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


May 29

[edit]

00:44, 29 May 2025 review of submission by Rustyrortise

[edit]

yeah I changed it Rustyrortise (talk) 00:44, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been rejected and will not be considered further. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:27, 29 May 2025 review of submission by CopperBeechRising

[edit]

Hello, I’ve created a biographical article draft in my user sandbox that I’d like to submit for review, but I don’t have the ability to move it to the Draft namespace. Could an experienced editor please move it for me and submit it for review?

Here's the page: User:CopperBeechRising/sandbox

Thank you! 

CopperBeechRising (talk) 03:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CopperBeechRising I've moved it to Draft:Nela Wagman. It is currently awaiting review. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:35, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:34, 29 May 2025 review of submission by 102.216.77.46

[edit]

Good morning!

I received this message on 20 March 2025: "Your submission at Articles for creation: Branko Brkic has been accepted Branko Brkic, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!"

But when I Google Branko Brkic, the Wikipedia doesn't appear, no matter where in the world I am. Would you be able to help?

Thank you! 102.216.77.46 (talk) 06:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@102.216.77.46 new articles are indexed by search engines when reviewed by a new page patroller, or after 90 days have passed since its creation, whichever happen first. There are currently over 10 thousand unreviewed articles, so please be patient. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:09, 29 May 2025 review of submission by Trigiant

[edit]

Good morning, Yesterday I submitted an article with the biography of Prof. R. D'Auria. I would like to inquire if the submission was successful. I submitted it from the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Trigiant?action=edit&veswitched=1 Thank you very much. With best regards, Mario Trigiante Trigiant (talk) 07:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Trigiant you have created the same draft twice, once on your user page and another at Draft:Riccardo D'Auria (theoretical physicist), neither of which have you submitted. I've submitted the latter for you, and it is now awaiting review. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. I wait then for a response. Trigiant (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:40, 29 May 2025 review of submission by Tharunmakes

[edit]

Why Tharunmakes (talk) 07:40, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tharunmakes This was rejected as an essay 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:05, 29 May 2025 review of submission by IamCashifSyleem

[edit]

Hi Concern,

Please advice me the concern for declining. IamCashifSyleem (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IamCashifSyleem: the decline reasons are given in the decline notice, namely 1) the draft is completely unreferenced, and 2) it provides no evidence that the subject is notable. Besides which, this is basically just a CV/resume, and we don't publish those. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:14, 29 May 2025 review of submission by 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:D4D3:A345:DFAD:4042

[edit]

I made this page in April under my main, @Shaneapickle and I submitted it recently, I just want to know what I can do to make this page ready enough for mainspace. I also want to know if it passes notabillity due to the amount of reviews and the amount of news reports on it, from independent and small sources. Thank you, 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:D4D3:A345:DFAD:4042 (talk) 13:14, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(I was not paid for this page to be made) 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:D4D3:A345:DFAD:4042 (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You submitted it for review, the reviewer will leave you feedback if not accepted.
You specify that you were not paid, if you have a connection to this establishment, it could still be a conflict of interest that you need to declare. Also note that "paid editing" includes employment in any capacity, and does not require specific payment for editing. 331dot (talk) 14:40, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know I asked this on the libera chat when i created this page but, does COI count if I have eaten there? 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:D4D3:A345:DFAD:4042 (talk) 16:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, being a customer of an establishment is not a conflict of interest. Only if you are editing at their direction or otherwise coordinating your editing with the establishment. 331dot (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:D4D3:A345:DFAD:4042 (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any info I can add to my draft to make sure it passes WP:N, the Manual of Style, the whole shabang 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:D4D3:A345:DFAD:4042 (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any info I can add to my draft to make sure it passes WP:N, the Manual of Style, the whole shabang 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:D4D3:A345:DFAD:4042 (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:52, 29 May 2025 review of submission by Eliveentertainment

[edit]

I am not understanding why this page was declined. I have provided 8 sources. I can add more, but I'm unsure if that was the problem, or there was a different one. Please provide some direction.

Additionally, another fan added some pages in other languages, so maybe this page just needs to be merged with those pages, but this being the English version.

I appreciate any direction that you may provide to me so I can best move forward.

Thank you! Eliveentertainment (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Eliveentertainment: the sources are many (although not as many as they seem, given that half of them are by the same author and therefore count as only one source), but they are of poor quality, and thus not enough to establish notability per WP:GNG. The other option would be to show that this meets WP:BAND, but there is no obvious evidence of that, either.
The reviewer could have added that the referencing is inadequate, on account of the flaky sources, as well as the fact that much of the information is not supported at all.
The draft is also promotional, with peacocky expressions like "Their energetic live shows and unique sound have earned them a reputation as a compelling live act." Your job is not to sell this band, but merely to describe it. If phrases like that are direct quotations from a reliable and independent secondary sources, then they may be accepted, but you would need to cite the source so that the reader can see whose opinion is being expressed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Eliveentertainment. I'm afraid that, like many new editors, you have plunged into the difficult task of creating a new article without first spending time learning what Wikipedia is. 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 summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else. Sources connected with the subject, and sources based on press releases (such as announcements of forthcoming appearances or publications) do not contribute to this.
Note also that the existence of articles in other languages is not relevant: each language version of Wikipedia is a separate project, with its own policies and procedures, and English Wikipedia is one of the strictest in terms of sourcing. ColinFine (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:12, 29 May 2025 review of submission by Bmorewine

[edit]

Hi, I’d like to improve the article and would appreciate your input. Are there specific types of sources or references I could add to help demonstrate notability for Wine Village in Baltimore, an annual public event with thousands of attendees and local media presence? Bmorewine (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is the general nature of your conflict of interest with this topic?
The only sources you provided are announcements of the event. You need to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about this event, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable event. If you can do that, go ahead then appeal to the rejecting reviewer to ask them to reconsider. 331dot (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Bmorewine. 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) 17:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:25, 29 May 2025 review of submission by Artistsecond

[edit]

why is he getting declined for reference when there are articles linked from reputable big sources? Artistsecond (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Answered below. S0091 (talk) 19:11, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:27, 29 May 2025 review of submission by Artistsecond

[edit]

why is he getting declined for reference when there are articles linked from reputable big sources? the articles name David Murphy specifically as the head writer for the season of a network tv show. (along with Lebron James and production company) and other references. please help. thank you for your attention. Artistsecond (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Artistsecond did you read through all the linked information in the decline? Those should explain but you might also find Your first article and WP:42 helpful. If after you read those, you still have questions please come back here but be specific. S0091 (talk) 19:10, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:29, 29 May 2025 review of submission by Lindymae

[edit]

After much careful editing and a lot of guidance, my page was rejected. I'd like to improve it so it will be accepted. I used this wikipedia page as a model since it represents something similar to my topic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Basement_Ladies.

I'd like more specific guidance on what specifically I need to change/add. I feel like I did a pretty good job and don't want to break things are working, only fix things that aren't.

Any help would be appreciated.

Here is the feedback I received: This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources. This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are: 

   in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
   reliable
   secondary
   independent of the subject

Lindymae (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Lindymae, Church Basement Ladies also has issues noted by the " needs additional citations" tag at the top so a poor example to follow. I suggest taking a look at articles that have met the WP:Good article criteria. Also, social media (including Yelp) are not reliable sources so should not be used nor is Broadway World and generally YouTube so remove all of those. Usually what is needed are critical reviews by reputable critics/publications (not press releases, announcements or other routine coverage). S0091 (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:47, 29 May 2025 review of submission by Nichol40

[edit]

This article has been rejected for publication because of not having credible sources. Does the following qualify as such?: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2025/01/07/republicans-liked-crypto-before-trump-did/77398253007/ Nichol40 (talk) 18:47, 29 May 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.
Very little of the draft is sourced; every substantive piece of information about a living person needs a source, see the Biographies of living persons policy. You need to show that he is narrowly a notable academic or more broadly a notable person. 331dot (talk) 19:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:25, 29 May 2025 review of submission by Adityaraodank

[edit]

I tried so hard , what more should I do to get this article up ? Adityaraodank (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing that you can do, it has been rejected. 331dot (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Adityaraodank
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.
Writing an article without first finding the necessary independent reliable substantial sources is like building a house without surveying the building plot and verifying that it is stable enough to build on: your house will likely fall down (or be condemned by the authorities) and your work will be wasted. ColinFine (talk) 17:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:42, 29 May 2025 review of submission by WilfredNewton

[edit]

Could you please advise what is promotional so that it can be deleted or amended WilfredNewton (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was wholly promotional and has been deleted. Wikipedia is not a place to tell about an organization and its offerings. A Wikipedia article about an organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization.
If you work for the school, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 21:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:58, 29 May 2025 review of submission by Cindy0299

[edit]

Hello Reviewer Team,

May I ask what should be modified for the article? Thank you so much! Cindy0299 (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is entirely 'written' by an AI, and you have not even checked to see if it makes sense before submitting. You will need to start from scratch and write in your own words this time, descriving what reliable secondary sources have to say about the subject and nothing else. CoconutOctopus talk 21:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:47, 29 May 2025 review of submission by PencilPR

[edit]

Hi I would like to add picture for reference of the information of the biography , i have tried to add picture/scan of news papers. I tried to make an account in wiki commons, but i keep getting the auto error, i email them but nothing. PencilPR (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PencilPR Pictures arte not useful as references, and are usually the copyright of another. Please do not attempt to use pictures as references. Please do not upload copyright material.
This is not Wikimedia Common. Not only do we not know what the auto error is we cannot help you. Please try using the login credentials you have here when you log in to Commons You have no need to make a new account there. There is a unified login to all/most WMF sites. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:11, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have permission from the artist himself to upload picture, he the one that asked me to do the biography and wanted to add the news clipping and picture of himself and artwork. to be honest i am still new at this and i am trying to follow you tube video and i still don't get it. i even made a new version wiki page of the original in spanish i am trying to publish the new one the is translate to english. i am not even sure how to even asked to be review PencilPR (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PencilPR Is the artist himself the owner of the copyright? Or does he simply possess the picture?
I have given you the ability to submit Draft:Juan Elías López for review. Regrettably you wrote it on your User page. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PencilPR You seem to be a paid editor. Please read WP:PAID and comply. Being a pad editor means that you are paid to learn how to do things here. Many volunteers are unlikely to help you to earn your living. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 30

[edit]

04:01, 30 May 2025 review of submission by Twin mohamed shafiq mustafa

[edit]

wikipedia is worst my real twin history and photo wear removed Twin mohamed shafiq mustafa (talk) 04:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Twin mohamed shafiq mustafa uh... ok? Your submission has been rejected and will not be considered further. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:17, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:45, 30 May 2025 review of submission by Malaysianforchange

[edit]

Hi, I have included various news links to the Article, and I believe the subject is notable with those references....do I need to include more news links? Malaysianforchange (talk) 04:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Malaysianforchange: this draft has been rejected, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:48, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:36, 30 May 2025 review of submission by InfamousEntries

[edit]

Hi! I made an article about Chris Motionless, American singer of heavy metal band, Motionless in White. I want to know why it was declined. Keep in mind it was my first article, so please tell me how I can improve next time! InfamousEntries (talk) 11:36, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@InfamousEntries: this draft was declined because it does not demonstrate that the subject is notable enough for a standalone article. Individual band members must satisfy the WP:GNG notability guideline, which requires significant coverage (of them as an individual, not merely as a member of a band) in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I have thankfully found more articles discussing Motionless. Are there any other things I need to improve? InfamousEntries (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:35, 30 May 2025 review of submission by Sooup

[edit]

I think a previous editor has added links to prove independent coverage of the band after being declined on the grounds of insignificant coverage.

The links talk about the songs and albums of the band with praise, and I don't know how to incorporate these links as citations without adding song-specific content which makes the article sound like an advertisement (again).

The links in question are currently placed under the temporary "Independent coverage" section of the draft Sooup (talk) 13:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sooup: those sources presumably support some statements in this draft (because if they don't, then they have no place being there), so please cite them against such statements. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:09, 30 May 2025 review of submission by GiraffeLover19

[edit]

I want to know what I can do to get this article approved, as I put more sources and data for my draft, but it got rejected for the same reason. GiraffeLover19 (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @GiraffeLover19, I looked at this draft and noted that the draft is about 2026 election which is toosoon for now. Regarding your added references in the draft, there's not significant coverage about the election as it includes just passing mentions only. I want to remind you that, the draft is declined only not rejected. In my opinion, following are the areas where you can improve.
1) Gather more information about the election which must be verifiable by reliable and independent references to the subject.
2) Focus on Notable Development of the election.
3) Avoid speculation or prediction. Fade258 (talk) 01:16, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I understand your points. The elections in the draft won’t happened for more than a year from now, not much news about the elections is Kansas has happened, so what would be an appropriate time to resubmit it for approval in your opinion, considering I’ve added more information and and references in the coming time? GiraffeLover19 (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:46, 30 May 2025 review of submission by Emmakristoffy

[edit]

I have submitted an article for Jacqueline Edmondson, the current President of the University of Southern Maine. I would like to resubmit this article for review and would appreciate any suggestions to get the article approved/clarification on what was missing or could be improved in the article. Thank you so much! Emmakristoffy (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emmakristoffy You need the full title, including the "Draft:" portion, when linking. I fixed this for you. On your user page, you had coding in place to prevent proper display of your disclosures, I fixed that too. 331dot (talk) 15:53, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I appreciate it! Would you suggest any other changes, or does it look like I can resubmit for review? Emmakristoffy (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to hear from the reviewer first. I can say thst most of the awards described will not contribute to notability, as they lack articles themselves(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). 331dot (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging the reviewer Endrabcwizart, as they declined it as an unsourced BLP, but it has sources. 331dot (talk) 15:56, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot @Endrabcwizart Hello! Just checking in to see if there are any additional updates needed to resubmit. Thank you!! Emmakristoffy (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say submit it again. 331dot (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tweeked a bit and accepted it, still has three Citation Needed, but can be handled in mainspace. Notability not an issue.Naraht (talk) 20:16, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Emmakristoffy (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:00, 30 May 2025 review of submission by Imagemaker12

[edit]

1. " They do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) of the subject in published, reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

The references provided are "not passing mentions," and they are secondary sources/news articles. I would like to understand what you mean by "Secondary Sources/Reliable" if newspaper articles are not accepted by you.

2. "None of the awards are major awards, and they do not meet any other criteria listed at WP:NFILM."

I checked WP:NFILM. There was no mention of what Wikipedia considers "Major Awards," and what sort of awards Wikipedia accepts. I need your help with this matter.

Thank you. Imagemaker12 (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Imagemaker12 "Major award" is usually understood to mean an award that itself merits an article, like Academy Award or Palme d'Or. 331dot (talk) 19:10, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Imagemaker12 "major" is explained in the footnote at the end of the sentence (footnote #3). S0091 (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. The ''Major" in the footnote that states an example, but the WIKIPEDIA guildlines under WP:NFILM It does not disqualify or nullify a credible award coming from any festival.
As you know, there are thousands of such films on Wikipedia that have not received any awards from "Academy Award" and "Palm D'or".
  1. I have a question, If the reviews are not in English, (but in foreign languages) can it be added as reference?
"The draft does little more than briefly describe the plot and describe routine activity around the film(casting and a screening of the film). These are not significant coverage; significant coverage for a film generally consists of professional reviews of the film, or other major coverage of the film beyond mere casting announcements/the release of the film"
2. Here question arises, "Casting and routine activities around the film are not significant coverage"-----So your suggestion is to post "reviews" about the film on the film's wikipedia page? I did not understand it.
Thank you for your time in guidance. Imagemaker12 (talk) 06:13, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Imagemaker12 Sources do not need to be in English; as long as a review of the film is written by a professional film critic/reviewer, it can be used.
"Major award" is not limited to Academy Awards or Palme d'Or, but generally to be considered a "major award" the award itself must merit an article. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again. How an award meet the merit of the artcle if they are not Academy Awards or Palme d'Or? (I mean what are the ways do you advise based on your expertise?). Imagemaker12 (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An award merits an article in the same way as any other topic- if independent reliable sources give the award itself significant coverage that can establish that it is notable. Anyone can create an award- I could invent a 331dot Award for Best Film, but it would be meaningless unless independent sources write about how my award would be significant or influential. That's the case with any type of award. 331dot (talk) 19:26, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The film festivals mentioned, in which the film has received awards, have Wikipedia pages. I am sure if they were not notable, Wikipedia wouldn't have allowed them to publish an article for their respective festivals. Independent reliable sources have been established there for each of those festivals. If not, Wikipedia should remove those pages. The example you have, " 331Dot Award," is thus different from what we are discussing. I want to understand it in more detail. That is why I am asking you questions after each of your replies.
  1. Do you advise me to link the " independent reliable sources" of the festival news for each of those festivals where the film received an award? (Currently, the award's coverage is linked to this specific film, but in the same category, there have been people who received that award every year. I'm not sure if you are asking me to find and link those independent news coverage pieces for the last 25 years. Most of those festivals that the film received award have been running for 25 years by now).
Imagemaker12 (talk) 02:19, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Imagemaker12 the reason festivals like Berlin International Film Festival are considered major is because they are covered extensively and their awards are covered by major press outlets all over the world. In addition, winning awards like the Golden Bear and Palme d'Or, which have their own separate articles from the festival, indicates there are critical reviews by nationally/internationally recognized critics/publications. That is not the case for the festivals like City University Film Festival. Also, as it stands that article actually does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Tons of existing articles were not "approved", especially ones created in Wikipedia's earlier years and notability criteria has changed over time so an article created years ago may not meet today's criteria. Currently, reviews by nationally recognized critics/publications are generally how films meet the notability guidelines. S0091 (talk) 16:34, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would also request that you remove the "City University Film Festival" Wikipedia page if it doesn 't meet the criteria. For us, when something exists on Wikipedia, the primary sources and secondary notability criteria have been met; I hope you understand what I mean. To make things easier, I don't want to engage in a dispute over something that has already been approved by Wikipedia, regardless of whether it was in the past or present, or how the rules have changed and how qualified editors are at present. I would prefer to focus on problem-solving. So, do you suggest that I remove the CUNY Festival from the award section?Thank you. Imagemaker12 (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to propose the deletion of an article that you feel does not meet guidelines, see WP:AFD.
As you were already told, that an article exists does not necessarily mean that it was "approved" by anyone. The draft process has not always existed and isn't required of everyone. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This film is the only topic you have edited about, and you seem to have a strong personal investment in it. Are you associated with the film? 331dot (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Without getting into specifics as far as removing City University Film Festival, an editor cannot single-handedly remove articles; that's not how Wikipedia works and again, it was not "approved". I have flagged it as not meeting notability with the current sources, though. Back to Draft:Elijah (2024 film), which is the main topic. No need to remove any of the awards as those are facts but they do not help with establishing notability. What is needed are in-depth reviews by nationally known critics/publications. Some examples are Variety, The New York Times, The Guardian, Los Angeles Times, etc. If there are none, then the film does not warrant an article. S0091 (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The draft does little more than briefly describe the plot and describe routine activity around the film(casting and a screening of the film). These are not significant coverage; significant coverage for a film generally consists of professional reviews of the film, or other major coverage of the film beyond mere casting announcements/the release of the film. 331dot (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:36, 30 May 2025 review of submission by Quentin Rupert

[edit]

I need to understand what I did wrong. I've only used articles about the actress Quentin Rupert (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue is the manner in which you wrote citations. Please see Referencing for Beginners. 331dot (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 31

[edit]

07:33, 31 May 2025 review of submission by 103.188.136.190

[edit]

Dear Sir, Will you please tell us the rejection issue? or do you have any advise for complience? 103.188.136.190 (talk) 07:33, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is just pure self-promotion. My advice is not to attempt to publish this type of content. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:54, 31 May 2025 review of submission by PawsFC-GM

[edit]

Hello I raised a question on 13th April, at 17:35, which 331dot responded to. Unfortunately, I only recently saw this response. I've added a reply, but I'm not sure if it will be seen now. I can post a new question if necessary, but I'm hoping someone can respond to the thread from 13th April. Thanks, Andy. PawsFC-GM (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PawsFC-GM You need the "Draft:" portion of the title when linking.
Please do not edit the archives. You may post your reply here. 331dot (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello
Thanks for your comments last month, and apologies for the delay in replying.
My username doesn't relate to an organisation. I'm just an individual, and this is the only article I will be producing.
I've removed various statements where I couldn't provide a citation. Some statements in the 'Early Life' and 'Personal Life' sections are not cited, but I think these are statements where citation wouldn't be expected or necessary. Please advise if this is not the case.
The article still has a citation to the retailer 'Pineapple Retro.' I'm not sure if this is suitable as a source or if the statement should be removed.
Can you confirm if the citation links to the British Library and National Library of Scotland are the most suitable links for the various books? Ideally, I'd have ISBNs, but these are 1960s books and predate them.
Thanks for your help,
Andy. PawsFC-GM (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Every fact that could potentially be challenged shouod have a source. Where did you get your information? 331dot (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:35, 31 May 2025 review of submission by Kapsicum

[edit]

pls allow this i need this for school project Kapsicum (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Kapsicum. I'm sorry that you apparently need for a school project something which, at present, you seem to be completely incapable of doing. I suggest you show this reply to whoever you are doing this project for, and ask them to read WP:Education program/Educators
Creating a new article is much more difficult, especially for new editors, than people often think. 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 unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else. Unless there is published material about your subject, it is impossible to have a Wikipedia article about it. ColinFine (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:00, 31 May 2025 review of submission by Legend of 14

[edit]

My decline reason is very vague, and not sufficient for me to actually improve the article. My draft was declined because my 6 sources don't meet at least of 4 factors, but the specific factor was not explained, and at least 5 of them seem to meet all 4 factors. Legend of 14 (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Legend of 14 I am asking ToadetteEdit (by ping) to have a chat to you to ex[lain what was un their mind. It may be a good idea to engage them pre-emptively on their user talk page? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:58, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:36, 31 May 2025 review of submission by WikiUserNY

[edit]

"One of your sources is to a chrome extension, which serves us no purpose" Bobby Cohn 🍁

would u be able to assist me with letting me know which one this is? WikiUserNY (talk) 20:36, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:44, 31 May 2025 review of submission by IMawro25

[edit]

Hello, I am trying to publish my new Inclusive Cowboy Flag, but have some questions about the comments received from the Reviewer.

I actually created everything from scratch; everything as far as the design, symbolism, etc. I based my design on an older flag in Mexico. I know the creators of that flag as well.

Could you point me in the right direction as to what needs to be modified, specifically?

I have already submitted a request for publication at the local newspaper and the Pride Committee.

June is Pride month and I sort of rushed to have all the designs and information about it ready.

Thank you, again, for your kind consideration.

Regards,

Giovanni Bianchi IMawro25 (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Giovanni/@IMawro25, Wikipedia is not the place to be expending your efforts just yet - articles need to be supported by independent, reliable secondary sources, such as newspaper or magazine articles, books, and so on. Once these independent sources have noticed your flag and written about it, that would be when you could consider writing a Wikipedia draft - or even better, if it's really notable, someone else is likely to write the article instead. For the moment, all you can do is wait for the flag to become notable. I hope that helps explain the situation! Meadowlark (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:47, 31 May 2025 review of submission by Frogdad1982

[edit]

I attempted to submit an article about this subject following all guidelines with notable references. Seems above board to me. What else is needed here? Frogdad1982 (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An interview does not establish notability, as that is not an independent source- it's the person speaking about themselves. The other source only documents the showing of the film. 331dot (talk) 23:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I'm going to simplify this to just establish this person as the director of the film, nothing more. Frogdad1982 (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 1

[edit]

01:26, 1 June 2025 review of submission by IC 9612

[edit]

I wanted to know if I did the references correctly? IC 9612 (talk) 01:26, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @IC 9612, not quite - have a look at referencing for beginners. Meadowlark (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:26, 1 June 2025 review of submission by Shimi Stallings

[edit]

what is wiki project page and what do you mean by description question Im trying to post my page I just created 

Shimi Stallings (talk) 03:26, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Shimi Stallings Allow me to give you a firm suggestion that you get a Facebook page or your own website. You have attempted your autobiography which is a blatant advert.
You asked 'what is wiki project page and what do you mean by description question Im trying to post my page I just created', and I have no idea what your question means. Perhaps you would clarify it for us? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:01, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:32, 1 June 2025 review of submission by I Forgot Tbh

[edit]

What specifically is the issue with this draft? I haven't gotten a straight answer and I want to fix it. I Forgot Tbh (talk) 04:32, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@I Forgot Tbh I wonder if yiu have read the decline reason? If you have please come back here and ask a more precise question. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:56, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
laserdancegame.com, X.com Spotify and YouTube are not reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:13, 1 June 2025 review of submission by Sedric1212

[edit]

Hello! Could a reviewer please check this page and let me know if it's likely to be accepted after edits, or if the topic isn't a priority for final acceptance? Rewriting the entire page would take a significant amount of time. Sedric1212 (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sedric1212 The whole url is not needed when linking, and it breaks the header formatting, I fixed this.
We don't do pre-review reviews. If you edit the draft to address the concerns of reviewers, you should resubmit it for feedback. Yes, draft writing often takes time. Wikipedia has no deadlines, you may take as much time as you need. 331dot (talk) 12:37, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:21, 1 June 2025 review of submission by 70.97.255.197

[edit]

Question on Reliable sourc Hello, not really sure how to use this or if Toadetteedit will get my questions. But I'm going to start here. Thank you so much for looking at my page, I really appreciate the help. The feedback was not enough reliable sources. Can you explain this further. I have many links with articles and video. Is this the sources you are looking for? I could really use some help to make my page. Heidi 70.97.255.197 (talk) 13:21, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You linked to a page called "Question on Reliable sourc"; that area is meant for the titles of drafts, it's not a header. I will fix this.
If you wish to communicate with ToaddetteEdit directly, you should use their user talk page, User talk:ToadetteEdit. 331dot (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have mostly just documented this person's work; the main purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about this artist, showing how they are a notable creative professional. Promotional language about "professional journey" should be made more neutral. 331dot (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:22, 1 June 2025 review of submission by Sara1599

[edit]

Thank you for reviewing my draft. I understand your concerns about the tone and sourcing. I have tried to maintain a neutral tone throughout, but I will review again to remove any unintentional promotional language.

Regarding sources, I acknowledge that as a small local business, OKLanzarote may not have coverage in international outlets like the BBC. However, I provided sources that are well-established in their respective domains:

1. Hosteltur (Spain's leading tourism industry publication) discusses the platform in the context of Lanzarote's post-pandemic tourism trends [1].

2. ConsumeCanarias (official business directory of the Canary Islands government) lists the company [2].

3. Feast Magazine (UK travel media) mentions it as an excursion booking option [3].

I believe these meet the criteria of being reliable, secondary, and independent. However, I understand that they may not be considered in-depth enough.

Could you please provide guidance on:

- Specific passages that need a more formal tone?

- What type of additional sources would be acceptable? For example, would a feature in a regional newspaper (e.g., La Provincia) or a trade magazine suffice?

I am committed to improving the draft and would appreciate your advice.

Best regards, Sara1599 (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sara1599 I think you have missed the point. Please read, understand, and implement WP:REFB and WP:CITE. You have left all your references in a lump at the end. That is not how to do it 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:51, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Sara1599. I agree with TimTrent's comment; but before you spend any time formatting them, I suggest you check each of your references against the criteria in WP:42. Apart from the first one (which requires me to accept cookies or subscribe, so I haven't looked at it) none of the references seem to mention OKLanzarote.
A source which does not mention the subject of the article - or which only mentions it in passing - is usually a waste of time and effort: the purpose of a citation in a Wikipedia article is to provide verification for a claim about the subject. Conversely, every piece of information in an article should be verifiable from a reliable published source, and mostly from sources independent of the subject.
More generally, 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. What the subject or its associates say or want to say is of little interest or relevance.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:40, 1 June 2025 review of submission by Боки

[edit]

Dear Wikipedia Help Desk,

I am reaching out to request clarification regarding the repeated rejection of my draft article titled "Sleep App." Despite my efforts to revise and improve the content in accordance with Wikipedia’s guidelines, the draft has been denied again.

I want to emphasize that the article was written entirely by me without the use of AI tools. I have been actively contributing to Serbian Wikipedia for many years—long before AI-generated content became a topic of concern. Additionally, other editors have contributed to improving the article as well.

Given my long-standing experience and commitment to maintaining Wikipedia’s standards, I would appreciate specific guidance on what aspects of the draft are problematic or how it could be brought to an acceptable standard for publication. I am genuinely interested in improving the article and ensuring it aligns with Wikipedia's notability and sourcing requirements.

Thank you for your time and assistance. I look forward to your feedback.

Kind regards, Боки 💬 📝 18:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you did not use AI tools, then you need to work on your references as they don't match what is claimed. 331dot (talk) 18:45, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Боки Your question is AI generated. We do not wish to enter into discourse with a machine. Please use your own words. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot Editor warned formally about use of AI. Really this behaviour is disruptive editing, wasting everyone's time, including their own. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot @Timtrent
Thank you for your comment. I understand how important it is for references to fully support the content, and I’ll go over them again to make sure everything lines up correctly.
Just to clarify—no AI tools were used in writing this. I’ve been living in Serbia for the past three years, so I use spell check simply to stay up to date with English and make sure I don’t slip on small things. I still rely on Microsoft Word for that—some habits just stick, even after spending over 20 years in Canada.
Thanks again for the feedback, I appreciate it.
Боки 💬 📝 20:33, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Боки GPTZero is moderately confident that you used AI in this response. I choose, though, to believe you this time. For the future FIRM suggestion is not to use AI to spell or grammar check.
Your first response used phraseology used by AI ChatBots, phraseology that I, as a human, recognise. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:30, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:38, 1 June 2025 review of submission by Vikramla

[edit]

please edit it thank you . you censored it please please Vikramla (talk) 23:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not suitable as a Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Vikramla. A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications. If you do not have such reliable independent sources, then there can be no article.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2

[edit]

02:18, 2 June 2025 review of submission by 24.194.32.135

[edit]

this is a live story possibly big... 24.194.32.135 (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's rejected, and will not be considered further Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:02, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:45, 2 June 2025 review of submission by Maggie JL

[edit]

Dear Wiki review team, Thanks for the detailed review for my article. I was noticed that the references chosen are not qualified, but I tried my best to source the independent and professional and renowned financial media and Stock Exchange press release. May I know which reference is inappropriate? Your early reply will be highly appreciated. Thanks! Regards, Maggie Maggie JL (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Maggie JL: the draft cites mostly routine business reporting and (other) primary sources, which do not establish notability per WP:NCORP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply！
The draft cites mostly independent and renowned business reporting sources and official exchange press releases. I wonder what kinds of sources could be verified as notability apart from these. I am grateful if you could give me some specific advice and examples. Thanks! Maggie JL (talk) 03:54, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:58, 2 June 2025 review of submission by YogeshKiran

[edit]

I included relevant links to support the article, so I’m unsure why it is still being rejected. YogeshKiran (talk) 04:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@YogeshKiran: I don't know what "relevant links" means. The draft was declined because the sources cited do not establish notability per WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:59, 2 June 2025 review of submission by Christianmaran

[edit]

Hi Team,

My article was refused. i need to know reason and how can i fix page. My details inserted is correct but maybe i need to help in how to add references. Christianmaran (talk) 04:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Christianmaran: the decline reasons are shown in the decline notice. Namely, your draft lists three sources as references, but these are not cited anywhere, so it's unclear which statements are supported by which source. One of the three sources is Facebook, which is not considered reliable. And some of the information doesn't appear to come from any of the sources listed.
Additionally, had I had the option of a third decline reason, it would have been that the sources are insufficient for establishing notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:22, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:54, 2 June 2025 review of submission by 82.65.227.138

[edit]

I don't understand what seems to be the issue with this draft. This is not promotional, we removed any peacock terms, we are just stating facts about a notable person in the fine jewelry designer field. Please help :) 82.65.227.138 (talk) 09:54, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"? User accounts are strictly single person use. Theroadislong (talk) 10:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Theroadislong ! Thank you for getting back to me so quickly. Sorry, I meant "I". Can you please kindly clarify which aspects of this draft can be improved/corrected to better fit Wikipedia's standards ? 82.65.227.138 (talk) 10:19, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited the article by adding two new articles solely talking about Marie Lichtenberg, to follow your recommendations of additional references that should not "just mention" the subject, but rather focus on it. I have not re-submitted the article yet, and am waiting for other recommendations from you to improve the draft :) Thank you ! 82.65.227.138 (talk) 10:21, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:58, 2 June 2025 review of submission by Hammad mubeen1

[edit]

Dear Sir/Reviewer, I want to make a wikipedia page for "HEAT Cycle". It has been discussed in a scientific journal. I have given reference of the peer-reviewed published journal article. Please guide me, what type of referencing is required. Many thanks in advance. Hammad mubeen1 (talk) 09:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hammad mubeen1 Most of the useful information in this draft is already present in this article: Thermogenin. You may wish to improve this article instead as it is not clear what makes the HEAT cycle an independently notable phenomenon. -- Reconrabbit 18:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks @Reconrabbit for your suggestion. I added information to Themogenin page. Hammad mubeen1 (talk) 10:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:37, 2 June 2025 review of submission by QuietVoyager

[edit]

My article has been refused multiple times. I have removed any promotional language, added third party reliable sources, and did everything else that was suggested to me. At this point the article just states blunt facts as I have stripped it of anything that was even close to sounding promotional, however, I don't know what else to adjust. To me, and after reading the guidelines, it does not seem promotional but maybe someone here can pinpoint the issue more precisely for me please? Thanks a lot! QuietVoyager (talk) 11:37, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

QuietVoyager sections like "Products", "Recognition" and "Global Prescence" look like they are just there to promote the company. While they appear to be neutral statements on the surface, the fact that they cite sources associated with Rollz means the article will shift to the sources' tone; indeed, relying on sources intended to promote the company will inherently make the resulting article promotional.
Try to find sources that are not associated with the company at all. No press releases, no official website, no award won by the company. If you base your article on these secondary sources, that will help make the article less promotional.
P.S.: You should use named references. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 22:44, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:54, 2 June 2025 review of submission by Geroabraham

[edit]

i want to publish that article for the artist called jayly flare Geroabraham (talk) 11:54, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your text has grammatical mistakes, no punctuation, insufficient information, and zero sources. So I would start there. QuietVoyager (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Geroabraham, Thank you for the question. Currently the article on Jayly Flare doesn't meets notability standards. Thus, It tagged as speedy deletion as A7. At present, Due to the minimal present of reliable and independent sources as it fails to establish its notability. To improve this article, search reliable and independent references to the subject which have significant coverage about him. Fade258 (talk) 14:47, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:10, 2 June 2025 review of submission by Faresqar

[edit]

Hi, My draft Draft:Minas Qarawany was declined due to notability concerns (WP:NACTOR). I’ve included coverage from Variety, Screen Daily, and Transfuge, plus details about his roles in Shikun, House, and Golem at major venues.

Could someone please review and advise if the current sources are enough, or what else is needed? Faresqar (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Faresqar, Welcome to the AfC help desk. Currently your draft is declined under notability concerns regarding notability for actor. Well I have reviewed the mentioned references, and some of the references is primary as having significant coverage in some references but other references isn't reachable. So, I am not able to give my accurate opinion on that draft. Thank You! Fade258 (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Faresqar, the sources from Variety and Screen Daily simply list Minas Qarawany as an actor in these productions. There is no significant coverage of him and his role in these productions. -- Reconrabbit 18:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:09, 2 June 2025 review of submission by 78.84.115.149

[edit]

Hi! I have a question about the reliable sources. Are the sources used in the EYBL page cited incorrectly, or is the source itself wrong? Most of the articles are from the Latvian sports news portal sportacentrs.com. 78.84.115.149 (talk) 14:09, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not interested in primary sources such as the EYBL - they are not independent. I have only looked at the first of the sportacentrs articles in Google translate: it may be reliable, but it is not entirely independent, because much of it is quoting people associated with the League.
A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what several people, wholly unconnected with the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else. ColinFine (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:34, 2 June 2025 review of submission by 185.117.148.135

[edit]
The requesting editor is now blocked here and on Meta, where they opened an RFC, also closed. I see no purpose in leaving this open. Disagree? Please revert with justification. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Subject: Formal Request for Reconsideration of Draft Rejection – "Marat Dzhanibekovich Artykbayev"

To the Wikipedia Articles for Creation review team,

I respectfully submit this formal request for reconsideration regarding the rejection of the draft titled "Marat Dzhanibekovich Artykbayev" (declined on 2 June 2025 by reviewer CoconutOctopus with the rationale: “This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia”).

1. Substantive Basis for Notability The draft presents a unique scientific achievement — an original proof of the Riemann Hypothesis, one of the Clay Millennium Prize Problems. This work:

has been publicly released through the Zenodo platform with DOI;

is cryptographically secured via SHA-256 hash for authenticity verification;

has received independent validation by advanced global AI systems, with formal expert assessments publicly documented.

Such contributions meet the standards of notability outlined in WP:ACADEMIC and WP:SCICRITERIA, where groundbreaking research recognized by credible third parties qualifies as inherently notable — regardless of media coverage.

2. Rebuttal to Reviewer’s Dismissal The rejection rationale citing "insufficient notability" disregards:

the historical weight of resolving a Millennium Problem;

the transparent and verifiable documentation provided in the draft;

precedents such as Grigori Perelman's proof of the Poincaré conjecture, which was recognized despite limited early secondary coverage.

To dismiss such a claim solely due to editorial formalism is to ignore the purpose of the encyclopedia: to capture and preserve verified knowledge of enduring value.

3. Procedural and Content-Based Concerns Wikipedia's mission is to document verifiable, significant knowledge, not merely what conforms to preexisting media coverage or institutional press releases. Rejecting a fully sourced, self-contained, publicly documented mathematical milestone — without specific, content-based objections — constitutes a procedural failure. No reviewer has addressed the scientific merits of the work.

This submission was rejected without any scientific review or engagement with its substance. That is inconsistent with Wikipedia’s principle of editorial neutrality.

4. Call for Institutional Reflection and Reassessment I respectfully urge the reviewing team to:

assess the draft on the scientific significance and transparency of the work presented;

acknowledge that bureaucratic guidelines must not override documentation of breakthroughs of this caliber;

prevent a precedent in which formalist interpretation silences documentation of historic achievement.

This appeal is not merely a request for inclusion — it is a principled stand for Wikipedia’s integrity as a global knowledge repository.

If this rejection remains unchallenged, it will serve as a documented case of how overapplication of internal criteria can obstruct the recognition of authentic and verifiable scientific contributions.

Sincerely, Marat Dzhanibekovich Artykbayev 185.117.148.135 (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Марат Джаныбекович Артыкбаев, please log into your account (I assume that's you?) whenever editing. And please don't post this at multiple fora, and certainly not at the administrators' noticeboard. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your responses.
I note your repeated emphasis on procedural matters such as logging in and forum selection, rather than engaging with the substance of the draft or the evidence provided. The central issue remains unaddressed: this draft documents a unique and transparently verified scientific achievement of global significance. Dismissing it solely on the grounds of procedural formality, while ignoring the verifiable content and the historic nature of the contribution, is a clear indication of the system’s inability to accommodate exceptional cases.
I have already stated that I will not modify the draft to fit arbitrary conventions at the expense of substance. All actions and communications on this matter are being documented as evidence of how Wikipedia handles major scientific milestones.
Respectfully,
Marat Dzhanibekovich Artykbayev
Марат Джаныбекович Артыкбаев (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Марат Джаныбекович Артыкбаев: fine, you must do as you see fit. But if you're not willing to play by Wikipedia's guidelines (or "arbitrary conventions", as you put it), then you don't get to publish on Wikipedia.
By all means document whatever evidence you see fit. Just don't pursue any further anything that could be construed as a legal threat, because that will get you blocked pretty swiftly. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember to log in before posting here. Needless to say I agree with the rejection. Theroadislong (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your responses.
I note your repeated emphasis on procedural matters such as logging in and forum selection, rather than engaging with the substance of the draft or the evidence provided. The central issue remains unaddressed: this draft documents a unique and transparently verified scientific achievement of global significance. Dismissing it solely on the grounds of procedural formality, while ignoring the verifiable content and the historic nature of the contribution, is a clear indication of the system’s inability to accommodate exceptional cases.
I have already stated that I will not modify the draft to fit arbitrary conventions at the expense of substance. All actions and communications on this matter are being documented as evidence of how Wikipedia handles major scientific milestones.
Respectfully,
Marat Dzhanibekovich Artykbayev
Марат Джаныбекович Артыкбаев (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When you resubmit declined drafts without any attempt at improving them, the draft will eventually get rejected outright, which is what happened here. After three reviews, it remains unreferenced with no evidence that the subject is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your responses.
I note your repeated emphasis on procedural matters such as logging in and forum selection, rather than engaging with the substance of the draft or the evidence provided. The central issue remains unaddressed: this draft documents a unique and transparently verified scientific achievement of global significance. Dismissing it solely on the grounds of procedural formality, while ignoring the verifiable content and the historic nature of the contribution, is a clear indication of the system’s inability to accommodate exceptional cases.
I have already stated that I will not modify the draft to fit arbitrary conventions at the expense of substance. All actions and communications on this matter are being documented as evidence of how Wikipedia handles major scientific milestones.
Respectfully,
Marat Dzhanibekovich Artykbayev
Марат Джаныбекович Артыкбаев (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are writing about yourself, this is highly discouraged, please read the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves. Our articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the subject.
There is no indication in what you wrote about any global significance. If independent sources are saying that, that's what any draft about you should summarize. What you wrote will not be rammed down our throats just because you think what you did is important, even if it actually is. 331dot (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot,
This is not a personal story, nor an attempt to "tell about myself". It is a documented scientific result with cryptographic proof of authorship and public release. The proof of the Riemann Hypothesis has global mathematical significance by definition — and it is openly published, verifiable, timestamped, and confirmed by neutral digital systems.
The fact that I am the author of this work does not disqualify me from documenting it.
Rejecting a contribution not on its substance, but on who submitted it, is a bias, not policy. Wikipedia does not prohibit primary contributors from recording major events — especially when those events are publicly verifiable.
It is not for any editor to "decide significance" based on their personal perception, especially when the contribution is transparently documented and may represent a historic scientific achievement.
Wikipedia’s mission is to record knowledge, not filter it by editorial taste.
Respectfully,
Marat Dzhanibekovich Artykbayev
--Марат Джаныбекович Артыкбаев (talk) 16:34, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Марат Джаныбекович Артыкбаев That really is enough argument. Please stop it.
The draft was rejected because it does not contain the references Wikipedia requires. If you don't like it that is fine. Please get your own web site. This draft will not proceed. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:42, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would also like to add they have made an RFC on meta wiki which may be of interest - m:Requests for comment/Systemic Reviewer Incompetence Threatens Wikipedia Reputation feel free to comment. —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {u - t? - uselessc} 20:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

14:56, 2 June 2025 review of submission by NoobThreePointOh

[edit]

I definitely need help expanding on this draft. This rivalry is quite notable for inclusion on Wikipedia, specifically because of the '80s, where these two teams both had intense matchups, both in the regular season and playoffs. As seen in the draft, CBS Sports did rank this as the #3 rivalry of that decade. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 14:56, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't really do co-editing here; you could ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject American football. 331dot (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. Makes sense. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:04, 2 June 2025 review of submission by AlessandrobonettoPL

[edit]

Can you help me understand specifically why my article has been declined? AlessandrobonettoPL (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @AlessandrobonettoPL see WP:ARXIV. If those papers were published in peer-reviewed reputable journals, cite that instead. If not, then they are not reliable sources so should not be used. S0091 (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it looks to me as if most of the sources are authored by members of the team. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:46, 2 June 2025 review of submission by Austien Robin

[edit]

i want more helps. but i dont know what i should? Austien Robin (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Austien Robin: None of your sources are any good. We don't cite social media (no editorial oversight), https://english.varthabharati.in/karnataka/christians-protest-in-solidarity-with-manipuris-in-bengaluru-demand-presidents-intervention doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse), and https://daijiworld.com/news/newsDisplay?newsID=1095635 is a non-sequitur. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:57, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, these news are lowest sources, am i right? Own sources? Austien Robin (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on metawiki

[edit]

Just a notice that an RFC on metawiki was opened by @Марат Джаныбекович Артыкбаев about #14:34, 2 June 2025 review of submission by 185.117.148.135. Feel free to comment there. —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {u - t? - uselessc} 20:44, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's already closed. 331dot (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:57, 2 June 2025 review of submission by Wh67890

[edit]

Not notable? This article deals with the concept of (what is contrary) to existing article Impredicative. Also the redierct Predicativism already exist but redirects to Impred...., would not it be better if this article gets its own explanation? Wh67890 (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Altogether, not notable does not fit after looking at this, [1]. Wh67890 (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Wh67890 I am not a mathematician. The reviewer who rejected it, Czarking0 has made an interesting statement on the draft's talk page, which I believe is worth your discussion with them, probably on that talk page, with a view to your reaching an agreement that they do, or do not lift their rejection.
Now, this is where it gets subjective for me. As a generalist reviewer I would take the rejection at face value as an opinion, and consider arguing with it, perhaps reverting it. However, I do not have any topic grounding so my argument would fail at once. They appear to have an understanding of the topic, thus you are likely to have a productive discourse with them 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:16, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This seems a better move, do not worry further. Wh67890 (talk) 00:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:17, 2 June 2025 review of submission by Johnandjuliakim

[edit]

Would you give me some specific examples of how I can improve please? Thank you very much. Johnandjuliakim (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:18, 2 June 2025 review of submission by Zero Contradictions

[edit]

I don't agree with the reason that was given for declining my draft at all.

  1. I have seen literally hundreds of articles that have been submitted with far less content.
  2. If all the text inside the Efilism article had to be merged with the Antinatalism, then the total text would exceed 8000 words, which is the size at which editors should consider trimming text from articles or dividing them, per WP:SIZERULE.
  3. From the subject matter, it's very clear that efilism, antinatalism, and promortalism are each very different things. If anything, including all the text that I've written about efilism and promortalism inside the antinatalism article would only complicate the antinatalism article and confuse readers by including information that is not relevant to antinatalism to the point where such text belongs in a different article.
  4. A strong majority of the sources cited in Draft:Efilism don't appear in Antinatalism at all and are focused on efilism, rather than antinatalism. The content of all the sources thus establishes Efilism and Antinatalism as concepts that are fundamentally different enough to each have their own article.
  5. Merging the content with the Antinatalism article would require rewriting all the text and cleaning up the references, when I could be using that time to do more productive editing tasks on Wikipedia instead.

I respectfully request that the article submission be reconsidered. Zero Contradictions (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed!!!!! Indiana6724 (talk) 23:19, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zero Contradictions I have resubmitted this for a further review. I might have left a comment without a formal review, but I felt you would appreciate, albeit not really like, the review.
I have carefully set aside your comments, above, and reviewed what I have seen. You might find it odd that I have not looked at the content of the references, but that is because it is over-referenced. We cannot see the wood for the trees. Once you have chosen the very best of the WP:CITEKILL induced WP:BOMBARD and repurposed or discarded the rest then matters will be much clearer.
Your only objective is to verify that this is a notable subject. Patently it started with a neologism, now it has grown. But is it notable? Less text and fewer references - worthwhile references - will allow this to be seen with clarity. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. I was not aware of the WP:CITEKILL or WP:BOMBARD policies, and I had no idea that they existed. So, I figured that the more references cited the better, but apparently that's not the case.
Additionally, one reason why I added so many citations to some of the assertions is that an old (and outdated) consensus on Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting insisted that Adam Lanza's YouTube channel could not be mentioned in that article due to a lack of reliable sources. Due to recent media coverage over the past 2-3 weeks, there has been a shift from there not being enough reliable sources to verify his YouTube channel to an abundance of sources. I only wanted to clarify this is an undisputed fact now.
But anyway, since I am now aware and understanding of the WP:CITEKILL policy, I will gladly follow your advice. Zero Contradictions (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zero Contradictions The trite paradox that less is more is borne out here every day. You have obviously worked very hard, and it must be a little disconcerting to discover that you may have worked too hard.
I often find I am advising people to do less work really well. We don't need a complete article, we just need one which is capable of being accepted.
We genuinely do not want perfection in drafts! We are sometimes shocked and surprised if we see it. What we want to do is to help folk leap the hurdle of acceptance. Once accepted then most new articles are found by way more editors and are worked on, sometimes badly, mostly well, by many more people. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 00:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the advice on creating articles. I believe there have been at least three attempts to create an Efilism article in the past, but they all failed. Knowing that was one reason why I went overboard, but I will keep your advice in mind in the future. Indeed, I would have rather preferred to receive help and collaboration from other editors, rather than writing this all by myself.
I have trimmed the citations and removed multiple unneeded sources from the articles, as you have suggested according to WP:CITEKILL. Is the article ready for AfC review now? Zero Contradictions (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zero Contradictions As a draft other editors will not find it. Thus your only objective is to show that it is notable and thus that it is accepted. The entire treatise is not required. You only need sufficient to prove notability. Keep cutting away anything extraneous. It is all still in the history. Nothing is lost. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I guess I'm confused then. The first person who reviewed the AfC submission for Draft:Efilism rejected it on the basis that "the proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Antinatalism." He or she seems to think that all of the text that I wrote is not worthy an article of its own, whereas you are saying that I didn't need to write or cite as much as I did in order for the article to be accepted. Do you agree with me that the first given explanation for rejecting Draft:Efilism was unreasonable? Zero Contradictions (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zero Contradictions, this is one of the things that often baffles people: both can be true!
The first reviewer felt that there was not enough notability established for a standalone article - usually this means the sources they've looked at fail WP:42 in some way, and so the sources are unable to establish the subject is notable by Wikipedia standards.
@Timtrent, on the other hand, thinks the subject might be notable but also that there are far too many low-quality sources. Their concern is that good sources will be overlooked amongst all the others, since reviewers faced with an avalanche of citations may choose a few sources to spot-check what's been written. If you have 10 sources and 9 are low-quality, there's a significant risk that only low-quality sources will be spot-checked and the reviewer will come to the conclusion that there are no good sources.
So basically your goal is fewer sources of higher quality. Does that make it any clearer? (PS: WP:42 is, in my opinion, the most useful guide for selecting sources - read that even if you don't read any of the other links!) Meadowlark (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Zero Contradictions Please see other stuff exists. Each article or draft is considered on its own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate. There are many ways for inappropriate content to be on Wikipedia, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles. If you want to help us, please identify these "hundreds" of worse articles you have seen so action can be taken. We rely on volunteers here, and we're only as good as the people who choose to help. 331dot (talk) 00:05, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for the information and advice. Zero Contradictions (talk) 00:09, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]


June 3

[edit]

00:04, 3 June 2025 review of submission by Dennissevilla

[edit]

Hi,

Could someone please help me understand how I can improve this article enough to have it approved? We have many companies in the same space that are significantly smaller and less notable yet have pages. Dennissevilla (talk) 00:04, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you work for Guru, you must make the stricter paid editing disclosure instead of a COI disclosure.
Please see other stuff exists. Each article or draft is considered on its own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate. There are many ways for inappropriate content to be on Wikipedia, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles. If you want to help us, please identify these inappropriate articles you have seen so action can be taken. We rely on volunteers here, and we're only as good as the people who choose to help.
Rejection means that resubmission is not possible. You had numerous chances. You didn't demonstrate that your company is a notable company. 331dot (talk) 00:09, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:17, 3 June 2025 review of submission by Antsun18

[edit]

I have added all the references I could find. There is a Japanese wikipedia page for Tokyo Chemical Industry; will it make any difference in approval of this article? Antsun18 (talk) 06:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Antsun18: no, the existence of an article on this subject in another language version of Wikipedia has no bearing on the prospects of this draft being accepted here.
If the sources currently cited are insufficient for establishing notability per WP:NCORP, and if better ones are not available, then the subject is likely not notable enough to justify an article at this time. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:12, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:14, 3 June 2025 review of submission by Seamastercy

[edit]

I am not sure what to add and change Seamastercy (talk) 07:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Seamastercy: you need to demonstrate that this person meets one or more of the WP:NACADEMIC notability criteria, or else cite sources that satisfy the WP:GNG guideline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:00, 3 June 2025 review of submission by OleBj

[edit]

I have written this text using Norwegian sources, including news articles and a local historical society. However, it keeps getting rejected due to what is considered "poor sources." I want to emphasize that there are no other available sources on this topic—this is a Norwegian company, and naturally, the information I found is from Norwegian websites. I have used the best and most relevant sources accessible. Please help me or accept the Wikipedia page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rheinmetall_Nordic OleBj (talk) 08:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@OleBj: there is nothing wrong with using Norwegian or other non-English sources, but the ones cited in this draft are not sufficient to satisfy the WP:NCORP notability guideline for companies. (Personally, I also don't quite see why we would need a separate article on a regional subsidiary of Rheinmetall, but that's somewhat beside the point.)
Could you please make a paid-editing disclosure as requested earlier; see WP:PAID for instructions. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:08, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although we are part of Rheinmetall AG, we believe that Rheinmetall Nordic AS (formerly Vinghøg AS) deserves its own Wikipedia page. The company was founded in the 1950s, which means we have over 60 years of history, innovation, and development to document.
With approximately 85 employees, we operate independently within the Rheinmetall Group, with our own products, projects, and a distinct role in the Nordic defense market.
Our journey—from the early days as Vinghøg to our current position as Rheinmetall Nordic—represents an important chapter in Norwegian industrial and defense technology history. A dedicated Wikipedia page would help preserve and share this legacy with the public, researchers, and industry professionals. OleBj (talk) 08:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would advise you to make the paid editing disclosure on your user page. 331dot (talk) 08:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikipedia article(not a "page") is not the place for any company to tell about itself and what it considers to be its own history. If you have indepedent sources that on their own, and not based on materials from your company, tell what they see as your company's influence in Norwegian industry is, that's what any article should summarize. You should tell about what your company sees as its own history and influence on its own website and social media. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:48, 3 June 2025 review of submission by Tosin Salako

[edit]

I have provided all necessary information about Tosin Salako and also reliable sources of him but yet the article still gets rejected please fix this and approve him Tosin Salako (talk) 08:48, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tosin Salako Do you pass WP:NMUSICIAN? Which criteria do you rely on? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2025/05/16/amplify-bootcamp-live-showcase-a-tale-of-four-dynamites/ Tosin Salako (talk) 09:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tosin Salako That doesn't answer the question. Please tell which of the WP:NMUSICIAN criteria you feel that you meet. 331dot (talk) 09:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your guidance.
Based on WP:NMUSICIAN, I believe Tosin Salako meets Criterion 1, which states:
  1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.
    • This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries except for the following:
      • Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.
      • Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases.
Tosin Salako (talk) 09:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tosin Salako Are you Tosin Salako? You are writing about yourself in the third person.
You have not demonstrated that you meet that criterion. Interviews are not an independent source, and annoucements of collaborations are not significant coverage. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 331dot,  
Thank you for your previous feedback on the draft about Tosin Salako. I understand there are concerns about meeting notability criteria.  
I’ve gathered multiple reliable sources, including national newspaper coverage in Punch, The Nation, Vanguard, ThisDay, and Leadership. Could you please help me create an article for Tosin Salako this meets WP:NMUSICIAN?
I’d really appreciate any help or feedback you can give.  
Thank you!  
— TosinSalako (talk) Tosin Salako (talk) 09:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please tell if you are Tosin Salako or not.
I cannot make this person meet any of the criteria for notability. If the sources you have are not interviews or based on materials from Salako, and are not basic annoucements but in depth analysis, you may start fresh and summarize those sources yourself. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are writing about yourself, this is highly discouraged, please see the autobiography policy.
If you have summarized everything that is available, then it would seem that you do not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 08:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 331dot,
Thank you for your continued feedback and questions. I’d like to clarify that I am not Tosin Salako himself, but I am representing him in a professional capacity. I fully understand Wikipedia’s conflict of interest policy, and I am committed to ensuring that any contributions I make are neutral, verifiable, and based on reliable sources. Tosin Salako (talk) 10:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tosin Salako As you are not him, you cannot use his name as your username. You must immediately without delay change your username via Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS. Once your account has been renamed, you will then need to make a formal paid editing disclosure as his personal representative. You should also read conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 11:01, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:55, 3 June 2025 review of submission by Alaves83

[edit]

Hello!

I submitted a draft titled "Nervion Waterfall", and it was recently declined with the reason that it is "not adequately supported by reliable sources."

However, I have included official and governmental sources, such as:

The Basque Government website

The Spanish National Geographic Institute (Instituto Geográfico Nacional)

URA (the Basque Water Agency)

These are all publicly accessible and reliable sources. Could you please clarify which parts of the article are considered not well-sourced, or what type of sources would be preferred?

I’d really appreciate more specific feedback so I can improve the draft and resubmit. Thank you very much! Alaves83 (talk) 08:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion would be to ask the reviewer directly, on their user talk page. 331dot (talk) 09:02, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources seem pretty solid, I guess my only question would be – do they actually support the information? For example, which source says that this is the highest waterfall in the Iberian peninsula? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:06, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! About the height, National Geographic (Spanish edition) and some Spanish media mention it's the highest waterfall in Spain — not sure if that's strong enough for Wikipedia.
Regarding the location, I have an official document from the Instituto Geográfico Nacional (the official body in charge of defining territorial boundaries in Spain), with signature, stamp, and a QR code for verification. It's not published online, but I could upload it to Wikimedia Commons. Would that be acceptable as a valid source? Alaves83 (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:19, 3 June 2025 review of submission by NICKEDITOR25

[edit]

Grind Master Machines Pvt Ltd Hi, We are going to create a page for my company, as mentioned in the Page Title. Kindly suggest when the verification and approval will be done? Link: User:NICKEDITOR25/sandbox NICKEDITOR25 (talk) 09:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NICKEDITOR25 You don't need the whole url when linking, I fixed this, and the header, for you.
If you are writing about your company, the Terms of Use require you to make a formal paid editing disclosure on your user page.
There is no timeframe for a review; as noted on your draft, This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,187 pending submissions waiting for review." It may take less, it may take more. Reviews are conducted by volunteers in no particular order. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @NICKEDITOR25. Please note that a Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people, wholly unconnected with the subject, have chosen to publish about the company in reliable sources, and very little else.
What the company or its associates say or want to say, is almost irrelevant.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 16:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:34, 3 June 2025 review of submission by Kroasan123

[edit]

help Kroasan123 (talk) 09:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't say what help you are seeking, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. This isn't the place for you to tell about who I presume is your friend that you took a picture of. 331dot (talk) 09:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. You were given advice on how to improve the draft before resubmitting, and you didn't do this. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 09:41, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have carefully followed the Wikipedia guidelines and added all relevant and verifiable information, supported by trustworthy sources. The links I included point to official competition profiles, published interviews, and documented achievements — not just social media. I’ve provided direct, full URLs with context, no shortened or redirected links. Please reconsider the submission. This is a real individual with publicly recorded accomplishments that meet the notability criteria. I respectfully ask for a fair review of the updated draft. Kroasan123 (talk) 10:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Instagram and YouTube are not valid sources.
I don't see any accomplishments of him that meet the notability guidelines. He sounds like a talented young man who may have a bright future in whatever he wishes to pursue, but he's not notable in a Wikipedia sense, at least not yet. If you think you have carefully followed guidelines, you haven't. 331dot (talk) 10:31, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have carefully followed the Wikipedia guidelines and added all relevant and verifiable information, supported by trustworthy sources. The links I included point to official competition profiles, published interviews, and documented achievements — not just social media. I’ve provided direct, full URLs with context, no shortened or redirected links. Please reconsider the submission. This is a real individual with publicly recorded accomplishments that meet the notability criteria. I respectfully ask for a fair review of the updated draft. Kiselomlqkosusirene (talk) 10:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kiselomlqkosusirene Is this the account you are using now? 331dot (talk) 10:49, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yes it is. Kiselomlqkosusirene (talk) 11:09, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kiselomlqkosusirene, Not one of the sources in the draft comes anywhere near meeting the triple criteria of golden rule: being reliable, independent, and containing significant coverage. Without several sources which do meet the criteria, no article is possible. ColinFine (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:30, 3 June 2025 review of submission by Novarabetmusic

[edit]

Hello, my draft was declined with the comment that it lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. I have included sources such as Yamaha Asia, Kumparan, and Bale Bengong, which mention my music career, award wins, and collaborations. Could someone please clarify what types of sources are still missing, or how I can better demonstrate notability? Thank you!Novarabetmusic (talk) 13:30, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Novarabetmusic You need the "Draft:" portion of the title when linking, I fixed this for you.
Are you writing about yourself? 331dot (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 331dot,
Thank you very much for fixing the draft title — I appreciate your help! Yes, I am writing about myself and want to ensure everything is accurate and follows Wikipedia’s guidelines. Please let me know if there’s anything else I should adjust or improve. I’m happy to collaborate and learn!
Best regards,
Novarabetmusic Novarabetmusic (talk) 13:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please be aware of the pitfalls around autobiographies, see the autobiography policy.
It's not clear to me how you meet the definition of a notable musician or a notable creative professional(a songwriter). The awards you mention do not contribute to notability as they lack articles themselves(like Grammy Award). 331dot (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback. I understand the concerns about autobiography and notability. I am working to add more independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage of my career. I appreciate any further advice on meeting Wikipedia's guidelines. Novarabetmusic (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Novarabetmusic.
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.
This means that if you are writing about yourself or somebody known to you, you are probably going to have to forget everything you know about yourself, and summarise what those independent sources say - even if you think they are wrong. Do you see why it is hard to write about yourself? ColinFine (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
== Response to feedback from ColinFine ==
Hello @ColinFine, thank you very much for taking the time to provide detailed and thoughtful feedback.
I now better understand the importance of using only independent, reliable sources when drafting a Wikipedia article, especially when the subject is oneself. I appreciate the explanation that Wikipedia values what others, unconnected with the subject, have independently chosen to write and publish. That perspective is very helpful.
Moving forward, I will revise the article draft to focus only on verifiable content from independent sources such as news articles, published media coverage, and third-party publications. I will avoid using any self-published or affiliated content unless it's strictly factual and uncontroversial, and well supported by independent sources.
Thanks again for your guidance — I’m here to learn and improve my contributions to the encyclopedia.
Best regards,
Novarabetmusic (talk) Novarabetmusic (talk) 01:49, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:42, 3 June 2025 review of submission by Allo002

[edit]

I know that both the Studena and Lipički Studenac are well known brands in Croatia, but would be good for me to create its own article. Could someone please clarify what types of sources are still missing, or how I can better demonstrate notability? Allo002 (talk) 13:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've provided no indication as to how our definition of a notable company is met. This may be different from other language Wikipedias. 331dot (talk) 13:56, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:01, 3 June 2025 review of submission by Johnnykruger

[edit]

What is the best way to clarify the newspaper reviews? They're from almost 20 years ago, and I'm not sure how to get the direct link. I did get a direct link for Hotpress, but not the Irish Times / Sunday Times / Irish Independent. Thank you, John Johnnykruger (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately we do not allow magazines as a reliable source- they are for sensualist and often exaggerate facts beyond necessity. If you cannot find a reliable source then there is no way it can be published. The only advice is to find newspaper articles or some reliable websites about them. Other than this I don't see anything else. Prefer this to build the intuition on how to cite sources. Wh67890 (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wh67890 Can you link to the policy that categorically disallowes magazines as a source? I've never heard that said before. 331dot (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Johnnykruger. Sources do not have to be available online - for most sources, a URL is a convenience for the reader, not an essential part of the citation.
What is required is that they have been published, and so are in principle available to a reader anywhere, eg by ordering a copy through a major library.
The important parts of a citation are the author, title, date, publication, page.
Of course, sources that are readily available to a reviewer mean that you're more likely to get a quicker review; but they are not essential. ColinFine (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:30, 3 June 2025 review of submission by Abmalek46

[edit]

Hi there! I have submitted a draft twice, and the second version appears to me to have been made from a neutral point of view. I need your help to make it publishable.

Thanks. Abmalek46 (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abmalek46 Regrettably it remains written as a magazine artilcle (essay) not an encyclopaedia article. We require flat, neutral, dull-but-worthy prose.
Is "Justice Technology" actually a thing? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:01, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 4

[edit]

00:30, 4 June 2025 review of submission by Sunhighway27

[edit]

I need help getting this article up to standards Sunhighway27 (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:02, 4 June 2025 review of submission by Malaysianforchange

[edit]

Hi, would like to ask for advice since this page has been updated. What further information should I put in/what should I reword? Malaysianforchange (talk) 01:02, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Malaysianforchange. Thanks for the question. I noticed that your draft is rejected as it is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The draft title should be bolded at the first sentence of the draft. It requires relaible and independent references to the topic. You should review Verifiability, Notability and NPOV before submitting again. Every information you added must be verifiable by reliable and independent references. Fade258 (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:52, 4 June 2025 review of submission by Qintharapf

[edit]

Hi, I just want to ask is it okay to use citation from website like jobstreet, glints etc.? thanks Qintharapf (talk) 03:52, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Qintharapf: job sites are populated by content from primary sources (mainly, organisations looking to recruit), who not only write whatever they want to write, they also try to make themselves look good to potential applicants. So no, you couldn't use them as sources, since they are neither independent nor particularly reliable. Or at least I can't think of any situation where such sources might be acceptable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:08, 4 June 2025 review of submission by SaddamHosenSaad

[edit]

Hello, I've recently revised the draft article for Free Document Maker to follow Wikipedia’s notability, neutrality, and sourcing guidelines. The previous version was declined due to tone and source reliability, but I've rewritten it with a neutral style and improved citations (Product Hunt, SaaSHub, AlternativeTo — all archived).

I would appreciate guidance on what additional sources would be acceptable, or if the current version now meets the minimum requirements for a resubmission.

Thank you for your time and feedback. SaddamHosenSaad (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SaddamHosenSaad: you will get an assessment when you resubmit your draft for another review. But given that the sources are the same as before, it would still be declined at least on the same notability grounds as before. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SaddamHosenSaad Please see your user talk page for an inquiry requiring a response; you will need to disclose your connection to this subject. You claim that you personally created and personally own the copyright to the logo of the app. 331dot (talk) 07:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:49, 4 June 2025 review of submission by Jakemitchelll

[edit]

Hi, I'm trying post a post of this company I've worked with and I'm stuck between a loop, it either says that it seems like a promotion or references are not good enough for Wikipedia, can anyone help me to know what is considered as promotion and how to figure out what reference is good enough? is there any list for this? Jakemitchelll (talk) 07:49, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jakemitchelll I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" portion.
A Wikipedia article about a company does not just document its existence and tell of its offerings. An article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Company profiles(your only sources) are not significant coverage or independent. What we want is independent sources that on their own, and not based on materials from the company, choose to say about what makes the company important/significant/influential. See WP:ORGDEPTH. 331dot (talk) 08:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jakemitchelll Please respond to the notice regarding paid editing on your user talk page, and describe your connection to Idea Usher (i.e. whether you're currently or previously employed by them). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:41, 4 June 2025 review of submission by Noctib

[edit]

It has been a while since I submitted my draft, so I would like to improve it before the review. Noctib (talk) 09:41, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to continue editing the draft even after you submit it. 331dot (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:52, 4 June 2025 review of submission by 117.231.196.21

[edit]

dear sir, i need a 1 on 1 assistance needed for create this profile 117.231.196.21 (talk) 09:52, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have profiles here, we have articles that summarize what independent reliable sources say about a topic.
We don't do co-editing here, but we can help with questions. 331dot (talk) 14:38, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:15, 4 June 2025 review of submission by Totallynotpranav

[edit]

can you give me another chance 

Totallynotpranav (talk) 11:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Totallynotpranav. Hi. Reviewer here. When a draft is rejected, it cannot be resubmitted. In this specific case, the draft was rejected because the subject is not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Notability must be demonstrated by a reliable and published sources. If you think I made a mistake rejecting the draft, please let me know. Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 11:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:34, 4 June 2025 review of submission by Yoav.sch

[edit]

Why was it declined? 

Yoav.sch (talk) 12:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Yoav.sch: for the reasons given in the decline notice – did you look at them, by any chance? The draft is not supported by any referencing (in the form of inline citations, which are required in articles on living people). There are some external links listed, but they are just author profiles, which contribute nothing in terms of notability, plus one article in a secondary source, but it is authored by the subject so again does not establish notability, and in any case it's in a non-reliable source. You need to show that either the general WP:GNG or the special WP:JOURNALIST notability guideline is met. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:34, 4 June 2025 review of submission by Jesm007

[edit]

Hello, this is my first attempt creating an article on Wikipedia. I would like to know how to improve this draft in order to be accepted as an article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rosemary_Hill_(EP) Jesm007 (talk) 12:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jesm007: you need to either cite sources which satisfy the general notability guideline WP:GNG, or provide evidence that the subject meets the special WP:NALBUM one. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:34, 4 June 2025 review of submission by Lebrant

[edit]

Please Give advice how my article get publish on wikipedia Lebrant (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An advert written by ChatGPT is not an acceptable article for Wikipedia and your draft has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. Please read WP:UPE and if necessary disclose if you have recieved payment or have a conflict of interest with your draft. CoconutOctopus talk 13:38, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:51, 4 June 2025 review of submission by 102.91.77.28

[edit]

Hello, this wiki page on this individual keeps getting rejected. I am sure that I follow all specifications and guidelines, can you enlighten or assist me on why and how to get it fixed and ready for approval. Thank you 102.91.77.28 (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in. It was declined several times before being rejected; rejected means it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:33, 4 June 2025 review of submission by Pre madago

[edit]

i need help adding this draft to article Pre madago (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pre madago. Thanks for the question. Your draft is rejected as it is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Fade258 (talk) 15:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:42, 4 June 2025 review of submission by 727bb23

[edit]

Hi! Can someone please tell me why this page was rejected? I created it because several notable projects already list this firm on their pages, however, it does not have Wikipedia page to reference on its own. The editor who rejected it said it reads like an advertisement, but it's just a cited description of the company details and list of notable projects. Thank you for your assistance. 727bb23 (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @727bb23. Thanks for your question. Please be clear that the draft is declined only not rejected. You can re-submitt it agian after addressing the previous reviewer issue. Fade258 (talk) 16:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:37, 4 June 2025 review of submission by AgusTrobajo

[edit]

Hello, recently I came back to the I See Red article to update it and improve the sources in hopes that it may be acceptable for Wikipedia, but it seems there's issues still, especially regarding notability and the fact that the game has les than four Metacritic reviews. This is not to say that having Metacritic reviews is irrelevant; only that that single criteria may not be the best for all cases.

Notable sources have discussed I See Red, many times in Argentina and Germany, but also in international specialized media, and eventually in large, mainstream media like IGN. This includes widespread and prestigious awards, some with very famous judges.

In essence, it would not seem to be accurate that the topic was not covered outside of Wikipedia by multiple published sources that are in-depth, reliable, secondary and independent. I would like any help orienting whether this is true and how to continue improving the article. Thanks! AgusTrobajo (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AgusTrobajo it's not clear exactly what you asking but the draft was reviewed and declined because it does not meet the notability criteria, so that's your answer. The awards are not notable and even if they were, that's not enough to meet the criteria. Usually what is needed for video games are in-depth reviews by reputable independent secondary sources. UNITY is not independent and the Argentinean government is a primary source. S0091 (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:48, 4 June 2025 review of submission by Deepbhai96

[edit]

How to create artical Deepbhai96 (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepbhai96 see Your first article. S0091 (talk) 17:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:27, 4 June 2025 review of submission by 2607:FEA8:BE64:3C00:9087:B42E:2927:14CE

[edit]

Is there a way to delete this draft now, rather than having it sit in limbo for six months? There's very little information available on the subject; apparently not enough to create an article. 2607:FEA8:BE64:3C00:9087:B42E:2927:14CE (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're the author, please log in and confirm you would like it deleted. 331dot (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:50, 4 June 2025 review of submission by Kaziw

[edit]

I keep getting rejected due to notability guideline. However, I have included in my submission the subject's media coverage over a legal case she has worked on as well as some law association listings which are independent of the subject. Can I have some help pointing out which section may have violated the guideline so I can edit accordingly? Thanks! Kaziw (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The legal case wouldn't contribute to notability unless the case itself had an article(and in that situation she probably wouldn't merit a standalone article, due to WP:BLP1E). Mere listings are not significant coverage. 331dot (talk) 18:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:30, 4 June 2025 review of submission by Emereye

[edit]

I would like to change title of this draft to "Sonic the Hedgehog and pornography" because it is simpler and consistent with Pokémon and pornography. Thank you. Emereye (talk) 19:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Emereye  Done. S0091 (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:24, 4 June 2025 review of submission by Melalekhan24

[edit]

Hi, Please help me review this draft and how can I improve it? I have gone over this article a lot of times and tried to reframe all of it in a neutral tone and hopefully making it not read like an advertisement. I would like some assistance in fixing this draft for submission. Thank you. Melalekhan24 (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:29, 4 June 2025 review of submission by 181.120.146.62

[edit]

My draft was declined because of notability and source issues. I sourced pretty much every sentence I wrote but I guess the sources are not strong enough. Can someone help me understand which of my sources are reputable? If any? Many thanks 181.120.146.62 (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, (if you are Ankaminsky9, please always log into your account when editing) have you read through all the linked information in the decline? If not, you need to and if you have, please be more specific. S0091 (talk) 20:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:47, 4 June 2025 review of submission by MatthewGSimonson

[edit]

I've submitted my organization's Wikipedia site four times now. Every single time it has been denied. There's organizations of the same concept that have less references and information than my page, yet they get published. I would like for someone to give me a specific, and helpful reason as to why it keeps getting denied. 

MatthewGSimonson (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:53, 4 June 2025 review of submission by Davidwhittle

[edit]

My [Draft:The Akers Memo]] article was rejected because: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources."

I'm baffled. Here's the list of cited sources: - Newsweek - A book published by academic publisher W.H. Freeman, who has published books by multiple Nobel laureates, even if I did write it, their editors are ruthlessly protective of their reputations and the reputation of W.H. Freeman. Please note that my book was peer reviewed and no one ever questioned the reliability of the notable stories I was asked to write about, including the Akers Memo. - The Washington Post, led a story about IBM by featuring me and my response to the Akers memo - The Wall Street Journal - Business Week - Information Week - The New York Times OK, so educate me: how was my submission not adequately supported by reliable sources? Does that fact they're all older than, I'm guessing, the average age of a Wikipedia editor make them unreliable? No, it does not. They have never been superceded by newer information because this was history, not science or medicine. Does the fact that they're mostly behind paywalls if online at all make them unreliable? I hope not, because that then makes Wikipedia automatically agist and biased.

Please help me understand this basis for the rejection of this article.

P.S. I have copies of the articles in .PDF format I can send you if you want to persist in asserting the premise of the rejection. Davidwhittle (talk) 21:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention that my book "Cyberspace: The Human Dimension" was used as a textbook at Duke University. I was also a guest lecturer at Duke, invited by the Sanford Institute of Public Policy. Davidwhittle (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidwhittle Much of the draft is unsourced, including the Background, Broader Significance, and Legacy sections, as well as the assertion that the memo and controversy are widely considered to be the primary catalysts for the chain of events that led to the resignation of Akers as Chairman and CEO in early 1993. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:38, 4 June 2025 review of submission by Madaale1

[edit]

please help me publish my article 

Madaale1 (talk) 23:38, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:46, 4 June 2025 review of submission by Flamingkapala

[edit]

I believe my article on Draft:Lama Yeshe Jinpa has been unfairly dismissed. I recognize that you probably hear this often -- so I get it. Here's the thing: This piece has been researched and MORE than matches existing Wikipedia bios on similar figures such as Reginald Ray, Judith Simmer-Brown, Jack Kornfield and Sharon Salzberg -- none of whom, I might add, were ordained Lamas from a monastery, let alone a major Geluk monastery such as Sera Je. The subject passes the notability test. I also included work on the Temple this Lama established, with similar details and citations as Kyozan Joshu Sasaki's entry. With what secondary resources were available, I endeavored to fully ground the subject and show his authenticity. There are very few Western Buddhist Lamas in the Gelug tradition and even less has been written about them. This is an attempt to help widen the resources for others searching on such things. I'd love some advice for revision. Thanks! 

Flamingkapala (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 5

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1294001149"