Warning: file_put_contents(/opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/storage/proxy/cache/eac0469180906964e79c5ecddb0a8b17.html): Failed to open stream: No space left on device in /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Arsae/CacheManager.php on line 36

Warning: http_response_code(): Cannot set response code - headers already sent (output started at /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Arsae/CacheManager.php:36) in /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Models/Response.php on line 17

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Arsae/CacheManager.php:36) in /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Models/Response.php on line 20
Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk - Wikipedia 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
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


October 2

[edit]

02:10, 2 October 2025 review of submission by Thuvard

[edit]

This submission has been arbitrarily declined. It is in fact accurate, with all appropriate sources noted. The Southern Aviator was a real, well-known and important publication for general aviation audiences for more than 20 years, from 1987 through 2008. I can't bring this submssion to a better condition - I have worked to show its place and cultural position for the general aviation industry through 2 decades in the southeastern US. Please advise how I might move it forward with a single reviewer without context throwing it out. 

Thuvard (talk) 02:10, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Thuvard. I declined your draft because it contained a ChatGPT-created piece of malformed code. Since you used ChatGPT you should read our guidance on Wikipedia:Large language models.
The problem with using ChatGPT is that they tend to make stuff up. Because you used ChatGPT at some point in the creation of the draft, it puts the entire draft in question.
However, I made no comment on the content of the draft. If you have read through our guidance and are absolutely positive ChatGPT did not hallucinate any sources or information, feel free to re-submit the draft for review.
I declined it without prejudice and would be happy to look at it again if you let me know you've checked it thoroughly. qcne (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:27, 2 October 2025 review of submission by Farguraan

[edit]

Hello, I have recently submitted the draft Draft:FarhadHguran. I have added several reliable secondary sources, including academic journal articles, literary critiques, and news coverage. The draft is now well-referenced and structured according to Wikipedia standards.

Could someone kindly review it at your earliest convenience? Thank you very much for your time and assistance.

Best regards, Farguraan (talk) 06:27, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Farguraan I have reviewed it and unfortunatley the decision was to decline. That doesn't mean you can't keep trying. Here are the notes I left you: Currently reads as overly promotional. Take a look at WP:BLP to learn more about creating a biography of a living person. Ktkvtsh (talk) 06:36, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is this an article about yourself. You'll need to declare a Conflict of Interest. Ktkvtsh (talk) 06:38, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't listening; they've posted this inquiry twice before. 331dot (talk) 07:51, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draft also now seems to be at Draft:Farhad Heydari Guran. 331dot (talk) 07:53, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:55, 2 October 2025 review of submission by Purvaja D

[edit]


Can you please tell me what I can do to get this article accepted on Wikipedia? Purvaja D (talk) 07:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Purvaja D You were told what to do, but you kept resubmitting the draft without making any changes. Because of that, the draft was rejected. If you are now prepared to make changes, please do so, then ask the rejecting reviewer on their user talk page to reconsider. 331dot (talk) 07:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made some minor changes each time before resubmitting the review. I also added some links and made a few edits to the draft. I have changed whole article in my last edit. However, the article keeps getting rejected. 150.107.25.157 (talk) 10:00, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember to log in when posting. Your only two sources are a Facebook and Instagram profile. Please carefully read Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion (organizations and companies) to see what sort of sources we need. We require reliable, secondary sources. Offline (print) sources are okay, but you didn't include any. If you can find three strong secondary sources that meet our requirements, let me know and I will take another look. qcne (talk) 11:47, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you are associated with this magazine, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID and WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 07:58, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The magazine was established in 1948, but it has not received much coverage in mainstream media. That is one of the reasons I want to raise awareness about it. It was founded by Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) leader Baba Rao Bhide, but there is very little information about him available on Google. More material exists in magazines and other print sources. What should I do now? 150.107.25.157 (talk) 10:01, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Purvaja D There is simply no indication this magazine meets our criteria for inclusion, I'm sorry. qcne (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:34, 2 October 2025 review of submission by Noor.habib2025

[edit]

Hi,

I created this page as a part of my practice to learn Wikipedia. The draft has been declined. Please let me know how to publish it. There are some very good resources to support this page.

https://www.entrepreneur.com/en-ae/leadership/the-100-abbas-sajwani-co-founder-and-ceo-of-ahs-properties/484763 https://www.forbesmiddleeast.com/lists/30-under-30-2024/abbas-sajwani/#:~:text=Under%20the%20AHS%20Group%20umbrella,development%20value%20reached%20%242.75%20billion. https://www.arabianbusiness.com/opinion/why-are-uae-entrepreneurs-among-the-most-optimistic-on-the-planet https://gulfnews.com/business/property/cityscape-global-2021-abbas-sajwani-wants-to-pick-up-older-super-luxury-homes--and-he-has-a-reason-1.1636448402019 https://gulfbusiness.com/gb-march-interview-ahs-properties-abbas-sajwani/ https://economymiddleeast.com/eme-videos/video-interview-abbas-sajwani-founder-ceo-ahs-properties/ https://www.mepmiddleeast.com/business/abbas-sajwani-launches-real-estate-firm-for-ultra-luxury-mansions https://www.thenationalnews.com/business/property/2023/10/17/dubais-ahs-properties-plans-to-launch-850-million-project-in-dubai/ https://meconstructionnews.com/50098/emirati-entrepreneur-launches-real-estate-company-with-focus-on-high-end-properties https://www.forbes.com/sites/amandalauren/2025/03/28/this-dubai-property-is-setting-new-expectations-for-the-luxury-living-market/ https://www.businesstoday.me/construction/ahs-properties-celebrates-double-victory-at-the-construction-innovation-awards/ https://www.constructionweekonline.com/business/revealed-most-influential-arabs-of-2023-in-the-construction-landscape Noor.habib2025 (talk) 09:34, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Noor.habib2025: only the sources cited in the draft matter, there's no point in listing additional sources here.
The ones cited are pure churnalism.
Have you been asked by someone to write this? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:02, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't start multiple threads with the same questions. If you have comments to make, add them to this thread. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have heard about Mr. Abbas Sajjwani through Google. I am still a beginner and this is my first page, which I tried to create and it got declined. Can you help me in publishing this page? Noor.habib2025 (talk) 11:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Noor.habib2025: you heard about him through Google (whatever that means), and that inspired you to create your very first Wikipedia article on him?
I can't help you publish this, because the sources are insufficient for establishing that he is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:26, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting Noor.habib2025 first created this in mainspace after autocon-busting to bypass WP:ACPERM; it was kicked back to draft due to the sourcing issues. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 14:19, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:08, 2 October 2025 review of submission by Sundayochigbo

[edit]

My article was rejected and i believe i followed the guidelines and proper citation Sundayochigbo (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sundayochigbo: the sources are just churnalism puff pieces.
They also don't properly verify the draft contents. For example, the 'Family' gives details of her family members, etc., none of which is even mentioned in the source cited against it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How can i get a proper draft with notable citations or do i have to remove the section for family until there is a citation for it? Sundayochigbo (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sundayochigbo: I can't really tell you where to find solid sources.
If I thought there was any chance of this person being genuinely notable, I would have declined your draft, not rejected it outright. But all I could find was more puff pieces like the ones you're citing, as well as social media accounts and similar; these are all hallmarks of a 'famous-for-being-famous' person's self-promotional efforts, and Wikipedia should not be thought of as yet another channel to wage that campaign.
You should probably tell your boss that it cannot be done (see WP:BOSS); perhaps try some paranormal fancruft wiki instead? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:37, 2 October 2025 review of submission by 2A02:A420:254:9684:507:6E93:8DDC:C7F1

[edit]

Hi, thank you for your feedback. Could anyone elaborate on how to improve the page for it to be approved? To me this isn't clear yet. Thank you very much! 2A02:A420:254:9684:507:6E93:8DDC:C7F1 (talk) 14:37, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you created the draft, remember to log in when posting.
Most of your sources seem to be interviews, which are not independent sources. It's also not clear to me how this musician meets the definition of a notable musician.
What is the general nature of your conflict of interest? 331dot (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:28, 2 October 2025 review of submission by AriaKeys

[edit]

Hello, my draft about French musician Stéphane D’Esposito (Neo) was rejected as not notable. I understand the concern, but I would like to provide stronger sources demonstrating significant coverage:

– Trax Magazine (France, 1998) – feature on Neo’s “black jazz” style (print). – Coda (Canada, 2002) – international jazz magazine article (print). – Remix Japan (2005) – coverage in a major Japanese music magazine (print). – Musique Info Hebdo (France, 2007) – professional French music press (print). – Marseille l’Hebdo (2008) – regional press profile (print). – BBC Radio 3 “Jazz on 3” (2015) – national broadcast including Neo. – Plus online coverage: SoulTracks, Soul & Jazz & Funk, Paris Jazz Club official program.

Would these sources be considered sufficient to establish notability under the music criteria? I can provide scans of the print articles if needed. Thank you for your advice. AriaKeys (talk) 18:28, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @AriaKeys. Please don't provide scans of the magazines, as that would be copyright infringement. We can accept offline sources where no online copy exists, you just need to ensure you provide a full reference so that a reader can find them in a library or archive if interested.
Without being able to see those print sources, they might be okay if they:
- provide significant, transformative coverage of Stéphane that goes beyond just a brief mention. Some sort of critical analysis, in-depth review, discussion, debate, etc.
- are independent of Stéphane - not based fully on an interview with them, or their associates or publicist.
If you have at least three sources that meet the above two criteria, and are also from mainstream publications (these sound like they are), then it's a good indicator that the person does meet our criteria for inclusion.
Since the draft has been rejected, your next step is to see if @Hoary would consider undoing the rejection. qcne (talk) 21:22, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AriaKeys, Qcne, I took "The three strongest independent editorial sources demonstrating coverage beyond mere airplay" to mean the three strongest independent sources. I read all three. (I didn't merely read and consider the titles of all three; I clicked the three links and read what I found.) What I read did not amount to what I would call significant coverage. ¶ Moreover, Draft talk:Stéphane D’Esposito shows that this selection of three wasn't the first attempt at singling out the more important sources. Now we are asked (above) to consider seven "stronger sources demonstrating significant coverage". Seven? Even if links were supplied, I'd be disinclined to click on all seven and evaluate them. ¶ The article has the subheading "International recognition (2014–2017)". If such recognition started as recently as 2014, I'd expect it to be clearly visible on the web (perhaps via the Wayback Machine). I am not going to spend more time on this draft, and I am not going to revert my rejection. However, I'll consider reverting the rejection if given a reason to do so by any editor who hasn't contributed to the draft. -- Hoary (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback. I understand your concerns and would like to respond point by point.
The notability of Stéphane d’Esposito (Neo) is documented in several independent, professional print sources from the early 2000s, and not merely by listings or airplay.
According to WP:GNG, significant coverage in print publications is acceptable even if not available online. These magazines are archived at the Bibliothèque nationale de France (BnF) and the National Diet Library of Japan, ensuring accessibility and reliability.
Here is a prioritized selection with exact page numbers:
Level 1 — Most significant coverage
  • Coda Magazine no.12 (2001) – feature article: “Neo, the (Néo)classical touch” (p. 50); album review The Story of Blackjazz (p. 62).
  • Remix Japan no.141 (March 2003) – interview (pp. 64–65); label presentation with Welcome to the Boom Boom Room release (p. 113); album reviews of The Story of Blackjazz and Welcome to the Boom Boom Room (p. 125).
  • Loud – Club & DJ Culture Magazine no.099 (March 2003) – cover feature alongside international artists (Gloria Gaynor, Groove Armada); illustrated interview (pp. 28–29).
Level 2 — Additional professional interviews and analyses
  • Techno Import Magazine no.3 (2001) – “Neo, du jazz dans la house” (interview, p. 16).
  • Marseille l’Hebdo (12 Nov 2003) – article: “Les touches jazzy-house de Neo” (p. 35).
Level 3 — Repeated industry mentions
  • Musique Info Hebdo (2002): no.196 p.39; no.197 pp.17,19; no.198 pp.17,19; no.200 pp.17,19; no.202 pp.17,19; no.203 p.21.
  • Danceclub no.66 (Sept 2002) – Deep Dimensions – Selected by Tó-Zé Diogo (p. 9).
Taken together, these sources show continuous editorial coverage between 2001 and 2003, including multiple interviews, feature articles, and reviews in respected French and Japanese professional magazines. This clearly satisfies WP:GNG as they provide independent, significant secondary coverage well beyond mere airplay or directory listings. AriaKeys (talk) 11:56, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That list of sources is unverifiable, you have simply pasted the output of an AI, so the sources may as well be hallucinated. The fact that multiple interviews a basis of the argument indicates that neither you nor your AI has any clue what is required for establishing notability. If you want to talk to us, then do so, don't go through an AI. It's been rejected, move on. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:41, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Anachronist,
I understand your position and regret that my contributions may have given the impression of being automated work. I want to assure you that I did not simply copy the result of an AI: the sources I mentioned come from my own research, although I fully acknowledge that they could have been presented in a more rigorous and verifiable way.
The issue is that most of the magazines I cite date back to the early 2000s, and many were never published online. I have the physical copies at home and am currently contacting the publishers to provide evidence for my claims — and above all, to demonstrate that this is not an “hallucination.”
I accept the rejection and respect the decision. My intention has never been to bypass the rules or undermine the editorial quality of the project, but rather to contribute in good faith to improving the articles. This is my first article, and I genuinely want to do things properly — that’s why I’m seeking advice from the community.
I remain open to direct and constructive discussion to better understand the expectations regarding notability and source reliability.
Kind regards,
AriaKeys AriaKeys (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation. Sources don't have to be online, but they should be available for verification, say, by going to a library. It is unlikely that libraries would have niche music magazines available. It is possible they are available on Lexis/Nexis, a paid service that has been doing online archiving of magazines since the early 1990s or earlier. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification.
You’re right — niche magazines like Remix Japan are rarely available through libraries or major databases. However, I do have physical copies of the issues where the artist was featured, and I can provide high-resolution scans or photos of the relevant pages for verification purposes if needed.
I understand these can’t be uploaded publicly due to copyright, but I’m happy to make them available privately to an editor or administrator upon request.
Would that be acceptable for establishing verifiability in this case?AriaKeys AriaKeys (talk) 13:42, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, citations need to be verifiable by anyone using reasonable means, like visiting a library or accessing a paid-subscription database. If you shared a scan of a source with me, my public assertion that I verified the source carries no weight with the community here.
I had a similar problem in the past with wine articles. A famous winemaker like Mike Grgich (who died a couple years ago), was unquestionably a reliable source about winemaking. He wasn't far from me; I could ask him a question, and get an answer. This was verifiable because anyone else could ask him the same question and get the same answer. But his verbal answers couldn't be cited because they aren't published, and now they're unverifiable because he's no longer alive. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:34, 2 October 2025 review of submission by Aaronkenneally

[edit]

Hello, I previously submitted a draft article on myself, Aaron Kenneally, an Irish Shotokan Karate instructor. The draft was declined for tone, and later deleted under criterion G15 (“LLM-generated content that has not been adequately reviewed: AI slop”) by Jimfbleak. I understand that Wikipedia discourages AI-generated drafts. However, I believe I meet notability guidelines, as I have multiple independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage of me and my work over many years, including: Evening Echo (2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2017, 2022, 2023) – several feature and profile articles, not just event mentions Irish Fighters magazine (2011) – a full feature article Cork Independent (2011) – “Club of the Week” profile Official SKIF Yudansha-Kai website – listing me on the executive committee All of these sources are available on my club’s media page with scans: https://www.bushidokarate.ie/bushido-karate-club-media.php I’d like advice on the best way to proceed: Should I recreate the draft in my user sandbox and manually rewrite it in strict encyclopedic style using only these sources? Since the previous draft was deleted under G15, do I need to request undeletion first to recover it, or is it better to start clean? Would an experienced editor be willing to help me frame the article correctly so it doesn’t get flagged as AI-style? I want to make sure the article is neutral, source-based, and policy-compliant, and I’m happy to do the work myself with guidance. Thank you for any advice. –– Aaronkenneally Aaronkenneally (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Aaronkenneally. We do highly discourage autobiographical writing but if you wanted to try again, I'd recommend really closely reading our policies and guidelines (start at Wikipedia:Everything you need to know) and then seriously consider if you do meet our criteria for inclusion. The majority of people in the world do not. If you are sure you do, then you are free to create another draft. But please don't use ChatGPT. Let me know if you have any more questions. qcne (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I understand the concern about autobiographical writing and AI. The draft in my sandbox is based on published sources, mainly newspaper and magazine features (Evening Echo, Irish Fighters, Cork Independent), along with federation recognition. I’ve kept the tone neutral and sourced, and I’d appreciate feedback on whether the current draft meets neutrality and notability standards before I resubmit. Aaronkenneally (talk) 08:54, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aaronkenneally We don't do pre-review reviews, if you want your draft reviewed, you need to resubmit it. 331dot (talk) 08:59, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've placed your draft at Draft:Aaron Kenneally, draft space is the preferred location for drafts. 331dot (talk) 09:01, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:52, 2 October 2025 review of submission by Aswath Monimoca

[edit]

What to do Aswath Monimoca (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you use Linkedin.com, Wikipedia is not a forum for promotion. Theroadislong (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ali Arouzi

[edit]

Hi, I'm trying to submit this article as a shortened version, but I can't seem to submit it well. What am I missing that won't let it go through? The reason why is that I want to create new articles for old and new journalists who deserve a chance in the spotlight but unfortunately some of them I thought I had written very well in my own words get pulled out from under me. I tried to do the same thing for NBC News' Sam Brock but it won't go through. R2025kt (talk) 19:06, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia so it has been rejected I suggest you find other topics to edit. Theroadislong (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Thank you R2025kt (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can write a well-written article, but if the notability of the subject cannot be proven by multiple instances of significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject (as described in WP:Golden rule), then don't waste your time. The sources you have cited may be reliable, but they fail the criteria of independence or significant coverage, or both.
See WP:BACKWARD, which is what you're doing, starting with text. Write the article forward instead. Find your 'golden-rule' sources first. Don't write a single word of the article until you have gathered the sources. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:00, 2 October 2025 review of submission by SageRain

[edit]

why did you delete Celyra? i worked hard on it and i thought it was gonna stay here since its a "free dictionary." SageRain (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i meant on Wiktionary SageRain (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SageRain Wikitionary only hosts words that have widespread use - not words you have personally made up. If you wanted somewhere to post your own made up definitions and words, perhaps get a blog or go to social media? qcne (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:11, 2 October 2025 review of submission by Raybusmann

[edit]

Hi! I'm looking for assistance with this warning message:

Reviewer tools Warning: The page Paul Outlaw redirects to Jen Catron and Paul Outlaw. Please ensure it is not a copy or that this page is located at the correct title.

The "Paul Outlaw" who is the subject of the page I created on 29 September 2025 is not the same "Paul Outlaw" as the subject of the redirect page. Since the new article has not yet been published, how can the redirect be stopped in the period before a disambiguation page is created? Thanks! Raybusmann (talk) 22:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for a reviewer to approve the draft. The reviewer will handle the moving, renaming, and disambiguating as needed. It is likely that Paul Outlaw would become a disambiguation page pointing to the other two articles because there is no clear dominance of one Paul Outlaw over the other in terms of notability and common knowledge. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Raybusmann (talk) 05:14, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:33, 2 October 2025 review of submission by TheaterSquareMuse

[edit]

Can you confirm that my submission was edited to include citations? I'm new to the publish process. It is pending consideration by your team.

Thank you! 

TheaterSquareMuse (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The draft is still completely unsourced. If you added citations, you didn't save the edit. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 3

[edit]

02:28, 3 October 2025 review of submission by J·B·D

[edit]

My submission was declined on the basis of WP:TOOSOON guidelines; in the decline notice, the main reasons were cited as a) the absence of charts or reviews for the soundtrack, and b) insufficient coverage of topic. Considering the soundtrack's predecessor was moved from the draft namespace to the main namespace the same day it was announced, with only two veritable references, I'm not entirely sure why my submission was not accepted under similar circumstances (and with a good number references as well), unless there have been changes to submission policy since last year. I would appreciate any clarification or guidance on the matter. J·B·D (talk) 02:28, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

J·B·D, policies concerning submission and notability haven't changed as far as I know, but various interpretations are possible, even among reviewers who are well-informed and wide awake. (On top of that, a reviewer may be misinformed or sleepy.) As it is, this draft looks as if it has been created conscientiously -- but it is, and can be, little more than a product announcement. Why not wait till film and soundtrack are released, and some reviews are published? -- Hoary (talk) 04:36, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Too add to what Hoary said above, sometimes reviewers may go too fast and miss something. I will admit I have bee sleepy at times and may have been when I responded to your request on my talk page. But, I left you a follow-up reply this morning after digging deeper on your behalf. Both links should provide you with some valuable feedback (and recommendation which you have not done). --CNMall41 (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:33, 3 October 2025 review of submission by Tangentblack

[edit]

Hello editor!

I'm looking for some further assistance about the nature of the sources needed to verify the notibility of the subject.

The several sources I provided are all independent from the subject (third party, not self-published, secondary sources) from reliable international or national companies/institutions.

For instance, the subject Anderson Dias (https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_Dias) achieved the same kind of record and is featured in less secondary, independent sources than Michael Angelo Zervos. Dias was the basis for the collection of information submitted to wikipedia for review.

Are you able to aid me to understand the "significance" interpretation of your rejection?

Thanks Tangentblack (talk) 02:33, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant", Tangentblack, in this context means "saying a lot about Michael Angelo Zervos". There's no point saying that this draft is sourced better than is pt:Anderson Dias, and for two reasons. First, Portuguese- and English-language Wikipedias have different requirements. Secondly, English-language Wikipedia has plenty of articles that fail its (our) own standards. We don't want to add more of these. -- Hoary (talk) 03:38, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you mean to say that the current draft fails to provide enough sources by way of the available coverage for the subject? So I need to collect additional secondary sources? Tangentblack (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tangentblack, I have not looked at the sources that you cite. You cite nine of them. Do the nine include three or four that are independent of Zervos (they are not based on interviews with him, or similar) AND that are published by reliable outlets AND that say a lot about him? -- Hoary (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Most of the sources qualify the last two criteria but I think only one of them fulfill all three you list. In other words, most of them do feature some interviews with him, though I'm not sure if they're exclusives conducted by the reporter themselves or pull-quotes from other reporting on him.
I take it I should find a couple more that are independent reporting in order to resubmit. Tangentblack (talk) 22:14, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:53, 3 October 2025 review of submission by 47.187.194.162

[edit]

I did not understand the error code throughoutly. How can I fix my error? 47.187.194.162 (talk) 02:53, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." Within that, "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia" is linked to WP:Notability. Have you read WP:Notability? Also, a sign says "STOP". Unsurprisingly, that means that you must stop. Not fix any error, but instead simply stop. -- Hoary (talk) 03:29, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question about draft Dian Rana

[edit]

Hello,

A previous draft about Dian Rana (Indonesian digital literacy advocate) was deleted at AfD in September 2025. Since then, multiple independent reliable sources have published significant coverage, for example:

- TVOnenews : https://www.tvonenews.com/ekonomi/375186-jawab-tantangan-bupati-ppu-konten-kreator-dian-rana-nyatakan-siap-dialog-terbuka-bahas-ikn

- Elshinta: https://elshinta.com/kategori/1/aktual-dalam-negeri/vigenk-kisah-inspiratif-dian-rana-pegiat-literasi-digital-berawal-karyawan-back-office-135929

- Kaltimpost: https://kaltimpost.jawapos.com/utama/2386628382/bupati-ppu-tantang-kreator-konten-diskusi-bareng-bahas-persoalan-ikn-karena-sepaku-perlu-pemerataan-pembangunan

- Rest Of World : https://restofworld.org/2024/indonesia-capital-change-influencers/

- Liputan6: https://www.liputan6.com/showbiz/read/6123324/tak-hanya-ngonten-ikn-dian-rana-suarakan-hati-rakyat-lewat-wawancara-khusus

- Media Indonesia: https://mediaindonesia.com/hiburan/781357/kreator-konten-dari-kaltim-saksi-pembentukan-ikn

Would any uninvolved editor be willing to review whether the subject may now meet the notability criteria, and if appropriate, consider drafting a neutral article based on these sources?

Thank you. 182.8.178.191 (talk) 05:15, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I gather since you are asking for an "uninvolved" editor that you yourself are involved- you need to disclose this, see WP:COI and WP:PAID.
This Help Desk is not for asking for others to do work for you- that's Requested Articles, but it is backlogged to the point of uselessness. If you want to see an article about this person, you need to write it yourself; if you do have a conflict of interest, you are permitted to use the Article Wizard to create and submit a draft for an independent editor to review. 331dot (talk) 08:00, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:36, 3 October 2025 review of submission by 2402:D000:810C:4947:70C3:567D:B42F:E89F

[edit]

Hello,

I noticed that the article on Draft:OptimoGov has been tagged as promotional. I would like to request assistance in improving the article so it better aligns with Wikipedia’s guidelines on neutrality and encyclopedic style.

I acknowledge that some of the current wording may read like promotional material. My goal is to help ensure the page is factual, well-sourced, and neutral. To that end, I would appreciate input on the following:

Identifying promotional language – If there are specific sections or phrases that sound like marketing copy, I’d be grateful if editors could flag them so they can be reworded or removed.

Improving references – I want to make sure the article relies on independent, reliable secondary sources (e.g., news coverage, academic references) rather than primary or self-published material.

Proposed edits: I am happy to draft suggested changes here on the Talk Page in line with the Neutral Point of View policy, and will wait for consensus before they are added to the article itself.

I will not make direct edits to the article given my connection, but I am committed to working collaboratively with editors to bring the page up to Wikipedia standards.

Thank you for your time and guidance. 2402:D000:810C:4947:70C3:567D:B42F:E89F (talk) 11:36, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't get involved in co-editing here at the help desk. If you have specific questions, you may ask those.
That said, this draft has been deleted as unambiguously promotional, which presumably makes your query redundant? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:58, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're both talking to an AI. I don't know why people let AIs speak for them. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:19, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:45, 3 October 2025 review of submission by JoshNorthTramp

[edit]

Hi there, thank you for taking the time to review this draft. I noticed the feedback that the article "does not meet the 5 pillars of Wikipedia." I’d really appreciate some clarification on this point, because from my perspective I’ve tried to align the draft with those principles:

  • **Wikipedia is an encyclopedia** - the draft is structured like other company articles (History, Products, Reception, Awards, Community involvement) and avoids indiscriminate detail.
  • **Neutral point of view** - I’ve worked to remove any marketing and promotional language/indication and include both positive and critical reception (e.g. Trustpilot reviews, independent comparisons).
  • **Free content** - all text is original and sources are cited.
  • **Civility** – I’m engaging in good faith and open to constructive feedback.
  • **No firm rules** - I understand articles evolve, and I’m happy to keep improving this one.

Could you help me understand specifically which of the pillars you feel the draft is failing to meet?. Thank you in advance for your advice. JoshNorthTramp (talk) 11:45, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JoshNorthTramp Please see other stuff exists. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits and not biased on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and just not yet addressed by a volunteer. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can, when they can, there are many ways for inappropriate content to exist, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. While understandable, it is a poor idea to use any random article as a model or example. If you want to use another article as a model, use those that are classified as good articles, which have received community vetting.
If you would like to help us, please identify these other similar articles you have seen so action can be taken and others are less likely to do what you did. We're only as good as those who choose to help us.
Your draft was deleted as wholly promotional. Note that the Swedish Wikipedia is a separate project, with its own policies. What is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others.
You made a common error for company employees is that you want to write what you want the world to know about your company, like its offerings and activities. That is the wrong approach. You need to forget everything you know about your company, and gather independent reliable sources that given your company significant coverage and describe how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. The vast majority of companies do not, but it depends on the sources. Sources like interviews, press releases, and the mere reporting of routine business activities does not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 12:58, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JoshNorthTramp: the draft was entirely based on primary sources, it was basically you telling the world about your business, and that's what made it inherently promotional. Wikipedia is not to be used for promotion of any kind; accordingly, the draft has been deleted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:51, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The five pillars are a description of our general philosophy, and not policies in and of themselves. 331dot (talk) 13:01, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:59, 3 October 2025 review of submission by AriaKeys

[edit]

I would like to ask for a review of my draft after a rejection. The concern was that the sources did not amount to significant coverage. Here is a prioritized selection of independent, professional and international print sources (with page numbers), archived at the Bibliothèque nationale de France and the National Diet Library of Japan:

Level 1 — Most significant coverage • Coda Magazine no.12 (2001): feature article “Neo – the (Néo)classical touch” (p.50); album review *The Story of Blackjazz* (p.62). • Remix Japan no.141 (March 2003): interview (pp.64–65); label presentation incl. *Welcome to the Boom Boom Room* (p.113); album reviews (p.125). • Loud – Club & DJ Culture Magazine no.099 (March 2003): cover feature with international artists; illustrated interview (pp.28–29).

Level 2 — Additional professional sources • Techno Import Magazine no.3 (2001): interview “Neo, du jazz dans la house” (p.16). • Marseille l’Hebdo (12 Nov 2003): article “Les touches jazzy-house de Neo” (p.35).

Level 3 — Industry mentions • Musique Info Hebdo (2002): no.196 p.39; no.197 pp.17,19; no.198 pp.17,19; no.200 pp.17,19; no.202 pp.17,19; no.203 p.21. • Danceclub no.66 (Sept 2002): *Deep Dimensions – Selected by Tó-Zé Diogo* (p.9).

These sources provide clear, independent, significant coverage (interviews, reviews, feature articles) from 2001–2003, well beyond mere airplay. I would appreciate guidance on resubmission or re-evaluation in light of these sources. AriaKeys (talk) 11:59, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AriaKeys: on a point of order, once a draft has been rejected (as opposed to merely declined), that is the end of the road. If evidence of notability has come to light which wasn't considered at the time, you may appeal that rejection, but you should take it directly to the rejecting reviewer, in this case Hoary. Only if you don't get a response or otherwise don't get anywhere, can you bring the matter here.
I'll also add that, while it is impossible for me to look into the sources you've listed above, I can't help noticing that there are a few interviews included. Interviews are primary sources, and neither independent nor, usually, particularly reliable. There are also a couple of album reviews: those might help to make the albums notable, but unless they also provide significant coverage of this person, they would not contribute to his notability. Bear that in mind when making your appeal case. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:39, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please don't talk to us through an AI chatbot. We're all humans here, and we want to talk to other humans. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is merely a repeat of #18:28, 2 October 2025 review of submission by AriaKeys (close above), where I had already responded. -- Hoary (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AriaKeys, stop ignoring other editors' comments, stop removing templates you don't like, and interpret a sign saying "STOP" as a directive to stop. If you persist, you will be blocked. -- Hoary (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hoary, Thank you for your message. I apologize if my actions caused any misunderstanding; it was simply a mistake, as this is my first contribution to Wikipedia. I will follow the instructions, carefully consider other editors’ comments, and refrain from removing templates or ignoring guidance in the future.Best regard , AriaKeys AriaKeys (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:59, 3 October 2025 review of submission by Annaromanskaconectys

[edit]

Hello,

I'm trying to publish a page on Wikipedia that describes a company. I am avoiding any selling or promotional language, I just want people to know this is an outsourcing company in Romania for when they research us. Please advise on how I can get this page live - I have provided multiple links to press releases that confirm its existence since 2004.

Best Anna Annaromanskaconectys (talk) 11:59, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Annaromanskaconectys: whether you use promotional language or not, what you're doing is fundamentally promotional – you're telling the world about your business, to spread awareness of it; that is the definition of promotion, see WP:YESPROMO.
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a business directory. To be included in it, your business must be deemed notable, meaning that it is in some way remarkable or noteworthy enough that multiple independent secondary sources have on their own initiative decided to publish significant coverage about you and why they think you stand out from your peers. Note that this is a high bar, and the vast majority of businesses in the world are not notable.
The notability guideline for companies is WP:NCORP. Your job is to show that your company meets that. The process for creating a draft is outlined at WP:GOLDENRULE. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:25, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @DoubleGrazing - I understand. I believe I have provided enough evidence from independent secondary sources that have published material and coverage on our topic over a long period of time. Annaromanskaconectys (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Annaromanskaconectys: with respect, you haven't. Your sources are routine business reporting, blogs, press releases, and other primary sources, none of which contribute towards the NCORP notability standard. Besides which, four of the sources don't work, and one is behind some sort of a login, which means I can't check it (if it's just a paywall, that's okay, but if it restricts access to eg. members of a particular organisation, then that might not qualify as a published source). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:56, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:13, 3 October 2025 review of submission by 12tonerowurboat

[edit]

Thank you for the speedy review!

This article already exists in the Dutch Wikipedia with the same sources, so I was wondering if the guidelines for the sources are different for Dutch and English wikis and that's why it got declined, or if I have made a syntax/format error with the references. I now see that some of the sources that have been re-used in my draft are listed as separate sources, could that be the reason for declining?

Thank you so much, safe edits! 12tonerowurboat (talk) 12:13, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@12tonerowurboat: yes, you hit the nail on the head! The notability, referencing, etc. requirements are different in different language versions of Wikipedia, with the English one having almost certainly the strictest ones.
Citing the same source multiple times would ideally be done using WP:NAMEDREFS, yes, but not doing so wouldn't be a reason to decline a draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:19, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. I have gathered more references in both languages, and will submit for a re-review.
If it is declined again, and someone wants to re-work on this article in the future, is there anything I should do to make sure they can access this draft as well? Or should I try the translation tool and paste my source there? Thank you for your time. 12tonerowurboat (talk) 12:43, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@12tonerowurboat: all (well, most) pages on Wikipedia are publicly available and editable by anyone.
Note that if a draft hasn't been edited (by a human) for six months, it gets automatically deleted, but it will in most cases be undeleted upon request. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:29, 3 October 2025 review of submission by 192.76.8.193

[edit]

My page was turned down because it was judged to lack "notability", however one of the criteria for notability for an academic is: "The person has held a distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, a named chair appointment that indicates a comparable level of achievement, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon." Mark Harris is the Andreas Idreos Chair in Science and Religion--arguably the most distinguished chair in the world for the subject. How does this not meet the guidelines for notability? 192.76.8.193 (talk) 12:29, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the draft is almost entirely unreferenced, there may be many claims of notability, but scarce evidence of it. If you manage to support it appropriately with inline citations to reliable published sources, it will almost certainly be accepted. (Note that anything which cannot be thus supported must be removed, per WP:BLP.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:44, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:53, 3 October 2025 review of submission by Authority, O.U. Albert

[edit]

Please how can I draft Profile Article that is acceptable to wikipedia? Authority, O.U. Albert (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Authority, O.U. Albert. Wikipedia does not host resumes so, if you wanted to write a resume, please go to a website like LinkedIn. Your draft in it's current form is not viable. We have strict criteria for inclusion for biographic articles, which you can read at Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion (people). qcne (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Authority, O.U Albert We don't have "profiles" here, we have articles, and they are typically written by independent editors. I would do as ably suggested by GhostWhite. 331dot (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 4

[edit]

08:53, 4 October 2025 review of submission by 96.241.128.248

[edit]

I am a first time editor, requesting assistance to understand if I have correctly resubmitted this draft article for review 96.241.128.248 (talk) 08:53, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that you are Crusader076, then yes, you have successfully resubmitted the draft. At any rate, someone has. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:00, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:21, 4 October 2025 review of submission by Buntyyadav25

[edit]

Hi there, I've written Wikipedia content for Cogito Tech. Based on the requirements, I've substantiated each statement by providing links to credible websites/ whitepapers including The Financial Times, Everest Group, Accenture, Decan Herald, and LesEchos, among others. Despite them being highly credible and secondary sources, Wikipedia is rejecting the page content.

May I know the concrete reason behind the rejection? Please look into it asap. Buntyyadav25 (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Buntyyadav25 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
Are you in a hurry for some reason? If you are associated with this company, that must be disclosed, see conflict of interest and paid editing(which includes employment). 331dot (talk) 10:23, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've been given reasons by reviewers, the draft is largely sourced to press releases and interviews, which are not independent sources(even if published by a third party). 331dot (talk) 10:25, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Buntyyadav25: it's not enough that everything is supported by reliable sources; that only covers the verifiability requirement. This draft was declined for lack of evidence of notability, which has a higher pass threshold, since the sources must also be entirely independent of the subject, and provide significant coverage of it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:26, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft also contains ridiculous promotional content, ie. "company employs more than 2,000 professionals to support the algorithms of the world’s leading AI companies" Please disclose your conflict of interest. Theroadislong (talk) 10:29, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:21, 4 October 2025 review of submission by Wecklost23

[edit]

Request for second opinion: Draft:Little Cure (band)

Hello, and thank you for your time.

I would like to request a second review for my draft Draft:Little Cure (band).

The previous reviewer declined the submission, stating that sources such as Oricon, CDJournal, Konami, and Tower Records are “primary or unreliable.” However, these are **established Japanese media outlets and music databases** with recognized editorial independence — comparable to Billboard Japan, Rolling Stone Japan, or AllMusic.

Both **Oricon** and **CDJournal** have long histories as independent secondary sources documenting artist releases, television appearances, and music industry coverage. In fact, the Oricon database lists LITTLE CURE’s official releases under **Nippon Columbia** with catalog numbers (COCA-15360, COCA-15367), and CDJournal includes editorial artist pages and disc information, confirming independent publication.

Additionally, LITTLE CURE’s songs were officially licensed and credited in **Konami’s BEMANI series (pop’n music)**, which has been covered by multiple rhythm game databases and fandom wikis internationally.

I would deeply appreciate a second opinion from a reviewer familiar with **Japanese music publishing standards** or **non-English sources**. Thank you very much for your consideration and for supporting cultural balance across different language communities. Wecklost23 (talk) 12:21, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wecklost23 I fixed some formatting issues with the header.
You have resubmitted the draft and it is pending; it's unnecessary to ask for a review, and does not speed the process. We cannot guarantee a reviewer will have particular expertise- nor should it be necessary if the draft meets standards. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:47, 4 October 2025 review of submission by JoidC

[edit]

If i can be helped with that what are the issues that this draft are facing now and how to improve it from the present condition ? JoidC (talk) 17:47, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JoidC Please disclose your connection to this man(you took a picture of him), see WP:COI and WP:PAID.
You were left reasons by reviewers, do you have a more specific question about them? 331dot (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any connection with him nor i have taken the picture. JoidC (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @JoidC. You uploaded File:Prof. Happymon Jacob.png, marking it "own work", and you asserted that you were the copyright holder, and that you had legal status to license it as Wikipedia Commons requires.
If you did not take the picture, then I imagine that the copyright holder would not be pleased that you are giving away legal rights that are not yours to give. I shall mark the picture for deletion on those grounds. ColinFine (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm deleting it. JoidC (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


October 5

[edit]

02:08, 5 October 2025 review of submission by Wecklost23

[edit]

Hello, and thank you for your time. I would like to request clarification regarding my draft article about the Japanese technopop unit Little Cure: 

Draft:Little Cure (band)

This draft has been declined multiple times (by Dan arndt and Vrxces), citing a lack of reliable, secondary, and independent sources. However, I have already included numerous verifiable references from reputable Japanese music media and official databases documenting the band’s commercial activities and game-related appearances.

Sources included

[edit]
  1. Oricon Official Artist/Product Listings
Oricon product page
Oricon TV appearance record

These show commercial product and broadcast data on Japan’s most authoritative music database, often used as a secondary source on the Japanese Wikipedia.

  1. CDJournal Artist and Review Pages
CDJournal artist article
CDJournal disc review

CDJournal is an established Japanese music publication with editorial content, making it an independent secondary source.

  1. Konami Official Game Credit Pages
pop’n music official site (Konami)

Official documentation of Little Cure’s music used in pop’n music and pop’n stage from the BEMANI franchise.

  1. Retail and Distribution Records
Tower Records listing
Amazon – Silver E・TUDE
Amazon – bit of love

These confirm official distribution via Nippon Columbia (a major label), with catalog codes COCA-15360 and COCA-15367.

  1. JoySound Karaoke Database
JoySound song listing – "SILVER E・TUDE"

Confirms continued inclusion and public recognition.

  1. Primary Reference (context only)
Hiroko Konishi Official Site – Profile page

Used only for background details, not as sole verification.

---

My questions

[edit]
  1. Given that Oricon and CDJournal are treated as reliable secondary publications in the Japanese-language Wikipedia, can these be considered independent secondary sources under English Wikipedia’s WP:NBAND and WP:MUSICBIO?
  2. Are there examples of accepted Japanese-language sources for musical groups that I could model for citation formatting?
  3. If the issue is mainly about reference formatting or translation of publication data, could you please advise on the best standardized approach?

I’d deeply appreciate any guidance to revise the article properly before resubmission. Thank you for your help and understanding. 

Wecklost23 (talk) 02:08, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Wecklost23: this draft has been declined for insufficient evidence of notability. You have two options for demonstrating that, either via the general WP:GNG or the subject-specific WP:BAND guideline. Essentially, the former requires significant coverage in multiple secondary sources; the latter, significant musical achievements. Looking at your draft, I'd say you may struggle to show either, but the latter is probably your better bet.
The reason I say that, your draft cites some unreliable sources (Fandom and RemyWiki are user-generated), otherwise unusable ones (Amazon and Tower Records are retailers), and at least one that doesn't work (#1 / 7). Product pages, profiles, and 'official' anything are primary sources. Song or performance listings aren't significant coverage. Music reviews may contribute towards the notability of the music, but not usually of the performer. After taking all those out, I don't think there is much left. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:15, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:45, 5 October 2025 review of submission by Stephen Guosheng Meng

[edit]

i dont know why the draft was declined immediately after i submitted it Stephen Guosheng Meng (talk) 10:45, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephen Guosheng Meng: it wasn't declined. You added yourself a faulty submission template marked incorrectly as 'declined'. Did AI tell you to do that? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:49, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yes, actually i did following the instructions of AI Stephen Guosheng Meng (talk) 11:07, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Stephen Guosheng Meng: please don't use AI. Among many other reasons, AI is really rubbish at editing Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:11, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've undone your edit. When you're ready to submit (and I would argue, not yet) please do not manually edit the template, just click on the blue 'submit' button. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:51, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
any comments on the draft? Stephen Guosheng Meng (talk) 11:13, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid I have marked the draft for deletion, @Stephen Guosheng Meng, as it's pure spam. qcne (talk) 11:25, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne: I think you only did so with the sandbox one, did you also mean to request speedy on the draft space version? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:28, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, thanks. qcne (talk) 11:35, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you mean the figure as included or the introduction part? Stephen Guosheng Meng (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:13, 5 October 2025 review of submission by Sivasiddhikundaliniyoga

[edit]

The article was rejected for not showing significant coverage on the reliable secondary sources - regarding this, 1- Will you consider any of these as reliable sources? - a) news articles published by news channels; b) blog articles published by third parties; c) references made in blog articles by third parties 2- Will you consider PDFs of old news articles as reliable source?

Thank you 

Sivasiddhikundaliniyoga (talk) 12:13, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Sivasiddhikundaliniyoga. I'll answer your questions, on the assumption that you will change your user name to an appropriate personal account name, and be unblocked.
You can find the criteria that sources must meet in the golden rule.
  • News sources published by news channels: usually reliable (unless otherwise noted at WP:RSP) but not necessarily independent - nothing based on the subject's words (eg interviews, or press releases) will do for establishing notability. They also need to contain significant coverage of the subject: a passing mention won't do.
  • Blogs are almost never acceptable as reliable sources, because there is no editorial process. See WP:Blogs.
  • Sources referenced by blogs may or may not be acceptable: it is up to you to look at them and judge whether they meet the criteria. You should never cite a source you have not seen yourself.
  • The format of a source is irrelevant. In citing a source, you should give bibliographic information such as title, author, year, publisher, page number (there are templates and tools to help with this: see WP:REFB). If a legal copy is available online, then it is helpful to link to it, but that is not usually an essential part of the citation, and offline sources are acceptable, if they meet the crieria. A PDF of a news article may be acceptable; but often it is a copyright violation (posted by somebody without rights to do so), and Wikipedia should never link to a copyright violation. Even if it is a legal copy, we need to consider the reliability of wherever it is hosted: how do we know it is a faithful copy of what it purports to be?
ColinFine (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:41, 5 October 2025 review of submission by Guyshomenet

[edit]

My draft Draft:The_Flood:_Music_for_MANNA was declined on September 28, 2025 by RangersRus. He claims the album did not receive "significant coverage" despite several entire articles being written about the album and it's inclusion in a television documentary.

I believe it meets WP:NALBUMS due to significant coverage. May another reviewer take a look?”


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Flood:_Music_for_MANNA Guyshomenet (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Guyshomenet: the draft cites three sources. The first is a hyperlocal one, and is the musician talking about the album, ie. not an independent source. The second doesn't even mention the album. The third doesn't appear to be an independent source, either, since it says that it is "sponsored by advertisers and we cover music released by the record labels with whom we partner". -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:51, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:55, 5 October 2025 review of submission by Riedener

[edit]

A draft of this article was submitted but it was rejected due to its tone and/or for lacking "encyclopedia" format. I made additional edits, using the definition of an encyclopedia article as a guideline. I feel it is factual and has sufficient references. It was resubmitted and is waiting for approval. The rejecting editor commented that the subsequent edits were "minor." Specific feedback would be appreciated. I'm willing to make changes to the tone, format or references. Riedener (talk) 13:55, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Riedener: I'm not sure what, if anything, you're asking? The draft has been resubmitted, and will be reviewed once a reviewer gets around to it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:04, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm asking the help desk for advice that will improve the odds of this article being accepted the second time. I feel "encyclopedia format/tone" is somewhat subjective, and the feedback I received was vague. A few examples, from my draft, might be helpful. Thanks. Riedener (talk) 14:13, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Riedener: we don't normally do pre-reviews here at the help desk. But as I was looking at the draft, a few thoughts came to mind, which I might as well share:
  1. The draft is very long, and written more like an essay than an encyclopaedia article, but perhaps even more so like a tribute. I think you could condense it quite a bit, and focus on the most salient points, especially those which make this person worthy of note.
  2. ...speaking of which, based on a cursory glance, it isn't quite clear to me what his claim to fame is. I get that he was an enthusiastic advocate, etc., but I couldn't quite reach that "aha, that's why he should be included in a global encyclopaedia" realisation. If it is in there somewhere, it needs to be more to the fore. Readers should know after the first paragraph or two what makes the subject noteworthy.
  3. Somewhat related to the previous point, it isn't clear what makes this person notable enough for a Wikipedia article?
  4. It is important that the information is clearly supported by reliable sources. While this person is long since dead, and the draft isn't therefore subject to our rules of referencing governing articles on living or recently-deceased people, we still need to know where the information comes from, so that it can be verified. I counted at least 20 paragraphs without any citations.
  5. Offline sources must be cited with sufficient bibliographic detail to enable them to be reliably identified for verification; see WP:OFFLINE for advice.
  6. Originally offline sources which exist in online archives must similarly be cited with full detail: eg. source #6 (and probably also 7 and 10-12) only points to the publication, without indicating the page, article title, author, or any such information which would enable the reader to locate the relevant section without having to plough through the whole publication.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I forgot to say also that sources must be published; #2 (correspondence) and #15 (logbook) don't sound like they qualify. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Riedener. A WIkipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people, wholly unconnected with the subject, have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and not much else.
What the subject or their associates say or want to say (in any medium) is not relevant; nor is what you know about the subject unless it is verified by a reliable published source. ColinFine (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:07, 5 October 2025 review of submission by Tonari1982

[edit]

Hi! Our draft Draft:3DforScience (a Spanish scientific communication/medical animation company) was declined on 23 April 2025 by DoubleGrazing for not showing multiple in-depth, reliable, secondary, and strictly independent sources.

Before we resubmit, could you please sanity-check our plan and advise on the kind of sources we should add?

1) Source expectations We’ve started collecting independent, non-promotional coverage and want to confirm whether items like these would typically satisfy significant coverage under the general/company notability guidelines (Spanish-language sources included):

Forbes España (Los 100 más creativos): list entry profiling the founder (Javier M. Floren) and referencing the company and its work. Does a mainstream business outlet’s profile/list entry help establish notability for the company itself, or is it better reserved for a potential BLP? Forbes España

Related clarifications: Do award organizer pages (e.g., winner lists) meaningfully help with notability, or are they generally considered routine announcements unless there’s independent coverage discussing the company’s significance?

Are trade-press interviews (e.g., PMFarma) treated as primary and therefore weak for notability?

2) Consistency question We noticed the article Random42 (a comparable UK medical animation studio) exists with seemingly limited in-depth independent sourcing (e.g., Companies House entry, Bloomberg company overview, Alantra “Fast 50” PDF, plus two book mentions). We fully appreciate WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and aren’t arguing “X exists, so ours should too”; rather, we’re trying to understand what aspect of that article’s sourcing meets GNG so we can emulate the right approach, or whether it should instead be tagged for improvement. Could you comment on the type of sourcing from that page that AfC reviewers consider sufficient vs. insufficient?

3) Practical next steps If the above examples are borderline, what specific kinds of sources should we pursue so the draft is likely to pass AfC? For instance: Independent feature articles in national or regional newspapers or major business media discussing the company’s work/impact (not just press releases). Trade-press features written by journalists (not contributed content) that analyze the company’s role in the sector.

Academic or industry reports that discuss the company’s projects substantively (not just name-drops). If coverage focuses on the founder rather than the company, does that still contribute to the company’s notability if the piece discusses the firm’s achievements in depth? We’ll hold off resubmitting until we align the draft with your advice. Tonari1982 (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Tonari1982. I'm not going to attempt to answer your questions point by point: I'll just point you at golden rule, which I think will answer most of them.
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) 17:23, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On another note, who is 'we'? Are you being paid by your employer to create the page? GGOTCC 18:55, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:43, 5 October 2025 review of submission by Mailteena

[edit]

Hi! I am having trouble understanding what the reviewers mean by reliable secondary sources. I have included 5 in-depth articles about the subject, focused solely on the subject, that were published over the years in national and state-level newspapers as main references. Manorama - India's largest circulated regional daily - has carried two articles about the subject and her firm in both Malayalam and English in different years. Two national newspapers - the Hindu and The Indian Express - have published articles on the subject. These are not passing mentions, and these media houses/publications are not connected to her. There is also an online magazine that has carried an article on this script writer. She has won a national award, and been mentioned in other media for this achievement. Some of the biographic details have been taken from the websites of India Foundation for Arts and Kerala Architectural Festival, which are pan-Indian and pan-Kerala organisations and not affiliated to any person. What more reliable source can be added to address this issue? I have used these same newspapers as references for creating other Wikipedia articles, and there seemed to be no issue with those. Hence, this query. I asked this question a few days ago and did not receive an answer, so I am copy/pasting it again. Mailteena (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How did you obtain access to her to take her picture?
Awards do not contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award).
You have described her work, but not what makes her notable.
You have resubmitted it and it is pending, the next reviewer will leave feedback. 331dot (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:47, 5 October 2025 review of submission by WhippySmash

[edit]

Hello, I’m requesting assistance improving and correctly submitting the draft article titled "Draft:Shawn Hale." The draft has been declined due to notability and sourcing concerns, but all citations have been reviewed and syntax errors fixed. This is my first submission to Wikipedia and I would appreciate help from experienced editors to review the references and advise on proper submission steps. Thank you for your time and guidance. WhippySmash (talk) 22:47, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You added the decline template and the notability templates yourself when you used AI to create the draft for you - one of the many reasons we ask you not to do this. CoconutOctopus talk 23:02, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @WhippySmash. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 6

[edit]

06:57, 6 October 2025 review of submission by Maisa Khudair

[edit]

Hello, I recently re-submitted my draft Draft:Mamdouh Salem Baajajah for review, and I was wondering if it might be possible to have it looked at soon. I understand that the review queue can be long, but I’d really appreciate it if someone could take a look when convenient.

Thank you very much for your time and for all the work you do reviewing drafts! Maisa Khudair (talk) 06:57, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Maisa Khudair: sorry, we don't fast-track reviews on demand, that would only lead to everyone coming here to ask for that. Is there a particular reason you want this review done quickly? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:08, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply, and I completely understand -I truly appreciate all the volunteer efforts that go into reviewing drafts. It’s just that it’s been almost two months since the draft was first submitted, and it feels like the process is taking quite a long time. I absolutely respect the queue and the reviewers’ time; I just wanted to check in and make sure it’s still in line for review.
Many thanks again for all the time and dedication you and other reviewers put into this work! Maisa Khudair (talk) 16:09, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


08:20, 6 October 2025 review of submission by Peter Frix

[edit]

Hi there, please, a reviewer declined my page stating issues related to policy for living person but the page is NOT related to a living person at all (passed away in 1948). Before I submit again could somebody help me to understand how exactly should I correctly re-submit, where can I state is NOT a living person ? See link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peter_Frix Also this page is online in Italian language, no issues. Thank you very much for helping Peter Frix (talk) 08:20, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the reviewer @Endrabcwizart: can you shed any light on the reason for the decline?
@Peter Frix: whether an article on this subject exists in the Italian Wikipedia (assuming that's what you mean?) is not relevant, because each language version is a totally separate project with their own rules and requirements, and therefore being included in one version doesn't automatically mean being accepted in another. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:34, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for yuor comment. Yes, of course. Anyway my question is about policy living person as is NOT living person and it's the reason for declining. Before re-submit I would like to know if and where I could state. Thank you very much Peter Frix (talk) 08:49, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter Frix: there is no need to state that explicitly, given that it is already stated in the draft by way of the date of death. As to why the draft was declined on that basis, that's what I'm hoping the reviewer will be able to help us with. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:02, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It may be the unsourced parts about this man's family. 331dot (talk) 09:07, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the following paragraph here, as it was in the wrong section. --ColinFine (talk) 13:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wrote here because I saw the indication to write at this link for help. I am a bit lost as I don't' know why a reviewer declined the page referring to polici for living person when is very clear the article is about a NOT living person. Thank you for helping. Peter Frix (talk) 08:23, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First, please note that WP:BLP is not limited only to persons who are currently alive. Whether a person is living or deceased is simply a matter of status; however, the policy must still be followed prior to creating or publishing an article.
It is important to remember that a person’s notability is determined based on their work and achievements during their lifetime, not after their death. Therefore, WP:BLP guidelines remain applicable when reviewing your article.
If you are seeking clarification regarding the reason for your article’s decline, please review the notice on your user talk page or check your draft, the specific reason for the decline is provided there. You may also visit the Teahouse (WP:TEA) for additional assistance and guidance in improving your draft. Endrabcwizart (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Endrabcwizart, with respect, I also cannot see how BLP applies to this draft. The subject has been dead for almost 80 years. Could you go into more detail about which part of the draft is raising BLP concerns for you, please? Meadowlark (talk) 00:43, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
please read WP:BLP carefully. It explains about verifiability, writing style, and reliable sources. You have raised a concern only regarding the statement that “he died some years ago.” However, whether the person is deceased or still living does not affect this policy. Reviewers evaluate based on sourcing and policy compliance, not on the individual’s living status. Endrabcwizart (talk) 02:20, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Endrabcwizart, I am familiar with BLP. It says This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages (my emphasis) The person being (recently) alive or not is the very basis of BLP. If your concern is that parts of the draft are unsourced, that's valid, but it's WP:V rather than BLP.
Just to be clear, I did not write the draft - I read through it to see if I could help the original editor with some advice, and the only potential BLP problem I saw was that the subject's children were named without a source. Is that what concerned you? If not, could you please indicate what it was? Meadowlark (talk) 02:42, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V was already tagged, which can be seen on the draft or the user’s talk page. I also mentioned “verifiability, writing style, and reliable sources.” However, since the creator raised a concern regarding the WP:BLP tag, I responded only to clarify that point, all of these matters are already covered under that guideline. Endrabcwizart (talk) 05:02, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Endrabcwizart: I'm confused about what point(s) you're making, but let me me absolutely clear, BLP categorically does not apply to someone who has been dead for many decades. There may be aspects of BLP, such as the need for verifiable, reliable sources, which also apply to non-BLP content, but that requirement does not stem from BLP; rather, they both stem from WP:V.

@Peter Frix: my view is that, although the decline basis was on this occasion wrong, it was nevertheless entirely appropriate for this draft to be declined. Personally, I would have declined this for insufficient referencing, ie. the poor quality of the sources cited, and because much of the information is not referenced so we have no way of verifying it or even knowing where it comes from. Additionally, I'm not seeing anything that would demonstrate obvious notability, certainly not according to our general notability guideline WP:GNG, and probably not the specific WP:SINGER or WP:CREATIVE ones, either.
I also get the feeling that much of this is based on your personal knowledge or opinion of your grandfather, some of which likely constitutes original research or synthesis. For example (one of many such instances), you say in the 'Operatic career' section that this person was "[k]nown for the depth of his bass voice", and this statement is supported by a reference to an unclear audio clip, which you have uploaded from your family archives, of someone singing a segment from Il Trovatore. This is not acceptable. Firstly, we have no way of knowing who the singer is, which fails the essential requirement of verifiable, reliable sources: that they can actually be verified. More to the point, that source does not state that he was known for the depth of his bass voice; in fact, it doesn't state anything. Therefore, that opinion must have come from you. Even if that audio clip did objectively demonstrate the depth of his voice, you are asking the reader to listen to the clip, and to form their own opinion of it, and you are assuming they will conclude that the voice sounds deep. This is not how referencing works.
Returning to first principles, Wikipedia articles should be compiled by summarising what reliable published sources have said about a subject, not by simply writing what the author knows about it, or what they want to tell the world about it. This draft clearly violates that principle. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:24, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your very clear and constructive explanation, DoubleGrazing.
I now understand that the initial decline reason (WP:BLP) was a misinterpretation, and that the core issue lies in verifiability, sourcing, and demonstrating notability through reliable, independent third-party references — which is absolutely fair.
My intention from the beginning has been purely cultural and encyclopedic, with no promotional goals. I’ll take time to carefully evaluate how (and if) I can improve the article with stronger sources in line with WP:GNG and other relevant guidelines.
Thanks again to everyone who took time to provide insights and guidance — much appreciated.
Peter Frix Peter Frix (talk) 07:38, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:56, 6 October 2025 review of submission by Onoja55

[edit]

Hello, my draft about Michael Okpotu Onoja was declined for notability concerns. Could you please provide specific feedback on which aspects of notability were lacking and what type of additional evidence would be needed? I want to understand how to properly demonstrate notability for future consideration. 

Onoja55 (talk) 12:56, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Onoja55: the general notability guideline WP:GNG applies in the vast majority of cases. For academics, WP:NPROF is another possibility, although I doubt that would work in this case. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:10, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is noted, many thanks. Onoja55 (talk) 13:34, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Onoja55.
I suggest you first look at autobiography, to understand why writing about yourself is very strongly discouraged.
Then I suggest you review each one of your sources against the criteria in golden rule. While reliability is the most important criterion, independence from the subject of the article is nearly as important, at least for those sources which are supporting the claim of notability.
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 13:36, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:58, 6 October 2025 review of submission by Jesawhite1

[edit]

My article has been rejected, however the reasons are not justifed since there are articles from the same country that have much less coverage than mine but they are listed. Jesawhite1 (talk) 12:58, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jesawhite1: see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; we don't assess drafts by comparing them to existing articles, but rather by reference to prevailing policies and guidelines. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jesawhite1 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.
If you'd like to help us, please identify these other articles you have seen so we can take action and prevent others from doing what you did- use a poorly written article as a model. We're only as good as those who choose to help us. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles, which have been checked by the community.
Awards do not contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article(like Nobel Peace Prize or Grammy Award). 331dot (talk) 14:44, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:07, 6 October 2025 review of submission by Shubhamraai

[edit]

Why it is declined when i put all authentic details of notable person he is very popular among up bihar jharkhand orrisa and bangal Shubhamraai (talk) 13:07, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Shubhamraai. "Putting all authentic details" is irrelevant. 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) 13:37, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:37, 6 October 2025 review of submission by Runqizhu

[edit]

The draft was rejected for several times for references. Could you please explain in details what kind of references could be used to support the notability of a scientist like Wenxin Wang. Runqizhu (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Runqizhu: setting aside the first decline, which was for AI, the two subsequent ones were for insufficient evidence of notability rather than 'references' per se. You have two options for demonstrating notability, either via the general WP:GNG or the subject-specific WP:NPROF route. The former requires significant coverage in multiple secondary sources, the latter significant career achievements. Please study them both, and decide which one your subject can meet, then provide the necessary evidence to back that up. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:17, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:25, 6 October 2025 review of submission by BylinesAndBrushstrokes

[edit]

My article on PALMER magazine was rejected, but I am struggling to determine if it is because of the language or if it is because I don't have enough secondary / external sources for it? Is there any chance someone can help me with this? Thank you! BylinesAndBrushstrokes (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BylinesAndBrushstrokes: your draft was declined (not rejected, which is a terminal option) for lack of evidence of notability, and for inadequate referencing. These are both on account of the sources: it isn't clear what the sources you're citing are, since you have provided very insufficient bibliographical details of them (also, URLs would be useful, if any of them are available online); the last source is just blank. The general notability guideline WP:GNG tells you what sort of sources you need to establish notability, and WP:REFB gives advice on correct referencing (with WP:OFFLINE supplementing that for offline sources specifically). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for clarifying! I will work on it and make it stronger. BylinesAndBrushstrokes (talk) 16:31, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:57, 6 October 2025 review of submission by Vip678

[edit]

I have carefully prepared and referenced this article draft. I would be most grateful if an experienced reviewer could kindly examine it, and—should you find no outstanding issues—consider approving the page for inclusion in mainspace. 

Vip678 (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vip678: we don't do on-demand reviews here at the help desk. You have successfully resubmitted the draft, so it will be reviewed once a reviewer gets around to it. Please be patient. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your kind and helpful response. I really appreciate it. Vip678 (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:59, 6 October 2025 review of submission by Antoniomosesthedirector

[edit]

This really make absolutely no sense. I have dedicated more than 25 years of my life producing content for the advancement and well-being of my community. The documentaries we have been produced have not been funded by any source or NPO's. We produce documentaries which affect the well-being and sovereignty of citizens of this country and it is ashamed that the articles and publications are not accepted by Wikipedia. I have conducted book signings, had movie premieres and press releases dating back 20 years. How is this information not relevant or considered verifiable references? Antoniomosesthedirector (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Antonio Moses
@Antoniomosesthedirector: your draft cites your company's website (close primary source), IMDb (user-generated, and hence not reliable), one source which I cannot check but which seems to be saying you're producing something, one (#8) which isn't a source at all, and two cites of an online retailer. With the possible exception of the one that I couldn't check, none contributes anything towards notability, and cannot even be properly used to verify anything in this draft. Besides which, it is an WP:AUTOBIO (very strongly discouraged) and promotional (not allowed).
It may well be possible to write an acceptable article draft about you, but this wasn't it, and if it does happen it shouldn't be written by you or any of your associates. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:06, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:37, 6 October 2025 review of submission by Guyshomenet

[edit]

I feel the new page Draft:The Flood: Music for MANNA was declined due to subjective misinterpretation of the album notoriety rules (happy to explain the case).

I'm seeking an independent review from another reviewer to help clear the brush for this charity project. Guyshomenet (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say much about notability, but "Background" lacks citations in most of the paragraphs. Where does the information come from? GGOTCC 18:41, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Guyshomenet: Considering this draft hasn't been edited since the prior thread it should be very easy to tell if they were correct or not.
You don't have enough usable sources for an article, and this is me assuming the documentary is any good. (Again, I'm not going to spend an hour listening to a random documentary special unless I can be certain it would be a usable source.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:09, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:52, 6 October 2025 review of submission by JaafarHana

[edit]

Hello, i am trying to publish this short biography of my boss who is a prominent figure in the Islamic finance field. This biography is written by him, and thus the only reliable citation i can put is his ResearchGate page and Google Scholar page. How can i publish his biography? thank you! JaafarHana (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome!
First off, Wikipedia is not the place to write an autobiography. This is an encyclopedia. Please see Wikipedia:Autobiography for why.
What you are doing is writing an article WP:BACKWARDS. Sources determine what is included in Wikipedia and encyclopedias, not the other way around. If you can not find any sources (or not enough reliable and independent sources), then that subject should not have an article. Both of those pages, ResearchGate and Google Scholar, consist of his own work, and is not independent of the subject. Does this make sense? GGOTCC 18:39, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JaafarHana: We don't cite Researchgate full stop, so that just leaves Google Scholar, which by itself is never going to be enough to satisfy our sourcing requirements in re biographical content or our eligibility criteria for academics. If all you have is that, you don't have enough to warrant an article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:47, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:44, 6 October 2025 review of submission by Weilandofthefree

[edit]

The sources for this include the New York Times, ESPN, several professional news outlets. I don't understand why this continues to be declined when the subject and references are all far more relevant and worthy of inclusion than many of the others I have edited.

Any advice for how to frame these sources or information better? Weilandofthefree (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Weilandofthefree: Merely stating who published the sources doesn't help; we also have to judge sources based on their content.
The decline looks appropriate to me. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:25, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:03, 6 October 2025 review of submission by Desertstorm1000

[edit]

I am requesting assistance in the form of a policy review/second opinion on a draft that was rejected on 6 October 2025 by user Scope creep, with the reason being 'This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.' A rejection prevents resubmission, but I have already provided independent, significant coverage from the Holy See and major media outlets. I believe the rejection is based on a mistaken assessment of notability, and I am asking another experienced editor to review the draft against the General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG). Desertstorm1000 (talk) 18:03, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Desertstorm1000: Scope creep is an extremely experienced editor of good standing, as well as being an experienced AfC and New Page reviewer. If anything, they tend to be generous (by my standards, at least) in accepting drafts. So if they reject a draft as non-notable, I really have very little reason to doubt that. On what basis, exactly, are you asserting policy violation and/or misinterpretation of the notability guidelines?
To pick up on a point you make: coverage from the Vatican can hardly be "independent" in what comes to an outfit within the Catholic church. I note that your draft mostly, if not exclusively, cites primary sources similar to that, or routine business reporting. Can you point to at least three sources of the 24 cited in this draft that squarely meet the WP:ORG standard? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that many of the sources you have listed do not exist and were AI generated. To show notability, you need to have references which prove that, which the article has failed to do since September. I certainly agree with Scope Creep and the opinion of the other reviewers. GGOTCC 18:34, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Desertstorm1000: The subject of this draft falls under the CASTE area and you do not meet the minimum requirements of 500 edits and 30 days. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:43, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:27, 6 October 2025 review of submission by Sapient Alaskan

[edit]

I'm confused about the submission being declined. This is merely a translation of an article from the French Wikipedia, to which I added multiple new references to published sources. I believe several fulfill the four requirements (in-depth, reliable, secondary and independent); in particular in major newspapers and magazines: Le Monde [ref. 3 discusses opening of the institute and ref. 11 is an in-depth interview with its first director, and primarly focuses on the institute and the research conducted there], Financial Times [ref. 6 discusses in detail institute's mission and its unique funding model], L'Echo [ref. 7 describes institute's role in diagnosis and treatment of genetic disease in France and Benelux countries]. Furthermore, there are multiple references to independent public institutions and foundations. This is an important research institute and clinic; a quick research of similar institutions with Wikipedia entries shows that most don't have this many reliable references (e.g., other institutions affiliated with the same university, such as Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, Georges Pompidou European Hospital, Hôpital Cochin, Institut Jacques Monod, ...). Please let me know what should be improved in the draft, in particular if the references should be formatted differently (for the most part I used the automatic citation tool). Sapient Alaskan (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Each language Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own editors and policies. What is acceptable on one is not necessarily acceptable on another. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others.
Please see other stuff exists. We judge each article or draft on their own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and just not yet addressed by a volunteer. There are many ways inappropriate content can exist, tbis cannot justify adding more inappropriate content.
Your draft just documents the activities of the organization, not giving any indication about how it is a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Points taken about my mentions of other Wikipedia articles.
However, I'm still confused by the last comment: the "notable organization" article you link suggests to me that articles in journals referenced in the draft are exactly of the kind considered as establishing notability. Is it that there is not enough of them? I don't see how else they could speak to the notability of an organization that rather than describing or documenting the activities of the institution, such as research, clinical care and fundraising.
The referenced articles emphasize the unique strategies taken in these domains (such as in fundraising in ref. 7, Financial Times, and ref. 10, Le Figaro), and its prominence in the European research ecosystem (ref. 18, Liberation refers to the institute as "the most important French institute of genetic research", ref. 5 is a TV program by BFM TV and published by Le Figaro where the institute is introduced as a "largest site of research and care for genetic diseases"). I further added ref. 13 which describes the notable architecture of the institute. Sapient Alaskan (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see reference 13, but no information is provided in the draft about the significance of the architecture. If the hospital is recognized for its unique strategies, that's not clear from the draft. 331dot (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, I will reorganize the text somewhat. Initially I only wanted to translate the article from French, hence it's somwhat artificially decorated with references (absent in the original) Sapient Alaskan (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I revised the text to highlight the references that fulfill the four requirements and argue it's a notable organization. The latest draft: (1) states that the institute has been noted as a leading French research center for genetic disease (articles in Le Monde [3] and [17], segment in BFM TV [4], interview with institute's director in Liberation [22]); (2) highlights its unique model of operation and fundraising strategies (articles in Financial Times [6], Belgian l'Echo [12] and Le Figaro [13]); (3) provides information about the significance of the architecture of the new building (articles in La Depeche [18], FRAME [19], and featured in the database Building Types Online [20]).
Let me know if that answers the critique of the initial submission, or whether the current draft should be further edited. I would be grateful for feedback before resubmitting. Sapient Alaskan (talk) 05:21, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot I revised the text and I think I adopted the changes suggested by the editors who rejected the first drafts, however it seems it has been rejected again. Could you offer some more concrete feedback? I really struggle to understand, given that the subject is particularly present in the media (for a biomedical institute) and a notable institution, and I think the current references and text provide evidence to that end. I used multiple articles that are strictly independent and I'm left perplexed how any public institution ever gets a wikipedia entry. Clearly 99% of the ones I've come across must have been published before the current definition of notability, as interpreted by the editor who rejected the latest draft, was in place.
I would be grateful for any suggestions or help with the article 128.59.63.227 (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remember to log in when posting.
I'm not presently in a position to offer a review, please resubmit it. 331dot (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, will resubmit shortly Sapient Alaskan (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added one more reference to an article from a major newspaper (Le Monde) and resubmitted Sapient Alaskan (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:23, 6 October 2025 review of submission by Dojo meister

[edit]

Article has been in draft for close to 2 months now with no review whatsoever. Dojo meister (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because you have not submitted it to AFC. GGOTCC 21:25, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read Wikipedia:Articles for creation? GGOTCC 21:27, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you do submit it to AFC, you ought to fix things up beforehand. As it currently stands, all the sources are either by the subject, quotes from the subject, not considered a reliable source (Muckrack), or in several sources, the subject isn't even mentioned. So as it stands, basically none of the article is sourced, when every disputable fact needs to be for a WP:BLP. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:26, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help me! (Draft:Penn Foster )

[edit]
Moved from User talk:DegreeDriven

Please help me with... I'd like help with Draft:Penn Foster. I've made several edits since the last submission was declined. Can you provide more suggestions for how the article can have a balanced, neutral tone and doesn't read like an ad, as noted by the last editor? DegreeDriven (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:15, 6 October 2025 review of submission by Hrangkhawlpreety9889

[edit]

There is no such relevant resources related to puanbom Hrangkhawlpreety9889 (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Do you have a specific question we may help answer? GGOTCC 23:20, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I gave reliable sources but still getting this -This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified AGSFaccounts (talk) 01:05, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 7

[edit]

01:31, 7 October 2025 review of submission by BeastBoy-X

[edit]

Simplified explanation, I don't understand ⟨⟨BeastBoy-X-Talk!⟩⟩ 01:31, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, you don't cite sources that meet all the criteria of WP:Golden rule. Do a rewrite after the game is actually released. Right now it's WP:TOOSOON.
A subject that is "up and coming" never merits a Wikipedia article. It must have already arrived, and received significant coverage in sources independent of the subject. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:44, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:37, 7 October 2025 review of submission by ArtsAndArchivesUK

[edit]

I’m seeking guidance to improve the draft of Alan Brassington so it meets Wikipedia’s notability and sourcing standards. The draft has been revised for neutrality, with all promotional or commercial references removed and replaced with academic and institutional sources (e.g., Journal of New Zealand Art History, Christchurch Art Gallery Bulletin, and AskART*).

I would appreciate help identifying any remaining gaps in independent coverage or formatting so the article can meet Wikipedia’s acceptance criteria. ArtsAndArchivesUK (talk) 06:37, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ArtsAndArchivesUK: the draft is almost completely unreferenced. The only two citations appear in the 'Recognition' section, with the reset entirely unsupported. Articles on living people (WP:BLP) have particularly strict referencing requirements, with pretty much every statement made needing to be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:42, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:48, 7 October 2025 review of submission by Eldon21

[edit]

I submited an article about a prominent business person in Ethiopia, featured in Forbes and other notable publishings. Yet it was declined with a note that the references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. However, there are various biographical Wikipedia entries about several much less prominent individuals. Also, it says the article sounds promotional. I want to correct these and do it the right way. I need someone who can attest what I say and help me correct these issues. Eldon21 (talk) 06:48, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Eldon21: please cite online versions of your sources where possible, so that they can be verified. But even just looking at the titles, it's clear there are several primary sources there, and some routine business reporting, which cannot be used to establish notability. (And you cannot cite Wikipedia as a source on Wikipedia.) Can't really say much more without seeing what those sources actually are like, and what they say about this person. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:57, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Can you please have a look once more and see if the issues are addressed? I entered various secondary sources and removed the mention of a Wikipedia article as a source. Eldon21 (talk) 09:11, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:48, 7 October 2025 review of submission by Chandl3r45

[edit]

I tried building the page with the moderators of the support ircnet channel. They seemed fine, so I'd like to hear from you what I can fix to make the page work. Is the source code the only problem? Chandl3r45 (talk) 09:48, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you've talked with others about this, I might suggest that they comment here.
Your draft just summarizes the routine activities of the company, which does not establish that the company is a notable company. If you work for the company, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID and WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 10:05, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:13, 7 October 2025 review of submission by DjerousnyG

[edit]

Hello ,Please today I am Asking for assistance Because I want people who Have Hope to help me with a biography I have already finished but I need to know how to submit it for approval. thank you DjerousnyG (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have already submitted it, and it was declined. Please see the message left by the reviewer.
What is your relationship with this musician? 331dot (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:12, 7 October 2025 review of submission by Veronica Benet-Martinez

[edit]

BIO OF VERONICA BENET-MARTINEZ Hello dear. I carefully read the instructions and I believe I clearly meet the criteria for NOTABLE persons, and I also disclosed that I was the author on the draft. The numerous awards, accolades, thousands of academic citations, and large presence in the media and digital sources can be used to verify my status as notably scientist. Alternatively, a second person can create it using the information I submitted in the draft. Let me know your response at your earliest convenience. Thank you, Veronica Benet-Martinez Thank you, veronica Veronica Benet-Martinez (talk) 16:12, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Veronica Benet-Martinez Knitsey (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Veronica Benet-Martinez I fixed your header to provide a link to your draft as intended.
Please see the autobiography policy; Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. Any article about you should summarize what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about you.
It's unlikely someone will take on the task of writing about you. Please see why an article is not necessarily desirable. I suggest that you go on about your work as if you had never heard of Wikipedia and allow an article to develop the usual way, when an independent editor takes note of coverage of you in independent sources. Trying to force the issue is rarely successful. 331dot (talk) 16:19, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Veronica Benet-Martinez: the first two sources return 404, and the third one 403, errors. This means that the three first sections of the draft are effectively unverifiable. Source #7 is trying to call a named reference, which hasn't been defined. And source #12 simply points to a website home page, which does not verify the statement against which it is cited. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Phrases like "lasting impact", "renowned" and so on are unsubstantiated puffery typical of AI, as are headings in the form "X and Y" using non-neutral terms like "Public engagement and service". The fact that the sources don't exist suggest AI hallucinations. The prose, however, seems human-generated, which is what we want to see, so congratulations on that. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:30, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:17:53, 7 October 2025 review of submission by Cubingx

[edit]

Hello! I recently submitted Draft:Suwałki Airport for review, but I see that the queue is quite long. If anyone has time to take a look and provide feedback or review it, I’d really appreciate it. Thank you! Cubingx (talk) 20:17, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cubingx Asking us for a review will not speed this volunteer driven process. Drafts are reviewed in no particular order, and allowing you to "jump the line" would mean we would need to do so for everyone, as everyone wants their draft reviewed quickly. Please be patient. Do you have a particular need for a speedy review? 331dot (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that! There is no need for a speedy review Cubingx (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:36, 7 October 2025 review of submission by 76.80.181.2

[edit]

I'm gonna be real honest with you, I was just practicing how to use wikipedia 76.80.181.2 (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Consider yourself practiced. Do you have a question? 331dot (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:57, 7 October 2025 review of submission by 71.17.134.226

[edit]

I want to be able to submit the request successfully to highlight the achievement of a statesman, former VP of Nigeria, Arc Namadi Sambo, GCON 71.17.134.226 (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't cite Xitter (no editorial oversight), and one source, by itself, is not enough to support an article of any length, especially one on a living person. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:05, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "highlight[ing] the achievement" of anybody is absolutely not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is not interested in a subject until other people, wholly unconnected with the subject, have already written about them (possibly "highlightin their achievements") in reliable publications. ColinFine (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:06, 7 October 2025 review of submission by 71.17.134.226

[edit]

Hello, I’ve written a draft article about Sardaunan Zazzau (it’s not about myself but about a statesman, former Vice President of Nigeria Arc Mohammed Namadi Sambo who has been conferred the Title by the Zaria Emirate Council, Kaduna state, Nigeria,) and would appreciate assistance in reviewing it. My goal is to ensure that the page is objective, factual, and properly sourced according to Wikipedia standards. Any feedback or suggestions to improve neutrality, structure, or citations would be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much for your time and support! Best regards, Dr Baba J Adamu 

71.17.134.226 (talk) 21:06, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Only people at the help desk would see the request. If you want to submit it (and allow it to be reviewed), then please press the blue "submit for review" button at the top of the page. GGOTCC 22:22, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:37, 7 October 2025 review of submission by 31.208.181.161

[edit]

My proposed article was declined because I had not linked the references (and also some references needed to be added). I corrected this the day after the article was declined. Am I now back at the "end of the queue" or can I count on a more speedy review of my improved article? (Which would be much appreciated...) Best regards /Bjorolf 31.208.181.161 (talk) 22:37, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The queue is not a line so much as it is a pot full of drafts. Volunteers "reach in" and pull out drafts to review. That your draft was already reviewed provides no speed benefit. 331dot (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 8

[edit]

03:58, 8 October 2025 review of submission by Noahmvf

[edit]

I recently submitted a draft article for 565 Broome Street (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:565_Broome_Street), but it was declined with the note that "the draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article" and that it needs more "in-depth, reliable, independent, secondary sources."

I’m a bit confused because my draft already includes coverage from publications like The New York Times, Forbes, Architectural Digest, and CNBC, all of which published full articles specifically about this building. Given that these outlets are generally considered reliable secondary sources, I’d like to understand what caused this particular reviewer to reject my submission Noahmvf (talk) 03:58, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Noahmvf, your draft was declined on 31 August, but you didn't add the majority of these references until 4 September, when you resubmitted it. It hasn't been declined since then, it's just waiting for a volunteer to review it still. Nil🥝 07:10, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Nil. I thought that even in my first draft I had several references from reliable sources but hopefully this next time around it’s even more reinforced. 2600:1017:B826:3C54:3D0F:C949:59CF:D3FB (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:34, 8 October 2025 review of submission by Bekhamsinclair

[edit]

Article Rjected Hey I have uploaded the article but it is being rejected twice. I check this kind of information is not available on the Wikipedia Bekhamsinclair (talk) 09:34, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bekhamsinclair I fixed your header to link to your draft as intended and not to a nonexistent page entitled "Article Rjected".
Wikipedia is not a mere repository of information. Please see the messages left by reviewers. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:46, 8 October 2025 review of submission by Megalives717

[edit]

Why does not create article Chipper & Sons Lumber Co.? Megalives717 (talk) 09:46, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:24, 8 October 2025 review of submission by Ilyazub

[edit]

I'd love to improve this page citations and references to follow the Wikipedia guidelines and be valuable for the readers. Can you please mention what references I should remove or add?

Thank you, Illia Ilyazub (talk) 12:24, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are making a fundamental, though common, error in that you are telling us what you want the world to know about your company. That is the wrong approach. Instead, you must gather and summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about your company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. These cannot be interviews, press releases, brief mentions, the reporting of routine business activities, or primary sources. This is usually very difficult for a company representative without prior Wikipedia experience to do, as it requires you to set aside everything you know about your company and limit yourself to independent sources. This is why, though permitted, it is ill advised for company representatives to attempt to write about their company. Please see WP:BOSS, and have your superiors and colleagues read it, too. 331dot (talk) 12:44, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:27, 8 October 2025 review of submission by Cryptcqueer

[edit]

Hello, I have recently submitted this draft and do not understand why it was declined. The sources are reliable and cited. Cryptcqueer (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are not independent sources. 331dot (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Cryptcqueer. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:14, 8 October 2025 review of submission by Tonto1979

[edit]

I'm confused as to why this has been rejected.

I've referenced (refs #2, #3, #4) 3 publications that

  • have provided significant coverage (not just passing mentions) and
  • are published, reliable, secondary and independent sources.

Please can you advise why this has not been considered to be the case? Tonto1979 (talk) 14:14, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A similar article for the BBC Radio 4 programme "The Life Scientific" also contains 3 references to independent sources, although they contain less information than those that I have provided for this article. If that article is acceptable, why isn't this one?
The Life Scientific Tonto1979 (talk) 14:38, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tonto1979 I fixed your link, the whole url is not needed.
The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
Please see other stuff exists. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and just not yet addressed by a volunteer. There are many ways inappropriate content can exist, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content.
The overwhelming majority of your references are primary sources; the ones that are not do not seem to provide significant coverage; see WP:42 for more information as to what is being looked for. 331dot (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For a radio program, anything that provides independent, critical analysis of the program would help, like reviews from professional critics. 331dot (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:42, 8 October 2025 review of submission by Big BlaccDugg

[edit]

I publish my artist Biography and it's got rejected Big BlaccDugg (talk) 14:42, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. Please use social media to do that. 331dot (talk) 14:59, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:16, 8 October 2025 review of submission by Shahadpathan

[edit]

how can i improve this Shahadpathan (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Shahadpathan: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. At the time I rejected it, it only cited the organisation's own website as a source. Since then you've added a few sources that don't work (return 404 errors), a couple of primary ones, one that just points to the news section of a website, and a couple of sources that don't provide significant coverage of GTU-SET specifically. So although the number of citations has roughly doubled, the evidence of notability remains stuck at zero. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:21, 8 October 2025 review of submission by Matiolja

[edit]

Hello. I am hoping I can get some help in publishing the article about Pink Ribbon Monaco. It is a fully self funded non profit, in existance since 2011 and fully legitimised by and "agrementation", which means it has been certified by the Monaco governement and the Prince's gouvernement as a charity for the public service. I would be so grateful to receive some help or advice. Thank you in advance. Matiolja (talk) 15:21, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have zero sources in the draft, where are you getting your information? If you are associated with this charity, thst must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID.
Wikipedia does not just document the existence of a topic. The fact that it is a legally recognized charity confers no notability. 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. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell of the good work of an organization. 331dot (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:40, 8 October 2025 review of submission by Shahadpathan

[edit]

I added all the reference and source Shahadpathan (talk) 15:40, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Shahadpathan, you have added some external links. These are not references, and do not affect notability.
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
Your draft has been rejected, not just declined. This means that in the opinion of the reviewer who rejected it, there is no possibility of creating an accepted article on this subject.
If you believe that you have some more sources that do establish notability, you would need to approach the rejecting reviewer to ask for it to be reconsidered in the light of those sources. But if you do that I would advise you to be very sure that all the sources meet all the criteria in the golden rule, and you can show how they establish that the school is notable. If you approach them without that preparation, they are likely to regard you as a time-waster who is engaged in disruptive editing.
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) 16:27, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:03, 8 October 2025 review of submission by Cas LC

[edit]

May we know which of the independent references we’ve cited are currently acceptable? Cas LC (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cas LC: actually, this was declined for being promotional. Even if the sources were fine (and I'm not saying they are), that would still be a valid decline reason. Basically, the draft reads like a corporate presentation, whereas we almost exclusively want to see what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about this business, and what in their view makes it worthy of note.
What is your relationship with this subject?
And who is "we" in your question? Wikipedia user accounts are strictly for use by a single individual. If there are more than one of you contributing, you will each need to register your individual user accounts. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'd say it looks like a WP:G11 candidate. Wikipedia has been around for over a quarter-century. You'd think the world would know by now that using it for publicity purposes is prohibited. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cas LC (ec) Who is "we"? Only a single person should have access to your account. If you work for Casual Films, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID and WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:39:47, 8 October 2025 review of draft by Maria Pribytkina

[edit]

Hello! I have created a draft article about Croatian media entrepreneur and music journalist Edo Plovanić, founder and editor-in-chief of Muzika.hr — one of the most influential online music media platforms in Croatia and the wider region.

The article is based on reliable, verifiable sources: Croatian media publications, interviews, and professional references about his work. I tried to follow Wikipedia’s notability and neutrality guidelines for people in the field of culture and media.

Please review the draft and let me know if it meets Wikipedia’s standards or needs further improvement.

Thank you! Maria Pribytkina (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Maria Pribytkina. It'll be reviewed in due course. qcne (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! Maria Pribytkina (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:23, 8 October 2025 review of submission by WizardGirl1989

[edit]

I need help to ensure I'm following the current reasons for declining this page. WizardGirl1989 (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WizardGirl1989 I'm not sure what exactly your question is; but your draft just tells of the existence of this company and its offerings; you've summarized press releases and other routine coverage. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. "Startups" almost never merit articles, a company must typically become established and recognized in its field to draw the needed coverage to support an article.
Awards do not contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award).
If you work for this company, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID and WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:49, 8 October 2025 review of submission by 50.198.195.50

[edit]

My draft for Draft:Vitaliy Katsenelson was declined for AI detection, but I believe this is a false positive. The article is based entirely on independent reliable sources:

  • Barron's profile (2009)
  • Forbes review (2008)
  • Financial Analysts Journal review (2008)
  • Denver Post article (2007)

All content is properly cited and verifiable. I received assistance with Wikipedia formatting, which may have triggered detection tools, but the content itself comes from the sources. Could someone provide a second review? Thank you. 50.198.195.50 (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Submission for review is the only route. We do not review on request. If it still appears AI generated it will fall. We require your own words, not those of an LLM. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:01, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

00:04, 9 October 2025 review of submission by 2601:98A:4002:2F40:E4F7:1A14:54D4:B923

[edit]

My article was rejected and I don't know why. Article name: Draft:Signs Of Death And Steps 2601:98A:4002:2F40:E4F7:1A14:54D4:B923 (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's written as an essay, not an encyclopedia article. 331dot (talk) 00:25, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:34, 9 October 2025 review of submission by Salshater

[edit]

Request for peer review after significant improvements to sourcing and notability

Hello! I have made substantial improvements to this draft article on Al-Shater Bossely Abdul Jalil (الشاطر بصيلي عبد الجليل), an Egyptian writer and anthropologist (1901-1977). The article was previously declined due to insufficient reliable sources.

Improvements made:

  • Added Arabic titles with proper transliterations following WP:ARABIC
  • Implemented proper citation templates for all Arabic sources
  • Expanded notability section with extensive coverage from English-language academic journals (P.M. Holt in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, F. Addison in Antiquity, Jay Spaulding in The Journal of African History)
  • Added contextual information about awards and scholarly impact
  • Included a note explaining sourcing challenges with Arabic-language materials
  • Requested assistance from WikiProject Arab world on the talk page for bilingual verification

Question: I would appreciate peer review to assess whether the article now meets Wikipedia's notability and sourcing standards, particularly given that: 1. The subject's major work was reviewed in multiple prestigious English-language academic journals 2. His research is cited by prominent scholars in the field 3. Primary biographical sources are in Arabic, which I've tried to properly represent with citation templates

Any feedback on additional improvements would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Salshater (talk) 07:34, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to get feedback, once you've made changes, is to resubmit the draft for review. We don't do pre-review reviews here. 331dot (talk) 08:37, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1315897709"