Draft:Soulcious
Submission declined on 7 August 2025 by Sksatsuma (talk).
Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
|  |
| Submission declined on 7 August 2025 by Qcne (talk). Neologisms are not considered suitable for Wikipedia unless they receive substantial use and press coverage; this requires strong evidence in independent, reliable, published sources. Links to sites specifically intended to promote the neologism itself do not establish its notability. Declined by Qcne 32 hours ago. | |
Soulcious (or soulciousness) [1]. In life when we do things which make us deeply good and feel that our soul is happy and elevated. We strive to deliberately do such things which will make our soul happy and elevated.
Soulciousness will become more and more important in the future as we embrace digital technologies. We can even extend it to current and futuristic non-human artefacts based on artificial intelligence and its variants. Hence, Soulciousness will become of prime importance going forward.
You may ask for advice on how to improve this draft at the Teahouse or on the talk pages of any of the declining reviewers. (The declining reviewers may advise you to ask for advice at the Teahouse.)
If this draft is resubmitted without any improvement or with very little improvement again, it is likely to be rejected, and it may be nominated for deletion, or a topic-ban may even be requested against further submission by the responsible editor.
Note from the reviewer:
Please read the previous reviewer's carefully. Strong evidence would be required in independent, reliable, published sources to demonstrate notability of a Neologism. The current source appears to be a blank webpage and does not meet any of these criteria.