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 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]
Hello, @Ankitsahay27.
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) 22:02, 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]
Thank you so much, this is very helpful. If I am able to provide archived versions of the paywalled articles, would that be helpful in determining the pieces' "worth" in terms of notability? Thanks again! RitaTBC (talk) 06:56, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"I can't assess this" means no more and no less that I can't assess the source. Nothing stops someone else who does have access to, and can comprehend, the source from assessing it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:54, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Archived versions of paywalled pieces, for anyone's reference: https://archive.is/9jRbm (Bloomberg), https://archive.is/oRCvy (FT). Would appreciate more feedback from other editors - thank you in advance. RitaTBC (talk) 08:26, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for the record, the sources that don't have a byline are newswires - those do not have a byline as they are distributed by news agencies. News agencies have different styles. Bloomberg is a news agency as is Reuters. They have bylines on longer stories. But lots of news agencies don't use bylines - it's their style. Interfax and AFP don't use bylines. Some other media don't use bylines either - for examples The Economist, even though it's not a news wire. RitaTBC (talk) 08:43, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Bloomberg or FT help for eligibility (too sparse). Bloomberg barely discusses him, and his entire presence in the FT article is direct quotes. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:48, 30 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]
Hello, @Rasel26.
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.
This applies even more strongly to people with a conflict of interest, including paid editors. Having first found reliable independent sources (see WP:42), you will then need to effectively forget everything you know about the subject, and summarise what these independent sources say - even if they say things that your employer would not like at all. ColinFine (talk) 22:06, 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]
Hello, @Hyggemule. Note that interviews with Swarts, and materials published by galleries and foundations he has worked with, are not independent, and will not contribute to establishing notability. 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.
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) 22:10, 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]

19:31, 29 June 2025 review of submission by Esinconis

[edit]

Hello there! I am a participant of Wikipedia's typography group, and as such for the past couple months I have been writing an article about a little known script face called Ondine. Unfortunately there just aren't that many sources going into depth into this font at all, and I'm trying to retrieve all the sources I can possibly find. I'd love to see this article finally get published, could someone please give advice or possibly help out? Thanks so much! Esinconis (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Esinconis, I reviewed this a few days ago. If those are the only sources you can find then this simply doesn't merit an article - most of your sources confer no notability. Did you check for offline sources in newspaper archives, or physical books? As an alternative, you could incorporate the draft text into Adrian_Frutiger as a section under Career. qcne (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Esinconis Also, don't get hung up on topics having their own article. It is quite possible the script could be at least briefly covered in another article and a WP:redirect created so anyone searching for it would be directed there. S0091 (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:33, 29 June 2025 review of submission by Daakh

[edit]

I've created an article for the band Artio which has now been rejected twice.

My first draft was admittedly poor. My second I felt was better and thought it should meet the notability requirements of item 1 in WP:NMUSICIAN as Artio "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works ..." Such as Rocksound Magazine, Kerrang! but again it was rejected.

Following this second rejection I have added Artio's radio appearances on BBC as well details of the live broadcast session on BBC introducing. Hopefully this reinforces point 1 of the notability requirements and also contributes towards items 11 and 12 which talk about radio play and broadcast segments

I think that the article is now ready for resubmission but would welcome feedback as I don't want to waste everyone's time - Many thanks Dave Daakh (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Daakh. Resubmitting is the way to get feedback. ColinFine (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daakh Note that 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, and doing so is the way to get feedback. We don't do pre-review reviews. 331dot (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot. @ColinFine many thanks for your replies - I'll resubmit Daakh (talk) 06:39, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:42, 29 June 2025 review of submission by Ashleyashville

[edit]

Greetings,

I acknowledge the reasoning behind the rejection of the Matthew Lani draft specifically that, without the one major event he is associated with, he would be considered a low-profile figure. While I understand this perspective, I believe the rejection may be somewhat harsh given the nature and scale of that singular event.

The key point is that Matthew Lani is notable precisely because of that widely publicized incident, which received extensive national and international media coverage, sparking ongoing discussions within South African society about identity, public trust, and institutional accountability. The case remains culturally and socially relevant.

There are existing articles in mainspace such as Thabo Bester that are also rooted in a single, high-profile event, yet their notability has not been questioned solely on that basis. I believe the same standard should be fairly applied in this case.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Ashleyashville (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashleyashville WIkipedia have many tens of thousands of bad articles, and relatively few people patrolling them. we will run it if them eventually. No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:14, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thank you 197.185.151.33 (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 30

[edit]

06:26, 30 June 2025 review of submission by Soho501

[edit]

Hi, I would like to get some guidance of why the article was rejected. In particular it would be great if you could let me know what references don't fulfill with the criteria stated. I have used some self-referneces to elaborate in the projects from the Lab but other references, in particular the main references describing the project in my view fulfill the criteria. Many thx. Soho501 (talk) 06:26, 30 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.
You have described the project, but not said what sources claim make it a notable organization. You've just described its purpose. We don't usually include "mission" statements in an article as those are just what the organization sees as its own purpose, and that can change at any time. 331dot (talk) 08:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see, I have followed examples of similar organizations hosted in the United Nations Office in Geneva (i.e)
United Nations Institute for Training and Research
United Nations Research Institute for Social Development
Those don't have the type of references you are requesting but use most of the time self referencing links. I am just trying to understand how is this different in the case of the Beyond Lab. Soho501 (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Soho501 We don't compare drafts against existing articles. Unfortunately Wikipedia has many tens of thousands of bad quality articles which no volunteer has gotten around to improving yet. We therefore judge each article on it's own merits against the current notability criteria. qcne (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your position but I still need more guidance to make this article meet your standards. The reference I have used in the description part are : The official website from the Untied Nations at Geneva and The official Website from the Canton of Geneva. Are those then not considered relevant sources for you? Can you give me then examples of what a relevant soruce could be? Many thx! Soho501 (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Soho501 We need secondary sources. This means sources that are not linked to The Beyond Lab. So, we're looking for perhaps critical reviews or discussions in mainstream newspapers or magazines? qcne (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne I see.. Mainstream newspapers or magazines.. let me see what can I find... thx! Soho501 (talk) 15:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources can also be offline (like hard copy books or newspapers) and also in a different language other than English :) We just require that the sources are published and reliable - so not a random blog or social media. qcne (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:32, 30 June 2025 review of submission by CarstenBoehme

[edit]

Hi, I wonder what is missing for this contribution? Maybe someone can help. You can find the references for the academic research publish from als well as the media coverage about Pawel Skrzypek. Pawel is leading the AI space in regard to "investing". There is no other platform in Europe (and maybe the US) as advanced as the one built by Pawel. Best, Carsten CarstenBoehme (talk) 08:32, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You disclosed a conflict of interest on the draft itself(you should on your user page as well), and on your user page you say you are a consultant. If Skrzypek is your client, the Terms of Use require that to be disclosed, see WP:PAID. This does not require specific instructions to edit.
Awards are meaningless towards establishing notability unless the award itself merits an article(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). You have essentially posted his resume, not a summary of what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about Skrzypek and what makes him a notable person as they see it. 331dot (talk) 08:49, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Skrzypek is not my client. I'm Senior Advisor (for strategy development) to the Omphalos Fund - which I disclosed because I care about this kind of conflict of interest and transparency. The Hedge Fund Journal as a reliable source has chosen him as 1 of the 50 rising stars in the Hedge Fund business in 2024. This seems for me a strong say/ statement to find a contribution about him on Wiki - especially in combination with his academic work. Where am I wrong? Really don't get it and need some help. CarstenBoehme (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @CarstenBoehme.
Your drafts reads as what he wants people to know about him.
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I See the point and will review it later. On a personal note: if I just read contributions on Wiki from people not familiar with a topic or a person, I wonder how I can count on the knowledge? This is tricky, especially for more recent stories in the area of innovation, technology and research. CarstenBoehme (talk) 14:16, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Editing about a topic does not require familiarity with the topic, as the main purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize what published independent reliable sources choose to say about a topic. If you see information that is not sourced, or is poorly sourced, that should be discussed on the article talk page. You may also remove it yourself. This is especially the case if the article is about a living person. 331dot (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:03, 30 June 2025 review of submission by 93.176.178.217

[edit]

Can someone help me get the approval? 93.176.178.217 (talk) 09:03, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. If you can fundamentally change the draft to address the concerns given by previous reviewers, the first step is to appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 09:08, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:55, 30 June 2025 review of submission by MMEscuredo

[edit]

Submission declined on 1 June 2025 by SafariScribe with the following reason: This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs to meet any of the eight academic-specific criteria or cite multiple reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject, which cover the subject in some depth. However, Alicia Troncoso meets two of the eight academic-specific criteria: Alicia Troncoso received National Award of Computer Science in 2024 (criterion 2), She is President of Spanish Association of Artificial Intelligence (criterion 6), she was vicerrector for IT at the Pablo de Olavide University from 2009 to 2020 (criterion 6) MMEscuredo (talk) 09:55, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MMEscuredo The whole url is not needed when linking, and when used in the header on this page it breaks the formatting that provides a link, I fixed this for you.
Awards only contribute to notability if the award itself merits an article(like Nobel Peace Prize or Grammy Award). I can find no article about "National Award of Computer Science". She may meet the other criteria, but you need to do more than just describe her work; you need to summarize what others say is important about her or her work.
If you are associated with her, that must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 10:01, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:09, 30 June 2025 review of submission by Johnny Prey

[edit]

Request edit Select VoiceCom Hello! I would like to ask for some help or feel free to edit my draft article for it to be accepted to the main space. Thank you so much! Johnny Prey (talk) 10:09, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Prey You provided as the title of your draft "request edit". I fixed this for you. The whole url is not needed when linking.
Your draft was in the article space, but I have moved it to draft space so you can submit it for a review when ready. We don't do co-editing here at this Help Desk. You need to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about Select VoiceCom, showing how it is a notable company- not describe the offerings of the company and its activities.
If you are associated with this company, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID and WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 10:13, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:58, 30 June 2025 review of submission by Iotorrent

[edit]

Please help make the article more neutral and formal. I don't have much experience in creating articles. YouHaveDownloaded was widely covered on the Internet in 2011 and was very interesting. Iotorrent (talk) 10:58, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't really do co-editing here at this help desk. The main issue with the draft is that it seems like.an AI/LLM was used to write it. Please see the message left by the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 11:07, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Iotorrent.
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) 14:09, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. However, I have been using Wikipedia as a reader for over 10 years. Iotorrent (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:02, 30 June 2025 review of submission by Kalingad

[edit]

I understand that the submission was declined due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. I would like to clarify that the person in question is a highly experienced and long-active voice artist in India, with notable work across many Indian-language Disney dubs and many major productions like BMW, Starr Sports, Lenovo, he has been voicing projects since early 2000s. However, voice artists in India often receive little to no media attention, which creates a structural challenge in demonstrating notability through traditional media coverage.

There is a broader gap in Indian media when it comes to documenting voice artists (as opposed to on-screen actors), despite their essential contribution to the entertainment industry. This is exactly why I am attempting to create a Wikipedia article not to promote the individual, but to ensure such contributions are preserved and accessible in public knowledge archives.

I am also referring to other Voice Actors in India and how their pages were made

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chetan_Shashital

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinod_Kulkarni

These and many others have worked with the person I am making page of

If additional specific types of sources or coverage are required (e.g., trade magazine interviews, festival panel appearances, awards covered in press), I am actively trying to track those down and will include them in future updates.

I appreciate your time and guidance and am open to any further suggestions on improving the draft to align with Wikipedia’s content standards. Kalingad (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of people who are essential to parts of society, many in far more crucial areas than entertainment, that are not notable by Wikipedia's definition. We follow the sources, and if the independent sources aren't there, then neither are we. If you wish to preserve information about people in the industry who are not yet notable, that is certainly a laudable goal, but it's not necessarily Wikipedia's purpose, and you and like-minded individuals should start your own online resource with this information. It can even be designed similarly to Wikipedia; see Fandom or a host of other independent sites using wiki or wiki-similar software. (I have no opinion on whether this particular person is notable or not, but I'm responding to the general thrust of your argument). CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kalingad: The articles on Shashital and Kulkarni both predate 2018, when WP:ACPERM was enacted. Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
You have pretty much nothing to work with beyond the award. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:39, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:26, 30 June 2025 review of submission by Smoreau12345

[edit]

Hello. I recently sent this article for review, and it was rejected partially due to it "reading like an advertisement." I was wondering how I can make this page sound less like an advertisement, as there is no true promotional material inside. The FTA is a non-profit organization, and all of the information in the article is factual. There is no product listed on the page either. What advice would you give to make it sound less promotional, since it is a non-profit, and promotion of the organization was not the goal of the article. Smoreau12345 (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It just tells what the organization wants people to know about it- not what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it is a notable organization. It reads like content on its own website, not a neutral encyclopedia article. 331dot (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Promotion doesn't necessarily have to involve profit. Promotion for a cause can be just as against Wikipedia's purpose as promotion for money. There's a lot of non-neutral language here, scattered throughout the entire article, and most of the content appears to be what the Flexographic Technical Association wishes to say about itself rather than what third-party, reliable, independent observers have said about this organization. Phrases like This conference/exhibition is for flexographers who are interested in enhancing professional skills and connecting with industry leaders and similar come off as what the FTA wants to say, not what independent parties say. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to pursue this article, I'd start from scratch. Start with only independent sources, and then write an article based solely on those sources. As it is, I think there's far too much WP:PRIMARY involved to make the current version of this article salvageable. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:38, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:33, 30 June 2025 review of submission by Hyggemule

[edit]

The commentator for the above draft (who declined this version) does not appear to have read the draft and followed its references. "Nearly all citations are about one specific work (the subject artistically photoshopping their ex out of images), which would likely make this bio fail WP:BLP1E. Other sources, such as the archived New York Times article that included a photo he took, succeed at verifying the claim that his work has been included in this outlet or that outlet, but that's not the same as coverage of him by those outlets and so it doesn't help further the subject's notability. Vanilla Wizard 💙 18:57, 29 June 2025 (UTC)" This is untrue and an incomplete reading of the both the draft and the subject.

The citations range from early graduate work published in the New York Times Magazine and included in the permanent collections of the Library of Congress and the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, to more contemporary references including a major survey of digital photographic object makers at the George Eastman Museum. Further: the references are actually discussing work from a variety of projects reviewed and commented about over a period of thirty years from reliable, secondary sources, including recent survey articles that are explicitly about the subject of the article and not just one of his creations.

The subject of this article is prolific and the article understated. There are over one hundred and forty projects on his website, which includes links to his international exhibition record and other notable achievements (his academic career, his inclusion in many permanent collections of fine art photography, and his publication across a wide variety of social documentary and purely visual arts media sources).

I disagree strongly that this bio fails WP:BLP1E and seek help on how to get this draft a fair reading. There are many other references within his official website (see information, CV, about) that make notoriety across a range of sources. Please help. Hyggemule (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Hyggemule. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else.
Sources from galleries and museums that he has worked with are not independent, and do not contribute.
Sources that discuss his works, even in depth, but say little about him, do not contribute. (It is even possible that some of his individual works are notable in Wikipedia's sense, without him being).
Which three sources meet all the criteria in WP:42? ColinFine (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many kind thanks for this thoughtful reply. All of the sources (and several not cited) are features about this artist in particular and not just passing mentions. The citation of the gallery information is to certify that what is stated in the text is in fact true. As for the sources cited, they are independent and reliable. Please tell me how they are not. They are in publications noted in this artist's area of expertise (fine art photography). Why is the Library of Congress not considered an independent and reliable source? Hyggemule (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:47, 30 June 2025 review of submission by JimmyHartill

[edit]

Hi,

I'm not certain which sources aren't considered acceptable - I know the initial two are the businesses website so not secondary and the BBC point is contained within the video which may disqualify it, but the others are all coverage about the businesses activity from secondary news sites? I'll try and find some more prominent news sites if that's a step in the right direction but I'd just want to be clear which failed the bar where so I can steer my efforts better :)

Also thanks for the rapid feedback! JimmyHartill (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @JimmyHartill.
"A wide range of products in the garden structure space" is marketing speak for "garden buildings", which is already there in the previous sentence. "Maintaining vertical integration across design, production and delivery" is marketing speak meaning almost nothing (after all, no other company does that, do they?). "Remains a family-run business", with that positive-vibe "remains", is highly promotional.
Basically, you have made the common mistake that most new editors make when they try the challenging task of creating an article about a company before spending time learning how Wikipedia works - and particularly editors with a WP:COI - they write what the company wants people to know.
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
What makes writing with a COI so difficult (and thank you for declaring your status, by the way), is that, having found the requisite independent reliable sources, you need to effectively forget everything you know about the company, and write a summary of what those independent sources say - even if you dislike what they say, or think they're wrong.
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) 15:25, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Colin, I take the advice and will have a think about how to approach this.
I DID probably fall into the marketing speak trap given I work in marketing. I'll see if I can work on my neutrality with some more practice, as an additional would getting somebody unrelated to the business try and create a draft solely from outside sources be a reasonable measure as well? It seems like a good way to ensure I keep it unmarketing and I can still submit as an edit.
Also, if possible, am I missing anything obviously incorrect with the sources? JimmyHartill (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:27, 30 June 2025 review of submission by 2600:4040:A8BF:1C00:1409:1431:B58E:D31F

[edit]

Hi, I just want to make sure the issue is needing better secondary sources for this article. Or does it also need to be more in depth? 2600:4040:A8BF:1C00:1409:1431:B58E:D31F (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user. Please read my reply to Jimmy Hartill in the section immediately above: most of my comments apply equally to you and your draft. ColinFine (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:10, 30 June 2025 review of submission by Smoreau12345

[edit]

I recently resubmitted this article for review. I utilized the information that two editors provided me on this Help Desk page to remove the "promotional" material and non-neutral language from my draft. The language in this draft is entirely neutral. All of the sources in this version of the draft are from independent, and reliable sources (well-established industry magazines). I have been told that this draft reads like an "advertisement," and I do not understand how that is true given all the changes that have been made. Smoreau12345 (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I submitted the article at 16:00. The editor declined it at 16:01, which seems like a very small amount of time (1 minute) to read the entire article thoroughly. Smoreau12345 (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Smoreau12345. Your draft immediately reads like an advertisement, because it appears to be saying what the association wishes people to know about itself.
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 16:27, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I am not an associate of the organization. All of the sources used in the article are independent third-party sources, with no information coming from the organization itself. All of the magazine articles are reliable industry magazines. Smoreau12345 (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Smoreau12345: even if there isn't promotional wording in the draft, it can still be promotional. This draft is basically a corporate presentation, which tells the world about the association and what it does. That is pretty much the definition of promotion; see WP:YESPROMO. Instead, what we want to see is what independent third parties, especially secondary sources, have said about this association and what in their view makes it worthy of note. That would also go a long way towards establishing this subject's notability, which is a core requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia (and would have been my preferred reason for declining this). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Does your paid editing COI on behalf of Techkon USA relate to this subject? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My COI with Techkon has no relation to this subject. Smoreau12345 (talk) 16:40, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:41, 30 June 2025 review of submission by FurretSuperFan

[edit]

Hi, I'm a little confused right now. The last time I submitted the article they said sourcing was a problem but that Mitchie M was notable enough to have an article but now they said he isn't? He has two albums released under a major album and both albums placed in the top 20 in Billboard Japan and the Oricon charts. I also need a little help identifying which sources are deemed unreliable because I thought I had removed all of them. FurretSuperFan (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FurretSuperFan not exactly. A reviewer stated "arguably notable enough" which is not the same is stating they are notable and they requested "substantial, independent and reliable sources" to demonstrate notability because the sources were "poor". You made updates but it appears the updates did not fix those issues thus the subsequent decline which also pointed out is has a promotional tone. Please note what someone says about themselves or what those associated with them say are not useful. S0091 (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made sure to remove the sources from his blogs and stuff, does that also mean I should remove the informatiom he stated in the interviews? I feel like some of that stuff should stay (unless it's deemed unnecessary information), as he talks about how he got introduced into vocaloid, how he uses the vocaloids, and majority of his past. FurretSuperFan (talk) 22:38, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the sources stating which labels the albums were released on and where they charted were taken from the Warner Japan, Sony Japan, Oricon, and Billboard sites. Do I need a different site to cite them from? FurretSuperFan (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:19, 30 June 2025 review of submission by Googlealt

[edit]

bruh Googlealt (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Googlealt
You appear to have a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is.
A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish in reliable publications, and very little else.
Unlessx you start by looking for and finding several published sources about your chosen subject, each of which meets all the criteria in WP:42, you are probably wasting your time trying to write about it.
Please read WP:YFA. ColinFine (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:22, 30 June 2025 review of submission by Googlealt

[edit]

Bruh Again Googlealt (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Googlealt: We're not interested in your novel ideas. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:46, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:56, 30 June 2025 review of submission by Cheyhart

[edit]

Thank you for working with me to improve this article. Could you point me to the section that requires further improvement? I'll do my best to meet the requirements for a significant contribution. Cheyhart (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cheyhart: This reads like a hagiography. Unless it's part of their most commonly recognised name (for example, Mother Teresa) we don't use first names to refer to article subjects, nor do we use titles or honourifics. Portions of the article show up on the copyvio checker still; considering the prior decline was for copyright violations I'd strongly suggest rewriting the article from scratch, in your own words. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:50, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:37, 30 June 2025 review of submission by Lumenb

[edit]

Hey guys! Just got declined for this article again, but I've included References at the bottom and the project is notable as there is already a distributor and spin-offs attached. Unsure what to do at this point. Would appreciate the help, thanks. Lumenb (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lumenb: An OTT series having a distributor and spinoffs is just an average Tuesday. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:57, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Spin-offs meaning a feature film and TV series developed by Viral Nation Lumenb (talk) 23:59, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lumenb: Again, just an average Tuesday. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 00:02, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are shows that used to be digital-first on youtube that were turned into features / TV / streaming services like Netflix. Is there a certain threshold for views? Can you articulate what makes something notable vs. "just an average Tuesday", given that most everything is digital and traditional broadcast content isn't performing the way it used to. The vague responses isn't very heplful. Lumenb (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Lumenb. Please read again Wikipedia's definition of notability.
It is nothing (directly) about what the subject is, or does, or how popular, famous, important, or influential it may be.
Basically it comes down to, "Has there been enough material reliably published about the subject to base an article on?", remembering that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. . ColinFine (talk) 08:36, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thanks for the info. I reviewed the notability definition from Wikipedia and it seems the series meets the guidelines. There are multiple sources from different authors from legitimate organizations. The news channel sources are independent of the subject. The articles cover the subject extensively. So I'm not understanding what is missing? A previous reviewer suggested that someone who can analyze the Chinese / Korean / Malaysian articles may be a better fit to help. How do I go about getting in touch with them? Thanks. 2001:569:7E9A:E500:9C2D:7C45:834C:EC32 (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 1

[edit]

00:31, 1 July 2025 review of submission by Edito35

[edit]

it is the most notable thing i know why is it declined Edito35 (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Edito35: Why are you citing random, irrelevant sources? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 01:47, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:21, 1 July 2025 review of submission by 末吉将孝

[edit]

Hello,

My draft at User:末吉将孝/sandbox was declined for a lack of reliable sources. I am trying to understand the reason, and I would appreciate your guidance.

This draft is based on an article that is already an approved article on the Japanese Wikipedia, and I used a similar number of references. This has left me confused about the standards here.

My main question is: **Why was this not sufficient for the English Wikipedia?**

  • Is the primary issue that my sources are in Japanese, and I must find **English-language sources**?
  • Or, is it about the **quality** of the Japanese sources themselves? For example, are official websites, press releases, or interviews not considered reliable or independent enough on English Wikipedia, even if they are acceptable on the Japanese Wikipedia?

I truly want to understand the difference in standards so I can improve my draft correctly. Any explanation you could provide would be very helpful.

Thank you. 末吉将孝 (talk) 01:21, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you are presumably a human and not a robot, I would first ask that you rewrite this in your own words instead of AI. As for the Japanese Wikipedia article, different language Wikipedias have different guidelines on notability, and therefore what might be notable there is not here. Sophisticatedevening🍷(talk) 01:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources do not need to be in English, as long as they are reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 08:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:07, 1 July 2025 review of submission by Anmarodi

[edit]

Can you tell me more about your reject, please? Anmarodi (talk) 04:07, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is not clearly "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia". It needs to be translated to English before it can be an English Wikipedia article, but that is a reason to decline it for further improvement, not to reject it. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:19, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Anmarodi: This is the English-language Wikipedia. All articles here must be written in English. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 04:20, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fancy Refrigerator: Please see above. Did you mean to decline rather than reject this draft? If not, please explain why you think this is "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia". jlwoodwa (talk) 02:23, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to reject the draft. Its promotional content and wrong language make it unsuitable for Wikipedia. Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 03:35, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unsuitable in its current state, for sure, but that doesn't mean it can't be improved. Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions § Rejecting submissions says that Drafts on topics entirely unsuitable for Wikipedia should be rejected. Not just unsuitable drafts – drafts with unsuitable topics. It's pretty similar to WP:NEXISTS, for instance. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:43, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing instructions states that and that Rejection is appropriate when you genuinely believe the page would be uncontroversially deleted if it were an article (i.e., the page would be an overwhelming "delete" at AFD, or clearly meet a CSD article criterion). Were this draft to make its way to mainspace, it would be deleted without controversy via AfD, if not speedy deleted under its current state. Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 06:04, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fancy Refrigerator It's worth noting that I used to reject-by-default when I felt the draft was spammy, but now I decline and let it languish in draftspace. I only reject for spam when the draft would need to be nuked and started from scratch. qcne (talk) 07:38, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:10, 1 July 2025 review of submission by Peter.Kuntner

[edit]

This article summarizes information on the topic of academic risk-taking. Academic risk-taking is a subject that has been discussed and researched in educational science. The article cites reliable sources and is written from a neutral perspective. Further concrete feedback for a revision of this article would be desirable. Peter.Kuntner (talk) 08:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It reads as an essay that tells about the topic, not an encyclopedia article that summarizes what is said about the topic- this is why the reviewer declined it. 331dot (talk) 08:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikipedia article should not advance any argument or conclusion, except when it is summnarising an argument or conclusion presented in a single cited source. It may not even combine arguments from different sources. See WP:OR. ColinFine (talk) 08:39, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank your for your suggestions, i have revised the draft, and hope i have diminishes the essay character. Peter.Kuntner (talk) 11:06, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:19, 1 July 2025 review of submission by Baybrens

[edit]

Hello I want to create a draft about Yükseliş Elevator. I request support so that it can be prepared completely independently. Baybrens (talk) 08:19, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are associated with this topic, that must be disclosed on your user page, please see WP:COI. If you are employed by the company in any capacity, the Terms of Use require that to be disclosed, see WP:PAID.
We don't really do co-editing here at this help desk; you are welcome to continue editing the draft and submit it for another review. The good news is that a few more sources and slight expansion of the article may help get it to pass. 331dot (talk) 08:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:54, 1 July 2025 review of submission by MaxPower2017

[edit]

Hello - one of your editors (Timtrent) directed me to this page to seek your input regarding an approval request. The page is a community rugby union league in England. The English Rugby Union system page (English_rugby_union_system#The_system) contains over 105 community rugby leagues each containing c.10 sides. I have worked tirelessly to populate these pages over many years to ensure they accurately reflect the leagues and the teams participating in them. Only one league remains outstanding - the Dorset & Wilts 2 Central league which is the subject of this request. I am told it lacks notability but I am struggling to see how it is any more or less notable than the 100+ other identical leagues already in the page or the hundreds of English community (association) football pages on Wikipedia. Ultimately I accept it does not have 'notability' in the sense of press coverage or national interest but it is significant to those clubs who are participating and the communities around them. It has been referenced and populated with several years worth of data. I hope a Wikipedia editor may be able to show some discretion and approve the submission which will mean the system page will be complete. Thank you in advance for your help and understanding. MaxPower2017 (talk) 08:54, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MaxPower2017 Using the whole url in the header breaks the header formatting that provides a link; I fixed this. The whole url is not necessary at all when linking to another Wikipedia article or page; outside of this header, [[English rugby union system]] renders as English rugby union system.
You have already resubmitted the draft, the next reviewer will leave you feedback is not accepted. Note that each article or draft is judged on its own merits, see other stuff exists. It could be that these other articles you have seen are also not appropriate and just not yet addressed by a volunteer. We have millions of articles- many that are not appropriate- but only thousands of regular editors.
If a subject does not receive coverage in independent reliable sources, it cannot have an article on Wikipedia, even if other subjects in the same field merit articles. It depends on the coverage. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:08, 1 July 2025 review of submission by 46.136.31.163

[edit]

Hello, please help me in saying how can i get approved this draft? I believe I got all the reliable sources for the claims, and I really do not know what else I can do, is rejected and I want it to be accepted as is for information about a very good multinational company.

Thank you. 46.136.31.163 (talk) 09:08, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What a shame you used AI to create this. You get it approved by using your own words, not those of an AI Chatbot, and having references which pass the criteria explained to you when it was declined. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:22, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was declined, not rejected. Rejected would mean it could not be resubmitted.
Wikipedia is not for merely providing information. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company, showing how it is a notable company as Wikipedia defines one. This is not a place to just tell about a company and describe its offerings.
If you work for this company, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID and WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 09:28, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User helped on #wikipedia-en-help qcne (talk) 09:32, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:26, 1 July 2025 review of submission by Sellotapemaskingtape

[edit]

Hi! I'd love help in getting this page looked at please, I think it's strong now. Thanks Sellotapemaskingtape (talk) 09:26, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sellotapemaskingtape Using the whole url in the header breaks the formatting that provides a link, I have fixed this.
First, be aware that if you get this draft accepted, you could no longer edit about this topic, as you are not yet extended confirmed- that is a requirement when making edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. (while you have had your account for around 20 years, you are far from 500 edits). Please see your user talk page for more information about these restrictions.
The main issue with your draft is that it seems to have been generated by AI. 331dot (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: They can't write about it even in draft. The 500/30 rule applies across all namespaces. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:04, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jéské Couriano So I've heard differing viewpoints on that. I've heard that position and heard that it can be okay to submit a draft. 331dot (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:24, 1 July 2025 review of submission by Jeffforex

[edit]

WHAT DO I NEED TO DO FOR MY ARTICLE TO BE PUBLISHED Jeffforex (talk) 10:24, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Jeffforex
First, please note that writing about yourself on Wikipedia is very strongly discouraged. Almost nobody who tries it ever succeeds, and they tend to waste a good deal of their own and other people's time in trying.
Secondly, an article about you in Wikipedia should consist of a summary of what people wholly unconnected with you have published about you, in reliable publications. 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.
This means that in order to successfully write an article about yourself, you would need to
  1. Find several sources that are reliable (eg not social media), wholly independent of you (not based on an interview or press release from you or your associates) and contain significant coverage of you - see WP:42 for more information.
  2. Assuming that you can find several such sources, you would then need to effectively forget everything you know about yourself, and write a summary of what those sources said - even if you disagreed with them.
Do you see why writing about yourself is difficult?
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.
A final warning: now that you have posted here, it is quite likely that somebody will contact you offering to create an article for a fee. If they do so, this is almost certainly a scam: see WP:SCAM. Don't give them your money. ColinFine (talk) 10:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:19, 1 July 2025 review of submission by 122.106.158.163

[edit]

Thank you for the review and feedback on my draft article on Neyphug Monastery. The reviewer said the references need to be reliable and cleaned up. I spent a lot of time finding published materials even in the National Library of Bhutan and used academic publications. I am not sure why these would not be considered reliable sources? Is the problem with the sources the formatting or is it the origin or the content of these sources that is not considered reliable? Many thanks for any further clarification and help with getting this article published. 122.106.158.163 (talk) 11:19, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted It seems to me to step over the notability hurdle 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:43, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:23, 1 July 2025 review of submission by Waldemar1234567

[edit]

Hi!

I'm working on a draft article and noticed that the person I'm writing about has dedicated Wikipedia pages in both Italian and Hebrew. Most of the best sources about the player's life and career seem to be in Hebrew.

As someone still learning the ropes here, I was wondering: is it acceptable to use Hebrew-language sources in an English Wikipedia article? And if so, are there any best practices I should follow when citing sources in a language that's not English? Waldemar1234567 (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not need to be in English, as long as they are reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 12:27, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:53, 1 July 2025 review of submission by Rahulkrsah

[edit]
ASKED ELSEWHERE
Already asked and answered on other noticeboards qcne (talk) 13:24, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dear Sir,

Please help me to create this Template. I find everything that's need to create this article but I helpless. Please create this template.

Thank you, 

Rahulkrsah (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

14:06, 1 July 2025 review of submission by M pascal

[edit]

While writing a Wikipedia page, some links used for citations have become dead links because the source has renewed its site and the older content has not been included in the new system. Unfortunately, I can't find anything useful on the Wayback Machine. During my research, I found a person who has a digital PDF copy of the newspaper that reported the news in his private archive that would be useful to me as a source.

When I asked ChatGPT about it, I received the following response: "Yes, it is possible to use scans or PDFs of newspaper articles as sources on Wikipedia when the original links (URLs) have become dead links, as long as they are reliable and verifiable sources. Here's how to do it correctly: When you cite a paper source or a PDF that you have, you must provide all the bibliographic details useful to identify the article.

For example:

Bernardini, Marco (August 23, 2021). "Per Davide Belletti la storia si chiama «Swim for them»: fatte mille vasche" (PDF kept privately). Gazzetta di Parma. p. 23. Retrieved 2021-08-23.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)[dead link]

What do you think? Is it possible to do as suggested? Alternatively, is it possible to send these journal articles to a reviewer so that he can verify the authenticity of the sources I refer to in the draft? M pascal (talk) 14:06, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @M pascal. As long as the source has been published and is accessible then you don't have to provide a URL. Newspapers, for example, have obviously been published and are likely accessible from public libraries or archives. In this case, you would just cite the source in full to allow readers to find the source in a library or archive and not include a URL. Sources do not have to be online, they just have to be published and accessible - even if it is difficult to access them.
Don't upload scans of, for example, newspaper clippings to Wikipedia as this would break copyright. qcne (talk) 14:12, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:47, 1 July 2025 review of submission by 2600:8801:9E03:DD00:2854:8F3D:470C:419B

[edit]

Hi there!

Our article has been rejected twice, seemingly due to our sources not meeting the criteria listed for acceptable, third-party references. Would it be possible to get some insight as to which sources are falling short and why?

Thanks so much!

Thanks so much! 2600:8801:9E03:DD00:2854:8F3D:470C:419B (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor. None of your sources provide significant independent in-depth coverage. We don't want database listings, company profiles, interviews with staff. We need significant critical coverage from independent mainstream sources. Please have a read of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). qcne (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:40, 1 July 2025 review of submission by Noahtchristensen

[edit]

I have received feedback that my article is an advertisement. Is there more feedback or detail that can be provided? I'm trying to simply put Lawn Doctor on Wikipedia and make sure people know it exists. I am not trying to sell or advertise anything. Any specific feedback that can be provided would be awesome! Thanks! Noahtchristensen (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Noahtchristensen: [Making] sure people know [Lawn Doctor] exists is advertizing it by definition. What is your connexion to Lawn Doctor? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:06, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Noahtchristensen. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what several people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else. Unless you can find several such sources (see WP:42), any article is going to be a non-starter. ColinFine (talk) 11:38, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:09, 1 July 2025 review of submission by Ditrco2025

[edit]

I was wondering why companies like Accenture, EPAM, and others are allowed to have articles on Wikipedia, while smaller companies often face challenges in maintaining similar entries.

Access to information about smaller companies should be equally supported, especially when the content is objective, well-sourced with third-party references, and factually accurate.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Ditrco2025 (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ditrco2025. You wrote spam, which we do not accept for hopefully obvious reasons. qcne (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ditrco2025: You assume employees from Accenture, EPAM Systems, etc. wrote the articles on themselves. They did not. Both also predate the Articles for Creation process entirely (first edits: Accenture, EPAM Systems) and their current state shouldn't be assumed to be the product of conflicts-of-interest. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:20, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:21, 1 July 2025 review of submission by Shirin06

[edit]

I am unable to get my draft accepted. Please help me accept this draft. Shirin06 (talk) 16:21, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Shirin06. This has been rejected and therefore will not be considered further, sorry. This person does not meet our criteria. qcne (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:44, 1 July 2025 review of submission by 117.194.109.152

[edit]

Please format it well as per Wiki, the detailed 10 albums and EPs are included. 117.194.109.152 (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected, is tagged for speedy deletion as blatant and irreparable advertizing/promotion, and will not be considered further. Leaving aside the curriculum-vitae tone of the draft, you cite Discogs and MusicBrainz, neither of which are acceptable sources (Discogs has no editorial oversight, MusicBrainz is too sparse). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:51, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:16, 1 July 2025 review of submission by VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004

[edit]

The article is ready to go but the sticking point remains that the are the JP-based sources in the article are considered to be notable. Not an English-language source (outside of JP-based English news sites) for the company's formation exists atm... VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004 (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not need to be in English. 331dot (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004: It isn't because the sources are Japanese; we allow non-English sources. The issue is that the reviewer that assessed the sources found they all fail WP:CORPDEPTH. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:50, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
However, is there any way the that article can be approved to mainspace once again with more in-depth refs? VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004 (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004: With better sources that aren't just routine business reports, yes. It's only a matter of finding said sources, citing them, and writing the article to summarise them. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:57, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:53, 1 July 2025 review of submission by Jibinntcr

[edit]

can you explain this issue Jibinntcr (talk) 19:53, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jibinntcr You have written AI-generated spam and both this and your userpage will soon be deleted. Do not use Wikipedia for self-promotion. qcne (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:49, 1 July 2025 review of submission by Matteroffact050

[edit]

Hello there! Off and on, I have worked on creating this page for ... far longer than I should admit! I got off to a pretty rough start, unintentionally I assure you, and am trying to submit this page the right way. If I click "submit for review," that won't publish the page, correct? It will just trigger someone reviewing this draft and providing feedback? I don't want to prematurely publish the page and get myself in hot water again. Thanks! Matteroffact050 (talk) 20:49, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's the right thing to do.
But if you do so at present, I'm pretty sure it will not get accepted. The problem is that I don't see any sources which meet the triple criteria of being reliable, independent, and containing significant coverage of the subject.
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
If follows that the majority of sources should be wholly unconnected with the subject - and I don't think many of yours are. I also suspect that most of your sources do not have much more than a name check of Adcetera.
It also follows that the text should not be what Adcetera wishes to tell the world, but almost exclusively summaries of what those independent sources say.
I note that With more than 40 years of experience, Adcetera has transformed from a local graphic design firm into a globally recognized full-service, integrated marketing and advertising agency offering branding, creative services, content strategy, digital marketing, and media services is pure promotion, and doesn't belong in any Wikipedia article. ColinFine (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback! And I really appreciate your review of my draft. Let me take a swing at some additional edits. Matteroffact050 (talk) 13:36, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:08, 1 July 2025 review of submission by 71.209.99.202

[edit]

I live in the area. Norriego Point is a hidden gem that should have its own page. It is government owned. So there is no commercial or marketing value to me creating the page. I did not use ChatGPT or similar to author it. I did use it for edits (AI assisted, not AI generated). I am quite professional in my writing and that comes through in the article. This is the first time I have tried to create an article on Wikipedia. I have always stayed away from it because it seemed daunting. And now I am having to jump through hoops (proof that it is indeed daunting) just to do a public service of writing an article about a great piece of land that is named for a great local family. Can someone help me to get it published? 71.209.99.202 (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for you to promote your community. If you want to tell the world how great your community is, use social media or start a website. A Wikipedia article must be written with a neutral point of view, and summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it is notable. 331dot (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find this no different than articles like Sanibel Island > Sanibel, Florida. Or many others that I can track down on Wikipedia that give information on a specific geography. I gave the background of the place (history) and its attributes. All things that I see on other places. This one does not have as much history because it is not developed like some of the more populous places. I gave no less than 15 references that actually has coverage of this place. I simply do not see the difference between this post and the others that were aqpproved. 71.209.99.202 (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would have to be rewritten to remove all the WP:puffery. People lucky enough to find the elegant brown-spotted shell of a Junonia on a Sanibel beach often get their picture in the local newspapers. Junonia volutes are reasonably common living in deep water but only rarely wash up; a beach find of a whole shell is greatly prized. Junonia shells can be purchased at local shell shops and are displayed at the Bailey-Matthews National Shell Museum, in some of the glass display tables at the Sanibel Cafe, and at the Sanibel Shell Fair in early March. has no place in an encyclopedia and this is but one example of WP:PROMO. The entire article is filled with such. As far as other articles, see WP:OTHERSTUFF and not all articles have been "approved" as such mechanism did not exist until a few years ago. S0091 (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fundamentally what you have written is a blog-post style AI-generated advert. That's not suitable for Wikipedia. qcne (talk) 07:40, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are fundamentally inaccurate in your statement. An advert would have to be to promote. This was to inform. It is not AI-generated. I stated it was AI assisted. I wrote it. I used AI to format it. And it is not blog-post style as most blog posts are 3 to 4 sentences that follow a structured narrative. This one is simply more bullet point style to demonstrate the key attributes that this geography has.
I did a quick search and easily found 5 articles that match your description. All of which have been approved. Advert style (promotional tone) blog style articles that have been approved:
1Malaysia
Zeitgeist Films
Vistaprint
88rising
3D Robotics 71.209.99.202 (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm, not "approved". Some of these were written way back in the early 2000s when there was no approval process like there is today and because all of them have been around for years, they have been updated since their original creation so the current versions have not been "approved". Stop basing your arguments on current articles because at the end of day, it does not matter what already exists. Wikipedia has lots of shitty articles but that does not mean we should accept more of them. See also my above comments. S0091 (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2

[edit]

03:10, 2 July 2025 review of submission by Wm.Allison1954

[edit]

What should I do to address the submission errors 

Wm.Allison1954 (talk) 03:10, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Wm.Allison1954: Get rid of the chatbot, find some actual sources, and summarise them. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 03:27, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and thank you. Wm.Allison1954 (talk) 03:30, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Wm.Allison1954: You're welcome, and apologies for the bluntness. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 03:31, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I need to learn how to actually do this. My main sources of information about this company were sourced by the owner, Google information, and people who have business with this company, so I'm limited in sources. How else can I source materials that seem limited, if I may ask Wm.Allison1954 (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Wm.Allison1954 If the sources don't exist, an article isn't possible. However, sources don't have to be online, you can use hard copy books or newspapers: as long as the source is published in some way. Does that help? qcne (talk) 07:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:29, 2 July 2025 review of submission by Erlkönigin3

[edit]

Hi there! I wanted to submit a translation for the article (i.e., Rising Sonority Tendency) rather than a completely new page, so I did not do any research or try to find reliable sources. The corresponding German article (DE: Tendenz zur steigenden Silbensonorität) was published at some point; are the standards for reliable sources different on the German wikipedia? I think I remember reading that one could cite an untranslated page in the references section; is that possible here? Thanks. Erlkönigin3 (talk) 05:29, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized I violated WP:WHATABOUTX. Sorry about that. My other question still stands, though--is it possible to cite an original article as a reference in the translation of that same article? Is that applicable here? Erlkönigin3 (talk) 05:38, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Erlkönigin3. The answer is No. A Wikipedia article, in any language, is not a reliable source, and may almost never be cited. You may cite the sources from the original article, if they are reliable; but since de:Tendenz zur steigenden Silbensonorität only acknowledges the single source that you have included in your translation - and doesn't have specific citations to it - then that doesn't really help.
I'm afraid that "I wanted to submit a translation ... rather than a completely new page" works only when the original article meets Wikipedia's current criteria for verifiability and notability - which many existinng articles don't in other Wikipedias (and even in English Wikipedia). In any other case, I recommend treating it the same as creating an article. ColinFine (talk) 13:13, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:41, 2 July 2025 review of submission by User972364

[edit]

Hello, should I delete all the IMDB references? User972364 (talk) 08:41, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily all of them, @User972364.
iMDB is not a reliable publication, so it should not be cited as a source. An external link to the iMDB entry corresponding to the subject of an article is acceptable. but not a whole load of associated links.
But the links will not help establish that the series is notable, and nor will the three existing citations, which are not independent - two are from the Emmy awards, and the Spanish one does not appear to have much independent content, as it quotes the producer.
You need to find sources which meet WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 13:20, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:19, 2 July 2025 review of submission by 125.237.246.71

[edit]

Wondering which (if any) of the current sources establish notability. Have read notable organisation guidelines. Independent and substantive articles from BBC, Sunday Times, VICE, and Washington Post have been dedicated to the organisation. Is it a requirement to have a non-journalistic source? 125.237.246.71 (talk) 09:19, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Using the whole url in the header breaks the formatting that provides a link, I've fixed this for you. It's usually not necessary to use the whole url(which can lock readers into a version of Wikipedia they may not prefer, mobile or desktop); outside of a header, just place the title in double brackets.(like [[Draft:Lonely Girls Club]]). 331dot (talk) 09:26, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you are associated with this organization, that must be disclosed, see WP:COI. That's easier to do with an account, but even if you choose not to create one, you must disclose.
Social media is not an acceptable source(Instagram and LinkedIn). Government websites that just establish that the organization exists are considered primary sources and do not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 09:31, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! No COI except I was a customer in winter 2023? Hopefully not COI!
If I remove the social media sources, do you think it’s likely that the published mainstream media sources would be sufficient? There’s 5-6 articles that I thought met the “reliable, independent, and containing significant coverage of the subject” test. 125.237.246.71 (talk) 09:40, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, no, being a customer is not a COI.
The other coverage largly seems routine(WP:ROTM). What are your three best sources? 331dot (talk) 09:43, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm good question. Probably:
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/article/inside-the-group-tackling-the-uks-friendship-recession-bfpjbm6lf
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2023/04/12/lonely-girls-women-club-friendship/
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-64963937 125.237.246.71 (talk) 09:49, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first source is probably the best; the other two seem to be based on interviews with the founder of the club, so those aren't as independent. If you had a couple more sources like the first, and the draft mostly summarized those, that could work. 331dot (talk) 11:17, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! I’ll workshop and give it another shot. 125.237.246.71 (talk) 11:25, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request to review draft: Alberto Guardabasso

[edit]

Draft submission: Alberto Guardabasso

Hello,

I would like to kindly submit this draft for review:

Title: Alberto Guardabasso Draft location: User:Enzo Leone61/sandbox

This is a biographical article about Alberto Guardabasso, an Italian fashion journalist who has contributed to Style Magazine (Corriere della Sera), V Magazine, and VMAN Magazine. He was also selected as an expert jury member by RAI for the Sanremo Music Festival 2025, and has been accredited as a journalist at Cannes Film Festival 2024.

The draft includes independent references from Italian news sources and is supported by freely licensed images.

I declare a conflict of interest, as I am connected to the subject. I have tried to maintain a neutral and encyclopedic tone in accordance with Wikipedia policies.

Thank you for your time and feedback.

Please write without an AI. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Enzo Leone61. I have added a header to your sandbox which will allow you to submit it for review. Before you do so, I suggest you read WP:REFB, and convert your "references" to inline citations, which show what statement is being verified from which source.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia.--ColinFine (talk) 13:41, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:46, 2 July 2025 review of submission by SportsLover1967

[edit]

I need help. SportsLover1967 (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SportsLover1967. What help do you need? Have you read WP:NTEAM? qcne (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With getting Drafts accepted. Can you plz be my assistant? SportsLover1967 (talk) 14:37, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SportsLover1967 Have you read our criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (sports)? This outlines if sports clubs/teams can have an article on Wikipedia. You have not demonstrated in your draft that this club meets that criteria. Read the guidance to understand how to prove that criteria. qcne (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have read it. But I need en.wikipedia.org to be having Every single Venezuelan football club. SportsLover1967 (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately that isn't going to happen: not every single Venezuelan football club meets our criteria for inclusion. qcne (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just transfer the info from es.wikipedia.org and translate and copy and paste it. SportsLover1967 (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SportsLover1967 The es. Wikipedia and the en. Wikipedia are two different projects with different standards. What is acceptable on the es. one is not accepted on the en. one. So, you cannot just export all the articles from es. to en., they have to comply with the en. policies. qcne (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But they played in the second division. SportsLover1967 (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about all teams that played in Liga FUTVE 2 in its entire history? SportsLover1967 (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:04:22, 2 July 2025 review of submission by VictoratBluestarAI

[edit]
Hi @VictoratBluestarAI. Wikipedia was having some server issues about 30 minutes ago. Try again (but make sure to back up your work first since there is no auto-save feature). qcne (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:08, 2 July 2025 review of submission by Morekiranwiki

[edit]

Hi, I’ve removed the existing sources and added new high-quality ones that follow Wikipedia's guidelines. Please review our Wikipedia page. Morekiranwiki (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You disclosed a COI; if you work for this platform, the Terms of Use require disclosure, see WP:PAID. If accepted, the draft would not be "our Wikipedia page", but a Wikipedia article about your platform. See WP:OWN.
As it was rejected, the first step is to appeal to the last reviewer directly and ask them to reconsider. 331dot (talk) 14:21, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Morekiranwiki I remember this draft - you or a colleague asked for assistance on wikipedia-en-help live chat. None of your new sources are any use. I recommend the draft stay rejected. It is clearly not a company that meets our Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) criteria. qcne (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:35, 2 July 2025 review of submission by Ackee123

[edit]

Hello, I have re-written and researched more citations relevant to the work of Adegoke Steve Colson for the English Wikipedia page. Before I resubmit, is it possible for an editor to give me feedback? I had to rewrite to ensure it is more encyclopedic and that have more citations. Thanks in advance if someon might be able to have a look Ackee123 (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ackee123 We don't do pre-review reviews here; the best way to get feedback is to resubmit the draft. 331dot (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for taking the time to reply, I just was uncertain. Ackee123 (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:42, 2 July 2025 review of submission by FurretSuperFan

[edit]

Should I remove some information he states about himself in interviews as well? I feel like some of the stuff he says can only be said from him and him alone, like how he got introduced to vocaloid and his work process for working on vocaloid as he is known throughout the community for his realistic tuning of Hatsune Miku (unless that information is unnecessary, then I'll remove it, and if the claim calling his tuning realistic or god-like needs more sources, I can also do that).

For the notability, I went for the sections of having his albums chart in a national music chart and having two or more albums released under a major record label. For the national music charts, I took directly from both the Oricon and Billboard Japan sites, as he charted in both of those charts, and for having two albums released from a major label, I took directly from the Sony Music Japan and Warner Music Japan sites. Would I need more sources to prove he has charted and had albums released under two major labels, as I feel like I don't considering these are taken directly from the official sites. FurretSuperFan (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FurretSuperFan: With the exception of matters no reasonable person could hope to dispute, anything a subject says in any forum or format can't help for eligibility (connexion to subject) or for biographical claims. The sources you provide for charting are acceptable; the ones for releases under a major label would likely get challenged (look for reviews of the albums that note the label it was released under). The claim calling his tuning realistic or god-like must be attributed. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:09, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can find, there are no reviews over the album, is there any other ways I can prove it was released under those labels? FurretSuperFan (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can not find any reviews stating that The Greatest Idol and Virtual Popstar were released under Sony Music Japan and Warner Music Japan, respectively. Are there any other sources or ways I can use to prove that the albums were released under those labels? FurretSuperFan (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for his realistic tuning claim, I changed to "He's praised among the Vocaloid community for his realistic tuning of the Vocaloid Hatsune Miku," and cited it, is that good enough or would I need to reword it to something else? FurretSuperFan (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FurretSuperFan please do not start a new discussion/question. I have moved your response here. S0091 (talk) 17:43, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:05, 2 July 2025 review of submission by Jmras63

[edit]

Why was my submission declined? 

Jmras63 (talk) 21:05, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Jmras63. It was not declined. You wrote this draft with ChatGPT and because ChatGPT is not very good, it automatically added a declined notice to the top of the draft's code. That would be funny and ironic, if we weren't seeing AI-generated drafts overwhelm Wikipedia. Do you have any more questions? qcne (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:44, 2 July 2025 review of submission by Mamcada

[edit]

Everything looks good why these now? Eeh Mamcada (talk) 21:44, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mamcada Because you have not presented nor verified yourself as passing the relevant acceptance criteria. Perhaps you need your own website. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:49, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So if i have my own website i will pass with this? Mamcada (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mamcada Await notability and someone else writing about you. Wikipedia does not enhance your reputation. It is not social media. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:04, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you do it for me Mamcada (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Mamcada. It is very unlikely that anybody here will be interested in writing an article about you.
This is partly because all the regulars here know that the very first, indispensible, activity in successfully creating a Wikipedia article is to find several reliable independent sources that cover the subject in some depth (see WP:42) and that is often the hardest part of writing an article. They also know that if several such sources cannot be found, there is no point in trying to draft an article, as it will not be accepted.
Another reason why it is unlikely that anybody here will want to write such an article is that when people come here wanting an article about themselves, their purpose is usually promotion. Wikipedia is absolutely uninterested in furthering anybody's career or public presence.
If you wish to spend the time and effort looking for suitable sources about yourself, and checking that each one of them meets the criteria for reliability, independence, and substantial coverage (see WP:42), and post citations to those sources here, it is possible (no more than that) that somebody will be interested in working with you. But if you do not post such sources, I predict that nobody here will want to work on this.
A final warning: there are predatory scammers who contact people who have tried to make articles about themselves, falsely claiming that they can create an article about you. Do not give them your money! (see WP:SCAM). ColinFine (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please do it for me Mamcada (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mamcada no. qcne (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 3

[edit]

01:44, 3 July 2025 review of submission by Bosind

[edit]

My submission was declined because most of the content isn’t sourced. Can someone please point out which parts need citations or NPOV fixes? I’m trying my best to get it right. Bosind (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would help to know what your draft is- you put "review of submission" as the title of your draft. 331dot (talk) 08:23, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be Draft:Ambright Education Group. --ColinFine (talk) 13:59, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:First ladies and gentlemen of Latvia

[edit]

My draft article 'First ladies and gentlemen of Latvia' was not accepted. I would like to know how I can improve it and what prevented it from being accepted. Thank You. 181.78.18.194 (talk) 02:53, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have resubmitted it. ColinFine (talk) 14:02, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:12, 3 July 2025 review of submission by Hottocare

[edit]

I'm having trouble with my references section. Can you advise how to submit so I won't receive error messages? Hottocare (talk) 06:12, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hottocare. This doesn't quite answer your question but I'd recommend reading our tutorial on referencing in the Visual Editor, which is usually a lot easier: Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1. qcne (talk) 14:58, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:13, 3 July 2025 review of submission by 81.184.129.178

[edit]

This submission was rejected due to it "appearing to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia." I would like to know what exactly it is in the content that leads to this assumption, so that I can fix it/delete it. The structure and content of the draft are based on articles of other solar/software companies that can be found on Wikipedia; I would like to see the subtle differences the reasoning for this rejection seems to point at. 81.184.129.178 (talk) 08:13, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Though understandable, it is actually a poor idea to use any random article as a model or example, as it too could be inappropriate and you would be unaware of that. There are many ways inappropriate content can exist on Wikipedia, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. This is why each article or draft is judged on its own merits, see other stuff exists. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles, which have received community vetting.
Your draft just summarizes the routine business activities and offerings of the company; this does not establish that the company is a notable company as Wikipedia defines one. That requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources- coverage that goes beyond just telling what the company does and goes into detail about what the source sees as important/significant/influential about the company. See WP:ORGDEPTH. 331dot (talk) 08:21, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply!
Having read the pages on what classifies as a good article and notability, I agree some of the content and the sources of this draft don't qualify as worthy of inclusion and need to be deleted.
However, most of the sources included come from reputed magazines in the solar industry, and none of them are press releases nor promoted articles, but journalistic ones; and there are more to be found. I believe this proves the notability of the company enough to warrant a Wikipedia page, as small as it may be. MaxHailerPuig (talk) 09:48, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if there really are "many ways inappropriate content can exist on Wikipedia", how come these other pages and articles aren't edited or removed? I'm genuinely curious. MaxHailerPuig (talk) 09:51, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MaxHailerPuig Wikipedia has over 7 million articles, and maybe a few tens of thousands of regular editors(there are millions with accounts, but most of them just read Wikipedia, some edit irregularly). Editors choose what to edit based on what interests them, and do so in their free time on this volunteer project. As people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate content to get past us. Some reasons for this are(but not limited to)
  1. Standards have changed over time so that what was once acceptable is no longer
  2. the draft process has not existed the entire time Wikipedia has existed, so many old articles do not meet current standards, if they ever met standards
  3. the draft process is not required of all users so not all drafts are "approved" by someone
  4. some subject areas get less attention than others because people edit what interests them
We are only as good as the people who choose to help us and invest their time. You are welcome to help us and identify other inappropriate articles that you see so action can be taken.
I'm going to look at your sources more specifically. 331dot (talk) 10:18, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An article must primarily summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about the topic. Your sources are
  1. the announcement of a release of a product including a quote from the project manager and CEO; not significant coverage as a routine activity(most companies release products), not really independent(as based on interviews with company staff)
  2. another annoucement of the release of a product with a quote from the CEO
  3. another annoucement of the release of a product
  4. a piece describing the acquisition and integration of another company into PVcase; another routine business activity
  5. a description of the company raising funds, another routine business activity; piece largely summarizes comments from the CEO and those supplying the funding, not an independent source
  6. another piece describing the raising of funds
  7. a list of fastest growing companies, not significant coverage of the company, nor an award that contributes to notability as there is no article about this list
  8. another description of an award that barely mentions the company, and again, the award has no article so that does not contribute to notability
  9. another list-type award that barely mentions the company.
None of these sources are appropriate for establishing the notability of your company. 331dot (talk) 10:31, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your clear explanation and for laying out the reasons for the denial. I understand that it's an almost impossible job to go through such a large amount of previously existing content to filter out aspects that do not meet the current standards. I'm happy to contribute in that regard, and am glad that there's such a strong community to help new members in this task.
Regarding the sources, I understand now what your previous point was and agree. The page will have to wait until this company has a measurable impact on media. Thank you for taking the time to go through them. MaxHailerPuig (talk) 11:16, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:19, 3 July 2025 review of submission by Montymoss1

[edit]

Why was my draft declined? Montymoss1 (talk) 11:19, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Montymoss1. The reasons are given in the decline notice.
But I will put it another way: 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.
Your draft reads like the Expo telling the world about itself: Wikipedia is bascially not interested in that at all.
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) 14:10, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:46, 3 July 2025 review of submission by 2407:42C0:2:7F6F:896A:2B3E:273B:B88C

[edit]

it should be published because they released original teaser 2407:42C0:2:7F6F:896A:2B3E:273B:B88C (talk) 11:46, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment makes no sense. Notability is not about what "they" do or don't do - it's about what has been independently written about the subject.
It seems to be awaiting review (though I can't work out whether or not that is legitimate, given that it was previously rejected). Be patient. ColinFine (talk) 14:16, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:32, 3 July 2025 review of submission by Frederik Scheidgen

[edit]

I recently tried to post my first wikipedia article on LS AUTO. Unfortunately, I have no experience in publishing articles on Wikipedia. I ask you to point out my mistakes so that the article can be published. When writing the article, I was guided by pages about other automobile companies from China, but for some reason I was told that my article did not correspond to the rules and was an advertisement. Frederik Scheidgen (talk) 12:32, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Frederik Scheidgen, the two pages I think will be of most use to you are WP:NORG and WP:42. These will explain what you're looking for in a source. At the moment it seems to me that your sources are often lacking significant coverage of the company itself, as well as describing normal business activities such as product launches.
Unfortunately using random articles as a guide is often a problem for new editors, as you wouldn't be aware whether those articles have serious issues - and many do! Have a look at the Good Article class of Business articles; these have been reviewed and vetted by the community and represent, well, good articles. They will be much better examples of what you're trying to achieve. Happy editing! Meadowlark (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:48, 3 July 2025 review of submission by Iambksir

[edit]

can u explain me how we should write content to get approve Iambksir (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"?
Any discussion of this would be academic, as this draft was rejected. 331dot (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A good start is providing extensive citations to reliable, independent sources that verify facts that are asserted. Another part of a good start is not using AI to write it. Since you didn't do either of these things, and there's no apparent notability to the subject of this writer, the article was rejected, and will not be considered further in its current state. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:58, 3 July 2025 review of submission by 155.190.17.6

[edit]

Hi - I am looking for advice on notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. I am working on a page on a female historian. The subjects contributions to the conservation of Jamaican music history has been used as citations in many Wiki pages and Google Scholar . Is it the format of the page developed? Should I focus more on the content of what has been accomplished in her books vs the author? I've reviewed the list of notability and feel like all the boxes are checked. There are articles about the subject, but most articles are about the contributions, the books on Jamaican music. 155.190.17.6 (talk) 12:58, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're the draft creator, remember to log in. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 13:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello IP editor. This draft was rejected by @Thilsebatti - you will have to convince them they meet the criteria. It would be helpful if you could say which criteria, and the specific evidence you have for meeting it. qcne (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, IP user. You need to focus on independent articles about her, not solely about her books. If such sources do not exist, then it may be that she is no notable as Wikipedia uses the word. It's even possible that some of her books are notable but she is not - that happens. ColinFine (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:28, 3 July 2025 review of submission by Hyggemule

[edit]

Addressing Critical Comments on the Matthew Swarts Wikipedia Draft

1. Comment: "Nearly all citations are about one specific work (the subject artistically photoshopping their ex out of images), which would likely make this bio fail WP:BLP1E. Other sources, such as the archived New York Times article that included a photo he took, succeed at verifying the claim that his work has been included in this outlet or that outlet, but that's not the same as coverage of him by those outlets and so it doesn't help further the subject's notability."

Reply: The draft covers a broad range of Swarts's work, including Children with Cancer, BRANCHES, and his extensive generative digital projects, not just the "Beth" series. The article details his early and recent projects, teaching career, and exhibitions, demonstrating a career of sustained, diverse artistic output. Notability is supported by multiple independent sources, including features and interviews in Wired, Slate, GUP Magazine, The New York Times Magazine, and Conscientious Photography Magazine. These sources provide significant coverage of Swarts's career, methods, and impact, not just a single event or work. The inclusion of his work in major museum collections (e.g., Museum of Fine Arts, Boston; George Eastman Museum; Library of Congress) and exhibitions at recognized institutions further establishes notability beyond a single event or project.

2. Comment: "Almost all of these references lead to 404 errors and appear to be AI hallucinations."

Reply: The draft has been revised to ensure that all references are to verifiable, independent, and reliable sources. Only sources that can be independently verified and accessed have been retained. Where possible, references have been updated to include direct links to online versions or to reputable archives. If a source is only available in print or behind a paywall, this is standard for many academic and art-related references and does not invalidate the citation if it is otherwise reliable and verifiable.

The article avoids using any unverifiable or fabricated sources, in line with Wikipedia's verifiability and reliable sourcing policies.

3. Comment: "Please read and understand WP:REFB and WP:CITE and apply them. Your references ought to link to the online versions. Yours do not. All inline links (these are not references) should be removed, please, and turned into references if appropriate, Wikilinks, or external links in a section so named. See Wikipedia:External links. There should be no links pointing to external sources until those in the 'References' section (with the exception of one optional link in any infobox)."

Reply:

Inline external links have been removed from the body text and are now either formatted as proper references or, where appropriate, as internal Wikipedia links (wikilinks) to relevant articles.

The only external link in the article is in the "External links" section, as per Wikipedia policy.

The article structure and referencing now fully comply with Wikipedia's standards for citations and external links.

Many kind thanks for your help in advance. 

Hyggemule (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Hyggemule. If you feel it's ready for review, do re-submit for review. I note that not a single source has a hyperlink - is that by design? Are none of your sources accessible online? It will make it very difficult for a reviewer to review if so. qcne (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Hyggemule, did you use an AI/LLM (such as ChatGPT, Gemini, etc) to help you write this draft? Phrasing like He is known for his innovative digital manipulation of photographic information, exploring themes of intimacy, distance, and the fragmentation of personal connections in the digital age. is the kind of thing AIs love to say, but in Wikipedia would need to be a quote from a source because we can't use words like "innovative" in Wikipedia's voice. Meadowlark (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:32, 3 July 2025 review of submission by JimboJH

[edit]

The page has been rejected because the subject is not well known. But he is a very known person in county Louth, Ireland and should have a page JimboJH (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JimboJH 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.
Please disclose your connection to Mr. Renaghan; I see that you took a picture of him, see conflict of interest.
It was not declined because he is "not well known". You have not shown that he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. He does not meet the definition of a notable politician as he has not won election to public office. The sources are mostly interviews with him, which is not an independent source. 331dot (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @JimboJH. 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 not very much else. (See WP:42 for more about those sources).
Very little that the subject says or wants to say, or that their associates say, is relevant.
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) 20:15, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:46:23, 3 July 2025 review of draft by Talaqpmp

[edit]


Talaqpmp (talk) 22:46, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Talaqpmp you don't ask a question nor is there a draft linked and this is your first edit. S0091 (talk) 22:49, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:31, 3 July 2025 review of submission by JASCbd25

[edit]

I have some citations to be used as references for this profile but they are digital scans of magazine and newspaper articles from the 1980s and 1990s and are not available online at those publications. What is the appropriate way to add a link to them? Should I upload them to a storage site like Wix and provide that link or is there a better way to make them available online via a link in the Wikipedia references section. John JASCbd25 (talk) 23:31, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JASCbd25. Do not upload copyrighted materials. Have you checked the sources are not online on a newspaper archive? If not, that's okay: just provide a full citation to the magazine / newspaper article, providing as much information as possible, to allow an interested reader to find the source in a library or archive. Sources do not have to be online, but they do have to be published. qcne (talk) 08:02, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 4

[edit]

01:37, 4 July 2025 review of submission by Stckler

[edit]

despite having sourced and included many numerous published references I am continuing to struggle with satisfying he editors requirements of the notability evidence requirements. The purpose of setting up this Wikipedia page is for other researchers across Australia and Hungary to contribute towards in establishing a historical record of Stockler Lajos and build that body of work for someone being lost to history. He was considered a hero in Hungary, for his efforts in saving many thousands of Jews during the holocaust and he was robbed of that historical recognition through show trials, torture and false imprisonment. I don't understand the editors rejection of him having received one of Hungary's most prestigious awards as not meeting the criteria of WP:ANYBIO #1. This award was given to him by the prime minister and documented in the Official Hungarian Gazette. He was also falsely arrested and prosecuted for the alleged murder of Raoul Wallenberg one of histories most notable figures in the Hungarian holocaust. I feel im in a catch 22 position that without the aid of other contributors, providing rare research contributions etc, i will never meet the threshold being sought. It seems quite inconsistent with a number of others referenced within the draft, who have secured wikipedia articles. please help?? Stckler (talk) 01:37, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Stckler, I think your biggest problem at the moment is that Wikipedia articles must summarize secondary sources (and these sources must meet the triple criteria in WP:42) and it sounds like you may be having trouble finding those. Wikipedia is not a good place to draw attention to a subject - it's where articles are written after the subject is well-known enough to have been written about in lots of other places already. It sounds like he did some remarkable things in his life - are there no books about him, or in-depth newspaper articles, or anything along those lines?
It's entirely possible that other subjects referenced in the draft should not have Wikipedia articles; a huge number of articles were created in Wikipedia's infancy and don't meet our current standards. Unfortunately we don't have enough people to find and improve them or delete them, so we have to wait until someone stumbles across such an article and alerts active editors to the situation. If you think you've found any of those articles, we would be very pleased to know about it so we can take action. Meadowlark (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:21, 4 July 2025 review of submission by Filmyguy34

[edit]

Move to mainspace Filmyguy34 (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has been rejected because the sources are not reliable, and the page's meaning already exists in a part of another page. Rafael Hello! 17:38, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remember to read the rules of WP:Article Wizard. Happy editing! Rafael Hello! 17:39, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:46, 4 July 2025 review of submission by Kumarmk

[edit]

as the page was declined, I would seek help in resolving the issue Kumarmk (talk) 04:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kumarmk. Please very carefully read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons qcne (talk) 07:59, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:55, 4 July 2025 review of submission by Golflover1

[edit]

To Whom It May Concern,

I hope you are well. When submitting an article about Jonathan Yates, a professional golfer from Ireland, the reason for rejection is under WP:NGOLF and that he does not meet the points listed. However, Jonathan fulfils the criteria on 2 separate points mentioned in this and I have supplied relevant references validating this;

3 - They have won at least one professional golf tournament 4 -They have won at least one recognized amateur golf tournament at the national or international level. When reviewing Jonathan's career to date he has won at least one professional golf tournament satisfying point 3 and he has won at least one recognized amateur golf tournament at the national or international level. All of the evidence is in the article and references that Jonathan meets the standards to be published.

I believe I have satisfied the necessary format to get this article published and would like to get this finalised as soon as possible.

Thank you for your help.

Kind regards,

Golflover1 Golflover1 (talk) 09:55, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Golflover1 Wikipedia has no deadlines; what's your urgency?
Some of the references are still bare urls; please format them(see referencing for beginners if need be).
WP:NGOLF is no longer a hard list of criteria; it's simply a guide as to things a golfer can do to have received significant coverage in independent sources. If you believe that you have now demonstrated that he has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and summarized that coverage, the first step is to appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly(on their user talk page). 331dot (talk) 10:01, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please also respond to the inquiry on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:14, 4 July 2025 review of submission by Lavish VIG

[edit]

My article was rejected, please in plain words help me resolve that by explaining what i need to do. Thank you and God Bless. Lavish VIG (talk) 10:14, 4 July 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.
Your draft is completely unsourced and has no indication that you meet the definition of a notable musician. Also note that writing about yourself, while not absolutely forbidden, is highly discouraged, please see the autobiography policy.
I will fix your post to provide a link to your draft as intended. 331dot (talk) 10:19, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:11, 4 July 2025 review of submission by 2607:FEA8:2280:7200:C76:ACA0:35DA:BBB2

[edit]

Hi there, I am wondering how to improve the page so it can be published. I have colleagues with similar pages up on Wikipedia. I have 8 book publications by academic and reliable publishers. Thank you. 2607:FEA8:2280:7200:C76:ACA0:35DA:BBB2 (talk) 15:11, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing is to not write it with an AI/LLM.
If you are writing about yourself, this is highly discouraged, please read the autobiography policy. Please see other stuff exists; each article or draft is judged on its own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and just not yet addressed by a volunteer. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to exist, in many ways; this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. If you would like to help us, please identify these other articles you have seen so action can be taken if need be. We need the help, and we are only as good as the people who choose to help. 331dot (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request to create article on Aiman Max

[edit]

Hello editors,

I would like to kindly request a new article to be created about Malaysian singer-songwriter **Aiman Max** (real name: Wan Aiman bin Wan Aaqashah), who began his career in 2025. He is known for blending pop and hip-hop influences, with recent singles gaining media coverage in Malaysia.

Here are some reliable sources with independent coverage: - Murai.my article: https://murai.my/2025/249269/fragile-heart-oleh-aiman-max-balada-tentang-luka-cinta-harapan/ - NewsWorldOfficial feature: https://newsworldofficial.medium.com/aiman-max-menyatukan-pop-dan-hip-hop-dalam - Official artist biodata: https://sites.google.com/view/newsworldnews/aiman-max-artis-malaysia-baharu-biodata

I believe this satisfies the notability criteria under WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. I would appreciate it if someone could help write a neutral, referenced article.

Thank you! Aimanmaxartis (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aimanmaxartis: This is not the page to request someone create an article for you. However, I will humour you as regards the sources:
—Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:47, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:17, 4 July 2025 review of submission by Rafaelthegreat

[edit]

Main reason why my article got declined. Write it very simple so a Wikichild like me can understand. Note: The Cerave bullet that is a part of L'Oreal is not my question. The draft is. Rafael Hello! 17:17, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rafaelthegreat: Three of your sources are the L'Oreal M&A news; your other two are incomplete (Source 1 is missing page numbers; source 2 is missing publisher, year of publication, page numbers, and ISBN/OCLC #). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:49, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I understand Rafael Hello! 17:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:48:14, 4 July 2025 for assistance on AfC submission by ESchultz9

[edit]


Request for neutral editor - Eric Schultz (clarinetist)

Hello,

I am Eric Schultz. I have a conflict of interest because I am the subject of a possible article, so I am asking a neutral editor for help. I believe there is sufficient reliable coverage to meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria for musicians, and I would greatly appreciate if someone could review and consider creating an article in a neutral way.

Here are independent, reliable sources with significant coverage:

WMBF News - GRAMMY nomination: https://www.wmbfnews.com/video/2023/05/11/its-been-whirlwind-ccu-music-professor-nominated-grammy/?fbclid=IwAR1lkEpWML79ByPPvGRMOGTCVDjdotNVE5pXI5y_WFB9YqqOsivbnLr5Nv4

WFXB - GRAMMY nomination: https://www.wfxb.com/2023/05/15/ccus-eric-schultz-earns-grammy-2024-music-educator-award-quarterfinalist-nomination/

WBTW - GRAMMY nomination: https://www.wbtw.com/news/grand-strand/conway/coastal-carolina-university-music-professor-eric-schultz-in-shock-over-grammy-nomination/

BroadwayWorld - Corigliano Clarinet Concerto: https://www.broadwayworld.com/article/Eric-Schultz-To-Perform-John-Coriglianos-Iconic-Clarinet-Concerto-With-The-Chelsea-Symphony-20240611

South Carolina Arts Commission - fellowship: https://www.scartshub.com/scac-announces-four-new-fellowship-recipients/

I Care If You Listen - album review: https://icareifyoulisten.com/2024/10/polyglot-de-centers-the-canon/

In addition, here are primary sources for factual details:

Coastal Carolina University Faculty Bio: https://www.coastal.edu/academics/facultyprofiles/humanities/music/ericschultz/

Eric Schultz on IMDB: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm13071462/

I understand these are self-published and do not establish notability, but I am sharing them in case they help verify certain facts.

If an article is created, a suggested title could be Eric Schultz (clarinetist) to distinguish me from others with the same name.

I am happy to answer any factual questions, but will leave any writing to neutral volunteers. Thank you very much! ESchultz9 (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ESchultz9 This is not the place to request that an article be created about you; that is done at requested articles, though that is severely backlogged. It is not absolutely forbidden for people to write about themselves, but it is highly discouraged per the autobiography policy.
My advice is that you forget that Wikipedia exists and go on about your career as if you had never heard of it, and allow an article to organically develop the usual way- when an independent editor takes note of coverage of you in independent sources and chooses on their own to write about you. There are good reasons to not want an article about yourself, see WP:PROUD. 331dot (talk) 20:12, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that IMDB is not an acceptable source as it is user generated. 331dot (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And that Grammy nominations don't help for eligibility; they need to be Grammy wins. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:31, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jéské Couriano Nominations are fine, see #8: "Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award". At least as long as the person is specifically named. 331dot (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:03, 4 July 2025 review of submission by Ren LiQian

[edit]

Hi, I've added two references for context. This is my first time participating on Wikipedia so still trying to figure out the process. The page is my intended translation of the famous Chinese article 曹劌論戰，which is detailed under these links

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%95%BF%E5%8B%BA%E4%B9%8B%E6%88%98

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Changshao

But I saw that the actual 曹劌論戰 page, there's no English translation. That's why I attempt to put out an English translation, and hopefully link back to this page.

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%9B%B9%E5%8A%8C

Let me know how to accomplish this by adding what kinds of materials so it can be approved. Thanks! Ren LiQian (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ren LiQian.
Wikipedia cannot reference Wikipedia - so your two references are not permitted. The Chinese Wikipedia and the English Wikipedia are independent projects and have different rules: what is acceptable there may not be accepted here. What you wrote in your draft, in it's current state, is not appropriate for Wikipedia and has been rejected. qcne (talk) 22:25, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:34, 4 July 2025 review of submission by Bakesandbooks

[edit]

I am not sure why it sounds like an advertisement and not a genuine article on this individual. Whatever has been cited are genuine sources and facts about the individual.

This being my first attempt, it will be helpful for more specific feedbacks with examples to submit article which will be accepted. After spending hours, it is disappointing to see articles being rejected. Bakesandbooks (talk) 20:34, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bakesandbooks: "It sounds like an advertizement" is strictly an indictment of how the article was written and not the sources cited. We also very strongly err towards NOT having articles on children if we can help it unless the sourcing is ironclad, since a Wikipedia article will irrevocably destroy any chance they have at a private life. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:58, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anything that is sourced to social media should be removed.
Do you have a connection to this person? You seem to have been at one of his events where you took his picture. 331dot (talk) 21:00, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Almost every single sentence in the draft is promotionally written. In addition, a lot of the claims made in the draft are promotional rather than informational, and would need to be removed, for instance all mentions of records registered with various books of records.
It will almost certainly be a waste of your own time to work on this draft – the kid is simply not notable, that is something multiple experiences Wikipedia editors have concluded repeatedly over the past few years. --bonadea contributions talk 21:17, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 5

[edit]

03:30, 5 July 2025 review of submission by 2600:6C51:7B7F:8C0:F076:E05:8165:5F6E

[edit]

My last draft was pretty bad but this draft I have all the correct information now and is confirmed by PlayboyNosh himself 2600:6C51:7B7F:8C0:F076:E05:8165:5F6E (talk) 03:30, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor, your draft is very promotional of the subject, which is not what Wikipedia is for. YouTubers are, as a guideline, not notable apart from only the biggest and most popular YouTubers and streamers that get exposure in reliable sources. The subject of your draft does not meet the notability requirements and is not referenced in any reliable sources. He is also not yet notable from an artist standpoint either. You can see this page to see the sourcing requirements for articles here on Wikipedia. cyberdog958Talk 04:35, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:17, 5 July 2025 review of submission by Rod182211

[edit]

Why was my draft rejected given it is an article about my own software developed by my company (Neoplexus) within the draft is also a link to my Company website. How else can I give you references ??????? Rod182211 (talk) 05:17, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rod182211: DISCLOSE. Until you do, this conversation goes nowhere. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:42, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond the lack of formal disclosure of your significant conflict of interest, a Wikipedia article about your company's software would consist of a summary of significant coverage of the software from independent sources with a reputation for reliability. This is basically written as a pamphlet for the software as it consists of what you and your company wish to say about your software. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:51, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:43, 5 July 2025 review of submission by 2409:40F3:125:462:A164:436B:7A9A:81F1

[edit]

i wanted to know what can be done to get my draft acceptance 

2409:40F3:125:462:A164:436B:7A9A:81F1 (talk) 07:43, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We can't cite search results, including internal/tag searches (too sparse). You need to cite specific articles that can explicitly corroborate claims in the article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:46, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:46, 5 July 2025 review of submission by Kenneth181976

[edit]

Dear Wikipedia Articles for Creation Reviewers,

I am writing to respectfully request a reconsideration of the recently declined draft biography for Kenneth Cassar, a Special Effects Supervisor. I understand the stringent notability criteria applied to biographical articles, and I aim to provide further context that may not have been fully appreciated in previous reviews.

Kenneth Cassar possesses over 35 years of continuous professional experience in the film industry, a career that has established him as the leading Special Effects Supervisor in Malta. His unique position in the Maltese film landscape is particularly significant given the island's prominent role as an international filming location.

Furthermore, Mr. Cassar's career is intrinsically linked to the pioneering history of special effects in Malta, initiated by his late father, Mario Cassar. Mario Cassar established special effects operations in Malta in the early 1970s, notably utilizing the unique horizon water tanks – facilities that have been globally recognized for their distinct features in filmmaking. Kenneth Cassar has built upon this foundational legacy, contributing directly to numerous international productions filmed in Malta and across Europe.

We believe that Mr. Cassar's extensive filmography, his specific awards and nominations (including a Robert Award nomination and his involvement in an Academy Award-winning crew for Tenet), and his unique position as a generational leader in a specialized field within a significant international filming hub, collectively demonstrate a level of notability that warrants inclusion on Wikipedia. His biography would not only document the career of a prominent industry professional but also contribute to the historical record of filmmaking in Malta.

While I acknowledge that articles are assessed individually, I respectfully submit that the historical context and Mr. Cassar's singular contributions to the development and execution of special effects in Malta, a key international filming destination, may elevate his profile beyond a typical industry professional.

I am prepared to provide any further documentation or clarification required to support this request. Thank you for your time and consideration in re-evaluating this submission.

Sincerely,

Kenneth Cassar (as the submitting user, if you are acting on your own behalf) Kenneth181976 (talk) 07:46, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kenneth181976: Chatbot-authored requests will not be entertained. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:47, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:13, 5 July 2025 review of submission by KID375

[edit]

Please tell me which part of it needs improvement, it was declined KID375 (talk) 10:13, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have resubmitted it for a review, the next reviewer will leave you feedback. Prior reviews must remain on the draft until it is accepted. 331dot (talk) 10:18, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1298893608"