.

Could you tell me what I've done wrong in this article so I can avoid it in the future? Thanks for your help! 207.60.81.46 (talk) 15:59, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Startups" almost never merit articles; a company must become established and recognized in its field in order to draw the necessary coverage by independent reliable sources to show that the company is a notable company.
Wikipedia does not exist to merely verify that a company is legitimate or exists. 331dot (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft in particular just summarizes the routine business activities of the company; raising funds is a normal part of doing business and does not establish notability(see WP:ORGDEPTH). 331dot (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your response, I really appreciate it! I said startups, but I meant more scaleup companies that are in the news/media. I know my article was rejected, so I will likely shift focus to a new company, but will I ever be able to revisit the draft I was playing with? Or should I just move to another one since it doesn't appear I can resubmit.
Again, thanks for your help, I'm new and want to make sure I'm following the guidelines. 207.60.81.46 (talk) 17:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The draft will remain as long as it is edited at least once every six months. Even if deleted due to inactivity, it can be restored via WP:REFUND. If you can fundamentally change the draft to address the concerns of reviewers, you can appeal to the rejecting reviewer to ask them to reconsider. 331dot (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ohhh okay, that's very helpful, thank you! I'll probably work on something else for a bit. I appreciate your help. Have a lovely day! 207.60.81.46 (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:08, 26 June 2025 review of submission by Hopeisadiscipline

[edit]

Would like a second opinion about notability Hopeisadiscipline (talk) 16:08, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have resubmitted the draft, the next reviewer will leave you feedback. 331dot (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hopeisadiscipline: You shall have it.
You have two borderline sources and not much else. The decline looks appropriate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:41, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:35, 26 June 2025 review of submission by Ben Ten004

[edit]

Hi, I previously created a draft article titled "Imbarex S.A" which got rejected. Now I am trying to resubmit it after making the necessary improvements, but I am getting an error that says "Please check draft title. No such draft exists." I believe the draft might have been deleted or moved. Can you please help me recover the draft or guide me on how I can resubmit it properly? Thank you! 

Ben Ten004 (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ben Ten004 it looks like this was resolved? S0091 (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:24, 26 June 2025 review of submission by Ritzy 66

[edit]

Hi. I am looking for help on some sources that might not be valid on the Draft page of Val Stanton.Thamk you! Ritzy 66 (talk) 19:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ritzy 66 sources are used for two purposes, verifiability and notability. Looking at the draft, the ones that jump out at me as unreliable so should not used are Findagrave, Ancestry, census data and most genealogical sites/publications. Sources like "Collingswood to play N.V.A. Team" are fine for verifiability but not notability because is just a mention about Val. In order for a source to contribute to notability, it needs to meet all four criteria outlined in the last decline: reliable, secondary, independent and provided in-depth coverage about the subject. Also, be careful about WP:editorializing (ex. "Sadly") and WP:Original research. For example, you are using census data to make your own conclusions which is not allowed here. Only summarize what reliable sources explicitly state and also use you own words. There's some WP:close paraphrasing. S0091 (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:27, 26 June 2025 review of submission by Ionnn122

[edit]

An article for "MAXIMUS AND THE CORRUPTION OF TIME" could theoretically be suitable if and only if it has achieved significant, independent, and sustained attention from multiple reliable sources. This means the screenplay itself, prior to any production, would need to have been the subject of substantial coverage in major, reputable media outlets, film industry publications, or academic journals. Ionnn122 (talk) 19:27, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear on what your question is. 331dot (talk) 19:40, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ionnn122 Your film project is not notable, sorry. qcne (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:42, 26 June 2025 review of submission by Matthew John Drummond

[edit]

Has my draft of Rocky Hollow in a position where I can resubmit it. Matthew John Drummond (talk) 19:42, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since the draft was rejected, you will first need to appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of your sources are no good, @Matthew John Drummond. But did you know that you can use offline sources - like archive newspapers and magazines? This might help if you can get a second chance from @Drimes. qcne (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added more newspapers articles about the series as well as an magazine about the series from flickr.com and a link from dbpedia.org that deals early everything about the series. Matthew John Drummond (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Matthew John Drummond You'll have to approach @Drmies directly and ask for an appeal. qcne (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How do I do that Matthew John Drummond (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Go to their User Talk page and leave a message. qcne (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
amazon.co.uk, Wikipedia, avid.wiki., flickr.com, Dbpedia, wordpress.com, youtube.com, doesthedogdie.com and postertrail are not reliable independent sources please replace. Theroadislong (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well then can you find some websites that detail information about the series through reliable sources because I've so hard. Matthew John Drummond (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried searching through more offline sources like Qcne suggested? Harryhenry1 (talk) 08:02, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have found one bbc article that I've added to the page. Matthew John Drummond (talk) 10:22, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What offline sources detail Rocky Hollow or anything related to it because I've looked so hard. Matthew John Drummond (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't find any, then this subject does not meet our criteria for an article and you should abandon the draft(s) and start writing about something else. qcne (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut out a large chunk of the stuff and made it smaller. Matthew John Drummond (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've also been able to revive the toonhound link thanks to the way back machine. Matthew John Drummond (talk) 17:02, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 27

[edit]

00:37, 27 June 2025 review of submission by Jaxonneid

[edit]

Why can't I make this page??? I dont think it should redirect to Karin Kirkpatrick Jaxonneid (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaxonneid You can create a draft, it is not protected. Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 10:32, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:32, 27 June 2025 review of submission by TollVic

[edit]

Thanks for the feedback on the article. I wrote the article myself and then consulted an LLM to ensure I wasn't using promotional language. I made some minor edits based on that feedback and removed portions that probably weren't going to be acceptable, based on that feedback.

But the writing that I submitted is almost all mine. One piece of feedback I received, however, was "Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT," so I don't know how to respond to that. For example, I don't think there's anything speculative in the article, and there are no hallucinations in it.

A related piece of feedback that I received was: "Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed."

I thought I had accomplished that. Could you give me an example of two where this article falls short from your perspective? I'm happy to modify the article until it's considered acceptable.

Thanks again! TollVic (talk) 02:32, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's best to not use a LLM at all, then you can completely avoid your text looking like it was written by one. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of your sources are written or otherwise by the same individual(Jessica Naziri) even though they are different outlets. A variety of authors would be better. 331dot (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:55, 27 June 2025 review of submission by Toxicjay

[edit]

what should i add Toxicjay (talk) 03:55, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Toxicjay: no need to add anything, this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:36, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:58, 27 June 2025 review of submission by CHANMUNKIAT

[edit]

Because it has been declined a couple of times and it is very difficult to write in an encyclopedic manner, given the nature of the topic.

Would need some help from experienced editors to assist me. CHANMUNKIAT (talk) 04:58, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CHANMUNKIAT: we don't get involved in co-editing, and you're unlikely to find a collaborator here at the help desk; your best bet is probably one of the Wikiprojects, such as WikiProject Tibet. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:35, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. How do I submit my article then? CHANMUNKIAT (talk) 15:08, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:58, 27 June 2025 review of submission by Jean Khalife

[edit]

I don't know how to transforming my late father's info into an accepted form by Wikipedia, can anyone help me in doing that? Thanks PS: important references quantity is available Jean Khalife (talk) 06:58, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jean Khalife: firstly, you should disclose your conflict of interest (COI); I will post instructions on your talk page.
Secondly, and most importantly, you should find some reliable and independent sources, and summarise what they have said about your father. We're only interested in what has been previously published about him, not what you might know about him, because everything you say in this draft must be verifiable from a reliable source. See WP:GOLDENRULE.
You also shouldn't provide that long year-by-year chronology of everything he has done. Summarise his career in a couple of paragraphs (in prose), discuss his work (summarising published sources), etc. That makes for a much more readable and accessible format. See a few artist biographies as examples, ones that have been rated as 'good articles'; you can find these at WP:Good_articles/Art_and_architecture#Art. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:09, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:43, 27 June 2025 review of submission by Johnny Prey

[edit]

Good Day! I would like to as for a help on my draft. I already resubmitted a revised one removing possible advertising and promotional tone, however it was still not accepted. If you could guys help me which areas I can add on my article in order for it to be accepted will be much appreciated. Thank You! Johnny Prey (talk) 07:43, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the draft and it seems the main issue is notability. A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. So you need to add more sources in order to prove this organization is notable enough. Also if you have a conflict of interest or are related in some way to this company, you should disclose it in your profile or the draft's talk page. I hope my reply is helpful NeoGaze (talk) 14:33, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:52, 27 June 2025 review of submission by हर्ष कुमार झा

[edit]

Hello! My draft article on _Harsh Kumar Jha_ was recently declined. I want to improve it and need your guidance. Could you please let me know what specific issues need to be fixed (e.g. sources, tone, structure)? I'm ready to rewrite or restructure the draft as needed. Thanks in advance for your help! हर्ष कुमार झा (talk) 07:52, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @हर्ष कुमार झा. It was rejected - which means you can not re-submit. This person does not meet our criteria for an article on Wikipedia. qcne (talk) 07:53, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that autobiography in Wikipedia is very strongly discouraged, as it is almost impossible to do it successfully. Having found the necessary several sources where people wholly unconnected with you have chosen to publish material about you in reliable publications, you would then need to forget everything you know about yourself, and write a neutral summary of what those sources said. ColinFine (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:09, 27 June 2025 review of submission by 2A04:4A43:95DF:F744:FD29:F80F:A300:C0BD

[edit]

why was it rejected 2A04:4A43:95DF:F744:FD29:F80F:A300:C0BD (talk) 10:09, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were given a clear reason for rejection by the reviewer. Additionally, Wikipedia is not for posting what I assume is your resume. See the autobiography policy. If you want to post your resume somewhere, use social media. 331dot (talk) 10:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:06, 27 June 2025 review of submission by Pankajasthaana

[edit]

I had added live references quoting independent media websites, linkedin posts and published webpage sources but the article was declined saying there are no sources mentioned. What did I miss? Pankajasthaana (talk) 11:06, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pankajasthaana You included a few external links but no actual references. Please very carefully read Help:Referencing for beginners and note that LinkedIn is not a reliable source so should not be used.
You also share a username with the CEO, so you must declare this conflict of interest immediately by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Failure to do this will result in your account being blocked. qcne (talk) 11:16, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:23, 27 June 2025 review of submission by Squareys

[edit]

Hi,

The draft was rejected with the following comment: > Needs independent sources about the engine itself, not games based on it.

However, as noted also in a reply, the article references many secondary independent reliable sources that are not about a game, but the engine itself.

So I am unclear on how I can sufficiently adjust the article to satisfy the request.

I appreciate any support on the matter.

Best Squareys (talk) 11:23, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Squareys What is the general nature of your conflict of interest?
Please point out the sources you feel do as the reviewer asks. 331dot (talk) 15:42, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:44, 27 June 2025 review of submission by Gicos74

[edit]

Help moving sandbox article to mainspace – Evelyn Famà Hi! I’ve written a new article in my sandbox about an Italian actress and stage performer, Evelyn Famà. The page includes biography, filmography, awards, references, and images I uploaded to Commons under CC BY-SA 4.0.

Here is the link to the draft: 🔗 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gicos74/Evelyn_Fam%C3%A0

I'm not yet autoconfirmed, so I’d appreciate if someone could review and help move it to the mainspace under the title: Evelyn Famà.

Thanks in advance for your support!

– User:Gicos74 Gicos74 (talk) 12:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gicos74: you need to submit the draft for review, by clicking that blue 'submit' button. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:48, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You say you've uploaded the photos and made them available under CC 4.0 – are you the photographer who took these photos, then? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DoubleGrazing,
thank you for your question. The photos were provided directly to me by the actress herself, who owns the rights to them and explicitly authorized their upload to Wikimedia Commons under the CC BY 4.0 license. While I am not the photographer, I acted with the permission of the rights holder.
If needed, I can request a formal permission statement via OTRS (now VRT) to clarify this further.
Best regards,
User:Gicos74 Gicos74 (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the header to place the link within as intended, the whole url is not needed.
Yes, you will need to send that in. It is unusual for the subject of a photo to own the rights to it, typically the rights rest with the photographer, unless a contract assigned the rights to someone else. The permission may not be Fama's to give.
Do you have an association with her other than asking her for photos? 331dot (talk) 15:47, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will add that photos are not relevant to the draft process, which only considers the text and sources. Photos are an enhancement, not a requirement. 331dot (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:47, 27 June 2025 review of submission by Parmanand.jha.mh

[edit]

Hi! I recently created an article about Parmanand Jha. I tried to write it in a neutral tone and included a citation from a regional tech article. I’m not sure why it was marked for speedy deletion.

I would appreciate any guidance on how I can improve it so it meets Wikipedia’s guidelines. Parmanand.jha.mh (talk) 13:47, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Parmanand.jha.mh. I am afraid that this person (you?) does not meet our criteria for inclusion and therefore cannot have an article. It will be deleted as all it does is promote the person, which is contrary to our purpose. Please have a read of Wikipedia:Spam. qcne (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:03, 27 June 2025 review of submission by Ceeyemm

[edit]

hello, can someone please edit the page title (move) to make the "I" lowercase, I am not able to do so myself with my account yet. Thank you Ceeyemm (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceeyemm: Draft names are at best provisional. When approved, the reviewer will almost certainly correct the name. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:07, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:20, 27 June 2025 review of submission by HVACScienceGuy

[edit]

My submission was just declined I appreciate your prompt review and feedback, but honestly, I can't imagine Positive Air Duct Cleaning having sources that are more in-depth, reliable, and there are plenty that are secondary and independent of the issue, from international associations and academies adopting the methodology, to it being the only method even allowed in Forensic Restoration, to it having been the topic of dozens of articles, podcasts and interviews in all 4 of the industry's top publications, to the founder having been opening keynote speaker at a global summit on crime scene remediation in Queensland, Australia, on the topic of the utilization of Positive Air Duct Cleaning in the event of fentanyl decontamination. HVACScienceGuy HVACScienceGuy (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HVACScienceGuy I fixed your header to provide a link to your draft as intended. You have three sources, none of which seem to be as you describe. Much of the draft is unsourced. 331dot (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's of what I was afraid. I accidentally submitted two versions, one incomplete followed by one complete one. I immediately got notice that one of them was deleted so the other could be reviewed. I suspected at the time that the complete one was deleted and the incomplete one retained and thus reviewed.
Positive Air Duct Cleaning is such an extremely supported methodology, it would be a shoe-in for a Wikipedia page. It's completely changed the way HVAC is cleaned and decontaminated worldwide. It's the only method allowed at this point for Forensic Restoration.
I'll reformat and resubmit. HVACScienceGuy (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HVACScienceGuy You submitted two identical drafts, Draft:Positive Air Duct Cleaning and Draft:Postive Air Duct Cleaning. One was declined as a duplicate and the other was declined for failure to show Wikipedia's definition of notability; neither was deleted. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:23, 27 June 2025 review of submission by Shivam4apr

[edit]

Hello, I need help moving my sandbox article (User:Shivam4apr/sandbox) to the Draft namespace as Draft:DOME Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. for review under Articles for Creation. Thank you! Shivam4apr (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Shivam4apr this appears to have been done, see Draft:DOME Entertainment Pvt. Ltd which was just declined. S0091 (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:50, 27 June 2025 review of submission by 2001:B07:5D37:FC3F:D011:BF9E:8154:EA7C

[edit]

May I ask you why the draft is against the purpose of Wikipedia? 2001:B07:5D37:FC3F:D011:BF9E:8154:EA7C (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I left a comment explaining why I rejected it: its a purely promotional draft about a company, and promotional content is not acceptable in Wikipedia. If you prove this company is notable beyond a shadow of a doubt by adding substantial, independent and reliable sources (as well as extensive rewritting) I will reconsider undoing the rejection. Hope my reply helps. NeoGaze (talk) 22:18, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:52, 27 June 2025 review of submission by Emersonjd3199

[edit]

I was told this person is not considered notable enough to have a wikipedia page. However, I would like to note that his business partnership with Stan Kroenke (who has a wikipedia page), involvement in billions of dollars of real estate development, and impact on the jewish community nationally seems very noteworthy. Several of my references were used as references for THF Realty and Stan Kroenke's page, but are being considered unreliable? Emersonjd3199 (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited by association with notable people. You need sources that show that Mr. Staenberg is notable via his own actions, not merely because he associated with others. 331dot (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 28

[edit]

02:35, 28 June 2025 review of submission by SkyLight62

[edit]

Hello,

I've attempted to source the article correctly and provide details. Other members of the Canadian Cricket Team of similar notably have approved pages.

Is there something I'm not doing correctly? 

SkyLight62 (talk) 02:35, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @SkyLight62. What you're not doing correctly (like nearly all editors who try to create an article before they have spent time learning how Wikipedia does things) is that you have written a draft without first finding several sources where people wholly unconnected with Samra or his associates have chosen to published significant coverage of Samra in reliable places. (I haven't watched the YouTube piece, but none of the others have more than a passing mention of him).
This is like trying to build a house without first surveying the plot, or building any foundations. Either the project will have to be abandoned, or it will need to be redone almost from the beginning.
You need several sources which meet all the criteria in WP:42: at present you have none.
Then you will need to write the bulk of the draft entirely from those sources. You may then be able to include a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information from non-independent or primary sources; but the bulk of any article should be a summary of what the independent secondary sources say about the subject.
As for other cricketers: Wikipedia has many thousands of seriously deficient articles, which would ideally be improved or deleted; but not many editors are keen to spend a lot of time on that task. We evaluate new articles on their own merits, not by comparison. See Other stuff exists. ColinFine (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:18, 28 June 2025 review of submission by NeilJeyaharan

[edit]

CSI Wesley Tamil Church, St. Thomas Mount history is created as wiki page. Since church historical information are spread across various primary sources of 19th and 20th centuries, initially, primary sources are added as citation. We have added News and Books information now, since page approval was declined for various reasons like in-depth, Independent and secondary reliable sources are missing.

Please help me to correct this page to get ready for approval. Thanks in advance. NeilJeyaharan (talk) 07:18, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited for neutral tone, do you have a connection to the church? Please disclose. 07:25, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

07:56, 28 June 2025 review of submission by 82.79.226.27

[edit]

hi!

it seems I am not familiar with the Wikipedia publishing policy in order to publish this page. can someone assist me closer and indicate me what I miss? thank you!

Cristian 82.79.226.27 (talk) 07:56, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, if you are the creator of the draft, remember to log in when posting, so your posts are properly attributed to you.
You have not shown that this team is a notable organization as Wikipedia defines one. 331dot (talk) 08:53, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:20, 28 June 2025 review of submission by Avocadopiu

[edit]

Please help me point out what words/phrases are giving my article an essay-like tone. Avocadopiu (talk) 10:20, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Carolina2k22 can you please provide @Avocadopiu some guidance? S0091 (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a hugely badly written draft, @Avocadopiu. But you have included WIP tags, which would mean I'd have declined it on the basis of clearly not being finished. qcne (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did agree with qcne, I didn’t think it was a poorly written draft either. The main issue was the WIP tags meaning it clearly was not finished. The essay point was in part a recommendation to improve the language of the article.
I would’ve likely accepted it if it wasn’t the WIP tags. Carolina2k22 • (talk) 03:23, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What language did I use which didn't suit an encyclopedic tone? Avocadopiu (talk) 03:38, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:12, 28 June 2025 review of submission by Clara Emigrand

[edit]

WHy is this page declined?? You can see multiple references online, such as TATE MODERN, LUX, BRITISH SCHOOL AT ROME. Its very easy to check this entry, just google please. thank you. Clara Emigrand (talk) 13:12, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Clara Emigrand. Most of your sources do not work? It is your responsibility as the draft editor to ensure your sources are valid and work. qcne (talk) 13:22, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm correcting the URL s it was suggested automatically when i created the page. thanks Clara Emigrand (talk) 13:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you use an AI chatbot like Claude, Copilot, ChatGPT to create the page? Wikipedia does not suggest invalid sources in any step of the article creation process. An AI chatbot would, however. qcne (talk) 13:27, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, yes I'll manually enter the links, thanks for advice. Clara Emigrand (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. In future do not use AI. qcne (talk) 13:39, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Clara Emigrand. You don't appear to have a single source which is reliable, independent of Medoidze, and contains significant coverage of her. Without any such sources, the article cannot establish that she meets WIkipedia's criteria for notability, and will not be accepted.
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) 14:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I Guess Tate Modern, LUX, and Globally Distributed Publication, and a page on Google books (BY DISTANZ) is not reliable enough, sigh Clara Emigrand (talk) 14:32, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Clara Emigrand It's worth noting that reliability is just one of the three criteria a source needs to be: those sources are all reliable but they do not meet the other two criteria of independence and significant coverage. Please have a quick read of Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything which outlines this briefly. qcne (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:43, 28 June 2025 review of submission by RileyRoseKennedy

[edit]

Hi there,

I hope it’s okay to kindly flag this draft for review: Draft:Isabelle Noack.

I don’t personally know the subject, but I truly believe this page deserves consideration for article status. Isabelle Noack is a Black African-European-American journalist, YouTube creator, and founder of a cross-continental media agency. She has reported for major outlets such as Euronews and ARD, and now leads global content strategy for tech companies, all while producing viral digital journalism that showcases underrepresented narratives across Africa and the diaspora.

The current version addresses previous comments with reliable secondary references (from Euronews, DW, etc.), proper formatting, and improved citations. I understand reviews are backlogged, but wanted to respectfully request this be re-considered when possible — especially as her work sits at the intersection of media, representation, and global public interest.

Many thanks for your time and for all you do to keep this space thriving.

Warmly, A hopeful editor in support of wider representation RileyRoseKennedy (talk) 13:43, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @RileyRoseKennedy. It has zero sources and is written in a completely inappropriate tone for Wikipedia? Please carefully follow the referencing tutorial at WP:INTREFVE. This draft will not be considered without a properly formatted reference list. qcne (talk) 13:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there,
Thank you for taking the time to respond. I wanted to kindly share that I found the tone of the response quite disheartening - especially in a space that is meant to foster collaboration, knowledge-sharing, and inclusivity.
My message was posted on the Talk page, not within the article itself. It was intended to respectfully flag that I had taken time to revise the draft in good faith. I fully understand and respect that encyclopedic content must meet tone and referencing standards - but I do believe that confusing a good-faith message between editors with article tone is, respectfully, a blurring of boundaries that shuts down sincere participation.
As someone who lives with dyslexia and is deeply committed to improving representation on this platform, I had hoped for a more supportive tone - particularly because this work is often exhausting and unpaid, and because people from underrepresented communities already face disproportionate scrutiny when contributing to public knowledge spaces.
I'm doing my absolute best to meet the standards, and I welcome constructive feedback -but I would also ask that it be delivered in the spirit of collaboration and mutual respect. A dismissive tone, especially when no actual discussion of the article’s sources or merits follows, doesn’t serve anyone - and sadly discourages exactly the kind of editors Wikimedia claims to want to empower.
Thank you again for your time,
Riley RileyRoseKennedy (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RileyRoseKennedy I do not respond kindly to AI-generated text. Please use your own words. Plenty of editors have dyslexia but we really do not want to speak to you via long AI-generated responses. Do not abdicate your humanity to a shitty robot.
As for the draft: you still have not converted all your links into proper in-line citations by following the tutorial at WP:INTREFVE. Please do so, or the draft won't be considered. This is just our policy. qcne (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure why you feel the need to use terms like "shitty" after I just kindly said how your language is triggering. Maybe AI would help in this case by taking out cuss words, that do not create clarity and clearness but rather more confusion and unnecessary negativty ;) I also find it bold of you to assume that I did us AI.
I actually type my own texts and then ask AI to proofread them so I do not embarrass myself with typos. I will update the links now, again my dyslexia is sometimes interfering with the way I process information or write, work etc. I also did NOT mean to say that I know Isabelle Noack personally, but rather that I know OF her and have been following her work - particularly on Africa and in journalism - for a while now. I also saw her speak at a Google event in London once.
Thank you and have a lovely day. Not here to lecture, but again, I always heard that this is a platform of likeminded, positive and respectful creators and people trying to do good and I truly believe we should use the abilities we have into creating POSITIVE impact whenever we can. I was NOT trying to attack you, but rather show up as my best self in a space I was excited to contribute to. If you are annoyed by long texts, please feel free to say that directly instead of further insulting me or making assumptions about who I write.
Thank you,
R. RileyRoseKennedy (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Shitty" seems to be an extremely apt adjective to describe AI. It was clearly not directed at you, and "cuss words" are not censored. Profanity should never be used against fellow editors, but it's definitely fine to swear at AI robots.
You stated that you took the very professional-looking photo of Noack, the one she also uses as her Linkedin profile photo. At Commons you asserted that she sent an email, today, to the Commons permissions team. That does not tally with your claims in this thread. Could you explain your connection to Noack, please? --bonadea contributions talk 18:22, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you and thank you for clarifying. It was not clear to me that it was not directed at me - again, maybe that's my dyslexia or whatever it may be.
Thank you for getting back to me on that and happy to elaborate. I met her during an event at Google where she did a collaboration with AiDiA, which is a Afro-German organization to support Black businesses in the DACH region. Before the event I took the picture of her in one of the meeting rooms at Google Berlin. That's the only time I met her in person and I first heard of the work she does when she helped free Wilfried Siewe, a Black German who was wrongfully put in prison while on vacation in Cameroun with his family. Please let me know if there is anything else I can help clarify. I also wanted to let you know that I updated the links and sources as you asked me to. I hope it's all in line now. RileyRoseKennedy (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just put this here. --bonadea contributions talk 20:07, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That image asserts that Noack took the photo, but she clearly didn't as she's at the lectern holding a microphone, not even looking at the camera. 331dot (talk) 09:06, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She had a tripod and camera set up and this is a screenshot from the video. I was at the event and can confirm this. RileyRoseKennedy (talk) 09:08, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So she had her iPhone mounted on a tripod to record her event? 331dot (talk) 09:19, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. RileyRoseKennedy (talk) 12:36, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RileyRoseKennedy: the image Isabelle Noack speaking in 2024.jpg was uploaded by you as your own work. Its description states that "This photo was taken by me, Isabelle Noack, using my own device during a public speaking engagement at Google in 2024. I confirm that I own the full rights to this image, including all visible elements, and that it does not include any copyrighted third-party content. I am releasing it under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license for use on Wikimedia Commons." This implies that either you are Isabelle Noack, in which case why are you talking about her as a third party; or this photo was not your own work, and you should not have uploaded it as such. And in either case, why are insisting that you don't know Noack? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, as said before I am neurodivergent (including dyslexia), and I realize so sorry that the way I descripted the picture was confusion. I meant the picture was taken BY me and is OF IN. Like I would say taken by me, Chicago. That's how I would say that it was taken by me but OF the city of Chi-town. However, I do get how this can be confusing and apologize,
Happy to clarify the following again.
I am not Isabelle Noack, and
I am NOT being paid to submit this article, I’m doing it voluntarily because I believe Isabelle is notable and deserves representation on Wikipedia based on extensive third-party coverage and her work in a field that is being underrepresented, which is the African continent. Despite my dyslexia I read through a lot of your guidelines and mission statements which often highlight your commitment to inclusion and a wide range of coverage. I also noticed that a lot of Articles about African issues and people on here include false information - I have already edited some of them. All this to say is that despite this causing me some pain due to my disability, I am genuinly doing this with the best of intentions to not only highlight Isabelle but also the work that you do by making it as inclusive and diverse as the people you serve. RileyRoseKennedy (talk) 13:20, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The picture was taken by Noack and I am not "insiting" I am stating facts. Not sure why such violent language needs to be used in a space where we are all trying to do good. She took the pictures and said anyone attending the event can use them. Before the event every guest agreed that their pictures can also be taken and used. They all gave their verbal agreement. So not sure how having the rights to pictures makes you imply that I am lying. I have rights to lots of pictures - i.e. copyright free ones online - where I dont know the subject. Happy Sunday and said with kindness and positivity. RileyRoseKennedy (talk) 13:35, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You just said a moment ago, two paragraphs up, that "I meant the picture was taken BY me and is OF IN.". Now you're saying "The picture was taken by Noack". Which is it? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:43, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as "copyright free images online". The copyright is either explicitly given, given and released, or not given, and if it is not given, you must assume that it is copyrighted and unusable.
I think you are trying to say that you took a screen capture from the video; but this is like taking a picture of the Mona Lisa and saying that image of the Mona Lisa is your own personal work. That you took the image from the video does not remove the original copyright. If you did not film the video as you are saying, you must immediately without delay request deletion of the image from Commons. 331dot (talk) 14:47, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your Ref List is all plain-text. It would be useful to have URLs within them if applicable. qcne (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The draft has been reviewed and declined. Submitting it for review is the way to request a review (and you have received extremely early reviews both times you submitted), but you should not do that without first addressing the reasons it was declined. --bonadea contributions talk 13:53, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again,

I just wanted to respectfully clarify that I'm not being paid to submit this article. I submitted independently and wasn’t aware I needed to disclose anything, I apologize. I also want to share that I’m neurodivergent and may have misunderstood some things. The person I’m writing about has been featured prominently in Deutsche Welle, Face2Face Africa, and other global and African outlets. I hope those sources weren’t dismissed simply because they’re African. That would be deeply disappointing especially as I read about Wikipedias global inclusivity goals. I also added many news articles of her that were voiced and written by the subject herself. I would really appreciate help strengthening the article in a fair, inclusive way and for you to reconsider your decision please. Again I'm not affiliated with the subject and I am contributing completely voluntarily because I think she would be a great member of your encylopedia. I also experience dyslexia and appreciate clear guidance.

Thank you again for everything and sorry for any inconvience I may have caused and have a lovely day R. RileyRoseKennedy (talk) 20:06, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews with her do not establish notability, as by definition an interview is the person speaking about themselves, which is not an independent source. Things she wrote herself also are not independent. Much of the draft has no sources at all; every substantive fact about a living person needs a source per the Biographies of Living Persons policy. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RileyRoseKennedy Please stop using AI in the draft and here, it is not remotely helpful, we want to hear from you NOT a robot. Theroadislong (talk) 09:34, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not using AI, I am literally typing directly in the box. RileyRoseKennedy (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:46, 28 June 2025 review of submission by TheBlessed1

[edit]

I've refined the article tone and added inline citations for all major claims using feature articles from Pulse, Guardian Nigeria, Punch, Bellanaija and other news outlets. Would appreciate review and guidance on notability. Thanks you! TheBlessed1 (talk) 13:46, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TheBlessed1. You used an AI chatbot to create this draft. How do I know this? Because the AI chatbot included a broken code at the top of the draft which we have been seeing in AI-generated drafts for months.
Do not use AI to create your draft. You will have to completely re-write it and verify everything you have written is accurate. qcne (talk) 13:49, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is true. Thank you very much. I will do just that, I apologize 102.89.34.99 (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:53, 28 June 2025 review of submission by RileyRoseKennedy

[edit]

Thank you for your help - Quick question re: draft Hi there,

I'm a newer contributor and learning as I go - thank you for the time and care you put into reviewing drafts, especially from people like me who are still figuring it all out. I really respect the work that goes into maintaining Wikipedia’s standards.

This is a topic close to my heart, not only because I’m personally connected, but because I believe this article can be meaningful for others - especially younger, underrepresented voices in journalism and media. I’ve done my best to carefully follow the referencing guidelines, incorporate reliable sources, and format things correctly, but I absolutely welcome further feedback.

If there’s anything else I should fix before it’s considered again, I’d really appreciate your thoughts. Thanks again for your time and for all that you do to keep Wikipedia strong and fair.

Warmly, Riley Rose Kennedy (the user, not the subject 😊) RileyRoseKennedy (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RileyRoseKennedy I answered your question above, please do not create duplicate questions. You say here you are "Personally connected". You therefore have a conflict of interest. It is mandatory you declare this by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. qcne (talk) 13:56, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RileyRoseKennedy: please don't remove earlier decline templates and messages from the draft, they need to remain there until the draft is accepted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:12, 28 June 2025 review of submission by Rabinarayan Sarang Panigrahi

[edit]

what is the issue Rabinarayan Sarang Panigrahi (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rabinarayan Sarang Panigrahi Wikipedia is not a social media platform. Please go to LinkedIn or Facebook if you want to tell the world about yourself. qcne (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i want to Tell the things about veer savarkar what tell to people 103.147.175.72 (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can not do this on Wikipedia. Go to a social media site instead. qcne (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Veer Savarkar

[edit]

Header inserted by ColinFine (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i want to write on Veer Savarkar 103.147.175.72 (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have an article Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. You are welcome to make improvements to that. ColinFine (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:27, 28 June 2025 review of submission by IreneNesser101

[edit]

Hello, Would you be able to tell me where exactly the submission does not work? I used AI to search for references but most of the text was corrected by me. Thank you in advance 

IreneNesser101 (talk) 14:27, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@IreneNesser101 Do not use AI for references. It hallucinates fake references. We see this daily. It looks like we already have an article on this person at Lutz_Huelle. Therefore a draft is not required. Feel free to edit the existing article but do not use an AI for any of the research. Do not abdicate your skills to a bad robot please. qcne (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your quick reply. I checked every reference one by one and they are all from official/ known sources, and most of them I had seen in the past while looking at Lutz' work. I didn't realize there was already a page, I've been looking on and off for years to see if there was one. This page doesn't seem to be accepted on Wiki either. Maybe the guy is not notable enough for Wiki, in this case I won't waste my time. I've never dared to, edit anything on wiki as it has always seemed very complicated to me.. I don't really know what other refernces to use. Thanks for your help anyway. IreneNesser101 (talk) 15:02, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@IreneNesser101 The Lutz Huelle article exists and is published on Wikipedia. I'm not sure why you think it hasn't been accepted. Please do edit it if you have improvements. qcne (talk) 15:19, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok thanks, last time I checked there was nothing. i'll add to this one. Thanks for your help. IreneNesser101 (talk) 15:23, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Happy editing :) qcne (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thank you :) IreneNesser101 (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:49, 28 June 2025 review of submission by Dogauzumcuoglu

[edit]

My article is rejected and cannot be resubmitted. Can I learn the reason? Dogauzumcuoglu (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dogauzumcuoglu: the reason is given in the rejection notice, namely that there is insufficient evidence the subject is notable enough to justify an article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:19, 28 June 2025 review of submission by Auth45Now

[edit]

Can the reviewer or another one substantiate the review's claim with concrete points beyond "This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia."?

This page can be substantiated by the following:

- This individual meets Wikipedia's "Notability" standards located here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability

- There is an extensive list of sources for the article supporting the aforementioned notability including a major newspaper (mainstream news media) "The Toronto Star", York University (Canada's Third Largest University) recognizing this individual's contributions to Canadian academia, non-profits & education as well as a Vice Chancellor award from the University of the West Indies.

- This individual was also recognized by the city of Toronto with the Bob Marley Humanitarian Award supporting their philanthropic work, the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal by the government of Canada, the King Charles III Coronation Medal and many additional awards and honours listed and referenced in the article.

Here is a link to a page of another Canadian financial services executive for reference where one can argue that this page has less sources then this one submitted above and less notability as well as no scrutiny. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_I._McKay Auth45Now (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is blatantly promotional so fails WP:PROMO and as such is appropriately rejected so will not be considered further. S0091 (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the broad reference by linking WP:Promo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion)
What are you specifically referencing within this link? Auth45Now (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I was reviewing this article for comparison:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_I._McKay
There are no objections presently to this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_I._McKay, for this Canadian Executive who has arguably less notability, less references in the article and less national, provincial and municipal recognition for their achievements. Auth45Now (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Auth45Now Please don't compare to existing articles - we have many millions of articles and tens of thousands of them are terrible but no volunteer has gotten around to deleting/improving them yet. We judge each draft on it's own merits.
Your draft has now been deleted, but I agree it was broadly promotional in tone, little more than Wikipedia:Spam. qcne (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So @Qcne... are you saying that I need to change the language of what was written (the language used is the issue you have) or are you saying that this individual does not meet the criteria for Notability? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notability.
In short, are you asserting an issue with my writing or with the subject of the article? Auth45Now (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I unfortunately didn't look at the sources before it was deleted, so was unable to assess if the person meets our notability criteria. But the general prose and tone throughout was overly puffy, promotional. It might be useful to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. qcne (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:31, 28 June 2025 review of submission by Auth45Now

[edit]

The article "Mark Beckles" was declined with the following comment: This is a highly promotional and highly unencyclopedic puff piece. Drmies (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

This comment and the corresponding decision connected with it is not supported with any facts.

The article is on a living person who meets the criteria for notability listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notability_in_the_English_Wikipedia

It contains verifiable facts supporting the individual's Notability including recognitions from the federal government of Canada (Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal), the city of Toronto (Bob Marley Humanitarian Award), King Charles III Coronation Medal, York University (Canada's 3rd largest university), leading the Royal Bank of Canada's largest ever commitment of $500 million (the largest ever in over 150 years) to support Youth in Canada.

He has also been featured in major news publication including the Toronto Star newspaper. Auth45Now (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Auth45Now You have already asked this above - do not create duplicate questions. qcne (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies @Qcne ... I am still getting used to this chat feed Auth45Now (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:00, 28 June 2025 review of submission by Shah198

[edit]

Hi, I saw your review on my draft of Manya Singh’s article. I’ve added more sources from Hindustan Times, TOI, and others. Could you help me understand what still needs to be fixed? Shah198 (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Shah198 stop using ChatGPT or some other chatbot as it is clear you are doing so. Also see WP:CITEKILL. Only one or may two sources are needed to support a fact so use the best one and tabloid gossip are poor sources. S0091 (talk) 21:08, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you I understand now that I used too many sources and some weren’t strong enough. I will keep only the best ones and make sure everything is clearly written in a neutral way. I will also avoid using any ChatGPT and I will rewrite it properly, following Wikipedia rules. Thank You, Sir.. Shah198 (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 29

[edit]

05:15, 29 June 2025 review of submission by 220.72.67.173

[edit]

information file 220.72.67.173 (talk) 05:15, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a question.
This draft has been rejected, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:12, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:58, 29 June 2025 review of submission by Ankitsahay27

[edit]

Dear Team, I am new user in Wiki pedia as an contributor and find this tool wonderful to add the information about any topic or person. Recently i have drafted the article for my friend - shashi ranjan singh who has written lots of songs and all are available in youtube by different channel media. Please advise me what need to be added more. please help me with one reference as i am new user and wanted to contribute. Ankitsahay27 (talk) 07:58, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ankitsahay27: your draft is completely unreferenced. Wikipedia articles should be written by summarising what reliable and independent sources have previously published, then citing those sources against the information they have provided. This is a core requirement for all articles, and especially important in the case of an article on a living person.
Another core requirement is that the subject must be notable enough to warrant an article in the first place. Notability is evidenced through sources, therefore your draft fails on that basis also.
You should take a look at WP:GOLDENRULE which explains succinctly the process of source-based article creation. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:10, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article Help! Oliver Hughes

[edit]

Hi friends, I have created the article for Oliver Hughes: Draft:Oliver Charles Hughes

It was initially declined for lack of notability, which I fully understand - however, Oliver Hughes was recently appointed chairman of the board for TBC Digital, which was followed by media coverage including on Bloomberg [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-06-25/tinkoff-alumnus-hughes-to-chair-tbc-s-uzbek-unit-amid-expansion] and BNE Intellinews [https://www.intellinews.com/tbc-uzbekistan-boss-hughes-building-a-central-asian-digital-only-banking-giant-with-retail-sme-lending-and-ai-services-386465/]. TBC Bank Group has a Wikipedia article dedicated to it, as it is a large baking ecosystem in Georgia and Uzbekistan, and Oliver Hughes is an executive for the company, often mentioned and quoted in media. The most recent coverage proves he is of note - I have read the guides and would not have submitted the article had I thought he wasn't. I acknowledge that I am employed by TBC and understand that other editors are reluctant to approve articles by COI editors, however, I believe this request is just and should at least be fairly considered. I appreciate your help! RitaTBC (talk) 09:31, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RitaTBC: Your argument boils down to notability-by-osmosis, which we do not consider a valid argument for eligibility. Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
You have very little that's actually about Hughes; most of it is either from his own lips or passing mentions. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:35, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:39, 29 June 2025 review of submission by Seth.Almonte

[edit]

i need to learn to post and contribute Seth.Almonte (talk) 09:39, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for people to write about themselves, please see WP:AUTO. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:41, 29 June 2025 review of submission by Rasel26

[edit]

Hello, I have create a articles for clothing brand but it not active yet, but here not shoiwng any issue,could you please describe what is the issue ,and where we need to fix it

Thank you Rasel26 (talk) 09:41, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See below thread; please post further comments there, do not create a new thread. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for review: Draft:World Traditional Taekwondo Federation (GTTF)

[edit]

Hello, I have created a draft article about the Global Traditional Taekwondo Federation. I would appreciate it if someone could take a look and review it for potential publication. Link: Draft:World Traditional Taekwondo Federation (GTTF) Thank you! Fahd Marei (talk) 09:43, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft lacked the information needed to submit it- I have added it, but if you were to submit it now, it would be quickly declined and possibly rejected, it is pure advertising. If you work for this company, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID and WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:45, 29 June 2025 review of submission by Rasel26

[edit]

Published content why showing this issue on "Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time"

please let us know how we can fix it

Thank yo u Rasel26 (talk) 09:45, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rasel26 You linked to a nonexistent page called "published content"; that's where the title of the draft should go, I fixed this.
I see that you declared you are a paid editor; the company logo indicates that you personally created it and personally own the copyright to it, is that the case?
Wikipedia is not a place for a company to tell about itself, its offerings, and what it considers to be its own history. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company showing how it is a notable company as Wikipedia defines one. We want to know what others say about the company, not what it says about itself. Coverage must be in depth, going beyond the mere reporting of its activities. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:59, 29 June 2025 review of submission by Hyggemule

[edit]

Could someone please help with the editing of this draft of artist and photographer Matthew Swarts (USA).

Why is this draft stalled? Within the photography and visual arts subject areas, this subject clearly meets notoriety requirements (from the Museum of Fine Arts to the Library of Congress to the George Eastman Museum, etcetera etcetera). Also, all citations are up to date and from primary sources where the subject matter is the main point of discussion. This closure seems incorrect and when seen alongside other articles that have already been created, it seems biased and wrong.

I write to reinstate the draft.

Please reinstate the draft for editing and submission. Thank you. Hyggemule (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hyggemule. The majority of your sources do not work? We cannot accept drafts where the sources are all broken. Did you use AI to write this draft? AI may have hallucinated plausible but fake sources. qcne (talk) 12:06, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many kind thanks! The citation bot did that somehow. All links should be correct now. Many kind thanks! Hyggemule (talk) 12:29, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can re-submit it for review. qcne (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So many thanks! :) 130.44.160.143 (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:02, 29 June 2025 review of submission by Brassyg

[edit]

it is a valid one Brassyg (talk) 13:02, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Brassyg See Wikipedia:Notability (music). qcne (talk) 13:03, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:42, 29 June 2025 review of submission by Aliu Salau

[edit]

I am requesting for an assistance for anyone out there to kindly look into this article. I did all I could, and I could improve the article even more, but the reviewer stopped the article from going through. Despite the fact that i included several notable references, I am passionate about my country, and I want to try my best to make sure I contribute to putting every notable Nigerian on Wikipedia. Aliu Salau (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Aliu Salau, as it has been rejected you'll need to reach out to @SafariScribe directly to ask for a re-review if the draft has substantially changed since the rejection or if you think they have made an error. qcne (talk) 14:47, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:39, 29 June 2025 review of submission by Quantumcreeper

[edit]

I've provided some sources for its existence, but i aknowledge its TOO SOON to be published in wikipedia. just asking what's my mistake sir. Quantumcreeper (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Quantumcreeper. If it's too soon, then it can't have an article yet. I would recommend trying again in a few months when there are a few more stronger sources? qcne (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:00, 29 June 2025 review of submission by Faysolnihal18

[edit]

Articles related to my complete biography. Faysolnihal18 (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Faysolnihal18. Please very carefully read Wikipedia:Autobiography. qcne (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Faysolnihal18. We always want new editors here on Wikipedia, but the encyclopaedia isn't a place to promote yourself or your project. If there's enough independent coverage about what you're doing, it might indeed be appropriate for there to be an article about you, but it would need to be written neutrally rather than promotionally, not include external links to your work, and be written by someone with no connection to you. That last point is crucial; no one should be making an article about themselves. Please read WP:COI, WP:AUTOBIO. Annh07 (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:59, 29 June 2025 review of submission by Xurshidjon Olimov

[edit]

Komil Jabborov 1960 yil 23 oktabrda Qashqadaryo viloyati Yakkabog' tumani hozirgi Yuqori yakkabog' qishlog'ida dunyoga kelgan va shu qishloqdagi o'rta ta'lim maktabini tamomlagan . Maktabni tamomlab harbiy hizmatga otlangan va undan so'ng Ukrainaning ,,Luvov"shaxridagi harbiy jurnlistlarni tayyorlovchi univerga o'qishga kiradi .O'qishda boshqalarga o'rnak bo'la oladigan Komil Jabborov har sohada kursdoshlaridan o'tib ketadi va hozirgacha aynan shu universitetni tamomlagan uzbekistondagi yagona harbiy jurnalist hisoblanadi .O'qishdan so'ng bir nechta mamlakatlarda harbiy jurnalist bo'lib ishladi .Bularga 19982-1988 yilgacha Azarbayjonning Naxichevan shaxridagi ,, deviza gazetasi muhbir lavozimida ,1988-1991 yillarda Gruziya Respublikasi Tbilisi shaxrining "Kavkaz orti" gazeta muhbiri , 1991-1992 yillarda "Turkiston harbiy okrugi " muhbiri lavozimida ishlagan va " Vatanparvar " gazetasi bosh muharriri o'rinbosari , bo'lim boshlig'i lavozimida ishlagan hozirda esa "Turon" MFY raisi lovozimida ishlamoqda . Komil Jabborov o'z faolyatida 150 dan ortiq maqola chiqarib ularni asosan ikki tilda uzbek va rus tillarida chiqargan Komil Jabborov ikki tilda mahorat bilan maqola yoza oladigan kam sonli jurnlaistlardan hisoblanadi . K. Jabborov faoliyati 5 dan ziyod tahlikali joylarda bo'lgan uzbekning qahramon harbiy jurnalisti Xurshidjon Olimov (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Xurshidjon Olimov This is the English Wikipedia. Please communicate in English. qcne (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1297969332"