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 19

[edit]

00:10, 19 June 2025 review of submission by Reizayin

[edit]

Could I get someone else to see if my article meets notability standards? I'm convinced the person who declined my article twice is just wrong, as in my opinion it obviously meets them. Very similar articles with comparable notability already exist, like Akai Haato, Natsuiro Matsuri, and Houshou Marine. Reizayin (talk) 00:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFF, I suspect your examples with "comparable notability" also lack notability, just that nobody has given them a proper check. Also, there is a notable lack of independent sources.
By the way, I would not say I'm convinced the person who declined my article twice is just wrong, as in my opinion it obviously meets them. for two reasons. 1. You are not in charge of deciding notability, WP:NYOUTUBER is. 2. Calling the reviewer "just wrong" could count as incivility. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:13, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

00:26, 19 June 2025 review of submission by 202.36.87.229

[edit]

I have included many sources, and most of them are reliable. I don't see why it keeps getting declined. 202.36.87.229 (talk) 00:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources are of exceptionally poor quality (and presented as bare URLs). Sources must be reliable and fully independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of the topic. Cullen328 (talk) 03:34, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:59, 19 June 2025 review of submission by Thinkpotdigital

[edit]

This article is related to Mr Firdaudul Hasan who is also the president of indian film federation and is also a renoned producer in the indian film industry. Please help us in publishing this articles. We do not want to pay any 3rd party agency for this. If any payment is necessary we can pay directly to wikipedia if needed, Thinkpotdigital (talk) 05:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not accept payments for contributions. In general, individual editors should not either, as that generally runs afoul of conflict of interest guidelines. Drafts are evaluated based on the article's merits and the subject's notability. Anerdw (talk) 06:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thinkpotdigital: I will also add that if someone has offered to get this draft published in exchange for payment, it is a scam; see WP:SCAM. No one can guarantee that a draft is published, or that it will remain so. My advice is not to pay any money for such solicitations. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure... thanks for the guidance....in that case can you just help us with the publishing process and point us with the errors in the current link. Thinkpotdigital (talk) 07:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thinkpotdigital: who is "us"? Wikipedia user accounts are strictly for use by a single individual only. I'm also assuming you represent a business by the same name, which means that your username violates our policy. And because of that, I have furthermore reason to suspect that you are engaged in paid editing, which has not been disclosed (that I can see at least). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:36, 19 June 2025 review of submission by Yccnt

[edit]

Hi there, I'm seeking for some further explanations on the current declined article. Can you please help to clarify if it's not neutral enough, or if it's the style or reference issues? Thanks. Yccnt (talk) 07:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yccnt: this was declined for a promotional tone, and I quite agree, it does read like a brochure.
And although it wasn't declined for lack of evidence of notability, it could have been, given that it cites only two sources, one of which is the manufacturer's website. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:41, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Yccnt.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia.
A 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. So writing an article begins with finding several sources that meet all the criteria in WP:42. That way, if you can't find several such sources, you'll know not to spend any more time on the subject. ColinFine (talk) 11:05, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:07, 19 June 2025 review of submission by BMcheesus

[edit]

Hi there,

I was wondering when my draft on EXR will be reviewed/ when it will be published? I substantially changed the original draft of another user: Draft:EXR (app)

I cannot find a status notification/ update, which is why I wonder whether I submitted my draft correctly.

Thanks in advance! BMcheesus (talk) 09:07, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the draft has been rejected, which means it won't be considered any further. Have a good day! NeoGaze (talk) 13:25, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi neogaze, Thanks for your reply! Could you please elaborate why the new version was rejected? Have a good day! BMcheesus (talk) 12:30, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was rejected before you started to edit it, perhaps you should request the assistance of the editor (@DoubleGrazing) who rejected it and say that you significantly changed the draft. NeoGaze (talk) 12:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As stated by @DoubleGrazing:
> After several earlier reviews, there is a single secondary source cited. From this I can only conclude that better sources are not available, and that the subject is consequently not notable enough to warrant inclusion. To avoid further reviewer time being expended on this draft, I am therefore now rejecting rather than merely declining this qcne (talk) 12:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, @Qcne: I've reverted my earlier rejection, so this is now back in the pending pool. It seems on a quick glance that the sources are so much stronger now that it at least deserves another review. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:49, 19 June 2025 review of submission by Bahadurjut786

[edit]

I dont Know my article draft declined. My Draft article link: Draft:Bahadur Hussain. Bahadurjut786 (talk) 11:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of your draft does not meet the requirements outlined in WP:NMUSICIAN. As they only released their debut in "July 2025", WP:TOOSOON may apply and WP:CRYSTAL certainly does, as does WP:NOTPROMO. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:27, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:31, 19 June 2025 review of submission by Milwaukee911

[edit]

I am re-writing my very first ever draft Wikipedia article (which was not approved on its first submission since it violated Wikipedia's policy to be not in a neutral view, not a viewed using secondary sources, etc). Agree 100 % it needed to be re-written due to these constraints.

My question is: are citations required ONLY IF portions/sections of the topic are not well known, so that the article is verified as being secondary, not a primary source?

Thank you in advance for any assistance. Milwaukee911 (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally every statement and pharagraph should be backed by at least a reference (up to three for important claims). Your draft has multiple pharagraps that do not have any inline citations, which makes veryfing the information difficult. For uncontroversial statements that are easy to check, adding citations is more of a bonus that a strict requirement. You don't need to add citations to mention that WW2 began in 1939, for example. I hope my answer is useful. NeoGaze (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:58, 19 June 2025 review of submission by 102.69.240.13

[edit]

Ya'll pathetic, this guy is a hero 102.69.240.13 (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being hostile is not going to help you in any way here. Many people do things worthy of praise, but not solely for that reason are notable enough for a Wikipedia article. You have failed in adressing the issues of the draft and for that reason it ended being rejected. NeoGaze (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:08, 19 June 2025 review of submission by Friendofconeyisland

[edit]

This is going viral throughout the AI community. How does one inform those not in that world? How do we update this for inclusion?

thanks, :-) Friendofconeyisland (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Friendofconeyisland: as I already said on your talk page (did you read that, by any chance?), we don't publish original research or upcoming ideas or anything of that ilk. Wikipedia is never the first one to publish on a topic, because it only summarises what reliable other sources have already published. Get your thing covered in some academic journals or the like, and then come back. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for early review of Draft:Mukhtar Ahmad Bandh

[edit]

Hi, I’ve submitted Draft:Mukhtar Ahmad Bandh for review. The subject is a democratically elected Vice-Chairperson of the District Development Council (DDC) Pulwama in Jammu and Kashmir. The article includes multiple citations from independent and reliable news sources, and the position is part of India’s 3-tier governance system post-Article 370.

Could someone please consider reviewing it earlier, if possible? Thank you so much! Jimmy686868 (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimmy686868 the help desk (and most reviewers) do not take review requests. The draft you created is no more important than the others pending review. Given there is an ongoing backlog drive, it will likely be reviewed within the noted 5 weeks. S0091 (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @S0091 for your response and for all the efforts by the reviewing team. I completely understand that the queue is long and that every draft deserves equal consideration. That said, I just wanted to respectfully reiterate that this draft covers a democratically elected Vice-Chairperson of DDC Pulwama under India’s 3-tier Panchayati Raj system—a role that emerged post-Article 370 and has been covered by several mainstream news outlets. Given its civic relevance and public position, I kindly request that it be considered when possible during the current backlog drive. Many thanks again for your time and the valuable work you all do. Jimmy686868 (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And? The are WP:NODEADLINES here and it looks like he was elected back in 2021 so not sure why now in 2025 it is a rush. Either way, it does not matter. It will be reviewed when it is reviewed. S0091 (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response and for clarifying the review process. I fully respect Wikipedia's no deadline policy and understand that all drafts will be reviewed in due time. My intention was not to rush the process but simply to highlight the subject’s unique significance in the context of the evolving local governance landscape post-Article 370. I appreciate your time and the important work the reviewing team continues to do. Looking forward to the eventual feedback when the review happens. Jimmy686868 (talk) 21:30, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:10, 19 June 2025 review of submission by Roungustat

[edit]

Subject: Request for Assistance with Wikipedia Draft and References

Dear Sir,

I hope this message finds you well.

I am currently working on developing a Wikipedia article related to my academic background and contributions in biostatistics and public health. I would greatly appreciate your help in reviewing and improving the draft—particularly in enhancing the language, formatting, and references to ensure it meets Wikipedia’s content and notability standards.

Your expertise and guidance would be incredibly valuable in strengthening the quality and visibility of this contribution. If you have any questions or need additional information from my side (e.g., sources, publications, institutional links), please don’t hesitate to let me know.

Thank you in advance for your time and support.

Warm regards, Md Roungu Ahmmad, PhD Assistant Professor, Public Health University of South Florida 


Roungustat (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't use AI on Wikipedia, and especially do not use it to offer help to other users. You are not an Articles for Creation reviewer so please don't try to help on this board without understanding how the process works. CoconutOctopus talk 21:58, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Roungustat. Writing about yourself on Wikipedia is very strongly discouraged, because it is exremely difficult to forget everything you know about yourself and write a neutral summary of what people unknown to you have published about you (which is what a Wikipedia article should be); so nearly everybody who tries it fails, and wastes a lot of their own time and volunteers' time. Please also see WP:autobiography. ColinFine (talk) 11:10, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:14, 19 June 2025 review of submission by Nescaff

[edit]

There. are 5 cited references on this page 1 by Gordon Macey who was the official Qpr Historian with a second from the Rothmans record boo - (think of rothmans football records like the Guinness book of world records _- the club has a history dated back 1882 Nescaff (talk) 22:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nescaff, as far as I can see there are only two references and one appears to be a book of statistics. This will not help with notability. You will need a minimum of three references, all of which meet the triple criteria in WP:42, in order to establish notability. Happy editing! Meadowlark (talk) 02:16, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:03, 19 June 2025 review of submission by Gamboler

[edit]

Does a list have the same approval process as a regular article? I want to move a list from the Camera Work article to its own page User:Gamboler/sandbox. Thank you. Gamboler (talk) 23:03, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lists are regular articles, and will have the same process. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:53, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Gamboler. Please see WP:splitting ColinFine (talk) 11:16, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ColinFine Thank you! Gamboler (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 20

[edit]

03:32, 20 June 2025 review of submission by Maroonandcrimson

[edit]

Do you have to usually find all reliable sources? The guy I'm writing about has very miniscule sources, so I'm just asking. Maroonandcrimson (talk) 03:32, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Maroonandcrimson: It is pretty likely that sources exist to support an article about Félix Mouzabakani. Keep in mind that sources do not have to be in English, and do not have to exist online, though you must of course have access to any sources you cite. --bonadea contributions talk 08:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:29, 20 June 2025 review of submission by EnviroBooksFan

[edit]

The draft article Draft:Janina Rossiter has been revised to ensure full compliance with Wikipedia’s core content policies:

Neutral Point of View: All sections have been rewritten into a strictly factual, descriptive tone without superlatives or marketing language. Verifiability: Every statement is supported by citations from independent, reliable, third‑party sources (event websites, reputable news outlets, official reports). Self‑published materials and creator‑produced references are not present. No Original Research: Content reflects only information found in published sources, with appropriate wikilinks, image formatting, and reference syntax. Despite these revisions, the draft was still described as “reading like an advertisement” without indication of precisely which passages or sources remain problematic. In addition, Janina Rossiter’s work represents a significant contribution within the niche of women’s environmental art (“eco‑art”), with high‑profile achievements documented at major international forums. It feels this specialized recognition may have been overlooked or dismissed too quickly.

To address any remaining concerns, specific clarification is requested:

Which exact wording or citation is still considered non‑neutral or promotional? What additional evidence or coverage would most effectively demonstrate the subject’s notability? Are there any further formatting or sourcing adjustments needed to satisfy verifiability and NPOV requirements? Any detailed guidance on these points would be greatly appreciated. — EnviroBooksFan (talk) 08:29, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @EnviroBooksFan. Please don't use LLMs anywhere on Wikipedia. We want to communicate with you, not with a robot.
Autobiography is very strongly discouraged on Wikipedia, because it is almost never successful. Having found the sources, you would need to forget absolutely everything you know about yourself, and write a summary of what people said about you (even if you disagree with them), and most people cannot do 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.
It is very obvious looking through the list of citations that most of them are either not reliable sources or not independent of you. Check every one of your sourcces againt the triple criteria in WP:42. Anything that is not a reliable source should not be cited, and anything that is not independent or does not contain significant coverage of you will not contribute to establishing that you meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability (most of us don't).
If you have at least three compliant sources, the article should be a neutral summary of what those sources say, and little else. If you haven't, you are probably not notable by Wikipedia's standards. ColinFine (talk) 09:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Colin, I have been reworking the draft giving all the feedback over the last months. some people have been very helpful. so yes I have been communication trying to understand how it works. Your feedback is appreciate. EnviroBooksFan (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:31, 20 June 2025 review of submission by Butler.butler123

[edit]

Dear Help Desk,

I was surprised to see the draft declined, as it was intended as a direct translation of the existing German-language article on the subject: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alina_Matyukhina. I preserved all original references and links to maintain consistency and accuracy.

Given that the German version is currently live and includes the same sources, I am unclear on why the English version does not meet the notability and reference standards. If there are additional requirements for translated articles or if something specific was missing in the formatting or referencing, I would greatly appreciate your guidance so I can make the necessary adjustments.

Thank you in advance for your support.

Best regards, Butler Butler.butler123 (talk) 08:31, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% confident that message is AI-generated. Anyways, different language versions of Wikipedias are slightly different in policies, and in some cases, what is considered notable in a version would not be considered as such here. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 09:32, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. I understand that notability policies can vary across different language versions of Wikipedia. If possible, could you kindly point out specific examples in my article where you believe this might be an issue? That would help me better understand and improve the content accordingly. Butler.butler123 (talk) 10:15, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the awards you describe do not contribute to notability, as they lack articles about themselves(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award).
You describe her qualifications and work but do not summarize what independent reliable sources say makes her a notable person for her work. Going to the World Economic Forum is a symptom of her notability, not the cause. Why is she important enough to have been invited there?
Do you have any form of connection with this person? 331dot (talk) 10:23, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:15, 20 June 2025 review of submission by BlackpillEnthusiast77

[edit]

I don't know what I need to fix. BlackpillEnthusiast77 (talk) 09:15, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that WP:NOTNEWS was applied. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. Killing of George Floyd is an example of events having enduring notability, by the way. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 09:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be my guess also. I note that all the sources are from around the same time, last week of May. Unless this proves to have wider and/or more long-lasting impact (which may be too early to say yet), it's probably not notable enough. And per WP:BLP1E, the actors are otherwise low-profile individuals, further reducing the inherent notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:06, 20 June 2025 review of submission by Hmed47

[edit]

hi, the article is in neutral tone. is there a specific part that you believe is promotional? Hmed47 (talk) 10:06, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, pretty much the entire draft reads like an advertisement for the platform, which goes against the required neutral point of view every article must have. If you have any type of conflict of interest with this platform, you should disclose either in the talk page of the draft or in your userpage. NeoGaze (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:48, 20 June 2025 review of submission by Kanishk Dubey

[edit]

How can be able to publish this draft Kanishk Dubey (talk) 11:48, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kanishk Dubey: you cannot, it has been rejected. There is nothing to suggest that you are notable. You also shouldn't really be writing about yourself in the first place; see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:36, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:19, 20 June 2025 review of submission by Pankaj890

[edit]

I am seeking help to ensure that the article on Pithoragarh Depot (Uttarakhand Transport Corporation) meets Wikipedia’s standards for neutrality, reliable sourcing, grammar, and formatting. Since the original draft was declined due to grammar issues, potential conflict of interest, and lack of citations, I’ve revised the article for a more encyclopedic tone and now request assistance in reviewing the markup and references before resubmission. Pankaj890 (talk) 12:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pankaj890: I already answered your question on your talk page. Are you looking for a different answer?
Besides, now that you've moved the rejected draft into the main article space, this is arguably no longer an AfC matter, and in any case you asking what to do "before resubmission" seems rather redundant. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:27, 20 June 2025 review of submission by Gamboler

[edit]

My article [submission] was declined due to needing more sources.

My current single source is a [website] that contains digital copies and tables of content for each of the 50 issues.

Instead, I will use an inline citation to reference each issue number to a webpage that contains a digital copy of the issue. Is this a good approach, and what should I do if I don't know the publishing date for the web page? Thank you.

No. Date Images By Articles By
1[1] January 1903 Gertrude Käsebier, Alfred Stieglitz, Arthur Radclyffe Dugmore, Dwight William Tryon, Pierre Puvis de Chavannes. Alfred Stieglitz, Charles Henry Caffin, Dallett Fuguet, J. B. Kerfoot, Sadakichi Hartmann, Edward Steichen, Joseph Keiley.

References

  1. ^ "Camera Work Issue 1". Modernist Journals Project. Brown University and The University of Tulsa. 2005-04-30. Retrieved 2025-06-20. 
Gamboler (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gamboler: whether you cite a source, which merely confirms the existence of these journal issues, once or multiple times, makes no difference in terms of notability, although it will at least tell the reader where the information is coming from, because at the moment that is unclear.
That's without at all commenting on whether we should have an article listing journal issues in the first place. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing: Thank you for clarifying sourcing for mere existence vs. notability.
This list presently resides in Camera Work, so the issue of notability has been wound up with the notability of sources for Camera Work, which was the first American publisher of images and articles about modern artists such Picasso, Rodin, Matisse, and Cezanne, and was was part of Alfred Stieglitz' overall promotion of modern art in America at the turn of the 20th Century.
I'm doing an edit of Camera Work in part to improve the sourcing. I want to move the list to a separate article because it's large relative to the size of the rest of Camera Work.
I also wondered, does the list work on its own? Then, as I began reformatting it and adding links to the names, the list became a dashboard to Wikipedia articles about the major artists and thinkers who Stieglitz brought together. Gamboler (talk) 17:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:26, 20 June 2025 review of submission by Sydney Solomon

[edit]

I feel like each redraft I have clearly referenced both directly and in directly the streaming service through a variety of sources. Can you please help point me in the right direction? Thank you. Sydney Solomon (talk) 14:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sydney Solomon: your draft cites a press release, an interview, a passing mention, and an article from The Mail which is a deprecated source and must not be cited. None of these contributes anything towards notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:33, 20 June 2025 review of submission by Dylan Smethurst

[edit]

Can you give me a reason? Dylan Smethurst (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Dylan Smethurst (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Was that a reply? Dylan Smethurst (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dylan Smethurst the reasons are provided in the declines and reject. In a nutshell, no sources means no article. See Your first article. S0091 (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:15, 20 June 2025 review of submission by 38.97.237.198

[edit]

What edits need to be made? Thank you 38.97.237.198 (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. It is basically just a corporate presentation and provides no evidence that the subject is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:21, 20 June 2025 review of submission by Doc.Heintz

[edit]

Hello, I have eliminated all defects so far. Would you please move the article to the article namespace and delete the redirects. Thank you for your support.Doc.Heintz (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc.Heintz: if you feel you have addressed the earlier decline reasons from three months ago, you are welcome to resubmit this for another review by clicking on that blue 'resubmit' button. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:32, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:21, 20 June 2025 review of submission by Johnny Prey

[edit]

I would like some help to have my page title be successfully accepted and be published. Johnny Prey (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnny Prey: there is no evidence that the subject is notable, as it only cites primary sources. We need to see significant coverage of this subject in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:36, 20 June 2025 review of submission by 71.38.45.37

[edit]

I really dont understand. When I submitted this many years ago it was fine and was approved. Then last year after all these years it was taken down. Doesn't it show that it had been live for many years? Thank you. 71.38.45.37 (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was an article at Johnny Angel Wendell, but it was deleted in 2022 following this discussion: Articles for deletion/Johnny Angel Wendell. There is nothing unusual about that, published articles get deleted all the time.
In 2024, the deleted article was undeleted, and moved into the draft space, which is what you're now looking at at Draft:Johnny Angel Wendell. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:19, 20 June 2025 review of submission by Evpuch

[edit]

Why is this not able to be published? Evpuch (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Evpuch: because there is no evidence that the subject is notable per WP:GNG. We would need to see significant coverage of this subject in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent. After multiple previous declines, this draft cites no such source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added more sources, they are large Chicago sources and the studio has a had a large impact on the community! Evpuch (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Evpuch: those are still all primary sources. And having "a large impact on the community" is not a notability criterion, and is in any case highly subjective. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Evpuch, 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) 18:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have a connection besides that I live in the area and I have seen the large impact the studio has had on the area! I believe that the sources are not directly associated with the studio, I want to share the impact! Evpuch (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Evpuch. I'm afraid that "I want to share the impact!" is another way of saying "I want to promote this subject". Promotion (i.e. telling the world about something) is forbidden in Wikipedia. We are only interested in summarising how other independent sources have already told the world. ColinFine (talk) 11:19, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:05, 20 June 2025 review of submission by Arvore da Vida

[edit]

I'm trying to address the rejection points for this draft page. In the past I had only edit pages and these improvements were straightforward. Creating a new page has been a bit of a challenge despite the amount of documentation.

For context, this is a personal side project where I'm looking at prominent cyberneticians based on awards received or recognition by relevant institutions or organisations and who don't have a wiki page. I don't have a personal agenda not I reach them about this. It's pure from the admiration and gratefulness to wikipedia.

I hope this edit covers the requirements to accept the page. Kindly let me know if there are other aspects that I should include. Thank you ToL (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Arvore da Vida: we don't do pre-reviews here at the help desk. If you feel you have sufficiently addressed the earlier decline reasons, you may resubmit this draft and it will be reviewed again at some point. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:24, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:13, 20 June 2025 review of submission by Zargha7

[edit]

Dear @Rahmatula786,

I have now added two more academic sources (Barfield 2010 and Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 7, 1991) with correct page numbers, as suggested. May I kindly ask if everything looks okay now for approval?

Thank you again for your time and helpful feedback!

Best regards. Zargha7 (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zargha7: you have resubmitted the draft and will get an assessment when a reviewer gets around to evaluating it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:21, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 21

[edit]

06:48, 21 June 2025 review of submission by Fitnessscoach

[edit]

Hello, I have revised and resubmitted the draft with proper inline citations and working reliable sources. All issues raised earlier (missing sources, formatting) are now resolved. Sources include the SAI PDF, YAS Olympic clearance, Scroll, The Hindu, HT, TOI, and Amar Ujala. Kindly request a re-review. Thank you! 

Fitnessscoach (talk) 06:48, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fitnessscoach: no, you have not resubmitted it. You had manually edited the submission templates, which resulted in the template not rendering correctly, and also removed my earlier decline and comment. Please don't do that. If you wish to resubmit your draft, just click on the blue 'resubmit' button. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:55, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:05, 21 June 2025 review of submission by Fitnessscoach

[edit]

Hello, I have rewritten and resubmitted Draft:Manjeet Rani using fully inline citations and verified sources. Previous reviewer concerns about referencing and reliability have been addressed. Sources include the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports (YAS) Olympic clearance list, SAI confirmation PDF, Scroll, The Hindu, Times of India, Hindustan Times, Amar Ujala, and New Indian Express. Kindly request a fresh review. Thank you! 

Fitnessscoach (talk) 07:05, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fitnessscoach: you've resubmitted the draft, no need to announce it; it will be reviewed again when a reviewer gets around to it.
And please don't start duplicate threads on the same subject. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:27, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:22, 21 June 2025 review of submission by Androulaki

[edit]

Should I remove the logos of the company and the TV channel from Nasr Mahrous' bio? I need to know what must be removed generally from the article in order to have it accepted. Androulaki (talk) 07:22, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Androulaki: I don't know what else should be removed, but the logos definitely. Firstly, you've uploaded them as your own work – you're saying you've personally created them and/or own the IP rights in them? Really? Or could it be that they belong to the respective organisations, and you've just taken them from the internet somewhere? If so, you should not have uploaded them as your own work, and must now go to Commons and request them to be deleted. I will go and remove from this draft right now. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:31, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes actually some of these photos I have taken myself, as I work closely with Nasr Mahrous. but if you think it is wiser to remove all logos and images, then I do not mind removing them. I will do so right away. Androulaki (talk) 07:49, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Androulaki: I'm talking about the logos, which your question was about. Do you own the copyright in the Free TV and FreeMusic Art Production logos? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:55, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see, yes, actually Nasr Mahrous owns them, and me, being his wife, I own them just as much. but do you think I should have said that someone else owns them? in all cases they have been removed. Androulaki (talk) 08:05, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Androulaki.
If you are his wife, then you have a conflict of interest in editing about him. This does not mean that you are forbidden from creating the draft, but it does put some restrictions on you. Please read that link carefully. ColinFine (talk) 11:24, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Androulaki: if you really do own the IP jointly with your husband (as opposed to eg. it being owned by a company in which you both are shareholders, which is a different thing), then you are not the sole owner, you are a part-owner. The thing is, when you upload something to our servers as your own work, you are releasing it from copyright for anyone to do whatever they want with, and you are also confirming that you have the right to effect such release. If you're a part-owner of the IP, you've just given away also the other part-owner's (or owners') property. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I already spoke to the general manager to issue for me an official permission to use the logos and other images.. meanwhile, do you think I can try to resubmit the draft? will it be accepted? Androulaki (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Images are not relevant to the draft process, which only considers the text and sources. I would just remove all images and deal with that stuff later; images are an enhancement, not a requirement.
That said, the GM cannot just release permission to you- he would need to give up any rights to the logo so it can be used by anyone for any purpose with attribution; an extremely unwise thing to do with a company logo. 331dot (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Androulaki: we don't do pre-reviews here at the help desk, but based on a superficial scan, I can tell you already that this draft would be declined at least for insufficient referencing, if nothing else. Articles on living people have particularly strict referencing requirements, with pretty much every statement needing to be clearly supported by an inline citation to a reliable published source. This draft has numerous paragraphs, and even complete sections, without a single citation. I get that you know the subject well, and I have no reason to question anything you've written, but that isn't the point: it's not enough that the information is correct, it must be verifiably correct (meaning, corroborated by a reliable source which is cited next to it). In that sense, you shouldn't even be writing what you know about your husband, you should only be summarising what reliable sources have previously published about him. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I thank you so much for clarifying for me all these information...I also thank you so much for taking the time to guide me on how to do it right... Now I get it better.. I actually am working on it right now, removing all unnecessary details, and all promotional style. I'm keeping only basic information and trying to get info as written in sources. Ok I must admit at first, I thought a Wikipedia article is a kind of an actual biography, now I know it is used as a source of information collected from other actual external sources. question is can I put Arabic references and translated parts of them into English? Androulaki (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Androulaki. As regards the images, you, yourself, have said, in precisely these words, "I, the copyright holder of this work, publish it under.." a license which permits anybody in the world to copy, use, and alter the images, as long as they attribute them properly. They do not need to ask for permission to use, copy, or alter them, and they may use them for any purpose, commercial or not. That is the effect of the binding legal statement which you have already made - or it would be if, in fact, you did hold the copyright.
I have nominated all three images for deletion. ColinFine (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:08, 21 June 2025 review of submission by Ashleyashville

[edit]

My draft article on Matthew Lani was declined for focusing mainly on one event his arrest. I understand the concern, but this case received wide national and international coverage, sparked public debate on digital identity fraud and health misinformation, and has led to an ongoing civil lawsuit that continues to make headlines.

Given this broader context and the legal/social precedent it’s setting, is there a way to frame the article to better meet notability guidelines? Would focusing on the case’s public impact and ongoing relevance help?

Any suggestions or examples of similar accepted biographies would be greatly appreciated. Ashleyashville (talk) 10:08, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If his arrest is the main claim to notability, you may want to refocus the draft to be about his arrest rather than him personally. 331dot (talk) 11:21, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:57, 21 June 2025 review of submission by Indiravallam

[edit]

Should I know what else you want me to delete, edit or add? Indiravallam (talk) 10:57, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Indiravallam.
Please evaluate each of your sources against all three of the criteria in WP:42. Only sources that meet all three criteria can contribute to establishing the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and unless you have several compliant sources, there can be no article. ColinFine (talk) 11:27, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:19, 21 June 2025 review of submission by Bhuwan C Joshi

[edit]

Why was my article declined? Bhuwan C Joshi (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bhuwan C Joshi You need the "Draft:" portion of the title when linking to your draft, I fixed this for you.
The reviewer left you a reason at the top of your draft. Do you have a more specific question about it? I'm also wondering if you have a connection to the professor. 331dot (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject.
(So, these are the reasons I received. Though valuable, I did not exactly understand what are the edits that I shall be making. Newspaper articles and government websites are the best sources that I could find for referencing. I was trying to build a short biography for a person whose work I have been reading and listening about in the recent past. State Chief Minister and other government officials have been mentioning his work in their speeches lately and I wanted to be the first to build his Wikipedia page. Also, this happens to be my first article on Wikipedia as well.
He is slowly emerging as a state hero in terms of popularizing Science and Technology, institution building for last-mile accessibility, as well as bringing dynamism in rather bureaucratic system through his innovative approaches. I am also a person who grew up in Delhi a major urban-centre in India because my family had to migrate in search of better educational and economic opportunities when I was a kid. He has been an inspiration in recent years for me to come back and water my roots in Himalayas by following his footprints. No, i do not have a connection with Prof. Durgesh Pant, other than he also hails from the same district Almora, where I was born and later migrated from.
I am looking forward to more detailed suggestions as to how I shall be building this biography and what shall be my approach towards data gathering. Thanks and Regards) Bhuwan C Joshi (talk) 13:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:21, 21 June 2025 review of submission by Themaroni

[edit]

Hello! I have rewritten the draft to remove all promotional content and ensure a neutral tone, following Wikipedia's guidelines. The article is now based on two reliable, independent sources (CryptoNews and MarketersMedia). Could someone please review the draft and advise if it now meets the notability and neutrality requirements for acceptance? Thank you! Themaroni (talk) 13:21, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was rejected, typically meaning that it will not be considered further. If you have now fundamentally changed the draft to address the concerns from reviewers, the first step is to appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly. That said, if you have sources, you have not provided them(see Referencing for beginners. More fundamentally, Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about a company, its offerings, and what it sees as its own history- a Wikipedia article about a company summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it is a notable company as Wikipedia defines one.
I would suggest that you read WP:BOSS, and have your superiors or those that hired you at Digital Shield read it, too. 331dot (talk) 13:26, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Themaroni: the first three sources are explicit press releases, the fourth is probably also, and is in any case routine business reporting, and the last source returns a 'page not found'. None of these contributes anything towards notability per WP:NCORP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:30, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:41, 21 June 2025 review of submission by Uchfundz

[edit]

I need Asistance on submitting my article to be accepted Uchfundz (talk) 13:41, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your sandbox has been deleted as being used as a webhost- Wikipedia does not merely host information; it summarizes what independent reliable sources say about topics that meet our criteria for notability, like a notable person. I would suggest using the Article Wizard instead, if you have independent sources you can summarize.
Note that Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves, please see the autobiography policy- you need to limit yourself to what others say about you. Writing about yourself, while not forbidden, is highly discouraged because people have great difficulty doing that.
There are also good reasons to not want an article about yourself. 331dot (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:29, 21 June 2025 review of submission by 2400:AC40:62C:D24:88CC:7F3:F010:8700

[edit]

Could anyone help me write the wikipage please? 2400:AC40:62C:D24:88CC:7F3:F010:8700 (talk) 14:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the editor of the draft, remember to log in when posting. We don't really get into co-editing here at the help desk. If you have specific questions, we can help with that.
You disclosed a COI on the draft, I'd suggest doing so on your user page as well. What is the general nature of your conflict? 331dot (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:06, 21 June 2025 review of submission by 96.21.110.80

[edit]

Hi, the submission was rejected with the following reason. "submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources". However the article quotes 5 different source from 4 established Québec newspapers, some of which are archived (at Bibliothèque et Archives Nationales du Québec), and additional other Internet sources. Granted the articles are in french, however that should not disqualify them as "reliable source". Was teh article rejected because of language barrier from the reviewer?

Thanks 96.21.110.80 (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the creator of the draft, remember to log in when posting. 331dot (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not because of the language: sources in other languages are acceptable if there are not better sources in English.
I haven't looked closely, but I suspect that the problem is not that the sources are not reliable sources, but that they are not independent - many of them are published, or based on the words of, Dervieux or his associates.
Sources used to establish notability shoule be reliable, independent of the subject, and contain significant coverage of the subject: see WP:42.
Incidentally, the draft has not been rejected (which would mean that there was no chance of it being accepted): it has been declined, which means that you may improve the sourcing and submit it again. ColinFine (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:14, 21 June 2025 review of submission by גילעד ולדמן

[edit]

Hello, I would like to publish the page Moshe Fogel. There are no notes on this page, but the author is a relative of Moshe, so all the information has been reviewed and approved by him. How can I do this? Thanks גילעד ולדמן (talk) 18:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @גילעד ולדמן.
Unfortunately, like many inexperienced editors, you have a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is.
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.
Nothing that his relative says is of any value, unless it is verified by a reliable published source. Nothing.
Your task is first to find several places where people who have no connection whatever with Fogel have chosen to publish material about him in reliable publications. See WP:42 for more information.
If you can find several such sources, then you may write your draft as a summary of what those sources say, citing them as you go - see WP:REFB. If you cannot find these, then you will not be able to establish that he meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and your draft will not be accepted. ColinFine (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:33, 21 June 2025 review of submission by 2001:569:746B:1600:388C:24C6:D6A8:365B

[edit]

My idea was rejected by Qucne 2001:569:746B:1600:388C:24C6:D6A8:365B (talk) 19:33, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Did you have a question? qcne (talk) 19:33, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:12, 21 June 2025 review of submission by DeepFriedUranium

[edit]

What am I supposed to do if I can't find sources? Hello, I created a draft for a sports team called the Tucson Scorch. They never played a single game. So, I wrote an article about them, but it keeps getting rejected because it doesn't have enough sources. But there are so few sources about the team. What do I do? DeepFriedUranium (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DeepFriedUranium I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft as intended.
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 main purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the subject, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability, like a notable organization. If you have no such sources, the topic would not merit an article at this time. No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. 331dot (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:46, 21 June 2025 review of submission by Zeeraphim

[edit]

Hi, I submitted the wikipedia page, with a variety of reliable sources for the artist Z. She has over 650,000 subscribers on youtube. What else should I add to get it approved? Zeeraphim (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your only sources are bandcamp and YouTube, neither are reliable or independent. Theroadislong (talk) 21:50, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if she has 65 subscribers or 6.5 billion. Subscriber numbers do not indicate notability; see WP:BAND. 331dot (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:39, 21 June 2025 review of submission by Blitzite2

[edit]

What do I need to add to make this public? Blitzite2 (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's "public" in that anyone who knows where to find it can find it, but it is not formally part of the encyclopedia. You have not shown that he meets WP:NACTOR. One reviewer even thinks the draft may be a hoax. 331dot (talk) 22:44, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:41, 21 June 2025 review of submission by Tracey Capobianco

[edit]

Can someone please help me on how to add foot notes and links? Please. I am kinda stupid with figuring it out. This was live back in 2012 but not sure why it changed. Thank you kindly Tracey Capobianco (talk) 23:41, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:REFB for help, the draft currently fails WP:NMUSICIAN. Theroadislong (talk) 06:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Tracey Capobianco. You were told what happened to the article and why two days ago (including a link to the deletion discussion). That's why "it changed". ColinFine (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:43, 21 June 2025 review of submission by Wikimcali

[edit]

The draft was rejected citing that it needed footnotes. Are the linked references not the footnotes? Wikimcali (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimcali You have correctly added references, the problem is that the references are mostly not reliable sources and mostly do not discuss Laney, so you have not shown that Laney meets Wikipedia's definition of a notable person. The draft should be based on sources that directly discuss Laney and meet all the criteria in WP:42. The purpose of a reference is to verify that the information in the article is accurate; the references to other Wikipedia articles do not verify anything about Laney but can be replaced with wikilinks.
A previous reviewer asked you to review WP:Conflict of interest; do you have a connection to Laney? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 22

[edit]

03:36, 22 June 2025 review of submission by 2001:569:7559:7E00:5F4:EE1B:FBB1:A0D8

[edit]

My article is saying it is going to be deleted. I need to understand why and what I need to do to have it published. Please help. Thanx 2001:569:7559:7E00:5F4:EE1B:FBB1:A0D8 (talk) 03:36, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for asking about drafts in the draft process; existing articles may be discussed at the WP:TEAHOUSE or more general Help Desk. 331dot (talk) 11:13, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:51, 22 June 2025 review of submission by Kristian.Alvestad

[edit]

Hi, I see this article got rejected for not having published reliable sources and significant coverage. As an example I would use reference no. 1 to dispute it: It's a news paper that wrote a two-page article (both printed and online versions) featuring the subject in question. Can someone explain why this is not considered reliable or significant coverage? Kristian.Alvestad (talk) 06:51, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kristian.Alvestad: your draft was declined, not rejected; the difference being, with declination you are allowed to resubmit after addressing the issues, with rejection you're not.
Source #1 may well be reliable and amount to significant coverage, but one source is not enough. And I note that while you have many other citations, quite a few of them are from this same publication, Vikebladet Vestposten, and thus only count as one source. Besides, VV seems to be a hyper-local publication, meaning its 'news threshold' is typically low, and it may not apply the same editorial controls etc. as bigger publications. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:08, 22 June 2025 review of submission by Mark180378

[edit]

Hello, I’m the subject of the draft article Draft:Mark Goodway MBE, and I fully acknowledge my conflict of interest. I attempted to submit a well-sourced biography supported by numerous reliable, independent publications — national media (BBC, ITV, The Guardian), academic institutions (University of Bristol), and reputable award bodies. I now understand that using AI-assisted tools caused technical formatting issues and promotional tone, and I will not use AI further. I’m seeking support from an experienced, neutral editor who could help assess and rewrite or resubmit the article in a way that meets all Wikipedia standards.

I’m happy to step back from the process entirely, and just want to see a fair, accurate and neutral article created by others if it’s considered appropriate. I would be grateful for any assistance or advice from volunteers. Thank you for your time. Mark180378 (talk) 09:08, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:REFB, I doubt you will find anyone to do the work for you, (beware of WP:SCAM though). Theroadislong (talk) 09:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mark180378: can I just check that you're aware that autobiographies are very strongly discouraged on Wikipedia? This was notified on your talk page a couple of years ago, but your continued attempts at creating one suggest you may have overlooked that. Please see WP:AUTOBIO, and you may also want to read why an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing while you're at it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:23, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:51, 22 June 2025 review of submission by Maturidiyya

[edit]

I have found reference possible for this event and it still dosent get accepted. what am i doing wrong Maturidiyya (talk) 09:51, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:56, 22 June 2025 review of submission by Mohammad Raamin

[edit]

why is it getting declined Mohammad Raamin (talk) 10:56, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mohammad Raamin You do not meet our criteria for inclusion. qcne (talk) 10:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:12, 22 June 2025 review of submission by 185.38.219.193

[edit]

Sadly, my article was rejected, even though some sources have more than 10 millions monthly visitor, and the Brazilian site has 70 millions, which seem to be reliable sources. Please, give me advice how to improve my article or sources to get approved? 185.38.219.193 (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting, so your edits are properly attributed to you and not an IP.
No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. Sources having lots of visitors has nothing to do with the reliability of a source. Please see WP:42 for guidance as to what types of sources we are looking for. Reviews only contribute to notability if they are written by professional reviewers or critics. 331dot (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:55, 22 June 2025 review of submission by 62.19.252.124

[edit]

Dear Team, I need your help, I have provided almost 30+ qualified notable list of references. I cannot imagine now even 3x reference meets your criteria (WP:THREE). I kindly as you to tell me which reference are NOT notable.

  • "Das Spiel um Miliarden: Superreiche, Öl-Multis und Investoren kaufen sich Fußballklubs - am liebsten gleich mehrere. Das nennt sich "Multi Club Ownership". Viele Fans befürchten den Tod des Fußballs". ZDF Video. February 1, 2025.
  • "MERGERSCORP与CHINAMERGER达成战略合作,开启跨境并购新纪元". Ifeng (in Chinese). June 6, 2025.
  • "KOTRA New York Partners with MergersCorp to Elevate Korean Business Opportunities in M&A and Corporate Finance". AP News. November 25, 2024.
  • "Бизнес за рубежом: нужно учесть несколько факторов, чтобы не ошибиться". Pravda.ru (in Russian). April 21, 2022.
  • "Fotovoltaico, MergersCorp e Unoenergy IS siglano partnership". TeleBorsa (in Italian). February 12, 2025.
  • "MergersCorp M&A International «совершил посадку» в Казахстане". Kapital.kz (in Russian). April 6, 2021.
  • "MergersCorp M&A International Overview". Pitchbook. February 15, 2024.
  • "Allstar Health Brands, Inc. (ALST) Engages in Strategic Acquisition Negotiations with MergersCorp Investment Banking for Italian Soccer Team". Nasdaq (Press Release). December 3, 2024.
  • "Foggia Calcio, fondo Usa e trattativa con Canonico: il retroscena". La Repubblica (Bari) (in Italian). May 3, 2024.
  • "Il Foggia verso la cessione a un fondo americano, "in corso trattative avanzate". RAI (in Italian). May 3, 2024.
  • "Calcio, nubi sul futuro del Foggia: Canonico molla il club". La Gazzetta del Mezzogiorno (in Italian). May 21, 2024.
  • "Nuovo Sponsor USA in Lega Pro" (PDF). Il Sole 24 Ore (in Italian). May 29, 2022.
  • "Suomalainen yhtiö hankki osuuden italialaisesta jalkapalloseurasta". Helsingin Sanomat (in Finnish). January 10, 2025.
  • "MergersCorp: Προς πώlisi to ΑΠΟΕΛ, to plá¹o exeyrésis ependytí". Kathimerini.com.cy (in Greek). November 4, 2024.
  • "MergersCorp advisor nell'acquisizione di due progetti fotovoltaici in Italia da parte di Zenith Energy". Finance Community. April 12, 2024.
  • "KOTRA, 韓중기 해외 M&A 돕는다…美 머저스코프와 맞손". The Guru Korea (in Korean). January 27, 2023.
  • "Foggia-MergersCorp, i dettagli sulla trattativa: ci sono anche degli ex Fidelis". Contro Piede (in Italian). May 3, 2024.
  • "Vendita Foggia, l'intermediario è MergersCorp: il precedente con l'Olbia". Lago Leada (in Italian). May 3, 2024.
  • "Foggia, operazione cessione vicina ? La MergersCorp al lavoro per definire l'operazione". Calcio Foggia (in Italian). May 4, 2024.
  • "Canonico pronto a cedere il Foggia, l'imprenditore conferma: "Trattative avanzate con un fondo americano". Foggia Today (in Italian). May 4, 2024.
  • "Nuovo Sponsor USA in Lega Pro". Il Resto del Carlino (in Italian). June 16, 2024.
  • "Un partner americano per la Fidelis Andria (Lega Pro)". MSN (Sport Economy) (in Italian). May 29, 2022.
  • "Calcio, Andria verso la cessione: pronto un gruppo di imprenditori italiani". La Gazzetta del Mezzogiorno (in Italian). May 29, 2022.
  • "King's Lynn Town FC announces leadership transition and takeover agreement". kltown. May 22, 2025.
  • "Turn Sports Investments Singapore has invested in King's Lynn Town Football Club United K". MC. May 22, 2025.
  • "La svolta. Un Crema finlandese. Quota di minoranza al gruppo TL Capital". Il Giorno (in Italian). January 12, 2025.
  • "Schwyzer Firma kauft italienischen Fussballklub". Bote der Urschweiz (in German). February 21, 2025.
  • "Acquisition of Solar Energy Assets" (PDF). Euronext. May 30, 2024.
  • "ZEN: Acquisition of Solar Energy Assets". London Stock Exchange. May 30, 2024.
  • "Cosi Parigi compra l´Italia". February 21, 2025. 62.19.252.124 (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are doing what is called refbombing us. It's not the volume of references, but their quality, that we are looking for. Please pick out your three absolute best references.
You have just documented the activities of the company, and not what independent reliable sources say is notable about the company. Its routine business activities do not contribute to notability. 331dot (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, IP user. Please review each of your references against the criteria in WP:42. Any that are not reliable, remove (together with any information supported only by those references).
Any that are not independent, or do not contain significant coverage of Mergers Corp may be useful later, when you have written the basic article, but are not among your three best.
Remember 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) 19:29, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:42, 22 June 2025 review of submission by Satyajeet86

[edit]

The references and edits I have added today were probably based on unbiased news. Please guide me if this draft can be corrected? Or any expert editor can help in correcting this draft. I can understand that many changes have been made repeatedly in editing but if I have made any mistake knowingly or unknowingly then I apologize, please guide me, thank you Satyajeet86 (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Satyajeet86 Please now disclose your connection with this person, as I requested when I renamed and unblocked you.
The draft has been rejected, which typically means that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had created a page on Satendra Singh Lohia and this person had written a book on Padmashri award winner Satendra Singh Lohia because of which I thought I should create his Wikipedia. I am a freelance editor, my only connection is that my state is the same, but I have not taken any money from anyone, I want to work as an editor and writer, please guide me for future articles. Satyajeet86 (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your username was initially Lookhereindia, which seems to be the name of various social media channels that feature various Indians. Such channels are usually monetized. 331dot (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had created an account with Lookhereindia name around 7-8 years ago, and since then, the same name was being used. I came to know about this after you blocked me. Satyajeet86 (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And that channel featured Rishikesh Pandey/Devrishi and on top of that an editor who stated he is the brother of Devrishi contributed to the draft and another editor who declared a COI with Devrishi contributed to WP:Articles for deletion/Sanatan Wisdom Foundation, an article you created which also affiliated with Devrishi. S0091 (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On your very first edit in 2017 your edit summary says you are a blogger; blogs can also be monetized.
Do you have any connection with the User:Devotibharat account? 331dot (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I started with a blog, at that time I lacked experience, which is probably still there. I am now associated with a news agency as an editor, due to which I know almost everyone in my state and some people know me too. I have always tried to do selfless editing. And I have been trying to work with the aim of helping. I am hurt by the serious superficiality that has come to light now and I also apologize. At such a time, whatever decision you take will be acceptable to me. Satyajeet86 (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you are not editing as part of your job duties or as part of a monetized social media account, okay. If you are editing about people that you meet in the course of your work, that is a conflict of interest you should declare.
You have not answered the questions regarding other accounts. 331dot (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it is not within the course of your work, editing about people you personally know is a COI. You were informed of this when your were blocked ("You should also read our conflict of interest guideline...") and either you did not read the information in your block notice or you didn't understand it. Either way, you should do so now and make sure you declare your COIs. Also, please answer the questions as 331dot has now requested twice. S0091 (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have now declared the COI related to Devrishi and Sanatana Wisdom Foundation on my user page. Satyajeet86 (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Satyajeet86. You will need to continue to do so for any topic with which you have a COI and follow the guidelines but Wikipedia's strong recommendation is to not edit such topics. S0091 (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will keep this in mind and follow it respectfully. Thank you. Satyajeet86 (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A few months ago, through a government program, Devrishi's brother tried to know from me how to edit Wikipedia articles. Satyajeet86 (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:59, 22 June 2025 review of submission by Rafaelthegreat

[edit]

This is very confusing. Articles like Rafal and Rapolas are versions of Raphael (given name). I made another version, but it got declined. Why???????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Rafael Hello! 17:59, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rafaelthegreat The whole url is not needed when linking to another article or page on Wikipedia. I fixed this for you.
My advice would be to do as suggested and place your content at Raphael (given name) and then start a discussion as to if it should be spun off into a separate article, instead of using this process. Your draft is relatively short, most of the existing articles you cite are much longer and exist to keep articles at a manageable length. 331dot (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:21, 22 June 2025 review of submission by 2600:1700:4E00:21D0:D105:7779:D8E1:D856

[edit]

Hi! Do you think if I added the album artwork it would be more likely to be accepted? New on here & learning how to do it. Thanks! 2600:1700:4E00:21D0:D105:7779:D8E1:D856 (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, no it would not. Firstly album artwork is copyrighted so can only be used under fair use and not in draft (see Wikipedia:Non-free content). More importantly, all new articles on Wikipedia have to show the subject is notable (See WP:N) which in most cases requires significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) in multiple independent (WP:INDY) reliable sources (WP:RS). So artwork is no help for notability and getting accepted, only good sources with significant coverage can do that. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Images more generally are not relevant to the draft process at all, which only considers the text and sources. Images can wait until the draft is accepted. 331dot (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]


June 23

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

@Merged account: with the possible exception of source #1, these are mostly primary sources: #2 is produced in collaboration with JETRO and the German businesses; #3 says it is based on interviews; #4 is Correns itself; and #6 is the US gov't. Meanwhile #5 is a secondary source, yes, but it makes no mention of Correns (that I could find at least). I don't know what #1 is or how independent it is of its subject(s), but even if it fully meets the WP:GNG, it alone isn't enough to satisfy it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:20, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing, thank you very much for your feedback per source! I`ve also read WP:GNG again and understood now that even if the publishing source is independent, interviews with primary sources are still an issue. So I will exchange now most of the sources. Regarding involvement of JETRO, I have a different opinion, since Correns was not a member of this organization at the time when the book was published (and probably it is still the same situation). One additional question: How to enable reviewers to read source 1? It is an antique book and reviewers certainly don`t want to purchase it. Maybe there is a place where I can share a copy of the relevant page(s) without violating copyright law? Same question regarding a purchased report of the Teikoku databank. If it`s behind a paywall, can it be still helpful to use it as reference? Looking forward to your advise! Merged account (talk) 08:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Merged account: RE source #1, I looked up OAV, and it turns out to be Ostasiatischer Verein, or the German Asia-Pacific Business Association. To my mind, this makes that source similar to the JETRO one, #2, ie. not entirely independent. Business associations writing about businesses is a bit like the Bundesliga writing about its constituent teams: they may technically be at an arm's length, but it's not a very long arm.
Sources behind paywalls are acceptable, but it would be helpful if you could treat them effectively as offline sources (see WP:OFFLINE), in the sense of citing them with sufficient detail to give the reviewer a good idea of what the source is and says, and the extent of its coverage. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

June 24

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

Guidance Request for “QashqAI Voice” Draft

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

Assistance with improving QashqAI Voice draft

[edit]

Dear DoubleGrazing,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you again for your time and support.

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

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

Dear Jéské,

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

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

Thank you again for your time and support.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

June 25

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

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

[edit]

Why this article nominated for deletation. 

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

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

[edit]

Subject: Help with Callbreak article: sourcing challenge

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

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

Hello, 

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

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

Thank you in advance for your time and support!

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

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

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

[edit]

Hello,

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

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

Thank you again for your help.

— Joshua Hart 

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

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

[edit]

Hello,

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

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

Many thanks Joshua Hart Author 

Joshua Hart Author (talk) 10:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Hart Author: I posted yesterday a message on your talk page about autobiographies, did you read it? TL;DNR = they are very strongly discouraged.
Also, I must say you're getting dangerously close to a promotion-only account, and may find yourself blocked. Promotion of any kind is not allowed on Wikipedia. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You still used an AI chatbot to write the draft, and there is still no indication you meet our notability criteria. qcne (talk) 11:30, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

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

They come from reliable outlets with editorial oversight.

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

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

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

The actual reason of the decline is that it appears this company is not notable enough for a wikipedia article. You need to add more context and sources to clearly prove it is indeed notable. Otherwise every company under the sun would have its own article, no matter how rutine their activity would be. If you want more details on organizations and notability, check this page. Hope my reply answers your doubts. NeoGaze (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Lascuraluca. None of the sources cited is independent of Flashnet. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
You need several sources which meet the criteria in WP:42: without those, you cannot meet the criteria for notability.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia.
Do you have a connection with Flashnet? ColinFine (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

If you are not Chris Fowler, that only means that the self-written part is incorrect. Quite frankly I might have thought the same. I agree that the draft met the speedy deletion criteria; that means it can be deleted without delay or discussion if an admin feels the criteria are met. It can be restored but you will need to change your approach and summarize what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about him, showing how he is a notable academic. Please read that carefully. 331dot (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

Binsen2323 The whole url is not needed when linking to another page or article on Wikipedia, I fixed this. The header also provides a link.
We don't do pre-review reviews here; the best way to get feedback is to resubmit the draft. If you have specific questions, we can help with that. 331dot (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Binsen2323. I notice that the "Products" section is cited only to Auditboard's own website.
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
Unless an independent source has discussed a product (not just mentioned or listed it) why would an encyclopaedia take note of it.
More generally, almost all your cited sources should meet the triple criteria in WP:42. (I haven't looked to see whether the others do, or whether there are other problems with the draft). ColinFine (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

Winterspier (talk) 23:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 26

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

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

[edit]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1297411177"