Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
June 2025
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
  • Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.
Ask a new question
Please check back often for answers.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions
Skip to top
Skip to bottom


June 4

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

can you give me another chance 

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

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

[edit]

Why was it declined? 

Yoav.sch (talk) 12:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Yoav.sch: for the reasons given in the decline notice – did you look at them, by any chance? The draft is not supported by any referencing (in the form of inline citations, which are required in articles on living people). There are some external links listed, but they are just author profiles, which contribute nothing in terms of notability, plus one article in a secondary source, but it is authored by the subject so again does not establish notability, and in any case it's in a non-reliable source. You need to show that either the general WP:GNG or the special WP:JOURNALIST notability guideline is met. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your time and the kind response @DoubleGrazing. I have added references from reliable independent sources, including CTech and Forbes, which clearly cover Kevin Cohen’s role as the founder and CEO of RealEye.ai. These articles outline his professional background and highlight his leadership. They also provide substantive coverage of the company’s operations and its relevance within the technology and security sectors. I kindly ask that you revisit the draft in light of this additional coverage. Yoav.sch (talk) 13:26, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

An advert written by ChatGPT is not an acceptable article for Wikipedia and your draft has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. Please read WP:UPE and if necessary disclose if you have recieved payment or have a conflict of interest with your draft. CoconutOctopus talk 13:38, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On top of that, no sources either. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 02:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

@Emereye  Done. S0091 (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Emereye While I'm not doing a formal review, the proposed article is far less focused than the one on Pokemon. Entire sections don't mention Sonic at all, and instead focus on things which are not specific to Sonic. While some of that may make sense to include, it should be looked at either as a more focused article *or* something that is so broad that both the Pokemon and Sonic articles are examples to the concept.Naraht (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

MatthewGSimonson (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @MatthewGSimonson, each reviewer left you a message on the draft, just under the big orange boxes. The boxes themselves also contain our boilerplate reasons, which have links to help you understand what they're talking about. In summary, the reason is that the organization is not notable by Wikipedia's standards.
The other articles you refer to may well have been created in Wikipedia's early days, when standards were lower, and have not been spotted and cleaned up or removed by anyone just yet. If you leave links to them here, we can address any deficits they have. Meadowlark (talk) 10:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

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

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

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

I forgot to mention that my book "Cyberspace: The Human Dimension" was used as a textbook at Duke University. I was also a guest lecturer at Duke, invited by the Sanford Institute of Public Policy. Davidwhittle (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidwhittle Much of the draft is unsourced, including the Background, Broader Significance, and Legacy sections, as well as the assertion that the memo and controversy are widely considered to be the primary catalysts for the chain of events that led to the resignation of Akers as Chairman and CEO in early 1993. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You make presumptions based on not having read the sources or having been working in the industry at the time. Several of the later sources both clearly state and imply that the Akers memo was a pivotal event both in the history of IBM and the computing industry, but it was so widely known and assumed that it has not been properly recorded. Other IBMers who have attempted to rectify the startling inability of Wikipedia to properly account for IBM's legacy in the computing industry have shared with me the frustration of dealing with editors who weren't even alive when the seeds of social media and a worldwide network were already bearing fruit in the '80s and '90s in trying to get papers published or contributions made at the time included in Wikipedia articles. Even things published in IBM Journals - widely considered the most authoritative sources in the computing industry at the time - are often rejected by ignorant (that's the only word that applies) editors who can't read the original sources because they were published in pre-onlineic times. Still, in cases like his where things happening within IBM burst out into the open, editors think it's OK to overrule published experts on a topic with invalid objections rooted in inexperience with the topic, event, or person being covered.
So help me understand the best way to deal with this inexperience. Do you really want me to go against all of my academic training and cite ever sentence as if I'm trying to educate the ignorant who don't believe a word of an article unless they're already familiar with the topic? Face it - Wikipedia is not itself "peer-reviewed." Editors often know nothing about the articles they reject. How do I overcome this knee-jerk tendency they have to reject in ignorance with a bias towards knowing Wikipedia rules rather than academic authority. Davidwhittle (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To directly address your concern about the sentence you cited, Helpful Raccoon, here is a quote from a magazine article titled "The Ethical Revolution" written by well-known industry authority at that time, Wayne Rash, Jr., published in August of 1993, about 7 months after Akers resigned.
"Dave Whittle doesn't look like the kind of guy who would topple an empire. ... Yet it is that same caring that led to a memo which some say led to the corporate landslide that ended the reign of John Akers as IBM's CEO. David Brian Whittle, it seems, cares about everything in his life, and Whittle is an IBMer through and through. Because of this, Whittle believes in IBM's basic corporate values, and that's what caused all the ruckus."
That's just one example of the kinds of things in the sources you no doubt had not read or you wouldn't be contesting the article or its contents or its sources. Davidwhittle (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft in the header as intended.
Wikipedia is written by lay peolple for lay people, summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a topic. It isn't required to be a subject-matter expert in a topic in order to edit about it, as long as one can read and summarize sources.
Wikipedia is different than academic or scholarly writing. See WP:EXPERT. 331dot (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also note that the draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means it may be resubmitted. 331dot (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This source is not present in the draft. It is your responsibility to cite a reliable source for everything you write, per Wikipedia's verifiability policy. (Offline sources are perfectly acceptable.) Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

please help me publish my article 

Madaale1 (talk) 23:38, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Madaale1: the decline notice gives you the issues you need to address, please study them carefully. If after that you have specific questions, you may ask those here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:08, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

Flamingkapala (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Flamingkapala: being an ordained lama from a major Geluk monastery etc. is not part of any notability guideline I'm aware of. As for any other articles that may exist out there, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
You need to provide evidence that this person is notable according to one of our notability guidelines, most likely the general WP:GNG one.
Also, be sure to only write about the subject of this draft, not about indirectly related matters. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:12, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Those were helpful. Flamingkapala (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 5

[edit]

04:48, 5 June 2025 review of submission by Willachameleon

[edit]

My draft was immediately declined- however the subject of my draft is mentioned in Wikipedia page for Dance moms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dance_Moms. In addition, the Wikipedia page for Kalani Hilliker is up and running and the sources are almost identical https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalani_Hilliker. Since the sources are almost identical I don't understand the criticism of my sources which include online news sources e.g. Daily Mail, the Internet Movie Database, and direct links to examples of the subject's professional performances. Please explain as the only difference I am seeing is that Kalani is white and Camryn is black. Willachameleon (talk) 04:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Willachameleon: whatever other articles may exist out there among the 7m in the English Wikipedia is totally beside the point in what comes to the acceptance or otherwise of this draft. All but two of your sources are user-generated, and therefore not reliable. Of the two exceptions, one is the Daily Mail, which is a deprecated source and mustn't be cited. The final one, Reality Tea, isn't much better IMO, and in any case alone not enough. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:16, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:58, 5 June 2025 review of submission by Willachameleon

[edit]

My article draft was rejected based on references - please kindly compare to the references in the Kalani Hilliker published Wikipedia article. Those references are largely similar and were used as a guide in determining whether to submit. If those types of references are sufficient for the Kalani Hilliker article please explain why they are not sufficient for the Camryn Bridges article. Willachameleon (talk) 04:58, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Willachameleon They are not. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:53, 5 June 2025 review of submission by MatthewGSimonson

[edit]

To whom it may concern,

I serve as the Student Governor for North Carolina, and consequently serve as the Chief Executive Officer for the North Carolina Student Legislature. I am in dire need of some assistance in trying to publish my organization's article on Wikipedia. After several attempts, I've yet to be successful. I have added a lot of significant historical background of my organization, notably during the civil rights movement in North Carolina. In addition, I've provided, in detail, the significance the organization plays in today's time, including notable alumni, and similar organizations (that might I add, also have Wikipedia sites with less sources).

I would greatly appreciate any and all suggestions as to how to get approved. I would like to believe that the article meets the criteria, including having objective writing, providing multiple independent sources, and quality work.

Please help, I've spent the entire day trying to figure this out... yet I'm still coming up short somehow!!

Thanks in advance to anyone who helps! MatthewGSimonson (talk) 06:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MatthewGSimonson: this draft has now been rejected, meaning that it won't be considered further.
At least when I reviewed the draft, it was supported by primary sources, and very weak ones at that, which do not show that the subject is notable as Wikipedia defines the term, namely that multiple secondary sources, which are reliable and entirely independent of the subject, have on their own initiative provided significant coverage of the subject and what makes it worthy of note. You, being closely associated with this subject, telling us about the subject's background and history and significance is not what we need to see. We want to see what third parties have said about those things. And if such third parties cannot be found, then the subject is almost certainly not notable enough to justify its own article, no matter how old and prestigious etc. it may be. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:22, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:51, 5 June 2025 review of submission by Allakas

[edit]

The article has been refused thrice and I don’t get how it doesn’t conform to standards. There are much less notable people on Wikipedia, after all. Allakas (talk) 07:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allakas If there are less notable people that there are Wikipedia articles about, please tell us who those are so we can take action, or you can even nominate them for deletion yourself. We're only as good as the people who choose to help us weed out inapprorpriate articles. This cannot justify adding more inappropriate articles, see other stuff exists. With millions of articles, we need the help.
The awards do not contribute to notability since the awards themselves do not merit articles(like Nobel Peace Prize or Pulitzer Prize). The rest of the draft just details his activities, and does not describe what makes him a notable person due to his involvement in those activitites. What about his activities makes him important/significant/influential? That's what is being looked for. 331dot (talk) 08:22, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the help! Could you check if it fits the criteria now? Allakas (talk) 09:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allakas If you feel that the article is now a summary of independent reliable sources with significant coverage- not coverage that merely details his activities- of Mr. Das that shows how he is a notable person, you may resubmit the draft. 331dot (talk) 09:12, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:54, 5 June 2025 review of submission by Allakas

[edit]

I believe there is some coverage on Mirdaul though my article was not accepted. Could someone please help on how to improve the article? Allakas (talk) 07:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:21, 5 June 2025 review of submission by PramodEditior

[edit]

Hello, my draft article 'FIL Industries Private Limited' was declined. I would like to understand what changes are needed to get it approved. Could someone please guide me? PramodEditior (talk) 09:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PramodEditior You need the "Draft:" portion of the title when linking, I fixed this.
You are telling us what you/your company wants us to know about the company- instead, you should be telling us what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company and what makes it a notable company as Wikipedia defines one. Wikipedia is not a place for a company to tell about itself, its offerings, and its activities.
Awards only contribute to notability if the award itself merits an article(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). 331dot (talk) 09:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that you read WP:BOSS, and have your superiors read it, too. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:25:48, 5 June 2025 review of submission by Ttmms

[edit]

I would like to ask for independent feedback regarding notability of this article topic, as pointed out by article creation reviewer. For people not in the field of control engineering, I add link to the openalex list of papers citing the paper describing the software and to the discussion forum used by people seeking help about software. On the page Help:Referencing_for_beginners I read the statement: "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources." which I find somehow in contrast with the feedback I received on this article, namely the always present statement ".. and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources". Even if not all has been added as references, there are ~200 published articles by independent research group mentioning or talking about tool described in the proposed draft.

I acknowledge that the topic of the article is covered or mentioned mainly in academic research. Arguably because scientific publication is the main form of publication for people interested in this topic. It can also be mentioned that eventual usage in industry may even be actively kept secret. This skewed mix of available references automatically imply a given topic is not-notable?

There is consensus on a bibliometric measure, or set of measure, to be used as a signal for notability? Ttmms (talk) 09:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ttmms Rather than give a further review I will ask you a question. Do all the references express opinions about Acados, or are they simply noting that they used it as part of their paper on something else? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:23, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:01, 5 June 2025 review of submission by Brandonoxymoron

[edit]

I'm just curious about what can be done differently to get this article published as it's similar in length to this article about another sports broadcaster who is employed with the same company: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Fisher_(broadcaster)

The article I wrote has a little more information than the former and the subject of the article is much more acclaimed, discussed, touted, and decorated. An article for Nick Gallo is quite necessary. Brandonoxymoron (talk) 10:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Nick Gallo
@Brandonoxymoron: this draft is only referenced with citations to Thunder's social media accounts, which are pretty much useless in what comes to either verifying any of draft contents or establishing notability. Most of the information is unreferenced. You need to cite sources that establish notability per WP:GNG, and also make sure that every material statement is supported by an inline citation to a reliable published source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:08, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I see that now. I appreciate the feedback greatly. Simply reading the guidelines was all I had to do and I did not until a few minutes ago. I actually did some research this time and added a handful of citations so fingers crossed. Thanks for the feedback though, seriously! Brandonoxymoron (talk) 10:36, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:37, 5 June 2025 review of submission by Praveenpmanappattu

[edit]

Pls tell me which part must be removed Praveenpmanappattu (talk) 10:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish in reliable publications, and very little else.
If you tell us what the subject or their associates say or want to say, it is likely to sound like an ad. ColinFine (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:39, 5 June 2025 review of submission by DJSasha Dave

[edit]

I have just updated Dj Sasha's page with his management and have verified the information with the artist himself but the update has been declined. We wanted to give people an up to date page to go to?!? DJSasha Dave (talk) 10:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DJSasha Dave If you are not DJ Sasha Dave, you must change your username immediately via Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS.
Our articles are typically written without any involvement from, or even the knowledge of, the subject. It isn't required to verify information with the subject/their representatives.
This page is to ask about drafts in the draft process; you're asking about an existing article, you should use the more general Help Desk. 331dot (talk) 10:45, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You submitted a draft via your sandbox; you should instead be proposing incremental changes via edit requests on Talk:Sasha (DJ). You can also use the edit request wizard to facilitate the process. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I declined User:DJSasha Dave/sandbox, I must admit I didn't even realise there was an existing article at Sasha (DJ). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @DJSasha Dave. 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) 16:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:44, 5 June 2025 review of submission by Shadman Islam 007

[edit]

My article submission was rejected unfortunately . If you give me an opportunity to resubmit article further , i will edit it correctly with more sentences aligned with wiki page process Shadman Islam 007 (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean Draft:Shadman Islam. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves, please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 11:47, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:55, 5 June 2025 review of submission by Reena.rex

[edit]

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia. Could you please explain what type of references are acceptable? I have some genuine and government-issued references that I would like to use Reena.rex (talk) 11:55, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Answered below. S0091 (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:01, 5 June 2025 review of submission by Reena.rex

[edit]

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia. Could you please explain what type of references are acceptable? I have some genuine and government-issued references that I would like to use. Reena.rex (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Reena.rex government sources are usually fine to use for verifiability but the do not help with establishing notability because they are primary sources. See Your first article for additional guidance. S0091 (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Reena.rex. 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) 16:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:32, 5 June 2025 review of submission by Folabiomath

[edit]

Hello, Good day. I just wanted to know the update about the page. All queries have been addressed. Folabiomath (talk) 12:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have not yet resubmitted it. 331dot (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:57, 5 June 2025 review of submission by Brandonoxymoron

[edit]

Resubmitted message due to typo: Hey folks, I have an article that I am seriously struggling with as it's been denied twice now. Was just wondering if any experienced wiki users could take a brief skin through my sited sources and references and let me know if they're credible enough or what I could be missing. All feedback is much appreciated. Brandonoxymoron (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your duplicate posting; if you make a typo you can open the edit window for this section and edit your typo instead of making a new duplicative thread. It's not even necessary to, perfect spelling is not expected on talk pages.
You have not established that he is a notable person, you have just summarized his employment. Is he particularly influential as a broadcaster according to independent sources? 331dot (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:44, 5 June 2025 review of submission by Aoneko78

[edit]

I'm having trrouble understanding why the Broward-Palm Beach New Times citations aren't sufficient for this page? Both these articles significantly address the poet and are independent of him (and me). Is it that still more citations are needed? What is the threshold for number of citations in order to get this approved? Aoneko78 (talk) 13:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a connection with Mr. Heath beyond taking his picture?
It's difficult to evaluate the source as it is not online, though offline sources are permitted.
There is not a specific number of citations required, but to pass this process reviewers usually look for at least 3. 331dot (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:25, 5 June 2025 review of submission by Gdoron

[edit]

Dear helpdesk,

I've submitted an article about ocd.app, a mobile health application developed by GGtude Ltd. for the treatment and mental health issues.

The app's efficacy is supported by a strong body of peer-reviewed research:

The platform has been supported by 18 peer-reviewed studies conducted across the world including 12 published randomized controlled trials (RCTs), as cited in the references section. Research includes samples from clinical populations, subclinical groups, and university students, supporting broad generalizability. In addition to symptom reduction, studies demonstrated increases in resilience to psychological triggers. Results have been published in reputable journals such as Behaviour Research and Therapy, Journal of Affective Disorders, British Journal of Clinical Psychology, and Scientific Reports.

Every effort has been made to ensure the draft maintains a neutral point of view, complies with Wikipedia's notability and verifiability guidelines, and references reliable independent sources.

Disclosure: I, Professor Guy Doron, co-founder of GGtude Ltd., am the original author of this article. I acknowledge a conflict of interest regarding the subject matter and have strived to adhere to Wikipedia’s neutrality, reliable sourcing, and conflict of interest guidelines throughout the drafting process. Gdoron (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're not asking a question, what help are you seeking? 331dot (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gdoron: Read WP:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Your draft is not in compliance with that guideline (every medical claim needs to be sourced to a peer-reviewed journal article that corroborates it), and this is before getting into the draft being a blatant advertizement for the app. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 08:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The contribution has been studied thoroughly and has 18 peer-reviewed studies conducted across the world including 12 published randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Thus, has significant research backing. My question is How can I revise the submission for it to be acceptable for submission? Gdoron (talk) 11:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:13, 5 June 2025 review of submission by 197.239.13.225

[edit]

Hello, I’ve just submitted an article titled “Draft:DJ Bush Baby” related to a breaking event. It’s properly sourced and neutral. Requesting quick review due to its time-sensitive nature. Thank you! 197.239.13.225 (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

197.239.13.225, I think that WP:BLP1E, WP:N and WP:RS are the matter here. Multiple sources about just one thing doesn't make it notable. — 🦅White-tailed eagleTalk to the eagleStalking eagle 16:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:01, 5 June 2025 review of submission by StrategicMaverick

[edit]

I had a draft in my sandbox that was declined re: Jeffrey Brian Oddo. I have revised under the original submission (also in my sandbox) and would appreciate some direction on how to resubmit for review. Thank you very much. StrategicMaverick (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @StrategicMaverick. I'm afraid that User:StrategicMaverick/sandbox looks nothing ike a Wikipedia article. I can see no evidence that it has ever been submitted and declined.
A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have c
chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else. In particular, 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.
First find the sources, remembering to exclude any thing written, published, commissioned, or based on the words of, the subject or their associates.
Then forget everything that you personally know about the subject, and write a neutral summary of what those independent reliable sources say.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:24, 5 June 2025 review of submission by Gabriel Pardo Lelo de Larrea

[edit]

Just wanted to know if my article has been properly submitted for review and approval? Gabriel Pardo Lelo de Larrea (talk) 20:24, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit history indicates no edits other than this one. If you created the draft before your account, you need to provide the full title(including the "Draft:" portion) so we can find it. 331dot (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Gabriel Pardo Lelo de Larrea.
I'm guessting that you are referring to the draft Draft:RIDER Litigation Finance, which was create by an IP user a couple of weeks ago.
The draft has not been submitted for review. You could do so by picking the blue button; but there is no point in doing so because the draft has zero chance of being accepted in its present form, as it cites no sources.
A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else.
The draft appears to be your personal account of a company you founded.
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.
Furthermore, you are discouraged (though not forbidden) from creating an article on a subject where you have a conflict of interest. (In fact, if you are the CEO, Wikipedia regards you as a paid editor, and the restriction are even tighter.
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) 21:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:36, 5 June 2025 review of submission by Lijil

[edit]
Since this is the wrong venue may I suggest this be continues the requestor's user talk page? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:17, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Newbie AfC reviewer - didn't notice username was same as subject of entry I'm a brand new AfC reviewer and I just declined Draft:Ariel_Arellano as the subject's not notable. But I forgot to check the user name, and I see the user who created the draft has the same name as the person the profile is about. I know that's not OK, and I should have mentioned that in my reason for declining the page - but I don't see specific instructions about it in the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Reviewing_instructions. What is the correct way to deal with this? Lijil (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lijil Not really the correct venue. WT:AFC is better.
It all hinges on notability. If notable and shown to be notable, accept and tag post acceptance as an autobiography.
If not notable it is polite to decline just in case the subject might be shown to be notable, but a couple of iterations down the line and no notability I tend to reject. WP:BITE we sometimes miss by accident. Try to leave a pleasant AFC comment of encouragement. Howevwer I will suggest speedy deletion as a blatant advert id it is a blatant advert
In either case I like to welcome the new editor with a suitable welcome message. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:49, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lijil I've left a comment on your talk page. Yes, I know you know that, but I thin any either discussion might continue there. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:16, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

22:59, 5 June 2025 review of submission by THEMATTHEWZACHARY

[edit]

Requesting expedited review – Matthew Zachary draft

[edit]

Hi there—I've submitted my sandbox draft of User:THEMATTHEWZACHARY/sandbox for review. The subject meets general notability guidelines with independent coverage in Newsweek, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and CBS Evening News. The article has been written to match tone, structure, and sourcing requirements. Would appreciate a look when time allows. Thank you! THEMATTHEWZACHARY (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have submitted it for a review and it is pending. As noted on the draft, "This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 1,624 pending submissions waiting for review."
I might suggest that you read the autobiography policy; while not forbidden, writing about yourself is highly discouraged. A Wikipedia article isn't for the person to tell about themselves, it's to summarize what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about them, showing how they are a notable person. 331dot (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way to guarantee a speedy review. Wikipedia has no deadlines, and is not bound by any deadlines its editors might be under. Aside from writing about yourself, what is your need for a speedy review? 331dot (talk) 23:06, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note. To clarify: yes, I am Matthew Zachary.
I understand the guidelines regarding autobiographies. This draft was written with the intent of following Wikipedia's neutrality and notability standards. It is fully sourced with independent, reliable coverage in Newsweek, People, SurvivorNet, and CancerConnect—with significant depth and coverage of my work. I’ve also added supplemental references from the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal.
I’m not seeking any special treatment, only asking that someone review the draft on the merits of notability and sourcing, per WP:GNG and WP:BIO.
Happy to wait in the queue if needed. Just wanted to flag the updates and confirm that the latest version was compliant and worthy of reconsideration.
Thank you. THEMATTHEWZACHARY (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew THEMATTHEWZACHARY (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I’ve updated my draft at User:THEMATTHEWZACHARY/sandbox with new references that show significant coverage in Newsweek, People, SurvivorNet, and CancerConnect, along with supporting mentions in The New York Times and Wall Street Journal. The subject is the founder of Stupid Cancer and a well-known patient advocate and podcast host.

Would appreciate a look when time allows. Thank you!

MZ THEMATTHEWZACHARY (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

THEMATTHEWZACHARY Please edit this existing thread, instead of creating additional threads. Please clarify if you are Mr Zachary or a representative. 331dot (talk) 23:15, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:52, 5 June 2025 review of submission by Empress-of-angels

[edit]

Why was this taken down Totally at a loss why this was removed John Turman (writer). It had an over a dozen citations including Variety & Hollywood Reporter and x-linked to other wiki articles. Ideally I would like to have it as a disambiguation and not (writer). Empress-of-angels (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Empress-of-angels I fixed your header so it did not link to an article called "Why was this taken down". The whole url is not needed when linking.
I'm not sure to what you are referring; the article has not been taken down. This page is to ask about drafts in the draft process; questions about articles should go to the more general Help Desk. 331dot (talk) 00:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 6

[edit]

00:15, 6 June 2025 review of submission by Ashleyashville

[edit]

Hello editors,

I am a paid editor acting on behalf of Matthew Lani’s PR team, and I’ve disclosed my COI on my user page per Wikipedia’s paid editing policy.

The draft article Draft:Matthew Lani was mistakenly moved to mainspace earlier, where it was indexed by Google and viewed by the public. It was later moved back to Draft.

Given that Matthew Lani is a notable South African public figure (verified by multiple independent, reliable sources), and because the article had already been made publicly accessible, I kindly request that this draft be reviewed at your earliest convenience.

I will not make further changes without review by a neutral editor. Thank you for your time and consideration. Ashleyashville (talk) 00:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have submitted the draft for review and it is pending. There is no way to guarantee a speedy review, and Wikipedia has no deadlines. In that respect we don't care if he's a public figure- every article or draft is treated the same.
All articles and pages on Wikipedia are public(though some are harder to find than others). 331dot (talk) 07:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please don't ask the same question in multiple places (here, on my talk page, on Onel5969's, and apparently also at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Africa). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:53, 6 June 2025 review of submission by 47.247.54.210

[edit]

kindly review and Update 47.247.54.210 (talk) 06:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no draft or article by the title "Geed Dathera Wala", and your IPs edit history indicates no edits to such an article or draft, though you did edit Talk:Geed Dathera Wala. Drafts are created via the Article Wizard; IP users cannot directly create articles. 331dot (talk) 07:48, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:37, 6 June 2025 review of submission by Nlindstrom02

[edit]

Hi there, I’m looking for guidance on improving my draft article about EUTOPIA, a European university alliance. The submission has been declined due to concerns about insufficient independent secondary sources.

However, EUTOPIA is primarily written about by its own members and partners, so it’s extremely difficult to find traditional press coverage that is both independent and in-depth. I’ve looked carefully for alternatives, but even large-scale EU-funded initiatives like this one don’t receive much third-party media attention. I also reviewed a similar page—Una Europa—which is already published. It appears to rely heavily on primary and partner university sources, with fewer secondary references than I’ve managed to gather. I’m not trying to challenge editorial policy—I just want to understand how to move forward. What can I do to make this draft meet Wikipedia’s notability standards, given the nature of the topic? Nlindstrom02 (talk) 08:37, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nlindstrom02: I'm afraid there is no exception to the requirement for coverage in independent and reliable secondary sources.
If you have found other articles which also fail our notability requirements, you're very welcome to either improve them, flag them up for improvement using maintenance tags, or commence deletion proceedings, as may be relevant. Some of these may pre-date our current guidelines, others have simply slipped through the net; either way, we should not be creating more such non-compliant articles. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:16, 6 June 2025 review of submission by Arshiya Farooqui 10

[edit]

Whay my article is not getting public 

Arshiya Farooqui 10 (talk) 09:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Arshiya Farooqui 10: it's not an article, it's a blank page, which has now been rejected to prevent you resubmitting it again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You do seem to have a lot of content on your userpage User:Arshiya Farooqui 10, though – is that what you meant to submit? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Arshiya Farooqui 10 It appears you wanted to submit the content in your userpage instead of your sandbox, which is not recomendable as your userpage is intended to be your private space. I suggest you move that content into a draft, which can be easily done here. I also suggest you add reliable and independent sources and citations before you submit it for review, otherwise it will be quickly declined. NeoGaze (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:09, 6 June 2025 review of submission by Sunhighway27

[edit]

I can't make this article more notible Sunhighway27 (talk) 12:09, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's why it was rejected, it's the end of the line. 331dot (talk) 12:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
don't try to start conflict Sunny's Highway 27 12:34, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sunhighway27 If you can't find more sources, then the best course of action is to wait until it gets more coverage, and thus gains more notability. NeoGaze (talk) 12:37, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thank you Sunhighway27 (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:37, 6 June 2025 review of submission by 174.85.13.135

[edit]

Hello! I wanted to reach out to see what we can do to become compliant with in the sites rules and not be rejected 174.85.13.135 (talk) 13:37, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can do what the reviewers have asked. 331dot (talk) 14:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:42, 6 June 2025 review of submission by Mariodocekal

[edit]

Hello,

I've recently reviewed the feedback we received and rewritten the article to ensure it's objective and free of any promotional content. If there are still any issues that don't comply with Wikipedia guidelines, could you please let me know how to address them?

Thank you very much. Best Regards,

Mario Docekal Mariodocekal (talk) 13:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is still a blatant advertisement. It has also been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further.
Please put a paid disclosure on your userpage as well. Please see WP:BOSS, and have your superiors read it, too. 331dot (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:21, 6 June 2025 review of submission by 106.51.1.230

[edit]

Please help me to publish this articles and make this publish 106.51.1.230 (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, it's the end of the line. 331dot (talk) 14:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:50, 6 June 2025 review of submission by Xlilix12

[edit]

I would like to know where I should add references for my draft and what references are not sufficient. Thank you so much for your help and best wishes, Xlilix12 Xlilix12 (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Xlilix12 To satisfy Wikipedia's definition for a notable organization, the draft should summarize what reliable sources that are independent of SEED Madagascar and any of its partners have said about the organization. Your draft has no sources that discuss SEED Madagascar besides its own website, which is not an independent source. Government documents show that the organization exists but they are primary sources and do not help establish notability.
You should also read the conflict of interest notice on your talk page; please describe your connection to SEED Madagascar if you have one. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, great, thank you so much for your help. I will do that! Xlilix12 (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:54, 6 June 2025 review of submission by Zoia222

[edit]

Few days ago my submission on the article about Draft:Passat Ltd company was declined by you (3rd time) because of references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. I've already edited references as much as I could. So, please, explain to me why they are not qualified, because, from my perspective, a few of them definitely meet those 4 criteria that are set up for Wikipedia articles: in-depth, reliable, secondary, strictly independent of the subject.

1) "Global Diode-pumped Solid-state Laser (DPSSL) Market Competitive Landscape 2025-2032". www.statsndata.org. Retrieved 2025-05-16.

This article is a detailed market intelligence report offering data, trends, and strategic insights into the DPSS Lasers industry's current state and future outlook. In-depth

The website Stats N Data (statsndata.org) is a market‐research provider based in Pune, India, offering syndicated and custom research reports across industries. Reliable and Independent

The Stats N Data report mentions Passat Ltd. as one of the key players in the Diode‑Pumped Solid‑State Laser (DPSSL) industry. Secondary

Same with others:

2) # "Global Subnanosecond Lasers Market Insights - Industry Share, Sales Projections, and Demand Outlook 2024-2030". qyresearch.in. Retrieved 2025-05-16.

The article is a comprehensive analytical report offering detailed insights, data projections, segmentation, and competitive analysis for the global sub-nanosecond laser market through 2030. QYResearch is a well-known market research firm based in China, with a global presence. In this article, Passat Ltd. is listed among the major global manufacturers of sub-nanosecond lasers, alongside Photonics Industries, QS LASERS, Geola, ALPHALAS GmbH, InnoLas, Coherent, and others.

3) "Unveiling Faraday Rotators and Isolators Growth Patterns: CAGR Analysis and Forecasts 2025-2033".

The report provides a detailed breakdown of the global Faraday rotators and isolators market—its current size, growth dynamics, key segments, regional drivers, innovation trends, and top competitors—offering strategic insights into a vital component of modern laser and optical communication systems. Data Insights Market is a reputable provider of specialized market research reports, offering detailed and up-to-date analyses across emerging technology sectors, trusted by industry professionals for strategic insights and market trends. The Data Insights Market report on Faraday rotators and isolators includes Passat Ltd. among the key players in the global market.

4) Boucher, Marc (2009-11-12). "Details of Canadian Space Agency Research and Development Contracts Released". SpaceQ Media Inc. Retrieved 2025-05-16.

The article from SpaceQ Media provides a detailed overview of the Canadian Space Agency's (CSA) recent research and development contracts awarded under the Space Technology Development Program (STDP). These contracts, totaling $8 million, were distributed among 15 Canadian companies to advance various space technologies. Among the recipients is Passat Ltd., a Toronto-based company, which was awarded a contract valued at $200,000. SpaceQ is a respected and independent news outlet in the aerospace community—particularly strong on Canadian space policy, R&D, and commercial activity. You can rely on it for factual and well-researched information.

Overall, I have more then a few references with independent, reliable, secondary and in-depth sources. Therefore, I want to know what exactly, in your opinion doesn't meet the required criteria? Zoia222 (talk) 15:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Zoia222. From your description above, all the above sources simply mention Passat in passing. A hundred or a thousand sources that mention the company in passing do not add up to a single source which contains in depth discussion of it. Please evaluate your sources against all three criteria in WP:golden rule. ColinFine (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:14, 6 June 2025 review of submission by Aliu Salau

[edit]

Rjected article Draft:Remi Aluko Remi Aluko is actually a notable and popular Fuji musician, no single Fuji music Fans all over the world that doesn't know Remi Aluko, and I included all possible and credible sources which includes aljazeera and top news channels in Nigeria . i followed all Wikipedia guidelines, sincerely i dont know why its rejected. Infact he has an active Wikipedia article published in yoruba language Wikipedia. kindly relook into it and include advice to improve the article. Aliu Salau (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being popular is not a criterion for notability on Wikipedia. Wikipedia defines "notability" in specific ways: a musician needs to meet these criteria. Looking at the draft, I see that there are several sources that should not be used, such as fujinaija.ng, Apple Music, ameboonline.com, and South Asian Research Journal of Arts Language and Literature (a predatory journal). Multiple reviewers have come to the same conclusion; in addition, the text looks like it has been generated by an AI. Different Wikipedia versions have different guidelines for inclusion, so the fact that Wikipedia in another language includes an article about him doesn't affect his notability as far as English Wikipedia is concerned. --bonadea contributions talk 17:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:47, 6 June 2025 review of submission by Arabmaestro586

[edit]

Hello, I was hoping you can help me, I am a little confused. This is the second decline for this submission and the comments are the same. I thought I had already changed the submission to stay away from peacock terms and write in a encyclopedic manner. What am I missing? How can I get this article to come through on Wikipedia? Arabmaestro586 (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Arabmaestro586 From my oerspective you have written a good magazine article. There is narrative and flow. Frmo Wikipedia's perspective what is needed is flat, neutral, dull-but-worthy prose. the distinction can be subtle.
I'd like to see better referencing to prove that the musician passes WP:NMUSICIAN, which I see as taking priority over tone. Tone can be handled post acceptance, whereas notability if a gating factor. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:19, 6 June 2025 review of submission by SpainMMAfan123

[edit]

The reviewer who reviewed my article literally admited he guessed that my article was made with AI I really don't care about the other articles the only ones I care about is this one and the leonardo perdomo one [1] SpainMMAfan123 (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SpainMMAfan123 My checks suggest strongly that is is LLM generated. We care when an article is generated thus because accuracy is often limited ad references are often hallucinated. However, you came here to ask a question. Instead you have made a statement. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
what "Checks" and really "is" is" not to be rude but next time could you stop the personal attacks? and I came here to ask if they had any proof that it is. SpainMMAfan123 (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And, there is not one thing that is not true in my draft I would appreciate it if you gave me examples of something not factually correct in my draft. Instead of being passive aggressive you could actually help me. SpainMMAfan123 (talk) 19:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SpainMMAfan123 Checks exist. We are certainly here to help you. Now you have moved to unpleasantness I will allow someone else to assist you. I have made a free choice not to do so. I have not made any attack on you; I have not done that, I do not do that and I will not do that. I admit to a typo. Im sorry that appears to offend you. Typos happen.
There is one piece of advice I will give you. To edit here successfully and enjoyably you sometimes need the hide of a rhinoceros. You may find it useful to develop one 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:47, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"And, there is not one thing that is not true in my draft I would appreciate it if you gave me examples of something not factually correct in my draft. Instead of being passive aggressive you could actually help me". SpainMMAfan123 (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SpainMMAfan123 Please pull your horns in. I find conversation with you to be not to my taste. As I have told you, I will leave this to someone else. To be crystal clear, no, I will not help you. Someone else will. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:55, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm waiting for the other person SpainMMAfan123 (talk) 19:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SpainMMAfan123 @Timtrent I just have checked the draft and it doesn't appear to have been created with an AI. Text is correctly supported by inline citations, references themselves are legit and no "hallucination" is present. More sources would be welcome, but otherwise I don't see any major problem with the draft. I also would suggest to SpainMMAfan123 (with all respect of course) more tact and diplomacy next time when bringing issues to discussion. NeoGaze (talk) 21:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gracias señor (Thank you sir) SpainMMAfan123 (talk) 21:29, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also could you check the Leonardo Perdomo one? SpainMMAfan123 (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SpainMMAfan123 Just checked it and the subject doesn't appear to be notable enough. Most of the sources are statistics (which do not show notability) and there are other issues such as broken links and overall messy structure. The section "Weigh-In Brawl" is overly emotional and subjective in its writting, not being neutral enough. This part also actually resembles AI generated text, which is no good. It needs substantial improvement (and proof of notability through secondary, reliable and independent sources) before it gets accepted. Hope my comment helps. ¡Saludos! NeoGaze (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
👍Gracias amigo I needed help im new to wikipedia and this people they just undo my edits without helping me., you are a good person, Saludos! SpainMMAfan123 (talk) 06:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ay si asere tu eres de españa para q estoy diciendo "(Thank you sir)" si como fueras de la Yuma SpainMMAfan123 (talk) 06:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 7

[edit]

03:53, 7 June 2025 review of submission by Hairmer

[edit]

I understand that the draft was declined due to concerns regarding the lack of reliable sources. However, I’d like to respectfully point out that if the subject meets the notability guideline for academics WP:NACADEMIC, the quantity of independent sources becomes less critical. In this case, the subject clearly meets the criteria.

Specifically, Criterion 1 states:

“The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates.”

According to Google Scholar, the subject has over 9,000 citations and an h-index of 47, which I believe clearly satisfies this threshold.

The reviewer also mentioned that the article reads as promotional. I’m very willing to revise the tone and address any such issues. Could you please point out the specific sections or language that you found promotional, so I can revise appropriately and resubmit in line with Wikipedia’s standards? I just want to make sure I do exactly as needed, so some instructions would be appreciated.

Thank you for your time and guidance. Hairmer (talk) 03:53, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hairmer I just checked the draft and indeed it appears the subject of the draft is notable enough for an academic. Perhaps @Astra Travasso made a mistake of judgement, no one is infallible after all! About the promotional tone, I suppose the following line could be interpreted as promotional: "His published work includes around 200 articles and 9 books. He has been cited close to 9,000 times according to Google Scholar." NeoGaze (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NeoGaze I have removed the promotional lines you just mentioned. Would you mind to please review the page? Hairmer (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I think it will be better if another person reviews it. NeoGaze (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:34, 7 June 2025 review of submission by BeyonceKnowlesFan123473

[edit]

Article declined I would like to know why my article was declined. It’s quite literally a biography for Beyoncé's fanbase 'Beyhive', the article introduces what the fanbase is and is divided into multiple parts. The article was inspired by the Swifties article. If Swifties article was accepted why can’t Beyhive be accepted? It seems like I’ve worked so hard on this for no reason. BeyonceKnowlesFan123473 (talk) 07:34, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Beyhive
@BeyonceKnowlesFan123473: I don't know whether the "Swifties article" was ever accepted, or published through other means, but in any case we don't assess drafts by comparison to existing articles, but by reference to the applicable guidelines and policies which every new article must comply with.
This draft was declined for the reason given in the decline notice, tone which is not neutral and/or factual. I can also add that it is insufficiently referenced, with several unsupported passages, and some of the sources are of poor quality. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing: I can tell you it wasn't - it was created by hijacking a redirect and there was some back-and-forth initially about whether the article should stay or not. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:30, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was so weird and untrue BeyonceKnowlesFan123473 (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BeyonceKnowlesFan123473: As for the draft, refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
The main problem I see is that so few of these sources actually discuss the fanbase, and those that do are greatly outnumbered to the point the chaff is choking the wheat. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s about the Beyhive and has parts of Beyoncé. BeyonceKnowlesFan123473 (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which doesn't address anything I've just written. I invite you to read my critiques just above. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Accept my article I worked too hard on it. BeyonceKnowlesFan123473 (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BeyonceKnowlesFan123473: That has nothing to do with whether the draft shows any notability. Have you read Jéské Couriano's comments on each of your sources? --bonadea contributions talk 09:03, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:41, 7 June 2025 review of submission by Kopibacolod

[edit]

Dear Wikipedia review team,

Thank you for your feedback.

I do wish to explain that the links shared on the entry are more than passing mentions, as Michael provides detailed insight to viewers, and his quotes are long and deeply relevant to the subjects. He also has just won a Forbes Award again (now on 8th year). If you could provide more advice to get his page published, it would be most appreciated. 

Kopibacolod (talk) 07:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kopibacolod: by "his quotes" you mean Landsberg commenting on things, I take it? We have no interest in what the subject says or writes or comments on, that has no bearing on his notability. We want almost exclusively to see what independent and reliable third parties, mostly secondary sources, have said about him and what makes him worthy of note.
The other sources cited in this draft are also primary, and likewise do not contribute towards notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:12, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:19, 7 June 2025 review of submission by Lexus marks

[edit]
User blocked as a sockpuppet and draft deleted. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have used all reliable sources like repaper news website but still saying not sufficient, kindly help me out,i will put some more references in future but help me out with this aarticle. Lexus marks (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have made it factual and neutral from reliable sources as cited, please you can you pass through again. Lexus marks (talk) 11:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note to others persistent sock see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joanvumilia/Archive KylieTastic (talk) 11:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

11:45, 7 June 2025 review of submission by Lexus marks

[edit]
User blocked as a sockpuppet and draft deleted. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The page is notable and i think am among the editors who have created it foe the first time but they are saying my account was banned yet the persons who tried to create it are different,plese i nedd your help. not that every person who will create this oage is banned. Lexus marks (talk) 11:45, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

regardless of any sock puppetry, the draft was rejected it will not be considered further. Theroadislong (talk) 11:49, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

12:33, 7 June 2025 review of submission by EditMarathiwiki

[edit]

webseries Rudra and Mai opposite Ajay Devgn and Raima Sen. And I provided all direct source where there is written information about actor not a passing credit. And its a humble request please do refer this draft article to indian reviewer for approval beacuse the article and sources i provided is reliable,primarily and Independent. EditMarathiwiki (talk) 12:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The nationality of the reviewer has no relevance to whether the draft is accepted or not. Theroadislong (talk) 12:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EditMarathiwiki: Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
None of your sources are any good. All an Indian editor would do is decline it faster. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:27, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added his interview article in Well known and reputed Maharashtra news portals, And according to you these news portal are not worthy so what type of editorial source will be accepted by wikipedia reviewer? To prove his eligibility? please let me know !
and another thing you are saying “ Most of the information about him comes from direct ” so if the news portal interviewer ask questions about his project so they obviously says that the actor said ..! right ?
so let me know what should i do to get approval for this article ?
beacuse this is my first article on Wikipedia and genuinely want to contribute to Wikipedia.
another thing i have not paid for this article still i get remarked that you might be paid for this article still! But i am not .. i am in learning phase why should anyone pay me for my first article of living person.
So how should i told to Wikipedia team that i havent paid for this article or any edits which i made on Wikipedia! EditMarathiwiki (talk) 07:56, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are by definition not independent sources, because they are the person speaking about themselves. Interviews can be used for some purposes, but not to establish notability. That requires independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this man, given by the sources alone not based on materials from this man or his associates.
If you're not paid, then just say so. But the reason people think that you are is that you have a strong personal investment in this subject, I'm fairly sure the only subject you have edited about since you created your account in 2022. Do you have any form of connection with this man? 331dot (talk) 08:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i suggest many small edits in others notable persons too, I seen Kulkarni’s work in television,movies, Marathi theatre,webseries and follow his work since 2019 though he didnt know me personally but that is not the point. I just feel good genuine and hardworking artist must have Wikipedia article because they deserve. EditMarathiwiki (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:16, 7 June 2025 review of submission by Lifestory.ghostwriter

[edit]

the person's profile is a high profile person in Indonesia. why is it difficult to make it? he is the Chairman of a major sports organization. meanwhile the sport organization is well mentioned on wikipedia Lifestory.ghostwriter (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lifestory.ghostwriter Your username suggests you are a paid editor or have a conflict of interest; please see WP:PAID and WP:COI. Disclosure of a paid relationship(which is not limited to specific payment for editing) is a Terms of Use requirement.
We don't have "profiles" here, not a single one. We have articles that summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about people that meet our criteria for notability- such as a notable academic. 331dot (talk) 13:26, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:21, 7 June 2025 review of submission by TheGoofWasHere

[edit]

Sources seem reliable. Yahoo, The Guardian, People, CNN are all rated green on the RSP. And the Cleveland Clinic is a renowned medical center with good reviews. I don't see any problems with the reliability or depth of the sources TheGoofWasHere (talk) 13:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources themselves are not the problem, but their content. They do not show how the topic is notable as Wikipedia uses the word. 331dot (talk) 13:22, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stop being vague, dude. Are they secondary or no? TheGoofWasHere (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TheGoofWasHere From what I'm reading, the draft focuses on a social media trend, which by their very nature, quickly come and go. The issue is not the sources but the notability of the subject itself.
The trend may be popular right now, and thus have coverage, but that doesn't make it notable. I quote "Within Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic warrants its own article. The topic of an article should be notable, or 'worthy of notice'; that is, 'significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded'. Notable in the sense of being 'famous', or 'popular'—although not irrelevant—is secondary."
If this sad beige aesthetic has a lasting influence or effect that is covered in detail through reliable sources, then I think it would be notable enough for a wikipedia article, but as of now that is not the case unless you have those sources. Also the reply of @331dot was perfectly fine, so please don't reply in a hostile way. NeoGaze (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend you check the dates of the citations provided in the "sad beige" draft. Coverage spans from 2022, 2024, and 2025. Most Internet fads only last a week, or a month if they're lucky. TheGoofWasHere (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good start, but this aesthetic has not had a significant impact or coverage, thus is not yet notable. It may have in the future or not, but that is not up to us to decide. For a useful comparison, the article you created, 100 men versus a gorilla, has significant coverage by multiple sources, thus giving it enough notability for a wikipedia article, that is not the case for "Sad Beige". NeoGaze (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TheGoofWasHere not a good idea to get snippy with those answering at the helpdesk. To answer your question, they are both primary and secondary. The portions with the social media folks involved with "sad beige" commenting are primary (i.e. Powell, DeRoche, etc.). The portions with experts or the author of the article writing about it in their own words are secondary (their own analysis, research, etc.). The Guardian piece I think is ok. There is no named author for the Cleveland Clinic article so leans weak for reliability and some others are largely based on what those involved say. The CNN has a bit of expert opinion. I also did a brief search and I think there might be enough coverage meeting the criteria for it to meet notability but I don't have time to dig into it today. S0091 (talk) 16:11, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:31, 7 June 2025 review of submission by Pultu

[edit]
Advertising is not permitted anywhere on Wikipedia 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 18:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Shankit E Solution started as a small Kolkata-based company in 2016. This company was founded by Sibsankar Mandal in 2016 under the name Sibsankar Mandal. But on June 22, 2022, the company revealed itself under the name of Shankit E Solution. The company initially operated as a manpower provider in Kolkata. But the company now provides manpower all over India. In addition, the company provides IT and Courier services here. Pultu (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pultu Do not seek to advertise this here. This is not the place. The draft has been jejected and I am about to close, potentially delete, this advert. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 18:19, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

17:39, 7 June 2025 review of submission by Jean Khalife

[edit]

Since Jean Khalifé activity was between 1947 and 1978, it is impossible to find digital text and articles narrating these past events, how can i add reliable sources if most of them are scanned articles from news papers and magazines? Jean Khalife (talk) 17:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jean Khalife: By citing those papers and magazines using {{cite news}} and {{cite magazine}}. We accept offline sources. What we don't accept are scans of those offline sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:02, 7 June 2025 review of submission by Anish Prasad Niraula

[edit]

i reupload my knowledge and information about that and submit but cannot get any response Anish Prasad Niraula (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anish Prasad Niraula I am not sure what you wish to achieve. Sandakpur Rural Municipality exists as an article. Draft:Sandakpur Rural municipality may provide an expansion, but we do not do ths as a draft. Instead you edit the real article, provding well referenced information, please.
The draft is not submitted. It has been decline previously 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 18:11, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Anish Prasad Niraula However, since you have declared your conflicts of interest, please read WP:COI whcih helps you learn how to request edits to an existing article with whcih you have a COI 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 18:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:37, 7 June 2025 review of submission by Anuhiphopnation

[edit]

Hi I originally generated my article entry from chat gpt, wiki says do it in a more neutral tone and an encyclopedia format. for me to rewrite it, can I please have the tools to learn and understand the proper encyclopedia format Anuhiphopnation (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Anuhiphopnation. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Anuhiphopnation I recommend you check this guide, if you need more help or want more specific feedback, we can discuss the draft on my talk page. NeoGaze (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Anuhiphopnation: Don't use ChatGPT to generate any text or references. Begin by finding several reliable, independent sources that talk about the subject in some detail. Then summarise the information from the sources in your own words. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 08:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:13, 7 June 2025 review of submission by CaptainKarthick

[edit]

recently i tried to publish an article , it got declined due to some reference issue. KGiSL Institute of Technology - Wikipedia", actually i have referenced this page, this article only consist of two references, same like, i have added the trust and government official site where our entire educational institute details can be viewed. What kind of reference have to add apart from this , if you go to the reference site and enter the details, our entire school details can be viewed. can you identify and help me on this. Im new to Wikipedia, I have added same reference just like the other article, what my article is different. Could you please clarify on this and help me to get it resolved CaptainKarthick (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainKarthick If you take a closer look at the decline reason, you will see that the main reason is that the institution is not notable enough. To make it simple, a topic is notable after receiving substantial coverage from independent and reliable sources. Of the two sources currently present on the draft, the first has no info on the school, and the second comes from the school itself, which is not independent and should be avoided if there is a better alternative. I hope this helps. NeoGaze (talk) 21:22, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @CaptainKarthick, unfortunately the article KGiSL Institute of Technology is a poor article to use as a model. It was created over 10 years ago at a time when our inclusion criteria for schools were much looser than they are today. See also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; the existence of poor articles does not mean that more inappropriate articles should be added. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:42, 7 June 2025 review of submission by 24.228.49.181

[edit]

I am the author of the publications. All are in the public domain. I am founder and President of the Mega-Cities Project. The website is mine, written in my words. Please advise next step for re-submission I had 2 graduate student interns helping me as I was under the impression that I could not submit on my own behalf. 24.228.49.181 (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are not forbidden from submitting yourself, but you would need to disclose a conflict of interest- your interns will need to disclose as paid editors per WP:PAID(interns count as paid editors even if they receive no money, because the experience of the work is the "payment").
Any article about you shouldn't just list your work and accomplishments; it should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how you meet the definition of a notable person broadly or a more narrow definition like a notable author. 331dot (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:00, 7 June 2025 review of submission by NoahsRebels

[edit]

I was hoping to get some clarification about my article's lack of sources. The state of Jie is, as far as I know, only mentioned in one section of the Zuozhuan. I don't believe there are any other sources to pull information from. If that in itself means this state is too inadequate to deserve its own Wikipedia page, I understand, although there are quite a few other pages on ancient Chinese states which site only the Zuozhuan, so I didn't think it'd be an issue. NoahsRebels (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NoahsRebels If there are no more substantial sources to add to the article, then indeed it doesn't appear the topic of this draft is notable enough yet, although it may get more coverage on the future. Another editor may argue that its enough for a stub though, but I don't think that is the case here. Also, each Wikipedia has different set of standards and rules, so you shouldn't assume just because there is an article on a subject in one wikipedia, it should be added onto the rest. For what is acceptable for the Spanish or Chinese wikipedias, it may not be on the English wikipedia (and vice versa). NeoGaze (talk) 08:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that there are a number of English Wikipedia articles on ancient Chinese states that are about the same length of my article, with the same level of sourcing, but I imagine all of these were created at least a decade ago when the rules were perhaps different. Some examples include Xing, Guan, and Lü. (Not arguing that it should be changed, just explaining my reasoning). I thus instead added a link to the Chinese page for Jie on the list of Zhou dynasty states. NoahsRebels (talk) 08:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those articles you bring as an example were created over ten years ago, when the standards of the English wikipedia were generally much laxer on notability. That is no longer the case, multiple sources should be provided. Also as @DoubleGrazing has noted, a whole section is unreferenced. NeoGaze (talk) 08:57, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One of those articles was already tagged for insufficient referencing, and I've now tagged the other two also. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:59, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@NoahsRebels: yes, this is a tricky situation. A core requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia is verfiability, ie. that information must be backed up by, indeed based on, reliable published sources. And those sources must be multiple, to establish the subject's notability. If, as you say, only one source exists, then that not be enough to satisfy either of these requirements.
I also note that the 'Location Dispute' section is unreferenced – where does that info come from? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:44, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was more on my own accord, which I perhaps shouldn't have included. As mentioned in the first part of the article, the traditional location of Jie is in Qingdao (which was first claimed by Du Yu and accepted by later historians). Yang Bojun thought it was north of Xiao county. I sourced both of those claims and made that section to explain why there are differing opinions. (I also wanted to include the fact that Jie's invasion of Xiao is only noted in the S&A Annals). NoahsRebels (talk) 08:57, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then that counts as original research, which is not accepted on wikipedia. NeoGaze (talk) 09:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll keep that in mind for the future. I was going to delete the draft but don't see an option. Is that something the moderators can do? NoahsRebels (talk) 09:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can just wait and the draft will eventually be deleted after six months if no editing has been done. NeoGaze (talk) 09:18, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@NoahsRebels: You can also tag it for speedy deletion by placing the string {{db-user}} on the draft. By the way, I don't know if this applies here, but if there are reliable sources in other languages, they can also be used. --bonadea contributions talk 09:39, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, alright, I'll do that. As for the other language sources, I'll keep that in mind as well, though I indeed think it doesn't apply here, as all the information I could find on Jie led back to the Zuozhuan. Unless there's archeological evidence, that seems to be where most information comes from for small Chinese states at this period of time. NoahsRebels (talk) 10:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 8

[edit]

04:50, 8 June 2025 review of submission by 111.92.114.189

[edit]

Could you please tell why this was rejected? 111.92.114.189 (talk) 04:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There are no reliable sources to support any of the statements, and it reads like a resume rather than an article (formatting aside). Wikipedia is not a place to advertise or post a resume. There also isn't much indication of notability, a lot of the text is about organizations he's supposedly a part of, not the subject. WhoAteMyButter (🌷talk│🌻contribs) 06:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:17, 8 June 2025 review of submission by TELUGU ANAND

[edit]

Add data to Wikipedia TELUGU ANAND (talk) 06:17, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TELUGU ANAND: you don't ask a question, but your draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a place to tell the world about yourself. If you want to do that, try eg. LinkedIn or some other social media platform. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:39, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:12, 8 June 2025 review of submission by 110.143.150.30

[edit]

whats the issues? 110.143.150.30 (talk) 08:12, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit puzzled as you created the draft with a decline message on it- your draft has not been reviewed. 331dot (talk) 08:16, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Somwtimes when you use LLMs to make a draft for you it messes up and adds in a dexline. Yet another reason not to use them. CoconutOctopus talk 08:27, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. So the AI didn't think what it wrote was a good draft...... :) 331dot (talk) 08:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Resubmitted, in order to review. AI malformed decline template prevented this. Removed template, no Declined. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish in reliable publications, and very little else. You should start by looking for sources which meet the triple criteria in WP:42, because if you cannot find several, you'll know to give up and spend no further time on this. ColinFine (talk) 15:31, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:42, 8 June 2025 review of submission by Lois56D

[edit]

I tried to add this article as an english version of the Dutch article Hans Houtsmuller but was not able to get that out of my personal space. Therefore I made a new draft Page, although it is just an english translation Lois56D (talk) 10:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Dutch Wikipedia is a separate project, with its own editors and policies. What is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here. It's up to the translator to determine if a translated article meets the requirements of the Wikipedia they are translating for. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others.
I think that the main issue with the draft is how it is cited; citations need to be in line next to the text they support. Please see Referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 11:48, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:51, 8 June 2025 review of submission by Jamesmark50

[edit]

Could I ask for further advice as to how to prove notability. This is how I would justify his notability – please let me know if there is more that is necessary:

John C. Wiliams has an entry in the The New Grove dictionary of music and musicians (and its online successor, published by Oxford University Press) for over 30 years: this is the global standard for the notability in the case of musicians. He won a significant recognition – one of his CD releases was awarded Uk Jazz release of the year by the Sunday Times and his albums were reviewed in the national press in the UK (e.g. The Guardian). All of this is referenced in the article. Jamesmark50 (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamesmark50 I think part of the problem is you used external links where you need to cite the source. For example, "Neil Ardley's "electronic jazz orchestra" Zyklus performed in 1994.", you should cite The Guardian article rather than embedding the url in the text. If you use the Visual Editor, citing most online sources is easy, see WP:INTREFVE. I updated some a couple or so but there's so many. Also, personal websites, blogs, etc. are not reliable sources so should not be used. S0091 (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:41, 8 June 2025 review of submission by Vishnucaman

[edit]

Earlier, my friend Renjith Touchriver — a film editor — had a Wikipedia page. But now, it seems to be missing. I tried to submit a new one, but unfortunately, it was declined due to a lack of reliable references or news coverage at present. Could you help me recreate the page? Vishnucaman (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vishnucaman You need the "Draft:" portion of the title when linking, I fixed this.
If this person is your friend, you should declare a conflict of interest.
The original article was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renjith Touchriver. Recreating it means you must address the reasons it was deleted. The reviewers don't seem to think you have so far.
Did you actually take the very professional image of your friend? 331dot (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The draft reads as his resume, and not as a summary of what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about him and how he is either a notable creative professional or more broadly a notable person. 331dot (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:19, 8 June 2025 review of submission by Millard2ijhh

[edit]

Well I want to make a wikipeadia page for myself since i want to be a candidate for a presidential election 

Millard2ijhh (talk) 19:19, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a place to tell people about yourself and you should avoid autobiographies. Articles must follow strict notability guidelines and you are not notable per these - if you do become President, then sure, you'll get a page, but not before then! CoconutOctopus talk 19:23, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:38, 8 June 2025 review of submission by Dice.affairs

[edit]

Hello! I am reaching out to ask for help in identifying which of my sources are unreliable as I am not sure how to determine that. I presume it might be the news articles but I used them because their information was backed by Mackinnon's oral autobiography from the Library recording.

Please let me know if this is something you can help with and thank you in advance! Dice.affairs (talk) 19:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dice.affairs he might be notable per the notability guidelines for academics (read that) but it appears most of the content is being supported by a Q&A interview which is a primary source and the reliability questionable given it just him talking about himself so should only be used very sparingly. I suggest trimming down and only use sources that have been fact-checked. S0091 (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. I thought him notable because he was extremely important to the founding of the University of Guelph but could not find much on his biography except for the Q&A, which I interpreted as an autobiography. I could not find much on his academic work. If I can find some other sources on his biography, such as more news articles, would the article be more reliable?
Please let me know and thank you in advance! Dice.affairs (talk) 19:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dice.affairs Better sources, those which pass WP:42, will always help verify notability.
I think you have probably written what you wish to say about the subject, and then sought references after writing in order to cite what you say. This is WP:BACKWARDS. Instead, please read this essay, one of several which outline a process which will succeed assuming the subject to be notable. If it isn't notable then no amount of editing can help. We use the references in the process described in the essay to determine and verify notability. No suitable references means the subject is not notable, and it is time to stop. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 07:06, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:29, 8 June 2025 review of submission by Windy Boijen

[edit]

I was told there was a possible conflict of interest. I'm wondering if there were specific sentences that referred to?

I know this one looks highly questionable: "at Traditional Jazz Festivals...known as one of the most popular groups with audiences." I included that (with 4 citations!) because it was very common for expert music journalists to make such observations about the band. I listed 4 but could have included more. It was one of the main things people noticed, and point out about that band. Windy Boijen (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You took a very professional looking image of this man. What is your connection to him? 331dot (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 9

[edit]

01:24:22, 9 June 2025 review of submission by StephKillin

[edit]

I have had some issues with notability on my article, I have done a revision some weeks ago but have not heard back. Is this due to the article still not fitting the notability guidelines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by StephKillin (talk • contribs) 01:24, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@StephKillin: There is still a significant backlog of around 1,000 drafts waiting to be reviewed, but you may be in luck as there is currently a coordinated effort to review more drafts. Remember, though, that reviewers are all volunteers. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 02:33, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@StephKillin I note you have made a declaration that you are a paid editor. Please understand that volunteers are unlikely to hasten review of paid work. Patience is a virtue. Chasing us in order to seek to hasten invoice payment is not an endearing trait. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 07:11, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
no Declined @StephKillin Submitting for multiple reviews is not what a good paid editor does. If Meyer has instructed you to write this please read and then show her WP:BOSS 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 07:20, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:44, 9 June 2025 review of submission by 2600:6C4A:727F:7249:2410:EC64:F2F4:41E3

[edit]

please help, I don't know what I'm doing. 2600:6C4A:727F:7249:2410:EC64:F2F4:41E3 (talk) 02:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be a little more specific? There were many problems with this article draft. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:48, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(For example, it was written in an oddly essay-like format, it used a lot of WP:PEACOCK language, it was largely unsourced, and where sources were provided, it was to a Medium blog post apparently by this artist's label, so not reliable or independent). CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, IP user. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect there's some kind of sock/meatpuppetry here, see the talk page of Lucidpp (talk · contribs). This IP and another account, Happywomanmichgan, seemingly have recreated/worked on the same draft for Lucidpp that was an autobio attempt by the account of the same name. The original draft attempts were G11'd and original account blocked for promotion. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 20:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:53, 9 June 2025 review of submission by Monisha selvaraj

[edit]

Assistance with Wikipedia Article Creation – Nivedita Louis

Hello,

I am seeking guidance on creating a Wikipedia article for Nivedita Louis, a Tamil novelist, historian, and feminist thinker. She has made significant contributions to Tamil literature, women’s history, and caste abolition through her translations, authored works, and public discourse.

I have compiled a list of references, including major media coverage, academic publications, institutional awards, and published works, but my previous submission was rejected due to notability concerns. I would greatly appreciate assistance in structuring the article ensuring compliance with Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, and refining the reference list.

Key references include: - Coverage in 'Femina, DT Next, and South First', highlighting contributions to feminist literature and historical research. - Published books such as 'Trailblazers 1 & 2' 'The Book of Rebellion', and 'Saathiyin Peyaraal' (translation of 'In the Name of Caste'). - Recognitions including the Laadli National Award and Puthumaipithan Literary Award Monisha selvaraj (talk) 05:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please check through the reference i provided below
https://thesouthfirst.com/author/niveditalouis/
https://vedaprakash.wordpress.com/2020/07/06/christian-music-christian-tamil-music-christian-keerthanais-and-kutchery-all-with-thomas-myth-the-way-nivedita-louis-spreads-it/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dtnext.in/amp/city/2018/08/24/city-historian-to-help-revive-gujili-paatu-through-lecdem
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dtnext.in/amp/citizen/2018/07/11/wonder-women-of-madras-should-be-given-more-credit
https://www.dtnext.in/fashion/2018/12/24/a-walk-to-explore-the-less-seen-side-of-santhome-on-christmas-eve
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thehindu.com/books/a-book-by-tamil-publishing-house-her-stories-is-behind-the-viral-video-of-school-children-throwing-their-dupattas/article66670439.ece/amp/
https://www.indiatoday.in/india/video/heartwarming-students-throw-dupattas-in-air-to-welcome-author-geeta-ilangovan-in-tamil-nadu-school-2347351-2023-03-16
Last two links are example of books publisher by nivedita louis feminist publication 'her stories' Monisha selvaraj (talk) 05:54, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Monisha selvaraj Please self check this list against WP:42. Co-editing is not a service offered here, I'm afraid. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 07:02, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:45, 9 June 2025 review of submission by Infogfb

[edit]

Could you please help to add source for this article. There is plenty online but I don't know how to do it properly. This message shows up to me: This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia. Infogfb (talk) 07:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can't find sources for you. It's up to you as the author submitting the draft to do what is needed to pass this process. If you have the sources, please see Referencing for Beginners.
An IP address declared a conflict of interest with the subject of the draft. If that's you, you should make a conflict of interest disclosure on your user page. If the conflict of interest involves any form of compensation for any purpose related to Mr. Dewall, the Terms of Use require a paid editing disclosure. 331dot (talk) 07:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:58, 9 June 2025 review of submission by Hrangkhawlpreety9889

[edit]

This article is about Puanbom, which is a traditional wrap-around worn by the Hrangkhawl Indigenous women of Tripura, belonging to Northeast India. Hence, this falls under the documentation of Indigenous Knowledge. Since there is a lack of published resources online in this area, we cited whatever source we could. However, the article submission got declined. We need help in this regard so that article can be modified and can go live. Hrangkhawlpreety9889 (talk) 07:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hrangkhawlpreety9889 Regrettably for the draft, Wikipedia has an absolute requirement for references because it is an encyclopaedia. Exceptions are not made for worthy causes such as the documentation of indigenous knowledge. The references do not need to be in English. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:06, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:44, 9 June 2025 review of submission by 196.137.85.178

[edit]

You are seeing all the references as irrelevant and you pay no attention to the difficulties HIV patients in Egypt initially encountered some years ago. OK, you see it saw. Thanks for your time. 196.137.85.178 (talk) 09:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • you see it so (corrigendum)
196.137.85.178 (talk) 10:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is simply not notable enough, the subject's own research and social media links not only are not reliable sources, but they don't serve to establish notability. Of the eleven provided sources, only one is actually worth including. I rejected the draft because you keep resubmitting it with little to no improvement. NeoGaze (talk) 10:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, if you cannot appreciate the name of Dr Amr Gohar FRCP UK you might try to ask different AI applications about him. 196.137.85.178 (talk) 10:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has zero zero interest in what AI has to say about anything. Theroadislong (talk) 10:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Using AI to create articles is not allowed. NeoGaze (talk) 10:10, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Advocacy is not permitted on Wikipedia, no matter how worthy the subject. If the subject has been written about in reliable, substantial, independent sources (in any language), then there is a possibility of an article about them, which will be a neutral summary of what those sources say, and very little else. If such sources do not exist, then no article is possible. ColinFine (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:25, 9 June 2025 review of submission by Nirjal stha

[edit]

Dear Editors, I have written biography of a well renowned artist/singer of Nepal "Deepak Bajracharya" and i have cited reference of information from major news portals of Nepal. I feel that this draft article is written with the reliable source of information, however the submission of draft has been declined. So please anyone experienced editor can guide me where i can improve this article. Nirjal stha (talk) 11:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nirjal stha the Early life and Career sections have no sources so they fail verifiability. S0091 (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:43, 9 June 2025 review of submission by Cbaerwaldt

[edit]

The reason for rejection is vague to me. All of the reference articles are 3rd party articles. All the article have more than a vague mention of the topic. All the articles are as trusted as you you can trust the media online. They all have long histories of publishing online. Love this brewery example: https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restaurace_a_pivovar_Beer_Factory They reference their own website. They reference Facebook. The location has not beer there for years. What is reliable? Cbaerwaldt (talk) 11:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The topic wasn't rejected (yet), it was declined per WP:NORG. As for FB, social-media links are unreliable in most cases. Regardless of Czech or English origin, better, in-depth sources about the firm--preferably the best three--are highly desired before it can pass AFC. For any further concerns, another editor may reach back here with further advice. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 07:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:22, 9 June 2025 review of submission by Matete Plays

[edit]

This draft keeps getting rejected on the grounds that Endri Sina is "not notable enough," even though his major contemporary Albanian counterparts, such as Vasil Tole and Aleksandër Peçi, have English Wikipedia pages with only a single reference. Matete Plays (talk) 12:22, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Matete Plays. Both the articles you mention have had notices for many years saying that they are inadequately sourced, and may not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. We don't want more dubious articles: see Other stuff exists. ColinFine (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:37, 9 June 2025 review of submission by Zahid super

[edit]

Hi can i use govt source also, i have no idea if its legal to use so please guide Zahid super (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Zahid super. I haven't looked at the draft; but yes, you may cite government sources. But note that government sources are often (though not always) primary sources, and so do not contribute to establishing Notability. ColinFine (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:44, 9 June 2025 review of submission by BongPhysicist

[edit]

I wrote this article as this scholarship/award is making a genuine impact in India for higher education and cited genuine news articles by prominent newspapers (3rd party) such as "Hindustan Times", "Business Standard" etc. I updated my article to address all criticisms of the earlier 2 submissions, but it was declined again. Can you please suggest how I should edit it, so that it can be accepted? BongPhysicist (talk) 12:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:49, 9 June 2025 review of submission by Woodyroundup

[edit]

Hi there.

I have been trying to correct the page entry, but it seems that it's not doing well. I am not getting the problem with the page right now. Can you please help guide what's wrong with the page?

Thanks. Woodyroundup (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Woodyroundup Please disclose your connection to Mr. Handoko, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. I see that you took a very professional looking image of him, where he posed for you.
Wikipedia is not a place to just post someone's resume. A Wikipedia article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about Mr. Handoko, showing how he is a notable person as Wikipedia defines one. 331dot (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:11, 9 June 2025 review of submission by 77.234.85.72

[edit]

its a page about a young musicion from hungary why it gets rejected.? 77.234.85.72 (talk) 14:11, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is completely unsourced and provides no indication they are a notable musician in a Wikipedia sense. 331dot (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:18, 9 June 2025 review of submission by Kgandhi27

[edit]

Respected Editors and Help Desk Executives,

This is with reference to my submissions and queries to my recent editor who has rejected my aforementioned submission on 10 April 2025. My submission was rejected earlier as well (by a different editor) on 12 December 2024. Taking the former editor's feedback into consideration which was strictly limited to references, I made relevant changes and resubmitted my article which was then rejected again, this time with a feedback on 2 grounds:

1) Content reading as advertisement 2) Ineligible References

I have reached out to the editor twice so that I can understand the feedback properly, but I have not received any response as yet.

The article that I have submitted is about a 41 year old non-profit trust that has no commercial interests or intentions with this. Also, it is about the work they do precisely. I fail to understand how my article looks like an advertorial especially when I am specifically mentioning activities that have been undertaken by the organization for decades together. There is no motive to exaggerate here. The references that I have linked in here are independently published credible sources. I have not made any links to the non-profit's own website and publications which are many. If there is any issue with the references I have added, then I request you to pull out those specifically and kindly let me know which are the ones that do not work.

I have also done proper disclosure about paid editing, since I work for the organization as an external consultant even though the organization hasn't asked me to create a Wikipedia page and I am doing this on my own accord.

There are many non-profits that do similar work and have a Wikipedia page. Language of their article is similar to mine and in some cases they also have references and external links to their own website and self-published annual reports/publications which is not the case in the my article and yet it is being rejected while their submissions have been accepted. For example, check the page of Age International https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_International

I sincerely request either to guide me properly at every stage so that I can ensure successful submission and acceptance of my article or if possible I am also okay if some experienced editor would like to take this this up as their assignment. Request you to let me know what can be done in this regard.

Looking forward to your kind response. Kgandhi27 (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kgandhi27 Thank you for your decoration of paid editing.
Please read WP:YOUTUBE to discover the very limited ability to use this as any form of reference.
Researchgate is a deprecated source.
My view is that you have written a magazine article, with flowing prose, conclusions and other things we do not require. Instead we need flat, neutral, dull-but-worthy prose. Some hard editing is required. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 18:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response about references. I will definitely look into it. Could you please share some Wikipedia examples of flat, neutral and dull writing? It would be helpful to read some examples to exactly understand that. Kgandhi27 (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the cream of the crop (as relates to the topic's subject area), see WP:FA#Companies and WP:Good articles/Social sciences and society#Businesses and organizations. As a guide to WP's expectations, see also WP:NORG. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 01:55, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:37, 9 June 2025 review of submission by SuryaDevanE

[edit]

Hello editors,

I’ve prepared a draft Wikipedia article about my late grandfather, Mr. Nanninthamby Eliyathamby — a notable Ceylon Tamil pioneer and philanthropist in Singapore, based on published sources including The Jaffna Dynasty and Indian Pioneers of Singapore. His legacy includes donations to the Ceylon Sports Club and the Sri Senpaga Vinayagar Temple, and he is regularly commemorated in Singapore’s obituary pages.

I’ve done my best to write the article neutrally and with citations from published sources (e.g., Noolaham Foundation’s archive and BJ Times). I would appreciate advice on how to properly submit or improve it for publication, and whether it meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria.

Thank you in advance for your time and support.

Kind regards, SuryaDevanE 

SuryaDevanE (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SuryaDevanE I have removed the draft embedded in your user talk page. I have no idea why you put it there. You may retrieve it from the page history and place in in your user sandbox or in a Draft named after the subject. In fact it exists at Draft:My grandfather.
We do not give pre-review advice. Please work om the draft, which I am about to rename for your grandfathe as Draft:Nanninthamby Eliyathamby 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 18:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:51, 9 June 2025 review of submission by Sardinee

[edit]

how could i possibly make a article about forsaken go on wikipedia Sardinee (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sardinee If whatever it is has notability then you can. If not, then not. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:22, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
okay! thanks Sardinee (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:16, 9 June 2025 review of submission by RenfeClasses2

[edit]

Because I put on some references and Wikipedia doesn’t let me publish the article. I just wanted to traduce and amply the Spanish article. RenfeClasses2 (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RenfeClasses2 The Spanish language Wikipedia is less strict that the English Language one, so the references there may be insufficient for here. I suggest you appeal the rejection diretcly to the rejecting reviewer after you have found references that meet WP:42.
When you translate an article we need to attribute the new to the old. {{Translated page}} does this well. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:26, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:35, 9 June 2025 review of submission by Sksatsuma

[edit]

Copying message I posted to the reviewer's draft page :)

Hi there, thank you for taking the time to review my draft page submission. I would like some clarification and guidance on how to bring the article up to a suitable standard.

I appreciate that many of the sources are interviews/linked with the subject of the article, however there are a number of secondary reliable sources which I believe demonstrate notability. I would appreciate if you could give feedback on these which I have added commentary to on this page: User:Sksatsuma/draftreferences.

I believe that criteria 1, 2 and 5 have been demonstrated from WP:MUSICBIO (Critical Music being a significant independent record label), and criterion 1 has been demonstrated from WP:NMUSICOTHER. Should additional criteria be demonstrated, or would you disagree with the above categorisations?

Please let me know anything else I can do to help bring the standard of the article up! Sksatsuma (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:45, 9 June 2025 review of submission by GranCavallo

[edit]

A month ago, I started working on improving on a draft for an article about Hermitcraft that others had started and seemingly abandoned. It had been, when I started, rejected for a lack of notability. Today, I finished work my work on the article and (I believe) adequately established notability. I tried to move the page to the mainspace myself, but found that creating the page on the mainspace had been blocked, so I just used the AfC submission form, which is not a problem.

After I hit submit on the AfC, looked into why creation of the page Hermitcraft was blocked on the mainspace due to the page being repeatedly created without establishing notability. Again, this is not a problem because I believe that I have now established notability in the draft and that the AfC review process should clear this up.

The problem is that after I found out the above information, I also found that just yesterday someone else created a new article about the same subject over top of a redirect at HermitCraft, avoiding the admin block. So now there are two articles about the same subject.

What would the procedure be for merging these two articles if a reviewer agrees that notability has been established for Hermitcraft? The draft page, Draft:Hermitcraft better establishes notability with more sources, but HermitCraft is already on the mainspace. Should I copy and paste what I have written in the draft to the article on the mainspace, or could the draft be moved to the mainspace and the article written over a redirect be turned back into a redirect?

Also, "HermitCraft" with a capital "C" is how it is capitalized in the title their official website, but "Hermitcraft" with a lowercase "c" is more common in the titles of the videos listed their official website.[2]

Sorry if this isn't the right place to ask this, or it's too soon to ask this. I felt like I should explain this in case someone decides to review the submitted draft but then sees that there is already a page on the mainspace. GranCavallo (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GranCavallo You are able to merge these yourself. No fuss no bother, just careful work. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:21, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:48, 9 June 2025 review of submission by Alexander Ubaldo Gutiérrez

[edit]

Hello! I would like to know the main reasons for the recurring rejections of this submission. In my opinion, the publication meets the notability standards set by Wikipedia. Mostly all the citations belong to highly recognized newspapers, TV channels, and websites from public agencies, for instance, the Panama Electoral Office, and the US State Department. All the awards mentioned are real, and the tone is neutral/accurate to the facts. I don't get why Wikipedia moderators have such a bad attitude, it's supposed this a tool to inform people and increase women's notability, especially those who came from developing countries. Alexander Ubaldo Gutiérrez (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't have "moderators". Any editor can be a reviewer. There are administrators(like me) but that is just a toolset. I don't see where anyone has given you a bad attitude.
No one has said the awards are not real, but awards don't contribute to notability unless the awards themselves merit articles(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award).
Wikipedia is not a tool to increase notability, a subject must already have notability to merit inclusion here. 331dot (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The person for whom I'm creating the article already has notability and recognition. I don't know what kind of bias the Wikimedia Foundation and its administrators have, but without providing a real reason for my article rejections beyond the template message sent numerous times, the situation just suggests that this place is not 100% independent at all; there’s no freedom of expression or recognition to real sources.   Alexander Ubaldo Gutiérrez (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You took a very professional looking image of her, what is your connection to her?
I don't see where anyone has said that the sources themselves are problematic. It's the information provided. She does not meet WP:NPOLITICIAN because she does not hold public office or and has not won election to such. To show she meets the broader notable person criteria you need to do more than list her work, you need sources that discuss its significance.
The Foundation is not involved in day to day matters like this. 331dot (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I already fixed the problem and included her political experience in the Academic Background section, also, the publication mentions that she did not win the election. She holds a public office in the Panama City Town Hall; she's an activist, the submission does not have to meet WP:NPOLITICIAN. I think you guys (administrators) don’t do research or match the links with the content written. The sources are more than enough. Alexander Ubaldo Gutiérrez (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Local level public office doesn't meet NPOLITICIAN. If she's notable as an activist, you need sources that tell what her particular influence as an activist is. You have sources that state her work; if they also state what her particular influence is, that's not currently in the draft.
I ask again, what is your connection with her? (Such that you took a very professional image of her) You have a very strong personal investment in this topic, you didn't pick it at random. 331dot (talk) 22:22, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:17, 9 June 2025 review of submission by Cheyhart

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for looking at my submission. Some of the feedback I've received so far has been that my sources are inadequate. I have included reputable sources, such as The Los Angeles Times, The Seattle Times, and The Omaha World-Herald, among others. Could you suggest updates that will satisfy the requirements to get this published? I appreciate your cooperation. Cheyhart (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cheyhart If you would like easy acceptance please provide links to online versions of references whcih are available. Most reviewers have no access to the offline works that you cite. We need the citations to pass WP:42. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:19, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: ROVA Rosiori de Vede

[edit]

Hello! I've resubmitted Draft:Rova Roșiori de Vede for AfC review. The draft includes historical sources from local press, and I've addressed previous feedback by adding a note to reviewers. I'd appreciate it if someone could take another look. Thanks! Alexandru1223 (talk) 23:31, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've resubmitted it, it will eventually be looked at. Asking for a review isn't likely to speed the process, please be patient. 331dot (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 10

[edit]

07:02, 10 June 2025 review of submission by Dk.Editors535

[edit]

I am new to Wikipedia editing, and this is my first drafted article. I would like to understand what types of references are considered notable and reliable for an article about a fiction book. I am currently unsure about which sources I should look for to help establish the notability of the subject. Any guidance or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your time and support. Dk.Editors535 (talk) 07:02, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dk.Editors535: you need to either cite sources which satisfy the general notability guideline WP:GNG, or provide evidence that the subject meets the special WP:NBOOK one. Currently the draft cites Amazon, which is a retailer, and a press release; both are entirely useless in terms of establishing notability, or for that matter verifying any of the information in the draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:16, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Dk.Editors535. A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people, wholly unconnected with the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and not much else. (In the case of a book, a short plot summary may also be included, but the independent reliable sources with substantial coverage are essential).
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. I realise your account has been around for a few months, but with only 29 edits, I would still count you as a new editor. ColinFine (talk) 10:02, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:20, 10 June 2025 review of submission by DisplayEcosystem

[edit]

cause Wikipedia have all kind of pages which contain X, Y Z data which is unverified and false, I understand that because what your editor team cannot understand, even how much logical and accurate. whatever your mechanism is for wiki its outdated and poor. Good Day. DisplayEcosystem (talk) 07:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well okay then.
(Draft rejected.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:28, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:Other stuff exists. True, there are thousands of pages from this site's early days that don't quite pass muster against later, better ones, but sometimes, all it takes is to try and be bold in improving that side of the coverage if you have time or freewill.
Regarding your draft, the topic has failed WP:NORG at this writing, the press-release material barely helping. Perhaps after reading WP:NEWSORGINDIA, you could try to appeal the decision once you've found better/more acceptable sources at your disposal? --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 07:33, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:07, 10 June 2025 review of submission by IC 9612

[edit]

I was recently declined for using ChatGPT, I want to know which part of the article has AI in it. I don't remember using ChatGPT at all, Thanks. IC 9612 (talk) 08:07, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The message says that there are signs that an AI was used. If you didn't, okay, but the signs remain. Please see the message carefully. (the concerns are general and not specific to certain parts of the article) 331dot (talk) 08:22, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:36, 10 June 2025 review of submission by Dr. Mourad Bakhoum

[edit]

I am asking to kindly inquire about the reasons for the rejection of my recently submitted article. I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide specific feedback or guidance on how the article can be improved to meet Wikipedia’s content and notability standards. Dr. Mourad Bakhoum (talk) 08:36, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Mourad Bakhoum You need the "Draft:" portion of the title of the draft when linking, I fixed this.
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 can address the concerns of the reviewer.
You have essentially posted the late Dr. Connor's resume, not a summary of what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about him and what makes him a a notable person. 331dot (talk) 08:40, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:49, 10 June 2025 review of submission by 141.11.133.156

[edit]

How can I delete it 141.11.133.156 (talk) 08:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can't. It will be deleted eventually as an abandoned draft.
And as a blocked user, you should not be editing even logged-out. The block applies to you personally, not just to the blocked account(s). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:42, 10 June 2025 review of submission by Adjiemada

[edit]

Saya ingin mengajukan halaman ini sebagai draft artikel untuk ditinjau oleh editor Wikipedia. Artikel ini membahas organisasi profesi apoteker bernama Farmasis Indonesia Bersatu (FIB) dan telah disusun lengkap dengan referensi. Mohon bantuan untuk proses review agar dapat dipindahkan ke ruang artikel utama. Adjiemada (talk) 10:42, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English Wikipedia, please communicate in English. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have just replied to your similar query at Wikipedia:Teahouse#User:Adjiemada/sandbox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:25, 10 June 2025 review of submission by Cpeedexpert

[edit]

I recently added information about MYCPE ONE Company to Wikipedia and would appreciate feedback or suggestions from experienced editors to ensure the content meets Wikipedia's standards for neutrality, verifiability, and notability. Cpeedexpert (talk) 11:25, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cpeedexpert: we don't do pre-reviews here at the help desk, you will get feedback when you submit your draft for a review.
Before that, please respond to the paid-editing-query on your talk page. Note that even if you're not explicitly paid to edit Wikipedia, you still come under our paid-editing-rules if you have a financial interest in the subject you're writing about.
Note also our autobiography policy which strongly discourages the creation of autobiographies. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:05, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:03, 10 June 2025 review of submission by Lookhereindia

[edit]

This draft was declined even after multiple national independent sources (Financial Express, The Pioneer, News18) were added, which provide significant secondary coverage. Could someone please take a second look? Prior reviewer may have missed the sources establishing notability. Lookhereindia (talk) 12:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have already resubmitted the draft; the next reviewer will leave feedback. You have just added hidden notes that the reviewer will not see(reviewers don't typically open the edit window). Comments should be left on the draft talk page. 331dot (talk) 13:29, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:10, 10 June 2025 review of submission by Pinehurstgolf

[edit]

I have added some more references. This group is very famous and included many famous golfers and famous people over the years. including Donald Ross, Jack N. etc. They also do 9 scholarship every year and the scholarships cover all 4 years - The local newspaper called it the gold standard. The reason for the page is not self promotion but more historical - There are thousands of articles about this group (especially in the years 1904-1940s) in The Boston Globe, New York Times, Pinehurst Outlook, etc. What information do I need to change/add to satisfy the requirement - Thank You! Pinehurstgolf (talk) 12:10, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It reads as something that might appear in a brochure or on your website. Pure promotion that is the organization speaking about itself. 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. You will need to formally declare your association with the organization, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:53, 10 June 2025 review of submission by Sunihas

[edit]

I'm just wondering what other sources do we need? We have the team's official website, and driverdb (which is used for every racing driver in the world) and the formulascout website which is an independent website covering all formula championships. I just added another independent website (feederseries). I can't see any difference in the latest edit of this page and pages of dozens of comparable drivers. Thanks for clarifying Sunihas (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sunihas: you need to cite sources which satisfy the general notability guideline WP:GNG. This requires significant coverage, directly of this person, in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject. The draft currently cites no such source. (Given how this driver is clearly in the early stages of their career, it could be just a case of WP:TOOSOON.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He's one of the few drivers in his current series who hasn't gotten a page yet. Most of these pages have significantly less and much poorer sources than this one and have no articles anywhere, only results. This driver's champion. A bit harsh in my humble opinion. Sunihas (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sunihas: we don't assess drafts by comparison to whatever other articles may exist in the English Wikipedia, or by considering whether the subject's peers have articles, but whether the subject is notable according to our currently-applicable guidelines. The sources in this draft are insufficient to demonstrate this. You may consider it "harsh", if you wish, but it is actually quite an objective test. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I get what you're saying, but the articles I'm talking about also went through this exact same process and did get published. So I guess it also depends on who's reviewing it. Sunihas (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sunihas there are thousands of poorly sourced articles about sports topics/athletes in part because the notability criteria changed three or four years ago and is now more restrictive. Even today some get by that probably should not and existing articles are being deleted regularly because of the changes. Sorry, I know that is not what you want to hear and I know it's frustrating for folks using what they see in existing articles as a baseline for what is acceptable. S0091 (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I would like to hear is which news sources would be accepted than? Do we have to wait until the NY Times or London Daily writes about him? I scroll through dozens of driver pages every week, I've rarely ever seen "better" sources than the ones I provided. Sunihas (talk) 15:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Sunihas. If there are articles about other drivers, either they are adequately sourced, or they are unsatisfactory and should be improved or deleted. We have many thousands of articles which are unsatisfactory in this way, mostly from a time when our standards were not enforced as carefully. Ideally, somebody would go through these dealing with them, but this is a volunteer project, and people work on what they wish. If you wanted to point to some of these unsatisfactory articles, it is possible that somebody will attend to them. See Other stuff exists ColinFine (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the volunteer part, I also spend my time on articles like these and updating many race results on a weekly basis. I don't agree this article should be deleted despite having multiple reliable sources. It's a racing driver, most of it are results. By what you're saying, 95% of all articles about racing drivers should be deleted. Sunihas (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sunihas many of them are being deleted. For example, see WP:Articles for deletion/Kotaro Shimbara which is now at Draft:Kotaro Shimbara. If you have not already, I suggest reading the FAQ portion of WP:NSPORT along with WP:NMOTORSPORT. It might also be worth posting a note at WT:WikiProject Motorsport to see if anyone there might lend a hand with finding sources. S0091 (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly could be that 95% of articles about racing drivers should be deleted. Many articles were created before current standards. 331dot (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:22, 10 June 2025 review of submission by Johananeunice

[edit]

Hello,

I would like to ask for help on how to go about getting this approved? The individual profile being submitted for approval has neutral references / institutions that vouch for his credibility to get approved.

Thank you! Johananeunice (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Johananeunice: it's not a question of "vouch[ing] for his credibility" (whatever that means in this context), but establishing his notability, which has not been achieved, and the draft is now rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
Thank you for the note. I apologize for the misuse of word, but yes, his notability. I've added neutral references. Would you be able to provide guidance? I've provided references that are independent of him. Johananeunice (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:56, 10 June 2025 review of submission by Malagnumcloumusic

[edit]

Hi there — I’d appreciate a second opinion on Draft:Freddie Nelson, which was just declined for the third time with a generic comment that it "lacks significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources."

Since the last decline, I’ve done a full cleanup and added multiple reliable, third-party references that show non-trivial coverage, including:

  • PopMatters (interview + feature)
  • TribLIVE (Pittsburgh press feature)
  • AllMusic (for credits)
  • WQED (PBS affiliate coverage)

Plus additional articles and reviews from others with inline ciatations throughout.

I believe the article meets WP:MUSICBIO and general notability guidelines. The decline came again less than 24 hours after resubmission, without any comment about the updated sourcing. Can someone take a fresh look or offer feedback on how else this might be improved?

Thank you so much! Malagnumcloumusic (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Malagnumcloumusic since you have made updates since the last decline, resubmit it for review to get another opinion. What you are essentially asking for an a pre-review which we do not do but do note interviews are considered primary sources and not independent so do not help with establishing notability. See WP:NMUSIC #1. S0091 (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I'm sorry I wasn't clear - I made the edits and added the new sources last night, resubmitted again, and then a few hours later it was declined with no further comment. That is why I was asking for the second opinion - I have not made any other edits since that most recent decline. I am afraid to resubmit before I get some more direction! If you could check it out, it would be much appreciated. Malagnumcloumusic (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ditch the interviews, Discogs and YouTube. Center Stage Magazine is not a reliable independent source because they offer "artist services" which includes things like social media management, similar with Music News. Raw Rampand and The Celebrity Cafe are blogs so also not reliable sources. Shock Ya! is questionable as are some of the other sources. With the current sourcing, I agree he does not meet the notability criteria. S0091 (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thats fair! I will remove those, and I have other sources to add from Modern Drummer, Guitar World, etc. I will re-focus around those. Appreciate this feedback, thank you again. Malagnumcloumusic (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Resubmitted with lots of edits, removed anything unreliable to clean it up and added more substantial publications. Thank you again! Malagnumcloumusic (talk) 00:39, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help improving draft for Entanglement Chess

[edit]

As the subject line says, I would like help improving the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Entanglement_Chess to get it up to standards for acceptance. This variant is of similar notability to other chess variants with accepted articles, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_chess https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Really_Bad_Chess https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket_mutation_chess - as someone who plays a lot of chess variants, I can attest to the fact that it is fairly random which variants have been written about it other guides/list of variants, and doesn't really correspond with notability. https://www.chessvariants.org/ which is often used as a source for showing canonicity of chess variants usually just depends on the author of the variant having taken time to write up their own variant in the page. The variant I wrote this article about is one that has had multiple different formalizations and does have an active website. There is also evidence of people actively playing it, such as https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaEQqeVl6fk

So really my question is, given that whether or not a chess variant is considered notable enough is somewhat random, how can this one make the cut? Saskiagourianova (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; there are a lot of inappropriate articles on Wikipedia, many of which should be deleted, but this does not mean more inappropriate articles should be added. chessvariants.org does not appear to be a reliable source as it is user-generated. Youtube is also not a reliable source because anyone can post videos there. Pocket mutation chess only references one potentially reliable source, a brief description in an encyclopedia of chess variants, and therefore might not meet Wikipedia's definition of notability.
The article Really Bad Chess demonstrates that it satisfies Wikipedia's definition of notability by referencing published reviews in independent reliable sources. If Entanglement Chess has not been reviewed or at least talked about by independent reliable sources then it's probably not notable. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:38, 10 June 2025 review of submission by 2600:8800:A800:B2A:757E:39C7:67CC:D69D

[edit]

I just had an Article accepted. I would like to add a biobox at the top of page 1, and I have some photos with captions I would like to insert. Are there instructions for doing these types of edits that I should follow? 2600:8800:A800:B2A:757E:39C7:67CC:D69D (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:25, 10 June 2025 review of submission by Ksi olijide bt

[edit]

how do i make this more to the standard Ksi olijide bt (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to address the concerns of reviewers, as they put at the top of the draft. If you can, you should first appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:56, 10 June 2025 review of submission by Cz13sz17

[edit]

I see "This article contains close paraphrasing of non-free copyrighted sources." How do I find which specific parts of the article is causing the concern? Is there tool I can use? I did try CopyPatrol, but it fails to find this page title (!?). Cz13sz17 (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This page is to ask about drafts in the draft process, this is an existing article. Please ask at the more general Help Desk. 331dot (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 11

[edit]

04:24, 11 June 2025 review of submission by Stefaniebayer

[edit]

I added the same resources as with the 2024 article which has been published. Besides the official IFSC website I could only mention other news articles mentioning the results of the paraclimbing World Cups. What else do you want me to reference? I have no clue... Stefaniebayer (talk) 04:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See: 2024 IFSC Paraclimbing World Cup compared to my draft... Stefaniebayer (talk) 04:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:58, 11 June 2025 review of submission by VEON.MNS

[edit]

Hi everyone! I've submitted this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Augie_K_Fabela_II and it was declined. If I understand the rejection correctly, it's a notability issue? This person has a film (https://www.connected-doc.org/) dedicated to him, along with his associate Dmitry Zimin who does have his own Wiki article. People who watch the film may search for Augie Fabela, and it would make sense for him to have his own article. It would be really helpful to know what's missing from this draft before I resubmit, I'd be happy to update, add or remove anything. Thank you! VEON.MNS (talk) 05:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1295020075"