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 12

[edit]

04:25, 12 June 2025 review of submission by Gsnelsonwiki

[edit]

AfC submission template shows broken Category timestamp output despite valid ts formatting. Seen in multiple drafts including Draft:Noreen Skagen. Can someone clear or purge? I can't figure this out. 

Gsnelsonwiki (talk) 04:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gsnelsonwiki: you say "despite valid ts formatting", but it isn't valid. The timestamp should be of the format ts=20250612042612, whereas you're entering it for some reason as ts=04:18, 12 June 2025 (UTC). I already fixed this once, but you seem to have changed it back. There should be no reason (that I know of, at least) to enter the value manually, the system does it for you when you submit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Did you use AI to generate the page source? It sometimes does weird stuff like that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:36, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I asked it to help me fix why the afc submission wasn't showing at all. I didn't realize I had deleted it mistakenly. My goal was not to not bother anyone, but it made it worse. I'm going to stop trying tonight. I appreciate your help and sorry for the trouble. Gsnelsonwiki (talk) 04:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gsnelsonwiki: okay, no worries; AI can be useful... and sometimes not so much. :)
I've removed the broken template and resubmitted, it should be fine now. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right. Thank you! Gsnelsonwiki (talk) 04:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article was published. Congratulations, and thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:51, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:02, 12 June 2025 review of submission by 周也

[edit]

I recently received feedback indicating that some of the sources cited in my draft may not be considered reliable. However, all the references I included are from major Chinese media outlets and websites, including some official sources.I would greatly appreciate it if you could clarify which specific sources are deemed unreliable, and how can I revise. I really need your help. 周也 (talk) 07:02, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Media in the PRC is controlled by the government. 331dot (talk) 07:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: That doesn't mean all of it is bad. South China Morning Post is considered reliable (as long as the topic isn't one the Chinese government has opinions about), while China Daily and Xinhua can be usable as supplementary sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. 331dot (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:10, 12 June 2025 review of submission by Farah244

[edit]

Dear Wikipedia Team,

I recently submitted a page in English that I had translated from its original Arabic version. Unfortunately, the submission was declined. I would appreciate it if you could kindly provide clarification on the specific issues or deficiencies that led to the rejection. This information will help me better understand the requirements and make the necessary corrections to meet Wikipedia's guidelines and standards.

Thank you for your assistance and support. Link: Draft:Fatima Al Safi

Best regards, Farah Farah244 (talk) 09:10, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Farah244: some of the sources are not reliable (note: you cannot cite Wikipedia as a source on Wikipedia), and some of the information is unreferenced. While this may be acceptable on the Arabic Wikipedia, each language version is a completely separate project with their own rules and requirements, and here at the English one our referencing (and notability) criteria are probably the highest of them all. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:26, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear DoubleGrazing,
Thank you for providing your valuable feedback. I'm currently working on the necessary adjustments. Farah244 (talk) 09:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DoubleGrazing,
If I cannot find the source, would you suggest that I delete the sentence? Farah244 (talk) 09:33, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Farah244: in articles on living people, pretty much every statement has to be clearly supported by a reliable published source, and particularly so anything potentially contentious as well as any private personal and family details. So any content that you cannot adequately support, must be removed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely want to thank you for all the valuable information and support you’ve provided. Your guidance has been incredibly helpful and made a real difference. I truly appreciate the time and effort you invested to help me — it means a lot. Farah244 (talk) 10:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello dear,
Thank you for your great feedback. I appreciate your care and attention. I have completed the required adjustments by adding all the available sources, and I have removed any information that couldn't be verified with proper references. Farah244 (talk) 12:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:33, 12 June 2025 review of submission by HannahDATAtab

[edit]

Dear all, I would be really grateful if you could help me improve my article draft about DATAtab statistics software. Unfortunately it got declined twice, although I used several independet, published sources. Thank you so much for your support. Kind regards, Hannah 213.147.165.191 (talk) 09:33, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:DATAtab
(Please remember to log into your account when editing, HannahDATAtab.)
The draft is promotional, because it is basically just the software developer telling the world about its software, which makes this come across like an online brochure. We're not interested in that, you can save that for your website. We want to know what third parties, esp. reliable and independent secondary sources, have said about your product and what in their opinion makes it worthy of note. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:52, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing thank you very much for your feedback and the clear explanation! I am already working on a revised version. May I ask you one more question? Does it make any sense to mention additional information from literature that explains things which are not directly about the software? For example: "The software covers descriptive statistics, to summarize data by calculating key measures of the distribution." The second part of this sentence is a quote from a statistics book. Or is this information not relevant and it is better to just add a link to another Wikipedia article about descriptice statistics? Thank you so mch for your reply! Regrads, Hannah HannahDATAtab (talk) 06:33, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:48, 12 June 2025 review of submission by Buzzseoandgmb

[edit]

request decline Buzzseoandgmb (talk) 09:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:58, 12 June 2025 review of submission by 87.209.237.86

[edit]

Hello

I've been trying to change our article for quite sometime and receive the same feedback without any specific points what needs to be changed. Can you please help me to understand what exactly needs to be removed/changed to comply. 87.209.237.86 (talk) 10:58, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(If you're KatePelikh, please log into your account whenever editing.)
This draft is basically just your business telling the world about itself, what it does, where it operates, etc. That makes this effectively a company presentation or online brochure. We're not interested in any of that; that's considered pure promotion here. What we want to know is what reliable and independent secondary sources have said about your business and what in their view makes it worthy of note. You need to find at least three sources that meet the WP:GNG standard for notability, and summarise what they have said; see WP:GOLDENRULE for an outline of this approach. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:06, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See also WP:NCORP for our requirements for articles about businesses. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:25, 12 June 2025 review of submission by Salimassaf

[edit]

can you send me please what should i delete or what should i add so my article gets accepted 

Salimassaf (talk) 11:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Salimassaf. 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.
The only sources you have are about Assaf winning an award. Everything else in the draft is unsourced. That is not acceptable, particularly in an article about a living person.
Unless you can find several sources that meet all the criteria in golden rule, you are wasting your time.
Note also that, though we have an article on Murex d'Or, that article has been tagged as unsatisfactory - the lack of independent sources mean that the award may not be notable in Wikipedia's meaning of the word, and so may not provide grounds for supposing that Assaf is notable.
Finally, you say that you are paid by your employer, but you do not identify the employer: that is not complying with the terms of use: see WP:PAID. Are you Assaf? If so, then you are strongly advised against writing about yourself. If you are not Assaf, then you must change your username - see WP:CHU. ColinFine (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:26, 12 June 2025 review of submission by 78.62.191.9

[edit]

Because these 3 decliners try to delete this draft! 78.62.191.9 (talk) 11:26, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You repeatedly resubmitted the draft without ever adding reliable sources telling us why it is notable, so it was ultimately rejected and will not be able to be resubmitted. I suggest reading this helpful essay on writing articles, and perhaps focusing on other tasks in the encyclopaedia before trying to create another one. CoconutOctopus talk 11:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Latgales reģionālā televīzija

[edit]

Can i get tips for how to make the source reliant and independent? Isthisthing (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot make sources reliable and independent: they either are or are not. If you cannot find several sources that meet all the criteria in the golden rule, then you should stop trying to create this article. ColinFine (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:22, 12 June 2025 review of submission by 254acky

[edit]

I have updated the content to add reliable secondary sources. Jewish Insider is independent from Jewish Journal and it is incorrect to associate them. I have included the initial link to the Jewish Journal article, but have also included articles about the publication from Politico, CNN Reliable Resources, Media Bias website featuring about Jewish Insider, and The Org which shows it's independence. 254acky (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@254acky The Jewish Journal is not an independent source as they have the same ownership, TRIBE Media Corp. and the section in the cited article that mentions Jewish Insider is titled "Who we are now" which makes it clear they are writing about themselves as a group so also a primary source. Politico is an interview with the founder so a primary source and not independent. CNN is a short quote of the Jewish Insider and The Org is not a reliable source because they are relying on what Jewish Insider says and Media Bias is self-published so also not reliable, In order for a source to contribute to notability it needs to meet all four criteria outlined in the declines (reliable, secondary, independent and provide in-depth coverage about the subject) and multiple are needed. S0091 (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:09, 12 June 2025 review of submission by Levanrami

[edit]

Hello, I'm a inexperienced editor with limited Wikipedia experience, and my draft article, "Draft:Lyman Stone" (Draft:Lyman Stone), was declined because the references do not show significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject, as required for notability. I believe Lyman Stone may be notable due to his work as a commentator, economist, or demographer, which has been referenced in public discourse. For example, my draft includes references like articles authored by Stone in outlets like The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Reason, Vox, Deseret, The Federalist, brief mentions or quotes in Bloomberg, Telegraph and a biography on a think tank website (e.g., Institute for Family Studies). I thought these showed his visibility and expertise, but I understand they may not meet Wikipedia’s standards for independence or depth. Could you please explain which specific references are insufficient and why (e.g., primary, non-independent, or lacking significant coverage)? Additionally, could you clarify what types of sources or level of coverage would be sufficient to establish notability, and provide guidance on improving the draft for resubmission? Thank you for your help! Levanrami (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Levanrami I fixed the header so that you didn't link to a nonexistent page entitled "Improving references for Draft:Lyman Stone".
You have described his work, but not what independent reliable sources say is important/significant/influential about his work. 331dot (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Everything I wrote is based on what that independent reliable sources say about his work Levanrami (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have written what Stone says is important about his own work- not what independent sources say is notable about his work. 331dot (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote the draft after encountering Stone’s work in numerous podcasts and articles, believing he might be notable as a commentator, economist, or demographer, but found no Wikipedia article about him. Levanrami (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Levanrami. 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) 22:11, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are not The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Reason, Vox, Deseret, The Federalist, Bloomberg, Telegraph reliable and independent from the subject of the article? Levanrami (talk) 23:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources may be independent, but not their content- most of them are interviews. Interviews are not an independent source, as they are the person speaking about themselves. As I said, you have told us what Stone thinks is important about his own work, not what others say is important about it. 331dot (talk) 23:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:42. 331dot (talk) 23:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 13

[edit]

04:28, 13 June 2025 review of submission by RyanPtrsn

[edit]

Trying to understand which references did not meet the standards. Please advise—thanks! RyanPtrsn (talk) 04:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The first source (Accel) is explicitly not independent from the product, while TechCrunch is usually not good for notability, especially since most of that article relies on quotes from Whimsical's founder and partners. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 06:21, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RyanPtrsn Please see WP:Conflict of interest and WP:PAID; if you work for the company you are required to make a paid-editing disclosure as described at WP:PAID. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:25, 13 June 2025 review of submission by Bigwettofrmda6

[edit]

I legit made this and structured this the EXACT same way as other articles about rappers and the only source of info was soundcloud. Why was it rejected???? Bigwettofrmda6 (talk) 05:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All content on Wikipedia, especially content about living people, must be verifiable to a reliable source. See our policy at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Your draft had a lot of negative information that was not verifiable to any reliable source—definitely not that SoundCloud. Please do not repost it. Mz7 (talk) 05:31, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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. If such sources do not exist, there cannot be an article.
As for the other articles you mention: Wikipedia has thousands of articles which would not be accepted today; but because it is a volunteer project, and volunteers work on what they choose, nobody spends much time improving or deleting those bad articles. See other stuff exists. ColinFine (talk) 09:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:41, 13 June 2025 review of submission by Ferina Giovanca Hotnauli

[edit]

Can you help me to open my editing page? Ferina Giovanca Hotnauli (talk) 05:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. If you can fundamentally change the draft to address the concerns of reviewers(you may still edit it), you should then appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly on their user talk page to ask them to reconsider. Please see the advice left by reviewers carefully. 331dot (talk) 08:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:16, 13 June 2025 review of submission by Agus Damanik

[edit]

Hello guys. I have been deleting the contentious content. Is there any recommendation you can tell about this submission cause most of the news talk about her life and independent cause most of the source came from news such as Tempo and Detik Agus Damanik (talk) 06:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:27, 13 June 2025 review of submission by Ambuj jain 18

[edit]

Can you please tell me the reason why my article is rejected. Ambuj jain 18 (talk) 06:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ambuj Jain 18 I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" portion.
Your draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
I might suggest you disclose your conflict of interest on your user page as well, for better visibility.
You have no sources in your draft. You need to include the sources of your information so it can be verified. Please see Referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 08:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:20, 13 June 2025 review of submission by EditEnigma7

[edit]

I have included all the required references including all sources from all reliable sources. I still don’t understand how he's not a notable person? a simple google search can verify that. I have included all of these references in the article as well. Could you please let me know specifically what is missing? I have also checked the "Notability of advocates" and he meets almost all the required qualifications except obviously the part of US, because he is from Nepal. Most of the sources are all from Supreme Court of Nepal and all the other references are from reputed publications where you can clearly see how notable he is. EditEnigma7 (talk) 08:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He is a lawyer who has given his views on various issues, but you have no sources stating what is particularly influential about him or his views. He's not a government official or judge who actually issued rulings. 331dot (talk) 08:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:36, 13 June 2025 review of submission by Kuzeyakkaya

[edit]

I want to know which parts were biased,as shown as the reason why my draft was declined. Kuzeyakkaya (talk) 09:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bias is not the issue, the draft reads as an essay telling us about the topic, and not an encyclopedia article summarizing what independent reliable sources say about the topic. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:30, 13 June 2025 review of submission by 152.37.100.1

[edit]

The above draft keeps being declined. I have reviewed several other NZ merit medal winners that have a bio on Wikipedia and they have under 8 references. This has 13 references and yet the decliner is saying more are required. What is the number that is actually needed? In the last decline they said no new references but there was no new facts presented. In every decline I have fixed the issue that was requested and another issue is raised. Can some one please give me a proper answer. More reverences is not an answer. if more are required then please state the policy number that is required 152.37.100.1 (talk) 12:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the creator of the draft, remember to log in when posting. Different reviewers view drafts differently, and may see different things at diffuse times. Such is the nature of the process.
The line "Details about White’s early life, education, and career prior to his advocacy work are not publicly available" should just be removed, you don't need to state what isn't said.
It isn't more sources that you need, but better sources, ones that do more than just document his work, but that show how he is a notable person broadly or more narrowly a notable author. 331dot (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:22, 13 June 2025 review of submission by Sciencesustainability409

[edit]

Dear Reviewer,

I would like to know which main sections are not satisfying the article's requirements. General comments sometimes do not help identify the specific issues. Some sections or references may be fine, but if I modify them, they might change significantly and no longer qualify. I want to avoid this cycle because the reviewers keep repeating the same points without clear details.

Specifically, I would like to understand what you mean by "significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject." I have already provided references that are secondary, independent, and reliable because they are from third parties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Luis_Alfaro

Thank you very much, and I look forward to your feedback. Sciencesustainability409 (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You just asked this on your talk page and received answers, did you not see them? Theroadislong (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong: We spent a lot of time on wikipedia-en-help trying to help them yesterday, but they kept evading the majority of our direct questions and we flat-out stopped trying to help. We're thinking this may be a case of high conflict-of-interest. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:57, 13 June 2025 review of submission by Mrwikiguy1

[edit]

Hi could you help me improve this with some advice? Thanks Mrwikiguy1 (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrwikiguy1 sorry to say but it does not look like the school meets the notability criteria as most of the sources are the school itself, routine coverage any school usually gets or brief mentions. S0091 (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:18, 13 June 2025 review of submission by WoodCup

[edit]

I'm trying to determine why this article has not been accepted. The response indicates possibly a failure to meet one of the eight academic criteria or a problem with sources. I could understand either, but am just wondering if anyone could help provide more specific information or reasoning so I can improve the draft for resubmission. Any help is much appreciated! WoodCup (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WoodCup I have seen the draft, and indeed it appears this person lacks notability as an academic under the eight academic-specific criteria. If you don't think that is the case, then you should add more reliable, secondary and independent sources that cover the subject in some depth, to prove that he is notable that way. I also would lower the number of articles to five or six of the most notable ones. NeoGaze (talk) 20:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is helpful! I suspected that might be the issue. I can definitely gather some better sources to show he meets the criteria. Thank you! WoodCup (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to have helped, cheers! NeoGaze (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:13, 13 June 2025 review of submission by RalfsMiltovics1234

[edit]

can we make this public? i really want to make this this real, bc my friend is a twitch streamer called, 'kingsammelot" and he wanted me to make a wikipedia page called "planet zygon" RalfsMiltovics1234 (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We do not accept fiction. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RalfsMiltovics1234: For which you can try Miraheze (after your request gets approved; e-mail required), or perhaps Wattpad (or several other similar platforms). --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 21:04, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:21, 13 June 2025 review of submission by Khajitdadddy

[edit]

I just wanted to know the reason behind this biography being declined. If it is an issue with the citiations, I want to know which ones Khajitdadddy (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For starters Linkedin.com and YouTube are not reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:51, 13 June 2025 review of submission by 151.27.29.116

[edit]

Hello, please help me to add information for publishing this page 151.27.29.116 (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't really get into co-editing here; you could try asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing. 331dot (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:11, 13 June 2025 review of submission by Akshat211521

[edit]

I am seeking assistance because my draft article about Akshat Tiwari was declined due to notability and citation concerns. I want to understand how to improve the article by properly citing reliable, independent sources and presenting the subject’s career and contributions in a neutral, encyclopedic way. I’m new to Wikipedia editing and would appreciate guidance to meet the platform’s standards. Akshat211521 (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was not only declined, it was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves, please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:38, 13 June 2025 review of submission by DANTON WANDE KITUMBINI

[edit]

Why is my submission being rejected? DANTON WANDE KITUMBINI (talk) 20:38, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't rejected, at least not by a reviewer, but you added the decline yourself because you are using Chatgpt or another AI chatbot so can't help you other than to say read Your first article and do not use AI. S0091 (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DANTON WANDE KITUMBINI There is little to no hope of this passing WP:BIO. Perhaps LinkedIn would suit your needs better. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:32, 13 June 2025 review of submission by MrTaco361

[edit]

Hi, I’m just wondering why this has been rejected, and what I could do in future to improve it? MrTaco361 (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does nothing but promote him, as the reviewer indicated. Nothing is said about why he got a chip put in his hand, or what is significant about it. It might help if the references were not bare urls, and in line next to the text they support, see Referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 23:39, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:14, 13 June 2025 review of submission by Lynnjenni

[edit]

I adjusted the tone in a few other areas along with excessive citations. Can I remove the Reception section and then resubmit to address the issues the past reviewer stated? Or is there something else I should do since that would also be removing the references in the reception area? Lynnjenni (talk) 23:14, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 14

[edit]

06:51, 14 June 2025 review of submission by ClarkeMSmith

[edit]

Dear Reviewers, I would like to request specific advice/assistance with this page which has been rejected a number of times. I have removed an entire section that I felt may have been the problem, but it was rejected. So in the interest in seemingly never ending editing and submissions, I would greatly appreciate some advice as to each specific instance as it pertains to: 'continued resubmission without improving sourcing'.

It would help me a great deal to know if the error(s) are in the PRODUCTION, RELEASE, or RECEPTION sections in question (or anywhere they occur). And then, which sentence contains the error. I think this may significantly reduce the amount of time being spent by the volunteer reviewers. Very appreciative. ClarkeMSmith (talk) 06:51, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft about your film has been rejected, so no more time will be spent by reviewers on this, you have not addressed your conflict of interest either. Theroadislong (talk) 07:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel I'm so close to solving the sourcing errors. That has been the only problem on this article for over a month, so I'm not understanding why at this point, there is now a conflict of interest issue. Each quote has been referenced, so I'm at a loss as to which one(s) are incorrect. I think we are really close at this point, and I'd appreciate it a great deal if you could tell me specifically which one is incorrect. I sincerely apologize for not asking these questions up front. I did not know this Help Desk was available until recently. I have spent countless hours studying the help links provided, when I should have come here instead of submitting over and over. ClarkeMSmith (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have significantly reduced the Production section, and simplified the narrative. I feel this section was the primary issue with both sourcing and conflict of interest. If you advise it, I will remove the Production section entirely. Every other section is factual and fully sourced. ClarkeMSmith (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel that you have fundamentally changed the draft to address the concerns of reviewers, the first thing you should do is appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You still need to speak to your conflict of interest- it should be formally disclosed on your user page(click your username in red above). 331dot (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have disclosed the COI on my page (red link). I will appeal the draft to the rejecting reviewer. ClarkeMSmith (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, can you let me know if the disclosure you mentioned was done correctly by me. ClarkeMSmith (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:39, 14 June 2025 review of submission by Gandes Setiawan

[edit]

Dear Wikipedia editors,

I hope this message finds you well. I would like to kindly request your assistance in understanding why the draft article for Ant International was declined again despite my efforts to meet Wikipedia’s standards for neutrality and reliable sourcing.

The draft has been revised multiple times to ensure that:

-The language is neutral and avoids promotional tone;

-All statements are verifiable and sourced from independent and reliable media;

-No content is copied or based on primary sources like press releases from the company itself;

-It follows the structure and tone of other similar company articles.

I truly appreciate the volunteers’ time and effort, and I am eager to improve this draft to meet Wikipedia's standards. Any suggestions or pointers would be immensely helpful.

Thank you so much for your support and guidance.

Warm regards, Gandes Setiawan (talk) 09:39, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gandes Setiawan: Chatbot-written requests will not be entertained. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:53, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for using my language combined with AI, because I am not sure about my language. Back to the related topic, how to edit the page again, until finally the page can be approved and is no longer on the draft page. Thank you. Gandes Setiawan (talk) 04:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gandes Setiawan: You can't - this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. You've had far more than enough chances to provide sources that aren't just rote business coverage. If you can't find those sorts of sources, then we can't entertain an article. We are not a business directory. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 05:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:49, 14 June 2025 review of submission by Edouglasww

[edit]

I first started working on a page for the Brooklyn band Late Cambrian, who have six albums and have won significant awards and have had significant achievements in many aspects of the arts with main singer/songwriter John Wlaysewski being a producer and composer and his partner Olive Hui being an artist and model, the two of them having created a scene around their work. My page was first denied over a year ago, and I proceeded to make changes and add citations but then Wikipedia changed the formatting. Recently, SafariScribe who had last turned down my submission since "Bandcamp was not a reliable source" -- I removed all of those references accordingly -- has now turned down the submission stating that it can no longer be submitted with no reasons or help on how the page can be approved to the point where it can be accepted. Wikipedia also changed the way how citations/references can be listed, and I haven't been able to figure that out either. I really feel as if my hard work to create a page for this band, something I'm doing on my own, because I'm constantly being asked for more info on the band when I invite friends to see them, is being unfairly maligned. No one at Wikipedia has been helpful at getting this page up to par for it to be accepted, so I do work, I resubmit with the same results. If you read the page, it's obvious that this band is just as notable for a presence on Wikipedia as any other indie band, and I would like a separate independent review not by this "SafariScribe" character, please. Edouglasww (talk) 09:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was meant to say "How the page can be IMPROVED to the point where it can be accepted." I feel like the very first time the page was turned down in April 2024 offered the feedback I needed to make improvements, but nothing since then has been helpful. I understand what Wikipedia has been trying to do, but not even someone from the site taking even the simplest of information on the page I created and including that on the site is ridiculous. How can this site even be trusted as any sort of reliable source of information where the mods are clearly biased against anyone trying to contribute RELIABLE information that can't be found anywhere on the site? Edouglasww (talk) 09:54, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not claim to be a reliable source, see the general disclaimer. Readers should examine the sources provided. Also see Wikipedia is not a reliable source. We don't have "mods" here. There are administrators like me, but any editor may review a draft.
Awards do not contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article, like Grammy Award. You have not shown that the band meets at least one aspect of WP:BAND. You have just described the activities of the band, not what independent reliable sources choose to say about it. 331dot (talk) 11:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:19, 14 June 2025 review of submission by Cv822

[edit]

I have an article I've created, and I've been trying to get published for over two years now. It is an article about my local public high school and contains facts about academics, extracurriculars, the history of the school, quick facts, and even the plans regarding the new football field.

Currently, the article has been rejected for appearing "to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia." I do agree with this, and I’m open to fixing it. But even after multiple revisions, the submission is still dismissed for the same reason. I would greatly appreciate any help rewording parts of the article to meet Wikipedia’s standards. I truly just want this page to be published now, because I think it’s quite unfair that every single high school near me has a page (I checked), and mine doesn’t.

I kindly request any extra guidance regarding my article, and I’m flexible about changing any parts of it. And I would rather help than be told my article isn’t important like before.

Thank you, Cv822 (talk) 10:19, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are telling about the school and its offerings. Instead you should be summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the school, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization.
Most schools actually don't merit standalone articles, unless there is something unusual about the school like it being a historic structure, or independent sources extensively write about its academic/state test results. Even a school shooting doesn't merit a standalone article about the school itself(Sandy Hook Elementary School redirects to the school district while the shooting itself has an article). At one point in the past the mere existence of a school merited it an article, but that is no longer the case, they are treated just as any other organization. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. For this reason you may see other articles on schools that probably shouldn't exist, but just haven't been removed yet. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cv822 I see that you are claiming that you personally created and personally own the copyright of the logo of the school- typically the school would own the copyright. If you didn't personally create the logo, you must immediately without delay request deletion of the logo from Commons.
Images are not relevant to the draft process, which only considers the text and sources. Images can wait until the draft is accepted. Once it is, there may be ways to have the logo in the article, but you don't need to worry about that right now. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This might be off-topic, but I'm not sure about the copyright of the logo, and it's a bit of a story how I got it. The thing is, the school logo is openly available on sites like their Facebook. But of course, I will definitely talk to somebody at my school, like the principal or superintendent, about the situation with the copyright, but as of now, I'm unsure.
And I kind of did create the image of the logo because I took an image of the school logo on a wall and messed with it on Photoshop for a long time until it was perfect. So I am the owner of this specific variant of the logo, unless I'm misunderstanding.
Also, the part about Sandy Hook was extremely helpful and I was surprised to see such a famous school link to the school district's page. Thank you for that! Cv822 (talk) 11:15, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't know the copyright, you must get it deleted. It doesn't matter that you made a copy of it yourself(a derivative work); this is akin to you handwriting a copy of The Hunger Games novel and saying it's your own work. As I said, images aren't relevant right now. 331dot (talk) 11:29, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the image from Commons, but what now? Am I still able to contact school officials about the image and re-upload it if I get the OK? Cv822 (talk) 11:37, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My advice is to focus on the draft itself right now; once it is accepted and placed in the encyclopedia, you can then worry about enhancing the article with images. Images are considered to be an enhancement, not a necessity. A school official can probably release the logo or at least provide you with the appropriate documentation so that you can upload it yourself, but again, that's not important right now. 331dot (talk) 11:41, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does my article seriously have any chance of getting accepted? The requirement about the nobility seems like it completely ruined any plans of having the article published. One notable thing I can think about is one of the alumni from a long time ago, Rachel Carson, is known by many throughout the world. Does this help? Cv822 (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say definitively that the school does not merit an article, because I don't know what sources exist that might support an article about the school. But I can say that what you have now will not be accepted, and you would probably need to radically change your approach, essentially starting fresh(though you can do that by removing the current content and starting over, though the previous reviews need to remain).
Notability is not inherited by association, so the fact that Rachel Carson went to the school in and of itself would not be a claim to notability- unless you have sources that significantly discuss how the school profoundly impacted Rachel Carson and her life. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cv822 the school is already pretty well covered at Allegheny Valley School District. What could be done though is a redirect to that article so anyone search for Springdale Jr-Sr High School will be directed to that article. S0091 (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So I've currently shifted my focus to the school logo because I've lost most of my hope with the school article. I would like for the logo to at least be on the internet to be seen for now. Recently, I did research on uploading fair use logos and I did come across the fact I'm NOT able to post a fair use logo on Commons but instead I must upload it to Wikipedia itself. I just need some help checking if I filled out all the parameters correctly.
Here's the newly uploaded image as a non-free school logo under fair use:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Springdale_Jr-Sr_High_School_PA_Logo_Transparent.PNG Cv822 (talk) 05:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cv822 ask at the Teahouse. S0091 (talk) 13:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:41, 14 June 2025 review of submission by Mrintervalofficial

[edit]

For reference I don't have anyone how can I do this Mrintervalofficial (talk) 10:41, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My advice would be to abandon this effort. Please see the autobiography policy. Writing about yourself is highly discouraged, because it is very difficult for people to set aside what they know about themselves and summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about them. You have no such sources. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves. 331dot (talk) 10:55, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:34, 14 June 2025 review of submission by 161.12.51.18

[edit]

Additional eyes on my draft (requesting addition and second review) Hello, My Wikipedia keeps getting rejected without any thorough or scientific assessment & feedback of notability and credibility: Draft:Zied Tayeb I want the review to be objective and to properly assess and diligence the quality of the submission, which unfortunately does not seem to be the case can you assist please? 161.12.51.18 (talk) 11:34, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are Swajaan, remember to log in when posting. I fixed your header to contain the title of your draft as intended. I also removed the url from your link, the whole url is unnecessary.
The good news is that the draft was only 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. That you did not get the result you want does not mean that the review was not properly done. I understand that being declined can be frustrating, but more experienced people than you are looking at it.
As noted by reviewers, you have not shown that Tayib meets WP:NPROF. 331dot (talk) 11:40, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:46, 14 June 2025 review of submission by Under Sea World

[edit]

My draft is unaccepted. Under Sea World (talk) 11:46, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 11:57, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 15

[edit]

03:10, 15 June 2025 review of submission by Alyukaszaszlo

[edit]

Why was my page draft rejected when I listed about 10 sources? Thanks! Alyukaszaszlo (talk) 03:10, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because you wrote a single sentence and slapped a list of sources after it with no context. You're writing an encyclopaedia article, not a Xitt. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 05:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Alyukaszaszlo.
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 - and it should cite those sources at the end of the paragraph or sentence where the information is that is verified by the source. (See [[[WP:REFB]] for how to do this).
Most of the sources you list are not independent of Neszlenyi, and so do nothing to establish that she meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability - without such sources, no article is possible. ColinFine (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:10, 15 June 2025 review of submission by Cnemaspis

[edit]

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for reviewing the draft article on Thomas Calame. I would appreciate clarification on the decision, as I included four peer-reviewed academic publications co-authored by the subject, as well as third-party sources verifying his role in conservation and ecotourism initiatives (notably, The Gibbon Experience in Laos).

Could you please advise specifically what additional sources or changes would be necessary to meet notability and content guidelines? I’m happy to revise accordingly.

Best regards, Cnemaspis (talk) 06:10, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cnemaspis Please see Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. A Wikipedia article should mainly summarize what reliable sources that are completely independent of Calame have to say about Calame. His social media profiles, publications written by him or his colleagues, and organizations that he's part of are not independent sources. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:07, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:54, 15 June 2025 review of submission by 2001:8F8:1473:1695:65C8:DA1B:2C5C:A131

[edit]

Thank you for reviewing the draft. I understand the notability concern regarding the subject. I have included the following references in the draft, and I would kindly like clarification on whether these meet the standard for reliable secondary sources with significant coverage:

1. South Asia Commons – Naye Tarane by Izhaar Malihabadi – Digitized version of the poet’s book, confirming authorship and literary contribution.


2. Rekhta.org – Tazkira-e-Shuara-e-Uttar Pradesh by Irfan Abbasi – A critical literary compendium mentioning the subject with biographical context.


3. Rekhta.org – Goya Aur Khandān-e-Goya Ki Adbi Khidmat – Provides background about the family’s literary legacy, including the subject’s role.


May I ask:

Do these sources meet the criteria for reliable secondary coverage?

If not, what kind of sources would be considered sufficient?

Would adding newspaper articles, journal citations, or academic book reviews improve the draft’s notability status?


I am committed to improving this draft and will be grateful for specific feedback. 2001:8F8:1473:1695:65C8:DA1B:2C5C:A131 (talk) 09:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, his own works are primary sources so fine to use for verifiability but not helpful for notability. The only cite currently in the draft to Rekhta.org is a profile of him so also not helpful and it is unclear if Rekhta.org meets the reliable source criteria. And yes, newspapers, journals and reviews by recognized critics/experts would be helpful. See Your first article along with the the notability guidelines for authors. S0091 (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you can include his name in Urdu that would be helpful and it would also be great if you could do it for Josh Malihabadi. See Jamiluddin Aali for an example. S0091 (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:56, 15 June 2025 review of submission by Qpham478

[edit]

My submission for this article creation got turned down. I'm a first time editor. Could you please help me understand which references are the problems here? Thanks! Qpham478 (talk) 09:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Qpham478 If you are the creator of the draft, who is now using this username, you should disclose your conflict of interest on your user page(User:Qpham478). If you are employed by Gridly, the Terms of Use require you to make the stricter paid editing disclosure instead. I note that your original username had "mkt" which usually means "marketing".
Your sources do not show that the platform meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. It just summarizes the activities and offerings of the platform, not significant coverage of it that indicates why it is notable. Awards do not contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article, like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:25, 15 June 2025 review of submission by Rory Milne

[edit]

I don't understand why my submission has been rejected, the reason given is: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject" I have 40 references that are definitely secondary and independant. They are certainly considered reliable sources in the circles I travel in. If the editor that most recently reviewed my submission thinks otherwise then they haven't explained why. Any pointers would be very much appreciated, many thanks, Rory Milne. Rory Milne (talk) 10:25, 15 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.
The good news is that reviewers seem to think the subject is notable, but it's hard to see through the tone and numerous sources- it may sound odd, but you probably have too many sources. Fewer high quality sources are preferable to a large number of low quality sources. 331dot (talk) 10:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for your advice, I'm very grateful for you finding the time to help me understand the submission and review process. I'll reduce the number of references and resubmit.
Does the tone I've used need to be tweaked as well? I made a big effort to make the submission sound professional and business-like, but if it's too informal or enthusiastic or something else I can certainly made changes.
If you have thoughts on this I would love to hear them, thanks again, Rory. Rory Milne (talk) 11:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Rory Milne, some quick advice on sources: I have found WP:42 to be extremely useful. It summarizes what you want in a source; ideally, your whole draft will come from WP:42-compliant sources. For example, your first source - which you cite extensively - seems to be a site that artists can get themselves listed in by providing information themselves and there is no indication that the people running the site will check this information. That's a problem for your draft because the site is neither reliable (no editorial oversight) nor independent (Stafford may have written his entry). If you go through your draft removing any sources that don't fit WP:42, that will certainly help with the quantity issue! I hope that helps, and wish you happy editing! Meadowlark (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:54, 15 June 2025 review of submission by 18kvolt

[edit]

Suggest some reforms What can i do for Wikipedia terms and conditions. 18kvolt (talk) 10:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@18kvolt Wikipedia isn't an IDE. Use VSCode or PyCharm to run your Python code instead. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:57, 15 June 2025 review of submission by 102.69.240.13

[edit]

Oluwaseun Medayedupin (born April 26, 2001) is a Nigerian entrepreneur, technologist, and social impact advocate. He is the founder of SocioAfrica and SocioAsia, two intergovernmental platforms focused on digital equity, economic cooperation, and peacebuilding across Africa and Asia. He is also the chairman of Socio Technologies Limited. 102.69.240.13 (talk) 13:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 14:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:12, 15 June 2025 review of submission by 82.8.141.222

[edit]

Ben 82.8.141.222 (talk) 14:12, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's little indication the draft is meant to be encyclopedia article and is rejected so will not be considered further. S0091 (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:54, 15 June 2025 review of submission by 108.146.89.58

[edit]

My draft submission got declined and the reason given are sources and notability. The reviewer did not go into additional detail and I am confused because this submission is very adequately referenced with reliable sources. Can someone help so this issue can be corrected and the draft resubmitted? 108.146.89.58 (talk) 17:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, you need in-depth coverage by reliable secondary independent sources specifically about the rivalry not games they have played against each other. Also, a minor point but Winsipedia is not a reliable source so suggest removing it along with any content supported by it. S0091 (talk) 18:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi S0091. A couple of questions. First, how can you talk about the rivalry without talking about games they have played against each other? Second, take a look at the first four or five sources talking about Baylor players receiving a "history lesson" before playing Rice in 2019. I don't understand what the problem is. Specificity would be appreciated. 108.146.89.58 (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IP, most of the sources and content is a list games, not the rivalry. I looked at the first three sources and they are almost entirely what those involved say (i.e. Rhule) so is considered a primary source as is Baylor's website (and same true for Rice). Are their any by secondary sources with their own independent in-depth analysis, evaluation, etc. about the rivalry? Seems like such sources should exist. See Carolina–Duke rivalry for an example. You might also try posting a note at WT:WikiProject College football. S0091 (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:25, 15 June 2025 review of submission by JM04093

[edit]

Hello, I have been trying to get a Wikipedia page out for Esau Williams for sometime now. I am confused about what the problem or problems are, and would be very grateful for some help! Each time I make the recommended changes, it seems as if the goalposts shift further. Moreover, I have encountered several other Wikipedia pages with scanty sourcing.

Finally, there also seems to be an unsolicited email for paid help each time I get a decline... could the two be related, I wonder?

Please if I can get help on what really needs doing from a person not intent on using their role on Wikipedia to make some money, that would be fantastic! I know there are honest people on here, and all I need is to get this page published. I have followed all the guidlines.

Much thanks in advance,

James JM04093 (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JM04093 please follow the instructions at WP:SCAM regarding the emails you are receiving. S0091 (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @JM04093. Unfortunately, we have thousands of seriously inadequate articles, mostly dating from ealier periods when we were not as careful about the quality of sourcing. Ideally, somebody would go through those thousands of articles, improving or deleting them. But since this is entirely a volunteer project, where people work on what they choose, not many people want to take on that job, and so they are still around. We don't want to add to them, so articles submitted for review are evaluated on their own merits, not compared to existing articles (see other stuff exists). If you want to point to some inadequately sourced articles, maybe somebody will have a look at them.
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. Writing an article successfully usually begins with finding such sources - discarding anything that is not published by a reliable source, anything that is written, published, commissioned, or based on the words of, the subject or their associates; and discarding anything with no more than a passing mention of the subject. This is summarised in WP:golden rule, and I suggest you review each of your sources aginst the three criteria in that page. ColinFine (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:27, 15 June 2025 review of submission by ANURAG NATH SHUKLA

[edit]

Please help to my profile in list to wikipedia ANURAG NATH SHUKLA (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ANURAG NATH SHUKLA Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We don't do "profiles". See Your first article for guidance. S0091 (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ANURAG NATH SHUKLA Please edit this existing thread, don't create additional threads. 331dot (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:51, 15 June 2025 review of submission by 2A02:6B6F:E784:AF00:7205:F98:6704:23FA

[edit]

Could I please have a bit more insight into which sources were unreliable and why? And if possible, could I just keep the reliable sources, even if it means cutting down a lot of information? Thanks 2A02:6B6F:E784:AF00:7205:F98:6704:23FA (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As noted by the reviewer, almost all the sources are unreliable. Social media is not reliable because anyone can post anything there without review or editorial oversight. Spotify is the same, almost anyone can make music available online. 331dot (talk) 18:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, thanks! Is it still possible to get the page accepted if I just remove all the info containing unreliable sources? 2A02:6B6F:E784:AF00:7205:F98:6704:23FA (talk) 06:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not unless you include several sources that do meet all three criteria in [{WP:42]]. A Wikipedia article should be a neutral 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. Wikipedia has almost no interest in what the subject, or their assocaites, say or want to say about the subject. ColinFine (talk) 14:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:18, 15 June 2025 review of submission by 82.8.141.222

[edit]

Ben 82.8.141.222 (talk) 21:18, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No question, no answer which seems to be your [MO] and time wasting. S0091 (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot requesting a block. See their ACFHD history which goes back to April and is useless time wasting much less their drafts. S0091 (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even worse than their time-wasting is that some of those articles were complete hoaxes, and even when the thing actually existed (the minority of articles), it was frequently LLM slop. Sometimes, they even left their prompt in and Chatbot discussing the prompt! CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:36, 15 June 2025 review of submission by Flyhigh223!

[edit]

Hello! I have edited this page multiple times and have formatted as requested, could somebody please tell me what else I need to edit before resubmission? Thanks Flyhigh223! (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much should be good to go, good job! NeoGaze (talk) 08:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @NeoGaze! I've just resubmitted it. Flyhigh223! (talk) 16:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:48, 15 June 2025 review of submission by Zartsnarf

[edit]

Hey there, I’m looking for someone to review my references. They’re claiming there’s not enough information to justify a Wikipedia article, but there absolutely is. Zartsnarf (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zartsnarf: The draft has been rejected, which means it can't be resubmitted, and I'm afraid I see why. Of the nine sources, five contain dead external links, one doesn't mentuin Chukwuka, one is a tweet, one is a namedrop, one is a (very brief) interview, and one is a YouTube link, apparently to Chukwuka's own video. That adds up to zero reliable, independent, and secondary sources that offer significant coverage. --bonadea contributions talk 08:39, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Zartsnarf. A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people who have no connection whatever with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, andv very little else.
Unless you have several sources which meet that characterisation (see WP:42), there cannot be an article, and you are wasting your time trying to create one. ColinFine (talk) 14:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:03, 15 June 2025 review of submission by 06nurahmed

[edit]

How can I modify the article to be approved 06nurahmed (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can't, it has been rejected. You aren't notable in a Wikipedia sense. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is interested in what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about a topic, not in what it wants to say about itself. You should use social media to tell the world about yourself. 331dot (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:20, 15 June 2025 review of submission by EliG233

[edit]

It’s a variation of Biddy Basketball https://www.basketballmanitoba.ca/2015/10/canada-basketball-releases-new-mini.html Under Basketball Canada EliG233 (talk) 23:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OP has been blocked for sockpuppetry. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 16

[edit]

01:02, 16 June 2025 review of submission by BradOdis

[edit]

Please provide more comments on why the submission was declined. It is difficult to know how to make revisions without specific comments. Thank you. BradOdis (talk) 01:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BradOdis As stated in the decline reason, you have not demonstrated that NeoBards meets Wikipedia's definition of a notable company, which requires indepdendent reliable sources that contain significant coverage of the company. The draft's current sources mainly cover the company's games and contain very little coverage of the company itself; notability of the company cannot be inherited from notability of its games. On the draft's talk page, User:S0091 asked you to list three good sources that meet all the criteria in the decline notice. Assuming you can find suitable sources, I suggest that you join the talk page discussion before continuing with the draft. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:01, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:09, 16 June 2025 review of submission by Moh216

[edit]

I’d like to offer clarification on the Draft:LoadGen article, which was declined due to notability concerns. I appreciate the feedback and would like to provide more context — both on why I created the article and on the availability of independent sources that speak directly to LoadGen’s role in the industry.

I’ve been a hobbyist in the virtualization and load testing space for some time, and I noticed that LoadGen, which has been around since 2005 and is widely used in VDI performance benchmarking, did not yet have a Wikipedia page — despite similar tools like Login VSI being covered. This seemed like a gap, particularly for those researching software testing or performance monitoring tools in enterprise and EUC (End-User Computing) environments. Contributing to Wikipedia has been a long-standing goal of mine, and this seemed like a meaningful way to do so.

In terms of notability, I’ve compiled a number of independent, reliable sources that discuss LoadGen in significant detail:

A full-length 2006 review by Tim Mangan, hosted on TMurgent (formerly BrianMadden.com), assesses LoadGen's features and capabilities in comparison to Citrix’s own testing tools .

Multiple technical articles by EUC consultant Ingmar Verheij directly evaluate LoadGen’s components — notably the Analyzer and LoadBot modules — in practical testing scenarios .

LoadGen has been a featured tool in GO-EUC.com research from 2021 to 2025, where it was used to conduct in-depth system performance evaluations. In these cases, LoadGen is not simply mentioned, but plays a central methodological role in reproducible testing .

TechTarget’s 2023 article (“6 steps for calculating and sizing a Citrix VDI environment”) explicitly lists LoadGen as a recommended VDI benchmarking solution. This piece was translated and republished in ComputerWeekly.de, adding to its reach .

Tracxn (2025) and Capterra (2025) list LoadGen in software evaluation portals, supporting its standing within the broader tool ecosystem .

I hope this additional information demonstrates that LoadGen has received sustained, independent, and meaningful coverage within its domain — enough to meet the threshold for notability per WP:N. If the structure or tone of the article could be improved to better reflect that, I’d be grateful for suggestions and happy to make the necessary changes. Moh216 (talk) 08:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Moh216: Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
Most of your sources don't actually discuss LoadGen other than to note it was used as a tool for their purposes. You have two reviews of it, and those're the only usable sources you have. Are there any other full reviews of it? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Jeske Couriano for the thorough breakdown — I really appreciate you taking the time to go through each source in detail.
Based on your assessment, I understand that only two of the references — the TMurgent article by Tim Mangan and the Analyzer review by Ingmar Verheij — appear to meet the bar for significant, independent coverage. I see now that usage in technical testing or brief mentions (as in GO-EUC or TechTarget) are not sufficient on their own for notability.
I’ll dig deeper to see if I can find additional independent in-depth sources (such as interviews, whitepapers, or analyst commentary) that directly evaluate LoadGen as a subject in its own right. If I do, I’ll revise and resubmit accordingly.
I’ve always aimed to contribute something factual and helpful in a technical niche where coverage is light, but at the same time I completely understand the importance of meeting the sourcing threshold. Thanks again for the guidance — it's been genuinely helpful. Moh216 (talk) 08:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Moh216: You're welcome. Two sources by itself is a pretty good sign; you'd really only need a third solid source to meet the eligibility threshold. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:50, 16 June 2025 review of submission by Sciencesustainability409

[edit]

I encounter a case where my article is always denied, I already follow the instructions that volunteers made. However, do not really highlight what is ok, and what is not ok. is there anyone who can truly take time to review and advice over the article? some people under estimate my effort. And always post the same message, if you specify the mistakes it will be easier to improve. Many thanks! Sciencesustainability409 (talk) 08:50, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources you have used do not seem to even mention the subject.
What is your connection to Dr. Alfaro? You took a picture of him where he posed for you, and took other pictures of him posing with who appear to be government officials. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OP blocked as likely UPE and later, socking. 331dot (talk) 09:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:23, 16 June 2025 review of submission by Cashy1234

[edit]

why is my artcle not valid and approved Cashy1234 (talk) 09:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer left the reason, "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." The draft is completely unsourced and shows no indication the person meets the definition of a notable musician. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

tell me what i should remove or add Cashy1234 (talk) 09:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not create a new thread for every post, just edit this existing section. There is nothing you can do, that is what rejected is meant to indicate. This is not a place to just tell about someone; please see the five pillars and Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 09:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:45, 16 June 2025 review of submission by Dr. Akinlu Ojo Damilola Brown

[edit]

please i would like to know why my article was decline So I can make necessary corrections Dr. Akinlu Ojo Damilola Brown (talk) 09:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft as intended. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:59, 16 June 2025 review of submission by 2A02:B127:8F06:AE0C:59EF:6EA1:7C71:5444

[edit]

Hello, I am requesting assistance with the draft article Draft:Andi_Krush. Andi Krush is an author of several books that are listed on well-known websites such as Feltrinelli, Goodreads, Amazon, and others. He is also a singer-songwriter who has collaborated with notable individuals, and his songs are published on various respected platforms.

I believe this subject meets the notability requirements for Wikipedia, but I may not have formatted or presented the draft correctly. I would really appreciate if someone could review the article and possibly collaborate with me to improve it, so it can meet Wikipedia’s standards and be accepted for publication. Thank you very much in advance! 2A02:B127:8F06:AE0C:59EF:6EA1:7C71:5444 (talk) 11:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It's not a matter of formatting. As far as I can see, not one of your citations meets the basic requirement of being reliable, wholly independent of Krush, and containing significant coverage of him: see golden rule
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject or their associates say or want to say: Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people wholly unconnected with him have published about him, and without such sources, there can be no article. ColinFine (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:12, 16 June 2025 review of submission by Vinukamal

[edit]

Hi Team, I want to write a page about my startup. However, as there is a conflict of interest how can I go about doing this in the right way? Thank you. Vinukamal (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Vinukamal, follow the instructions on WP:WIZARD and make a WP:COI declaration on your userpage, I will leave an automatic note on your talk page with more information. Best, Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Vinukamal. It is unlikely that there has been enough independent material published about your startup to establish that it meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability (see TOOSOON) or to make a Wikipedia article about it possible. ColinFine (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:36, 16 June 2025 review of submission by LucasKrm21

[edit]

Hello, I noticed that you rejected my article because it is not notable enough for Wikipedia. What can do to make it notable enough ? LucasKrm21 (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please make your WP:PAID declaration on your userpage. Thank you, Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand this but I'm not getting paid thats the problem, the article is even about a free and open source project LucasKrm21 (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LucasKrm21: the fact that the subject of the article is FOSS has no bearing on the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use which require that all editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which they receive, or expect to receive, compensation". You said "I work for the person that wrote it". Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the article which is not notable, it is the subject. There is nothing you can do about it, except wait until several people wholly unconnected with you have chosen to write in some depth about it, and been published in reliable places. See WP:TOOSOON, WP:NORG and WP:452. ColinFine (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I understand thank you verry much LucasKrm21 (talk) 14:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:18, 16 June 2025 review of submission by Steve Finlay

[edit]

My page was declined again, even though I provided sufficient secondary sources. There's a Japanese page with the same content that has far fewer secondary sources, yet it was approved. Could you assist me in understanding what we did wrong and what steps are needed to improve it? Steve Finlay (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Finlay The Japanese Wikipedia is a separate project, with its own editors and policies. What is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others. Also, that an article exists does not necessarily mean it was "approved" by anyone.
By "we" I take it that you work for Astemo- the Terms of Use require that to be formally disclosed, see WP:PAID, as well as WP:COI.
Wikipedia is not a place to tell about a company, 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 meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. Just to clarify, I am not paid by Astemo or affiliated with them in any professional capacity. I’m simply interested in improving coverage of notable companies with substantial global presence, and I felt that Astemo, given its scale and industry relevance, warranted an article.
I understand that English Wikipedia has stricter standards compared to other language versions, and I respect that. I’ve done my best to gather reliable, independent secondary sources, but I may still be misunderstanding what qualifies as "significant coverage" under the notability guidelines.
Could you help me better understand what specifically is lacking in the draft or the sources I used? Are there particular types of sources or coverage I should seek out to meet the notability threshold?
Any guidance you can provide on how to move forward with this in a constructive way would be greatly appreciated. Steve Finlay (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hwllo, @Steve Finlay. What inexperienced editors often do not understand is 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.
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) 18:15, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who is the "we" when you say "what we did wrong?" 331dot (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which three of your sources meet all of the requirements outlined at WP:42? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:33, 16 June 2025 review of submission by CarstenBoehme

[edit]

I have no experience with Wikipedia posts, so I wonder what kind of references do you need on top of published research papers to accept a publication? If there is too much information around, it would be helpful to know, too. So I could correct the post. We have here a leading AI scientist from Europe, financed in his research by the EU with decent research papers and even bigger business success. Hi application is technically leading the development in "AI in Investing". Many thanks for your support and answer. 

CarstenBoehme (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CarstenBoehme: You cite exactly zero references. This is not acceptable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are the published research paper not enough references? I don't understand. CarstenBoehme (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CarstenBoehme: I invite you to read the two links I provided above in the second sentence. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @CarstenBoehme. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:22, 16 June 2025 review of submission by OhNoItsBryla3837

[edit]

Is there any hope of changing the sources cited to get it published or is the topic itself inherently not notable enough? OhNoItsBryla3837 (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have sources that the reviewer did not consider, you may edit the draft and then appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly, asking them to reconsider. You have not yet shown that the school is a notable organization. Also see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. 331dot (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:47, 16 June 2025 review of submission by 67.171.179.111

[edit]

Isn't the ITTF a reliable source? What about USATT? 67.171.179.111 (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the draft is unsourced. The mission section should just be removed, as "mission" and "vision" are just what the organization thinks about itself and its purpose, and that can change at any time. 331dot (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 17

[edit]

00:43, 17 June 2025 review of submission by 2603:6081:5503:2D95:C1F0:507:9950:AA49

[edit]

there is a trademark for the brand as well that I would like to submit. would that help the article be published? 2603:6081:5503:2D95:C1F0:507:9950:AA49 (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. We're not looking for evidence the subject exists; we're looking for evidence third-parties with no connexion to the company have written about it at length. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 00:49, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:37, 17 June 2025 review of submission by Soccerfan888

[edit]

Hello

This is an article about a professional soccer player and her history - not sure why it was declined. It is about Jaime Perrault and her life...... this format was followed by other professional soccer players. Soccerfan888 (talk) 02:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]


This is the story of Jaime Perrault - her life - not sure what the issue is? I followed other professional soccer players entries. Please advise. Soccerfan888 (talk) 02:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Soccerfan888, the issue is that you have no sources. Have a look at Your First Article and referencing for beginners for further information. You may want to consider starting again since your draft is written backwards, which is much harder than starting with the sources you'll be using. Happy editing! Meadowlark (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:31, 17 June 2025 review of submission by HelpfulBeagle

[edit]

I need to find references for my article because I am struggling and it is tough for me to make this a great article like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flu_season. Although COVID-19 season has not developed yet, I’m trying to get as much information as I can about this topic and I want this to be accepted with all the information I got so then this article can evolve with the disease. HelpfulBeagle (talk) 03:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HelpfulBeagle: Fair warning; you're writing in a contentious topic (Coronavirus disease 2019). I will also note the government sources do not help (gov't documents). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 03:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:49, 17 June 2025 review of submission by Hahayouthoughtyouweregonnawin

[edit]

My dear friend, why, oh why, have you rejected my incredible page? Shouldn't the world know of the wonders and horrors of 'Lil crepeface? If it is for a certain reason, and not just because you think it's stupid, please tell me. Kind regards, the prophet of all. Hahayouthoughtyouweregonnawin (talk) 03:49, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We're not interested in your creepypasta-what-got-blammed-off-the-RPC-Authority-and-SCP-Foundation. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 04:40, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:19, 17 June 2025 review of submission by SumanRail

[edit]

what can i do SumanRail (talk) 07:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:30, 17 June 2025 review of submission by 2001:1C00:9D0D:C00:2DBC:AE08:5042:2969

[edit]

I feel like many "moderators" being bullies. There are many notable resources that highlights the information in the article from independent resources. Either just delete the full article or let it be included. Or alter it in a way that it match their opinions.

I do not think Wikipedia is much open if a small group act like "Gods". 2001:1C00:9D0D:C00:2DBC:AE08:5042:2969 (talk) 07:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have "moderators"; any editor may review a draft. That this is an open encyclopedia does not mean that anyone may make any edit without restriction, limitation, or criticism.
You have done a nice job summarizing the person's work, but you have not summarized what independent reliable sources say makes them a notable creative professional. It's not enough to just have sources that document the person's work.
If you want it deleted, you can request that by putting {{db-u1}} at the top of the draft. 331dot (talk) 09:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:09, 17 June 2025 review of submission by Rohitkumar7210

[edit]

New to Wikipedia: I’m new to Wikipedia and would like assistance to ensure this article meets notability and formatting guidelines.

📰 Unsure About Sources: I’m not sure if the sources I used are reliable or sufficient to establish notability. Help evaluating them would be appreciated.

✏️ Need Help with Formatting: I’ve written the draft but need help with formatting citations and applying proper Wikipedia style.

📚 Notability Concerns: I believe the topic is notable but would appreciate feedback on whether the coverage meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria.

🧑‍💻 Technical Issues: I had trouble using templates and references — could someone help clean up the formatting? Rohitkumar7210 (talk) 10:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rohitkumar7210 Your draft contains one single link. That is all ot contains. Please read HELP:YFA 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:20, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rohitkumar7210, you should also be aware that editors frown upon AI/ChatGPT-written comments and we do not accept drafts written by them. We want to talk to you, not a machine. Meadowlark (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft : Timothy Hannem

[edit]
I see this draft was declined : Draft:Timothy Hannem
But I don't understand, it says it needs :
"in-depth sources"
"reliable sources"
"secondary sources"
"independent sources"
The majority of references at the end of the page link to french newspapers who are reliable, secondary and independant sources. Why are these references considered "not reliable", "not secondary" and "not independant" ?
The newspapers mentionned in the references are very well known in France, just take a look : Le Parisien, L'Express, Le Monde, Libération, 20 Minutes (France).
Thank you for your help. 147.161.152.126 (talk) 09:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IP editor, the newspapers may well be reliable, but you need to meet all three criteria in each of your sources. Interviews are not independent, so they do not help establish notability. Sources also need to be mostly or entirely about your subject, so newspaper articles about urban exploring - even if he is one of the explorers - will also not help. You are looking for sources that have decided to write about your subject, without any input from him, because he is notable. Look at WP:42 for more information. Happy editing! Meadowlark (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
1) "Sources also need to be mostly or entirely about your subject" -> They are. These articles are about the books or exhibitions of the subject. Just translate them in english.
2) "You are looking for sources that have decided to write about your subject, without any input from him, because he is notable" I believe the editor of the subject's books sends books to journalists to review them, so the subject doesn't have an input. Or he may have, that's difficult to tell. Do I have to contact the subject and ask him precisely about articles he had no imput on ? 147.161.152.126 (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, being about the books or exhibitions of the subject is not the same as being about the subject. It may be that his books/exhibitions are notable, if they've been reviewed and written about - but you are trying to write about the person. If a review were to go into detail about the man himself, you could potentially use that. The ones I looked through did not seem to.
The other problem you're running into is that every source I have looked through so far contains part of an interview by your subject, which immediately disqualifies them. This can be a frustrating thing because who would know better than the subject themselves? And indeed, you can use interviews as sources for basic information about the person - but they never contribute to establishing notability, which is your goal. Have a look through WP:42 if you haven't already; I have found it to be very helpful in assessing sources. Meadowlark (talk) 00:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. As I understand, I must find sources where the subject was not involved/interviewed, and could possibly contain false informations ? This doesn't seems very logic to me, as an article could *possibly* contain false informations or claims.
The subject is referenced in a book where he was not interviewed, but it's a book about urbex in general, so if I cite this book, I'm afraid I'll get denied again, but this time because "the sources talks about urbex in general and not *only* the subject"... 147.161.152.126 (talk) 07:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's where the 'reliable' part comes in - a reliable source will have done thorough fact-checking, so we can be confident they are reporting accurately. Consider also that people can (and do) lie about themselves, especially to make themselves look better! Actors, for example, are notorious for changing their age.
If there is a chapter in the book that discusses Hannem's life and his impact on urbex, then you could most likely use that. Even a page or two might be enough, depending on what's in it. Your only problem there would be making sure it wasn't a self-published book, which doesn't have the same editorial standards.
Writing an article is the most difficult thing to do on Wikipedia, and writing about a living person is the hardest kind of article. This is why we tend to suggest that before working on a draft, it's a good idea to spend some time editing existing articles and getting a better idea of what suits Wikipedia and what doesn't. No one's a great Wikipedia editor immediately, and some of the most productive editors here have never created a new article. What I'm trying to say is that this is often a very frustrating experience, but we are trying to help you as best we can. Meadowlark (talk) 07:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. There is a book about urbex, where the subject is (I think) referenced on several pages. As I understand I must wipe out all the sources of the draft and only put the ones contained in the book - where the subject had no imput ? I'll do that. Thanks again ! 147.161.152.126 (talk) 07:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:27, 17 June 2025 review of submission by Russelljenkinsfearn

[edit]

I have had my submission rejected twice, due to lask of references both times. As I understand it my article will never get accepted because it is not "notable" enough. If that's the rules then I am fine with that. I didn't know and it turns out that there are just not enough good references to the series for me to add.

My question is. Can I add information about the TV series to the "Francis_Kilvert" wiki page? How much of the information I have would it be appropraite to add? I obviously have too much, as I can't put my whole article in there!

Thanks for you help. Russelljenkinsfearn (talk) 10:27, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Russelljenkinsfearn I would be abstemious in your additions, and woudl seriously consider using Talk:Francis Kilvert to seek to reach a consensus for additions that are more substantial.
I fear your assessment of the TV show's notability is likely to be correct 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK thank you. I don't know who I'll be talking to on that link, but I'll try it. Russelljenkinsfearn (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Russelljenkinsfearn If you post a note on the talk page as to why you think the draft meets notability and point to sources so it is clear, I will post a comment so the next reviewer knows to look there. @Timtrent had to look up "abstemious". Good word. S0091 (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:30, 17 June 2025 review of submission by Kabilavutto

[edit]

How it should describe so that the page will accepted and move to article page.. Kabilavutto (talk) 11:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kabilavutto This has been rejected and cannot proceed further. If yiu wish to start again please use your sandbox and read HELP:YFA before even thinking of startingg 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 11:40, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:54, 17 June 2025 review of submission by Steve Finlay

[edit]

My page was declined again, even though I provided sufficient secondary sources. Could you assist me in understanding what I did wrong and what steps are needed to improve it? Steve Finlay (talk) 11:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which three of your sources meet all of the requirements outlined at WP:42? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:01, 17 June 2025 review of submission by Porpisith

[edit]

Hello, I am editing the Leak Lyda page. I hope you can help me provide feedback to make the editing more accurate. I have updated the Leak Lyda page with some edits. Do I just keep editing? Can I make it public by myself or have it moderated and then made public by you? Porpisith (talk) 12:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's rejected and will not be considered further Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:58, 17 June 2025 review of submission by Tony.Molica

[edit]

I would like to resubmit this for consideration, but am wondering if the "Products" section of the page should be removed or edited first? Will the list of FSW machines be interpreted as promotional instead of informational as intended? Any advice on revisions would be appreciated. Thank you! Tony.Molica (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the whole draft is promotional and poorly supported by independent sources.. Theroadislong (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:49, 17 June 2025 review of submission by Ozzwah

[edit]

Hello, I got the review saying "needs many reference". What kind of references? Scientific papers (often locked by subscriptions)? web-pages? other Wikipedia pages? Best regards, Ozzwah Ozzwah (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ozzwah: I'm really curious as to what the hell that decline notice is, to be perfectly honest. I see you've cited a fair bit already. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ozzie10aaaa: Please explain. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, if you take a look at the article itself[1] there are several paragraphs that are not cited (besides that it had already been tagged with "does not cite any sources." from January as well as "too technical" from the same time), please feel free to ask further questions , thank you --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BTW many sources can be obtained at Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:59, 17 June 2025 review of submission by Tracey Capobianco

[edit]

Page was declined due to sounding like an advert. How is it different from Sisters of a Down wiki page? Not sure what ineed to change. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_of_a_Down Tracey Capobianco (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tracey Capobianco: Comparing a draft about an individual person to an article about a full band is comparing apples and oranges. Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
Only one of your sources is any good. This is fatal for a draft on any topic and damning for an article about a (presumably) still-living person. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:32, 17 June 2025 review of submission by Kschuber98

[edit]

Can I cite an article or journal that appeared in a print publication but is not available on the internet? An Wikipedia editor claimed a “hardcopy is required”, but what does that mean exactly? Thanks. Kschuber98 (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kschuber98: Yes, you can, and we have bespoke templates for the purpose ({{cite journal}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite magazine}}). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where was that said? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:05, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:24, 17 June 2025 review of submission by 209.242.141.167

[edit]

Hey, I was just adding a page about myself and I got flagged 209.242.141.167 (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We're not social media. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:01, 17 June 2025 review of submission by Isfahan62

[edit]

I have a new article "Gwen Lamont" accepted and created. It has been reviewed with some suggestions. I have read the associated articles about how to improve the text etc, but I do not understand who does this, me or experienced editors? Isfahan62! Isfahan62 (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Isfahan62 you mean addressing the issues? If so, as the creator it would great if you did but no one is obligated to so whether experienced or not. There are thousands upon thousands of articles tagged with issues that stay that way for eternity because there are not enough editors to address the issues or sometimes the issues have been addressed but no one removed the tag(s). S0091 (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:39, 17 June 2025 review of submission by J anaya05

[edit]

My draft was declined because the reviewer alleged that it was not adequately supported by reliable sources and that it was promotional. (1) Sources: Sources 1, 5, and 7 were published by a reputable academic organization with thorough editing in which the subject of the biography had no hand in writing or editing. Sources 2, 6, and 8 were published by a reputable university, in which they write about their employee (the subject of the Wikipedia draft). Source 4 is a reputable institute that researches, archives, and writes biographies on African American men and women (as with the other sources, it is not self-published). Source 3 is the individual's Curriculum Vitae, which according to Wikipedia rules (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons), is ok to use when writing a BLP so long as it does not conflict with certain rules, which it does not. Sources 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are applicable for use because, as Wikipedia's rules for BLPs states, self-published sources "does not refer to a reputable organisation publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants awards." (2) Neutrality: This BLP is written conservatively, is not sensationalist, and does not spread unsupported claims. This BLP simply documents what the cited secondary sources say about the individual. It simply documents this individual's achievements, and uses clear, direct, and factual language. J anaya05 (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@J anaya05 Which element(s) of WP:NPROF do you rely on? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:57, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean to ask "What makes the subject of the BLP notable?" Or "What evidence did I provide to prove that the individual is notable?" J anaya05 (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@J anaya05 evidence is what is needed to meet either WP:NBIO and/or WP:NPROF but note Moore's own publications cannot establish either so the question to ask when making claims about Moore's importance is "according to whom?" and the source should be a secondary independent reliable source (WP:NPROF has exclusions but they need to be met). S0091 (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]


June 18

[edit]

00:02, 18 June 2025 review of submission by SbnBI

[edit]

why did my draft get declined ? SbnBI (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Sam Harvey – An Atypical Unicorn within the Whispering Woods Ecosystem
The reason it was rejected, @SbnBI, is because Wikipedia is not for things you made up. You may want to take your writing to a blog site, where you will have a much more appreciative audience. Meadowlark (talk) 00:19, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

00:14, 18 June 2025 review of submission by Dylan2Geoffrey

[edit]

hi there, my apologies for resubmitting without making the necessary edits. May I ask for some guidance on 1) what needs to be changed to qualify for submission, and 2) how to resubmit? Thank you. Dylan2Geoffrey (talk) 00:14, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has now been rejected as unsuitable, not just declined, so your next step if you are confused is to discuss it with the reviewer if you think you have a good argument to make. However, I can tell you from reading it that it would have to be fundamentally rewritten with a completely different approach. As it is, half the draft is citations themselves, when citations are supposed to be support information about the subject, not be the content. There's not a single, independent source given that is about TrendForce, just a bunch of articles in which "Trendforce says/said" on other topics.
To get another shot at the article, it needs to be approached in the opposite matter. Find three good independent articles that are about Trendforce. Not simply quoting TrendForce, or mentioning TrendForce or anything written by TrendForce. Then write an article based solely on the reliable, independent information about TrendForce. In addition, if you do have any WP:COI to disclose, it's best to do that as soon as possible, whether it's as an employee, someone paid to write about TrendForce, whether you're also operating the Hiyaworld account, or any other relation you might have with the subject.
Without the steps in the second section here, this is likely the end of the road for this article, at least for the time being. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:48, 18 June 2025 review of submission by Textbypeeps

[edit]

Tone has been revised to neutral, and have added reliable sources. May I know which part is needed improvement of the tone? And do you see any remaining issues that might trigger rejection? Textbypeeps (talk) 02:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The list of "leading authentication platforms" stands out as promotional.
Question: do you have a connection to any of the companies listed in your draft, or any sneaker authentication/resale service? Please see WP:Conflict of interest and make a disclosure if applicable. If you are employed by any of these companies, you are required to make a paid-editing disclosure as described on WP:PAID. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:32, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:13, 18 June 2025 review of submission by IsabellaPavla

[edit]

I do not know why this page was rejected for something along the lines of promoting or advertising. I feel like I presented information about her well and if there was something classified as promoting then I will promptly delete it. Please give me some assistance on this matter. IsabellaPavla (talk) 03:13, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's never been a draft by that name on the English-language Wikipedia, and nothing about any drafts with a similar name is in your contributions. I do note you have deleted edits, however; an admin will be able to see those. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 03:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:19, 18 June 2025 review of submission by Mohammad Lahham

[edit]

i need to publish article on Wikipedia for a company named extensya so i draft one article, and i get rejected i need someone to help me on this status. Mohammad Lahham (talk) 05:19, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your employer may have set you an impossible task, @Mohammad Lahham. Your draft has been rejected, which means it will not be published on Wikipedia. Can I suggest reading through WP:BOSS and then sharing it with your employer? Meadowlark (talk) 07:25, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:13, 18 June 2025 review of submission by Fixedealo

[edit]

The article keeps being rejected despite of showing notability and credibility. Kindly provide advice as there are many listed similar less important societies Fixedealo (talk) 07:13, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fixedealo: well, sort of. This draft (not yet article) was declined several times, and then finally rejected outright. Rejection means the end of the road, therefore this will not be considered further. As for other articles, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
What is your relationship with this subject? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:00, 18 June 2025 review of submission by Access gopal

[edit]

I am seeking assistance with the draft for Quess Corp, a public company. I have submitted this draft for review twice, and both submissions were declined due to concerns about a promotional tone and a lack of sufficiently independent, reliable sources. I am struggling to understand precisely how to improve the article to meet Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View and Verifiability policies, and to demonstrate the subject's notability through appropriate sources. Any guidance on specific areas for improvement, particularly regarding tone and sourcing, would be greatly appreciated. Gopal Krishna (talk) 10:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which three of your sources meet all of the requirements outlined at WP:42? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to include as many as I can; I think these links should cover all there is. I have specifically removed the paid editorials. These are coming from Forbes, The Hindu, Economic Times, and NSE (NSE data is known for reliability and monitored and controlled by SEBI). All these are independent and covering all WP:42 requirements. Please guide.
  1. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/markets/stocks/news/quess-corp-shares-in-focus-as-nclt-clears-demerger-new-entities-to-list-in-two-months/articleshow/118774552.cms?from=mdr
  2. https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/companies/quess-corp-acquires-monsters-business/article22613035.ece
  3. https://www.forbesindia.com/article/special/quess-corp-stock-ends-day-up-58.68-percent-on-debut/43767/1
  4. https://www.nseindia.com/get-quotes/equity?symbol=QUESS
Gopal Krishna (talk) 10:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing any thoughts Andy? Gopal Krishna (talk) 10:53, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Access gopal: these are all just routine business reporting, almost certainly based on press releases etc. issued by the company, and as such they are neither significant coverage nor independent (and possibly also not entirely reliable), and therefore do not contribute towards notability per WP:NCORP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:01, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Can you help me understand with an example what will work? Should I look for a reference which is not related to an event but an overall company introduction?
I have picked this page to do it from scratch as it is a public company and not available on Wikipedia. I was assuming it would be easy to establish the WP:42 requirements. Gopal Krishna (talk) 11:34, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is this something that would work?
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/markets/stocks/news/quess-corp-subsidiaries-digitide-solutions-bluspring-enterprises-set-to-list-on-stock-exchanges-today/articleshow/121767097.cms?from=mdr
or this: https://health.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/industry/quess-corp-aims-to-become-a-period-victory-workplace-partners-with-sustainable-menstruation-coalition/91857836
or this: https://indiacsr.in/quess-corp-to-continue-csr-focus-on-revamping-school-infrastructure/ Gopal Krishna (talk) 12:11, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. The first and second are again routine business reporting, and clearly based on press statements; the first may have a bit of additional reporting, but the second is pure press blurb and doesn't even have a byline. The third is an interview, which means it isn't independent, since it is a representative of the company talking. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Access gopal: an example would be where a journalist or a subject matter expert has on their own initiative (ie. not prompted or incentivised by the company in any way, and not fed information by them) decided to write about the company, focusing on why in their opinion the company is noteworthy and/or doing impactful things. And we need to see such coverage in multiple outlets, which must be reliable and independent of the subject and of each other.
This is a high bar, make no mistake about it. The vast majority of businesses would not pass this threshold. Wikipedia is not a business directory where merely existing warrants an entry; there does need to be something remarkable about the business. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:13, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, let me research more to find such links, and hopefully I would be able to add a valuable information as per Wiki standards. Thank you so much for the help @DoubleGrazing. Gopal Krishna (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:11, 18 June 2025 review of submission by Wilk10

[edit]

I removed the GitHub repo links. Are the two citations from https://bevy-cheatbook.github.io/ acceptable? That's where the documentation for this secondary source is hosted, it's not a code repo. I guess otherwise I have to cite the primary source in these cases. Thanks! Wilk10 (talk) 11:11, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wilk10: I suppose you can cite Github if you wish (although I'm not sure why a 'cheatbook' is relevant?), just be aware that it contributes nothing towards notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I was looking for secondary sources that would list certain features, instead of primary sources. Wilk10 (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's still a primary source, even if it's third party to the Bevy developers (I say 'if', because while it may be, I don't know that).
And just to clarify, primary sources, including ones close to the subject, can be used (assuming they're reliable) to support straightforward, non-contentious factual statements. But they cannot be used to establish notability, which is the reason why this draft has been consistently declined. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks for the explanation, all clear. Wilk10 (talk) 14:19, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:36, 18 June 2025 review of submission by WikiWanderer12345678910

[edit]

Hello. I have gotten my Wikipedia article above declined. If I could know which sources are unreliable, that would be great. Thank you for reading and understanding. And if you have, thank you for replying and helping me out. WikiWanderer12345678910 (talk) 11:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiWanderer12345678910: this wasn't declined because the sources are not reliable (although the last one is user-generated, and gets flagged up as such), but rather that they don't establish notability. WP:ORG is the notability guideline you're aiming for; study it, and it tells you what sort of sources we would need to see. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:17, 18 June 2025 review of submission by Zahid super

[edit]

Please Guide me for this article "World Memon Day". As it's a very important day for Memon Community. Zahid super (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zahid super: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. It may well be an important day for some community, but if the subject is not notable enough in Wikipedia terms, it's not going into the encyclopaedia. Sorry, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:12, 18 June 2025 review of submission by OlhaAsmolova

[edit]

Hello. My article has been recently accepted. It is not coming up in Google search. I want to change the page title to: Konstantin Pavlov (iconographer). Can I do this? When I click edit, the name of the article is not accessible. Thank you! OlhaAsmolova (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@OlhaAsmolova: we have no control over when Google indexes new articles. All I can say is that this has been autopatrolled (patrolling being a requirement for indexability), so it may be just that it takes a little bit longer. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining! I'll wait and see if it comes up later. OlhaAsmolova (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:42, 18 June 2025 review of submission by ZumperCrystal

[edit]

Hi there, would love some guidance as I am trying to figure out what kind of sources will be the best for proving notability based on feedback. Would articles that discuss what Zumper is and pros and cons of using the website like https://www.mashvisor.com/blog/zumper/ and https://landlordgurus.com/should-i-use-zumper-rental-listings/ be considered since they are more in-depth? Or best of articles from reliable websites like this one https://realestate.usnews.com/real-estate/articles/the-10-best-apps-for-finding-your-next-apartment? ZumperCrystal (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:58, 18 June 2025 review of submission by Hyggemule

[edit]

I recently edited and resubmitted this draft of American photographer and digital artist Matthew Swarts. It was closed without explanation and I do not know how to proceed. Please help. Many kind thanks. Hyggemule (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:29, 18 June 2025 review of submission by 90.204.192.49

[edit]

Hi

Whats the lastest with this submission please ?

Glenn McClelland 

90.204.192.49 (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:14, 18 June 2025 review of submission by Lina.poetic.jazz

[edit]

I deleted the data because I didn't release an album in my music activities. Do I have to register as a poet first? As a poet, I have published a book and have an ISBN number. Lina.poetic.jazz (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1296216011"