Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

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

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


July 29

[edit]

01:16, 29 July 2025 review of submission by Lavaprod

[edit]

i edited this article as a human cant you know that i added {{db-author}} beacuse you hurt my feelings i was inspired to the other articles Lavaprod (talk) 01:16, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lavaprod: None of us have mentioned anything about whether or not the article was written by a human; the issue is (and always has been) the draft is redundant with multiple articles. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 02:47, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:34, 29 July 2025 review of submission by Nelson0628

[edit]

Hello, respected editors,

I am writing to request a review of a draft Wikipedia article about myself, Nelson Agricola Bautista, a Filipino nurse and clinical educator. I am fully disclosing that I am the subject of the article and the person who has written the draft. I understand this represents a conflict of interest (COI), and I am committed to following Wikipedia’s policies by seeking input from neutral editors before proceeding.

The draft is currently in my sandbox: 🔗 User:Nelson0628/sandbox

The article includes: - A summary of my nursing career and advocacy work - A verifiable awards table with references from credible news sources and official award sites - A neutral tone, with no promotional language

I would sincerely appreciate it if a neutral editor could: - Review the draft for notability, tone, and compliance with Wikipedia standards - Provide feedback on citation formatting or other improvements - Advise on whether it is appropriate for article space

Thank you very much for your time and guidance.

Kind regards, Nelson Bautista Nelson0628 (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the information needed to submit it for a review. While not forbidden, writing about yourself is ill-advised and not likely to be successful, see the autobiography policy. Wikipedia wants to know what others say about you in independent reliable sources, not what you want to say about yourself. 331dot (talk) 01:43, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:01, 29 July 2025 review of submission by 2403:5808:F50B:0:6DE6:AA07:7CB2:E069

[edit]

My Wikipedia page submission keeps being declined due to a reported lack of significant coverage of the film. I’m hoping to get more clarity on how I can improve the page and strengthen the references.

In my most recent submission, I included 10 references to reliable, secondary sources. I’ve seen other film articles with fewer citations that have been approved, so I’m unsure what might be missing in my case.

Any further context would be really appreciated. One potential issue I’ve considered is that the film was originally titled Overture during production, and was later changed to The Travellers for release. I wonder if this name change is affecting how the sources are being evaluated or picked up.

Thanks in advance for your guidance. 2403:5808:F50B:0:6DE6:AA07:7CB2:E069 (talk) 05:01, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, usually films meet the criteria with reviews by reputable nationally known critics/publications and given this film will not release until October no such reviews exist and the production itself does not meet WP:NFF. S0091 (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:25, 29 July 2025 review of submission by Ryle Marshall

[edit]

My contribution has been deleted this information was not already listed on Wikipedia and was unreliable sources Ryle Marshall (talk) 05:25, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:50, 29 July 2025 review of submission by Ryle Marshall

[edit]

It has been declined Ryle Marshall (talk) 05:50, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 08:59, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell, Krypto the Runt is a quite blatant hoax. I can't find anything on the show in an online search other than copy-pasted articles across Fandom wikis (string: "krypto the runt"); contrast The Brothers Flub (an obscure late-90's cartoon that ran on Nickelodeon for about half-a-season before being mothballed). I'd expect something other than Fandom for a cartoon that ran on Nick or its sister station MTV. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:59, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:47, 29 July 2025 review of submission by Andra Tobosaru

[edit]

New version draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Romanian_Commodities_Exchange#Central_Counterparty_%28CCP%29 Andra Tobosaru (talk) 06:47, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Andra Tobosaru: that's not a question; did you have something in mind you wanted to ask?
While waiting, let me ask you a question: why have you copypasted the rejected draft into the main article space? This was rejected because there is no evidence that the subject is notable. By creating another copy in the main space, all you've done is generate extra work for AfD, which is perpetually congested anyway.
And for future reference, if you do decide to bypass the AfC process and unilaterally move content into the main encyclopaedia, please do exactly that, move it, don't copypaste it, because the latter loses the draft's edit history.
One other thing: having done all that, why are you still developing the rejected draft further, given that you already have a published version in the main space? DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:02, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Please read and respond to the paid editing query on your talk page. And please be aware that you are not allowed to publish directly articles in the subject of which you have a conflict of interest. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:09, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I add this to my wikipedia page: "Andra Tobosaru, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they have been paid by Bursa Română de Mărfuri on behalf of BRM for their contributions to Wikipedia."
I would like to continue improving the draft based on reliable, independent sources, and I will propose any substantial changes via the Talk page if needed, after adding this. Andra Tobosaru (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Andra Tobosaru: this has created a bit of a mess. There is arguably not much point in developing the draft any further, because of the mainspace article having been already taken to an AfD deletion discussion. If that discussion results in a 'delete' verdict, then that will make it unlikely for the draft to be accepted. And if it results in 'keep' (unlikely as that may be), then again the draft cannot be accepted, since there is already a published article on the same subject.
It would make more sense to develop the published article further, which might also help avoid it being deleted, only you're now unable to do that since it has been published in the main encyclopaedia, given your paid-editing conflict of interest. (That's yet another reason why it would have much better to keep it in the draft space only.)
But thanks for disclosing your paid editing, at any rate. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:03, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing: I Bastard-Helper-From-Hell'd the sources in the draft and put my conclusions on the AfD debate. Whether the sourcing exists is an open question, but what we've been shown ain't it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:18, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and what's also not helping proceedings is that there is the draft and the published article, and there are (at least) two threads on this help desk, so we seem to be all talking past each other. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:06, 29 July 2025 review of submission by 202.134.11.225

[edit]

Subject: Help with Draft:M. Enamul Hossain – Feedback and Suggestions

Hello,

I have created a draft article titled Draft:M. Enamul Hossain and would appreciate feedback from experienced editors to improve it for submission into mainspace.

Professor M. Enamul Hossain is a Canadian academic, researcher, and entrepreneur with over 200 published papers and 10 books (some published by Wiley). He is the founder, CEO, and President of NSRIC Inc., a global educational and research organization headquartered in Canada. He has received several international awards and is known for his contributions to petroleum engineering and sustainable energy research.

Could someone kindly:

Review the current draft and provide suggestions for improvement?

Advise whether it meets the notability criteria for academics?

Recommend specific sources or structural improvements if necessary?

Thank you very much in advance for your time and help. 202.134.11.225 (talk) 07:06, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "current draft" was rejected on 30 May and has not been edited since then. Unless there have been new developments in the last two months to justify Prof. Hossain's inclusion here, the draft will not be considered further. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 09:15, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:47, 29 July 2025 review of submission by LbnSchoolResearcher

[edit]

i want to know why my article isnt being published LbnSchoolResearcher (talk) 08:47, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has not currently been submitted, however the content is blatant advertising so would be declined. Theroadislong (talk) 08:57, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:11, 29 July 2025 review of submission by Hala Aldarwish

[edit]

This draft is intended as a neutral, encyclopedic overview of fleet management systems as a technology category, not a promotion of any specific company, product, or service. It includes references from academic and governmental sources, and does not contain brand names or sales language. I am happy to revise the draft further to ensure compliance with Wikipedia's neutrality standards and to remove any sentences that may appear promotional. Hala Aldarwish (talk) 09:11, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been deleted as promotional. Only administrators can view the deleted content. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 09:21, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've recreated the draft, which is a bit sneaky. If it's the same as the deleted version, it will most likely be deleted for the same reason. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 09:25, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:05, 29 July 2025 review of submission by LiberumVerba

[edit]

Hello everyone, my article draft was declined due to the references. I used the same criteria adopted for the publication of the article on the Italian wiki. In any case, I would like to know if the references must necessarily be in English or if references in other languages (not only Italian) are also acceptable. Thanks for your help. LiberumVerba (talk) 10:05, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LiberumVerba You need the "Draft:" portion of the title when linking. I fixed this.
References do not need to be in English. You do, however, need to make sure that your company meets our notability criteria for companies, which may be different from the Italian Wikipedia's requirements. 331dot (talk) 10:11, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of any notability the draft is just blatant promotion, the company telling us everything they want us to know about them. Theroadislong (talk) 10:12, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:32, 29 July 2025 review of submission by Luv2learn87

[edit]

Hello my article submission was denied because of sources. However the source of the main 2 articles are from an actual publication, The North Dallas Gazette. Please help me understand why this newspaper is not valid. Thanks Luv2learn87 (talk) 10:32, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luv2learn87 You need the "Draft:" portion of the title when linking, I have fixed this for you.
The draft does little more than state that the documentary exists. Nothing is said about why it is a notable film. Independent, professional reviews usually do that. 331dot (talk) 10:39, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Luv2learn87: both the citations are to the same source (which is a hyper-local one), and both cover the film only in passing. For notability per WP:GNG, we need to see significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are both reliable and entirely independent of the subject and of each other. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:39, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being selected in multiple film festivals globally isn't significant coverage? Luv2learn87 (talk) 10:58, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It might, if those festivals themselves have articles about them(I haven't checked). Ideally even if that's the case, there should be more information than "it was in the festival". 331dot (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:57, 29 July 2025 review of submission by Ptothehyphen

[edit]

Hi team! I’ve already responded to my talk page but wanted to ask her also. My article was declined since I used ChatGPT to compose and edit it. I’ve read through the LLM but I’m still unsure what to edit/omit. Should I do a brand new write up? The truth is, ChatGPT was incredibly helpful for formatting and spellcheck. I can only imagine the number of articles created by AI nowadays, so I understand the challenges in verification. Any advice is appreciated, thanks. Ptothehyphen (talk) 11:57, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ptothehyphen I fixed your link for proper display, you need the full title, including the "Draft:" portion.
You should rewrite the draft in your own words, yes. You may do this on the existing draft, you don't need to create a new one. 331dot (talk) 12:01, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, thanks for the help! Ptothehyphen (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Ptothehyphen. I responded on your User Talk Page too. qcne (talk) 15:33, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've made this very difficult for yourself as you've been snagged in a common pitfall when writing an article, writing it WP:BACKWARDS. As you say in your talk page, you started off by feeding all the information known to you into ChatGPT, and are now trying to find sources to support that material. The natural result has been a very poorly sourced article. This is why it's very hard to write articles on subjects one has a conflict with, because there's a natural tendency to write what you know about the subject., not what reliable sources say about the subject.
The best way to approach this article would be to start over, using only reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage of this band. And then write an article based only on that information, not anything you personally know. If there's enough there to support this band being a notable subject, it will become clear quickly. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:44, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the insight. I've never really considered the importance of outside sources. But the way you explained it makes perfect sense. I appreciate all the help...gonna do some more research before I resubmit. Ptothehyphen (talk) 12:30, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:27, 29 July 2025 review of submission by Fedor music

[edit]

Hello! Can you review my page point out potential flaws so that it can be officially published? Thank you in advance! Fedor Vrtacnik Fedor music (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Fedor music we do not do pre-reviews so if you want it reviewed you need to resubmit it (click the blue "Resubmit" button). S0091 (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fedor music ...although one thing I can tell you already now, you need to place the citations next to (immediately after) the information which they support, not all piled together at the end. That way the reviewer can see where each piece of information comes from, and how much of this remains unsupported. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:23, 29 July 2025 review of submission by Elvar Granheim

[edit]

Specificly which sources does not qualifies for a Wikipedia article? Elvar Granheim (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was moved into the encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:04, 29 July 2025 review of submission by Jmaxon3883

[edit]

I am trying to understand why my page was rejected. I've read many artists' pages, and my writing was mostly facts. The feedback was that my writing was more like an essay, which doesn't make sense to me, given it was one paragraph and the majority of it was stated facts about the artist's career. Jmaxon3883 (talk) 21:04, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
The draft is absolutely overloaded with references.
It reads like an essay because it is telling, and not summarizing- summarizing what the sources say about him and how he is a notable creative professional. It just documents his work. 331dot (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply! I appreciate it. How is what I wrote any different than say the opening paragraph on this page: Peter van Agtmael. I planed to add more information to the page once I get the opening paragraph approved. How would you suggest I change it? Should I only have one source per reference? How is what I wrote opinions or original research? The sources are all reputable. How is what I wrote not from a neutral point of view?
This is the feedback the editor wrote: This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner. Jmaxon3883 (talk) 05:06, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmaxon3883: If a draft is reviewed, it is reviewed in the state it is in at the time of the review. Doing drafts piecemeal by submitting every single part individually doesn't work. Beyond that, mu. (Post-1992 politics of the United States) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 05:59, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:24, 29 July 2025 review of submission by Flyhigh223!

[edit]

Hi, what else can I do to improve the draft to ensure it is accepted this time? Do I need to make it shorter by removing any sentences? I really want to ensure my first article is on Wikipedia as I've worked really hard on it after receiving a lot of valuable feedback! Any pointers would be greatly appreciated 😊 Flyhigh223! (talk) 21:24, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have (with the consent of the rejecting reviewer) resubmitted the draft, the reviewer will leave feedback if not accepted. 331dot (talk) 23:04, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Flyhigh223! no Declined with rationale. I think this has reached the end of the road. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 11:22, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @331dot and @Timtrent again for your time and thoughtful feedback. I’d like to offer a more complete clarification that may help strengthen the notability of the subject and demonstrate my commitment to improving the draft.
Mr. Bhattacharjee is the first Approved Driving Instructor from London, and possibly the first in the UK to receive a national honour (British Empire Medal) while actively serving in the role. This recognition is especially significant given the scale of the profession — with over 39,195 registered ADIs nationwide — and the countless road safety educators and organisations operating across Britain. The honour was awarded specifically for his contributions to road safety, community welfare, and public engagement.
His story has received significant coverage in national and international newspapers, and he was invited by the Cabinet Office to attend His Majesty The King’s Honours Press Conference at the Tower of London, where he shared his journey and ongoing commitment to community empowerment through road safety education. This level of recognition and visibility underscores the public interest and noteworthiness of his achievements.
To better understand Wikipedia’s notability criteria, I’ve reviewed several existing entries for individuals from Assam, where Mr. Bhattacharjee originally belongs. These include (and I haven't included them all):
- Pritam Das – Cricketer whose article is based primarily on match statistics and brief mentions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pritam_Das (note the references given, none of which are reliable, including a Facebook post)
- Radheshyam Biswas – Politician with limited national coverage, included based on electoral participation. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radheshyam_Biswas#:~:text=Radheshyam%20Biswas%20is%20a%20Bengali,election%20to%20a%20BJP%20candidate.)
- Kamalakhya Dey Purkayastha – Regional politician retained due to public office, despite sparse sourcing. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamalakhya_Dey_Purkayastha)
- Jugal Kalita – Computer scientist and professor. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jugal_Kalita, the sources are just Google links?)
While I understand that each article is judged on its own merits, these examples suggest that regional impact, public service, and verifiable recognition are considered valid grounds for inclusion, even when sourcing is limited or focused on niche contributions. I’ve also noted that some accepted articles rely on Facebook, LinkedIn, or unnamed sources, which are generally discouraged under Wikipedia’s sourcing guidelines. In contrast, Mr. Bhattacharjee’s recognition is not only unique within his profession, but also documented across multiple independent, reliable sources, and acknowledged by the UK government at the highest level.
I remain committed to revising the draft, particularly the political section, to ensure neutrality and compliance with Wikipedia’s sourcing standards. My goal is not to compare this submission with others, but to ensure it stands on its own merit, supported by independent coverage and a clear demonstration of public impact.
I welcome further guidance and will continue improving the draft in good faith. Flyhigh223! (talk) 09:22, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Purkayastha and Mr. Biswas are members of a legislature, so they meet WP:NPOLITICIAN. Mr. Das seems to be notable as a cricketer. If you feel the sourcing on those articles is inadequate, please address that with those articles, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. I agree that this draft has reached the end of the line, at least for now.
Mr. Bhattacharjee does not meet NPOLITICIAN as he has not won election to, or served in, an elected office. Being given an honor does not get him past WP:BLP1E. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @331dot @Timtrent again for your time and thoughtful feedback on the draft article. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify the subject’s notability and respond constructively to the concerns raised.
The individual in question is the first Approved Driving Instructor (ADI) from London — and possibly the first in the UK — to receive a national honour (British Empire Medal) while actively serving in the role. With nearly 40,000 registered ADIs and thousands of road safety educators and campaigners across the UK, this recognition is very hard to get.
I would also like to respectfully ask: does Wikipedia consider Approved Driving Instructor (ADI) a professional role? According to the Wikipedia article on ADIs, they are certified professionals regulated by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA), and UK law requires instructors to be qualified before they can charge for their services. This suggests that ADIs are part of a regulated profession with legal and public responsibilities, especially in the context of road safety — a matter of national concern. I am asking this because if one can be a notable cricketer - like you mentioned Pritam Das seems to be notable by Wikipedia standards (despite only being a local cricket player) - then why can one not be a notable driving instructor trainer/ADI?
While he has not held elected national office, his repeated candidacies and locally elected party leadership position (Constituency Chairman) support a reasonable interpretation of political activism, which may meet notability criteria under WP:NPOLITICIAN when considered alongside his other public contributions.
To ensure alignment with Wikipedia’s standards, I am happy to revise the draft to describe the subject as a community leader, rather than a local political leader, if that is more appropriate and acceptable to the reviewing editors.
I would also like to mention the example of Leanne Mohamad, who I know,(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leanne_Mohamad), who stood as an independent candidate in the 2024 general election in Ilford North — the same constituency where Mr Bhattacharjee served as Chairman of the local Labour Party. Although she was not elected, her article is accepted. This comparison is not meant to diminish her achievements, but to highlight how notability is sometimes interpreted more broadly in similar cases. Mr Bhattacharjee is also an activist and campaigner who stood in elections.
I understand that this draft may not meet current thresholds for acceptance, but I hope this clarification helps frame the subject’s notability more clearly. I remain committed to improving the article in good faith and contributing constructively to Wikipedia.
Thanks again. Flyhigh223! (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My jurisdiction licenses plumbers; a plumber getting an award for being a really good plumber would not make him notable if that's the only claim to notability. That's what WP:BLP1E is getting at, and why Mr. Bhattacharjee isn't notable at this time. 331dot (talk) 22:49, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Flyhigh223! No amount of editing will conjure notability from nowhere, neither will any amount of argument. A subject, any subject, is either notable or it is not. This subject has not been proven by dint of referencing to be notable. Nor does what is present suggest inherent notability.
Repeated resubmissions with no proven notability are likely to result in rejection in short order. Indeed, it can be considered to be disruptive editing, since you are appearing to seek to ask anyone and everyine until someone might, just, look favourably upon this subject. If so, I predict its appearance at WP:AFD very soon afterwards and that it will not survive.
Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. However, we also say with clarity when the end of the road has been reached. I have said so and others agree. 331dot has said so, using different words.
I really ought to have rejected it again. I was trying to let you down gently. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:30, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Reviewers,
Thank you for your feedback. I accept that the draft does not meet notability under current guidelines.
I appreciate the time and guidance you've offered, and I remain committed to contributing constructively to Wikipedia. Flyhigh223! (talk) 20:54, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yadavramniwas/sandbox

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ramniwas_Yadav_of_Kotputli — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yadavramniwas (talk • contribs) 04:21, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 30

[edit]

04:12, 30 July 2025 review of submission by Gemma1212

[edit]

Help on why it was declined Hi I am trying to create a page for Australian roundnet and would like some assistance as to why it has been declined so I can improve it Gemma1212 (talk) 04:12, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gemma1212: One source, regardless of how good it is, is not enough to support an article. The draft is also promotional, and the only source it cites doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 05:40, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:39, 30 July 2025 review of submission by KHAN MOSIN

[edit]

Hello,

My draft article (User:223.184.226.151/Sandbox) has been pending review for over a month. Could someone please take a look when possible? I’m open to feedback and happy to make revisions. Thank you! KHAN MOSIN (talk) 06:39, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have not submitted it for review? Theroadislong (talk) 06:48, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:46, 30 July 2025 review of submission by YAKSH75

[edit]

Which information should i provide to continue this article let me know whats the problem its well known artist in this article well known channel so whats the problem let me know so ill improve the things 

YAKSH75 (talk) 08:46, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@YAKSH75: this draft is completely unreferenced. Wikipedia articles summarise what reliable and independent sources have previously published about a subject, and then those sources are cited as references so that the reader knows where the information came from. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:51, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:50, 30 July 2025 review of submission by JerryKB

[edit]
Dart PDC World Cup Sverige/Darts PDC World Cup Sweden

Om Sverige i World Cup of Darts från 2023 och framåt/ About Sweden in the World Cup of Darts from 2023 onwards Artikeln är inriktad för svenskt och norskt dartintresse Beskrivning av insatserna 2023. 24 och 25 (att fyllas på fortsättningsvis) Samt världsmästarna genom åren.

About Sweden in the World Cup of Darts from 2023 onwards The article is aimed at Swedish and Norwegian darts enthusiasts Description of the events in 2023. 24 and 25 (to be filled in for continuation in future years) As well as the world champions through the years.

Är detta en artikel som platsar på Wiki? Is this an article that fits on Wiki? JerryKB (talk) 09:50, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JerryKB: I assume you mean  Courtesy link: User:JerryKB/sandbox?
As the reviewer noted, this is the English-language Wikipedia, whereas your draft is på svenska. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:35, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:58, 30 July 2025 review of submission by Jimnee

[edit]

Why is my draft rejected? Although the content is self written Jimnee (talk) 09:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimnee: this draft has all the hallmarks of being AI-generated, including hallucinated sources. It could have additionally been declined for inadequate referencing and insufficient evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:31, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:18, 30 July 2025 review of submission by Prathima08

[edit]

my page is declined to submit but im not able to get the reason, where it is mentioned tell me Prathima08 (talk) 12:18, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Prathima08: it hasn't been declined, you created it with a decline template already in it. (Did you use AI to generate the code, by any chance?) I'll go and remove the template.
That said, had you submitted this, it would have beendeclined, since it provides no evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:22, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
no wikipedia was told me to not remove that instruction so i didnt remove that code Prathima08 (talk) 12:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i added all the PR notations about mcube before submitting it Prathima08 (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Prathima08 We only see that decline box when you have asked ChatGPT to create a draft, and it mistakenly adds some broken code that results in that decline box. Please do not use ChatGPT to generate draft articles. qcne (talk) 12:48, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, ChatGPT made up a bunch of sources which you included without even bothering to check if the links work. The sources are fake. Do not use ChatGPT to create drafts. qcne (talk) 12:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:44, 30 July 2025 review of submission by Opige Toxic

[edit]

how to upload my biography Opige Toxic (talk) 12:44, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Opige Toxic. Your draft contained only the words "opige sunday toxic" which hopefully you can see isn't suitable content for a published article. Please carefully read Wikipedia:Autobiography which explains why we strongly discourage autobiographies on Wikipedia.
If you still want to have another go, feel free to edit your sandbox at User:Opige Toxic/sandbox but please read Help:Your first article first. qcne (talk) 12:47, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:03, 30 July 2025 review of submission by RachelCollins25

[edit]

Thank you for taking the time to review my submission. I noticed your comment stating that the submission is "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia." I’d really appreciate it if you could kindly clarify which specific aspects of the submission led to this conclusion.

Could you also recommend the necessary changes or improvements that would help align the article with Wikipedia’s guidelines and purpose? I’m happy to revise the content accordingly. RachelCollins25 (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RachelCollins25: Do you have any connexion to a company offering this sort of service? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was rejected after three declines: you have taken up an amount of your own time and of reviewers' time, and not managed to produce an acceptable draft.
A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to published about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else. ChatGPT and the like are not (currently at least) capable of doing this.
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:05, 30 July 2025 review of submission by BrumWikipedian

[edit]

What references do I need to add and is there anything wrong with the references already there? BrumWikipedian (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BrumWikipedian: the current sources are all primary (government) ones, they do not establish notability per WP:ORG. We would need to see significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are both reliable and entirely independent of the subject and of each other.
I should probably add that very few primary schools are notable, they would need to be something quite exceptional to meet the ORG threshold which is set high for a reason. Even the vast majority of secondary schools are nowadays not considered notable (I say 'nowadays', because there was a time when simply existing was thought enough to make a school notable; alas, no more). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should I keep the primary sources and add secondary, or should I replace them all into secondary BrumWikipedian (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BrumWikipedian: you can keep them, if they serve a purpose such as verifying information. Primary sources, especially when they can be considered reliable like these ones, can be used to support factual, non-contentious information. They just cannot be used to establish notability; for that you need secondary sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:15, 30 July 2025 review of submission by Sarahkillian

[edit]

I respectfully disagree with the decision to decline the draft and would like to appeal. The article has been significantly revised to address earlier concerns:

  • I have corrected tone and neutrality issues by removing promotional language and ensuring the draft adheres to Wikipedia’s encyclopedic standards.
  • David Kent is red-linked on several existing Wikipedia pages, suggesting notability and editorial interest. This draft addresses that gap.
  • Because Kent was most active in the 1980s–1990s, many key sources are from the print era and lack a digital footprint. However, I have cited all available independent, reliable online sources. BMI, which recognizes revenue and songwriting milestones and hosts respected industry awards, is used as a source. If the current reviewer is unfamiliar with this context, I kindly ask for reassignment to someone with relevant music industry knowledge.
  • I’ve used his personal website only for basic, uncontroversial biographical facts in line with WP:SELFSOURCE.
  • I’ve removed unverifiable personal details and focused the article on his professional career and notability.

Why Kent meets notability standards:

  • He performed on Along the Red Ledge by Hall & Oates (certified gold, 15 of 20 credited musicians have pages).
  • He is red-linked on multiple Wikipedia articles.
  • He was part of a notable ensemble (Hall & Oates) and co-wrote “Austin,” Blake Shelton’s breakthrough hit.
  • He has contributed significantly to both rock and country music.

I believe the draft now meets Wikipedia’s notability, sourcing, and neutrality guidelines, and I welcome further suggestions. What additional steps are needed to move this toward publication? 

Sarahkillian (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I should say, he meets the music notability guideline as a member of an ensemble with independently notable musicians (Hall & Oates). Additionally, his contributions span both pop/rock and country music, indicating cross-genre notability. Sarahkillian (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarahkillian: to start with your last point, individual members of an ensemble only warrant individual articles on Wikipedia if they demonstrate individual notability; in other words, they don't 'inherit' notability from the ensemble.
Being redlinked in other articles also in no way makes one notable.
This draft is mostly supported by primary sources, including many citations to Kent's own website, and this is somewhat problematic in terms of basic verifiability.
Sources don't have to be online; offline sources are perfectly acceptable, as long as they otherwise meet our reliability etc. requirements.
All that being said, it seems to me that the strongest claim for notability is as a co-writer of 'Austin', which would seem to satisfy WP:COMPOSER #1. Courtesy ping: MediaKyle, any thoughts on this as the last declining reviewer? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification - I completely understand that ensemble members don’t inherently inherit notability. My intent was not to rely on association alone, but to highlight that he also demonstrates independent notability, particularly as a co-writer of "Austin", which aligns with WP:COMPOSER #1. That song played a key role in launching Blake Shelton’s career and has been recognized within the industry (including through BMI milestones).
I acknowledge the earlier overreliance on primary sources and have since revised the draft to reduce dependence on his website, using it only for uncontroversial facts where third-party verification wasn’t available. Let me know what else is needed. Sarahkillian (talk) 16:34, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the ping. As you correctly noted, notability is not defined by redlinks or associations, but rather by coverage. WP:COMPOSER does state that an individual may be notable if they were credited for co-writing a notable composition, but it appears this is the extent of his notability, and thus this detail is better covered at the article about the song. NBC notes: The song was penned by David Kent and Kirsti Manna, but rapper Post Malone's mother decided to give her first-grader credit for the inspiration. That's all. BMI, similarly, mentions the subject once. The Ithaca Times, again, mentioned only once. In my opinion, we would need more substantial coverage beyond passing mentions to assert notability here. Of course, the author is always welcome to resubmit and see if someone else disagrees. MediaKyle (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I’m just trying to understand the difference between the draft here and the article on, for example, Charlie DeChant, who, as far as I can tell, is primarily known for his association with Hall & Oates, is only briefly mentioned in many of the cited sources, and even cites his own website twice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_DeChant. It seems Kent meets even more of the notability criteria.
Would it help if I removed certain parts of the draft and left it very simple? Sarahkillian (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Charles DeChant is VERY poorly sourced, unless and article is a featured article it should not be used to base another one on. Theroadislong (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You’re right that strong sourcing is important. But that raises the question – how did the Charles DeChant article get approved with such poor sourcing, including YouTube videos on personal channels, while this one was rejected due to "only passing mentions" in multiple reliable sources ranging from NBC to music industry-specific awards lists? There are a few Hall & Oates personnel pages sourced like the Charles DeChant one (see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Sharp or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Maelen for example). It seems inconsistent, so I think it’s fair to ask why one was accepted and the other wasn’t. Sarahkillian (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarahkillian: the DeChant article was almost certainly never "approved"; it is almost 20 years old, and that means it predates pretty much all our current policies and practices. In any case, you cannot use the existence of a non-policy-compliant article to argue for the creation of more like that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:24, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not pointing to that page as a reason to create more like it — I understand that older articles may not reflect current standards. What I'm saying is that there are multiple Hall & Oates personnel with similar levels of accomplishment to David Kent who do have pages. In Kent's case, he not only shares those credentials, but also co-wrote a #1 song that launched a major country artist’s career. That seems to go beyond what some of the existing articles cover, and I'm trying to understand how that level of notability is being weighed. Mark Rivera has a disclaimer at the top that says his page requires additional verification. I'm trying to understand why all of those personnel either have (poorly sourced) pages or sources that say they need more verification when Kent's is simply being declined. Sarahkillian (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because we don't want more poor quality articles? Theroadislong (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why it’s being implied that I don’t care about quality — that’s a given. I wouldn’t have spent the time on this if that weren’t the case. So yes, maintaining standards is something we both want.
What I’m asking is: who can I speak with to better understand how this particular article fails where others — which are less detailed, less sourced, and in some cases more self-promotional — have been accepted? There must be some clearer reasoning behind that distinction. Sarahkillian (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You keep making essentially the same argument, "there are even worse articles out there, so I should be allowed to create one also". I can understand why you would say that, given how you're paid to create this Kent article, but that's not how this works. Kent may yet prove to be notable enough, but it won't be because this draft is better than some existing article(s). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you were saying he wasn't meeting the notability standards when other personnel with the same notability already did. So, I'm not trying to rely on poorly cited articles to support the approval of this one. If there are specific shortcomings in the draft itself, I’m asking for clarity on what those are. We can ignore the other pages going forward - let's focus on this one. Is it being rejected because he is not notable enough, or because there is something wrong with the draft itself? If the new version is still under review, I’m happy to wait and see what comments are made. Sarahkillian (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:16, 30 July 2025 review of submission by Eskanindia

[edit]

Greetings, We are trying to add an article on M. Eshwariah a reputed artist from Hyderabad, India of his time. We tried adding the scanned images of the news paper of that time as a proof of his works and achievements. From the bottm of the heart we feel that the information about him and his works will be a valued asset for art arena. Please guide us. Thank you. Eskanindia (talk) 20:16, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Eskanindia who is "we" and "us"? Also, the reason for the decline is it does not cite any sources not to mention it is written like a fan page rather than an encyclopedia article. S0091 (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Eskanindia. "Proof of his works and achievements" will not help. We require independent reliable sources with significant coverage of him, in order to establish that he meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability - see WP:42 for more about those sources. ColinFine (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:14, 30 July 2025 review of submission by BrumWikipedian

[edit]

Can someone help me fix this and bring it upto Wikipedian Standards. Any advice would great. Thank you BrumWikipedian (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BrumWikipedian We don't do co-editing here at this help desk. I will say that most elementary schools are not notable unless the school is in a historic structure. Even Sandy Hook Elementary School, the site of a mass shooting, redirects to the school district(see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES) while the shooting itself has an article. 331dot (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:49, 30 July 2025 review of submission by Escola Cola

[edit]

I am having difficulty understanding why the article has been declined again, even after I have added reliable secondary sources discussing the subject. The draft article is similar to the page of Stephen E. Sachs, another prominent law professor and Supreme Court scholar. Any help is appreciated, thank you! Escola Cola (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Escola Cola Quotes and interviews from Epps are not independent coverage. To demonstrate notability, you need at least some sources that satisfy all three criteria in WP:42; there needs to be significant coverage about Epps written by someone who is completely unaffiliated with him. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:54, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, you could show that Epps meets one of the criteria in Wikipedia's special notability guidelines for academics. I note that Stephen E. Sachs meets one of these criteria since he holds a named chair as Harvard's Antonin Scalia Professor of Law. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:05, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. Wouldn't Epps qualify under 7(a)? He has often been cited by national news publications, including the New York Times, as a Supreme Court expert. Escola Cola (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Potentially, although I'm not very familiar with how this criterion is applied. @RangersRus, since you declined the draft, what do you think of this argument? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:06, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
no it doesn't. We are looking for significant coverage on the subject and his achievements (prestigious notable awards or works that made significant impact) in secondary "independent" reliable sources. RangersRus (talk) 11:57, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response, @RangersRus. I'm still a bit confused as to why his status as a frequently consulted expert in the national media doesn't satisfy Criteria 7a for academic notability, when the articles are not written by him, but by journalists like Adam Liptak? His status in legal academia compares well to Kate A. Shaw, who has a page on Wikipedia. Both have served as legal experts for the media, have published in major law reviews, and host popular legal podcasts. And as the Epps draft reflects, his academic work on Supreme Court reform gained widespread media attention after Pete Buttigieg endorsed it. Thank you for your consideration. Escola Cola (talk) 04:56, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 31

[edit]

00:54, 31 July 2025 review of submission by Jarel Zoldyck

[edit]

Hi,

Why is my contribution being deleted? What is wrong with the wiki page I am creating? Jarel Zoldyck (talk) 00:54, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jarel Zoldyck, you declined it yourself by asking a chatbot to help you submit it, and pasting in whatever nonsense the bot hallucinated for you. If you had submitted it properly, a reviewer would have declined it with advice to read our guidelines on WP:Notability (people) and Help:Referencing for beginners. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 04:21, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:38, 31 July 2025 review of submission by NateMoster

[edit]

Hi,

I am a new Wikipedia editor, and my first submission Draft:Oded Napchi was recently declined for notability, source quality, and tone concerns. I am seeking guidance from the expert Wikipedia community to help.

There was a previous issue with my first 3 citations, which I have repaired. Additionally, if you could kindly offer input, might you please advise:

1. Are my current sources sufficient for notability, or what types of additional sources should I find? 2. How can I best revise the draft to ensure a neutral, encyclopedic tone? 3. Are there other key issues blocking approval?

Oded already a published Wikipedia page in Hebrew, if this can helps my US/EN version: https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%93%D7%93_%D7%A0%D7%A4%D7%97%D7%99

Thank you! NateMoster (talk) 01:38, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NateMoster Interviews and quotes from Napchi are not independent sources, so they do not help to demonstrate that the subject meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability.
Do you have a connection to Napchi? If you do, this must be disclosed, see WP:Conflict of interest. If you are being paid by Napchi, you are required to make a WP:Paid-contribution disclosure regardless of whether you are specifically paid to edit Wikipedia. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:11, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this helpful feedback; it's appreciated! I will review and use to strengthen my Wiki contributions. NateMoster (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @NateMoster. The Hebrew article he:עודד נפחי will help only if its sources are acceptable to English Wikipedia. I haven't looked closely, but the Globes link does not find a specific article, the Yahoo Finance article is mostly quoted from Napchi, and so is not independent, A list of patents is a primary source, and an article by Napchi also does not contribute to establishing that he meets English Wikipedia's criteria for notability. You need several sources each of which meets all the criteria in WP:42, and the bulk of the article must be based on those sources.
It is possible that some of the Hebrew sources I have not looked at meet those criteria, but none of the English ones appeared to. (If the Hebrew sources do, then you can use them: sources in English are preferred, but sources in other languages are acceptable, as long as they meet the criteria). ColinFine (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate this perspective as I learn the Wikipedia ways...I am looking closer at the notability requirements now, as well as the Hebrew sources...thank you again for this helpful input. NateMoster (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:05, 31 July 2025 review of submission by Hypercyclone 2

[edit]

So I think it finally deserves a article about the storm it was a draft for over 5 days Hypercyclone 2 (talk) 02:05, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hypercyclone 2 you have submitted so it will be reviewed at some point. S0091 (talk) 18:52, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:47, 31 July 2025 review of submission by TuhinSikdar19081992

[edit]

MY NAME IS TUHIN SIKDAR TuhinSikdar19081992 (talk) 07:47, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is pure self-promotion, it has no substantial content, no supporting references, no indication of why the subject of the article (i.e. you) are notable. Wikipedia is not a place to post autobiographies and all that is why your draft has been rejected once already. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:49, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Draft Review and Arabic Title

[edit]

Hello, I would like to request a review of the article draft for Draft:ELsusi.

This is a biography of Mohammed Elsusi, a Palestinian rapper and activist currently based in Norway under the ICORN City of Refuge program. The article contains numerous reliable references including news coverage, festival programs, and official music platforms.

In addition to the review, I kindly request that the Arabic title "سوسي" be included and displayed on the page. This is the name by which the artist is widely known in Arabic-speaking contexts, and it is crucial for search engine visibility and recognition in Arabic Wikipedia and Google results.

Thank you for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elsusi (talk • contribs) 08:03, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Elsusi: Draft:Elsusi has been deleted as promotional.
Also, please note that autobiographies are very strongly discouraged, see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:20, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, @Elsusi, please note taht "Search engine visibility and recognition" is absolutely not part of Wikipedia's purpose. ColinFine (talk) 21:17, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:24, 31 July 2025 review of submission by Harshit.jagtap

[edit]

Why rejected Harshit.jagtap (talk) 09:24, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Harshit.jagtap: because this is just self-promotion, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. If you want to tell the world about yourself, you need to find a different platform for that, like LinkedIn etc. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:28, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i need to be famous or to get killed in gaza to write about me thank you so much am just surviver want to tell the world my story am not number ! 79.161.3.138 (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:41, 31 July 2025 review of submission by Harshit.jagtap

[edit]

How do I write biography? Harshit.jagtap (talk) 09:41, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harshit.jagtap You use social media. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:01, 31 July 2025 review of submission by Yaratul

[edit]

Please help me to publish my clients legal existing company details. Its me who have wrote this and used ai for writing references only 👍 Yaratul (talk) 10:01, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yaratul You need to formally disclose your paid relationship per the Terms of Use, see your user talk page for instructions. You must do this soon.
If the company is your client, why are you claiming that you personally created and personally own the copyright to the company logo?
The draft contains a portions that says the company fails a notability analysis- I agree that the company is not notable according to WP:ORG. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite remarkable, not often you see something like that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:12, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's also a quite obvious sign the draft is not written by a human. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:34, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:40, 31 July 2025 review of submission by Chrisotoforos Al Nar

[edit]

understood. Chrisotoforos Al Nar (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:57, 31 July 2025 review of submission by NickCherukuri

[edit]

Please help me for writing and publishing article for Third Eye Gen NickCherukuri (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @NickCherukuri read Your first article. Also press releases, social media, Forbes Technology Council, etc. are not reliable independent sources. In fact, there is not a single source cited that meet all four criteria: reliable, secondary, independent and in-depth coverage directly about the subject. S0091 (talk) 18:49, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:00, 31 July 2025 review of submission by Khachatas

[edit]

The page is still in drafts and keeps getting declined. This is my first page and I would like to know what exactly to improve. Thank you! Khachatas (talk) 15:00, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khachatas You need the full title when linking, including the "Draft:" portion, I fixed this.
You must disclose your connection to this band, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. You took a very professional looking image of the band where they posed for you.
The draft is poorly sourced and shows no indication of how they are notable. 331dot (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your reply, this was really helpful.
I understand the COI policy, but what if I deleted all the parts where inpartiality was infringed, now there are only facts about the band's history, can it still be accepted? Also unfortunately there aren't plenty of sources to attach about the provided facts as the band is quite niche. Khachatas (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there are no or few sources, that means that the band would not merit an article at this time. You will, however, still need to address the photo. If you did not take this photo(as I suspect) you must immediately without delay request its deletion from Commons as every second it is here puts Wikipedia at risk of legal action for copyright infringement. Unless you did indeed take the photo, in which case you must disclose your connection to this band. 331dot (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:00, 31 July 2025 review of submission by 98.97.63.10

[edit]

I have submitted a few drafts but I was rejected every time. I would like assistance to improve the draft and have it published. Thank you. 98.97.63.10 (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the creator of the draft, remember to log in when posting. If you work for this company, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID.
Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about a company, its offerings, and activities. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:24, 31 July 2025 review of submission by Missmolly94

[edit]

My article about Winifred Johnston Randall was rejected by Rahmatula786 because the subject does not have "significant coverage in published, reliable secondary sources." The difficulty in referencing "reliable secondary sources" is that the subject significantly predates the internet, and source material about her were in print, and most are not available on the internet.

While Winifred Randall was not a nationally notable person with a lot of national news coverage, her story deserves to be accessible to people interested in learning about this remarkable person, how and what she achieved. She had several major accomplishments, which were covered at the time or at least within her lifetime. Accomplishments of women dating back to the turn of the 20th century, often get overlooked and forgotten. While a researcher can discover more about her in the Fort Wayne, Indiana archives, without an overview of her accomplishments in the medium of today, the internet, her story will be forgotten. (Even if I were able to go to Fort Wayne and go through their archives, I could provide no link to these print sources.)

I have provided a link to a source, which admittedly is not an independent source, but within the source I provided are newspaper clippings, which validate the reliability of the information provided. None of these newspaper articles are online. They are too old. I do not, however, think an article should be rejected because the secondary sources are too old for the internet. Missmolly94 (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
Offline sources are perfectly acceptable. That's not why the draft was declined. You did an excellent job summarizing her life, but not shown how she is a notable person. What was her particularly influence according to sources? That's what we're interested in. 331dot (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the sources in the archive might demonstrate her notability, you might need, if able, to go there and see what they say. 331dot (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:39, 31 July 2025 review of submission by Kanutufilmodishafilms

[edit]

Premanidhi Majhi is a India Movie director He Born in 27 December 2005 in ,Kalahandi Khasbahal. At the beginning of 2020, he passionately started to learn movie director heavy movie 2012 something something 2023maybe may I come here making. Kanutufilmodishafilms (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:39, 31 July 2025 review of submission by Raphaelmarkus001

[edit]

My reviewer keep declining my article because of it what does it mean Raphaelmarkus001 (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Raphaelmarkus001 you used ChatGPT to create the draft whose output or instructions included the decline so essentially you declined your own draft. What I suggest doing is blanking the draft and starting over without using AI after you have read Your first article. S0091 (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:45, 31 July 2025 review of submission by 2601:803:8080:5770:E5F9:84EA:83F1:BAE2

[edit]

Good afternoon,

I am a little confused as to why this draft was rejected. Dr. Reinholz meets criteria 1, 2, and 4. I have also cited multiple (26!) sources detailing different parts of Dr. Reinholz's academic career, contributions to higher education, and awards in addition to his contributions to co-developing an classroom evaluation tool - EQUIP. To this end, I have satisfied not one, but BOTH of the aforementioned "criteria for resubmitting." Although Dr. Reinholz meets criteria from the eight academic-specific criteria, I still have included several secondary sources written by third parties, including citation numbers 3, 4, 10, and 11.

What am I missing?

Thank you,

Dr. Ridgway 2601:803:8080:5770:E5F9:84EA:83F1:BAE2 (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:13, 31 July 2025 review of submission by Coining

[edit]

Hello,

I've received a message saying that I cannot resubmit this article submission. I've read over the comment that cited WP:NOTTVGUIDE, and other than the fact that the article is largely about TV coverage, I don't quite understand how WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies. The full text of that policy is "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable," but the proposed article does none of those things. Any insights that can be provided would be much appreciated. Thank you. Coining (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Easternsahara please respond. S0091 (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Coining. Which of your sources is an in-depth article about the subject "Sports broadcasting contracts in Israel"? Does even one of them contain the phrase "Sports broadcasting contracts in Israel"? Or even the phrase "Sports broadcasting contracts"? Without such sources, "Sports broadcasting contracts in Israel" is not a notable subject.
It looks to me as if they are mostly, yes, TV guides.
It is possible that an article List of sports broadcasting contracts in Israel might be acceptable, providing the sourcing met the criteria for WP:NLIST. (I am not very familiar with stand-alone lists, so I'm not sure). ColinFine (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the questions. The title of the article is based on parallel articles, such as Sports broadcasting contracts in Canada and Sports broadcasting contracts in the United Kingdom. In any case, the points that you raise all go to general WP:NOTABILITY, rather than WP:NOTTVGUIDE, which was the denial reason cited. To clarify, I'm not saying there couldn't have been a basis to deny the request to publish the article, but I don't think WP:NOTTVGUIDE is such a basis -- the proposed article doesn't "list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc." -- and given that the draft article is being denied the ability to ever be improved and resubmitted, I think it appropriate to seek this clarification, and perhaps if different criteria need to be addressed, the article can be allowed to be revised to meet those concerns. Coining (talk) 21:48, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At WP:NLIST it states the following: "accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". I wrongly cited wp:nottvguide. As for the other lists, there could be sources saying that sports broadcasting contracts in those countries. I will check and if there are not then I will list them for deletion 🇪🇭 Easternsahara U T C 22:38, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given the change in rationale, can the draft, instead of being "rejected" be "declined," allowing for a revised draft in the future to be submitted if it meets the WP:NLIST criteria? Thank you for your consideration of this request. Coining (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:53, 31 July 2025 review of submission by TESENT Games

[edit]

Can I add a line to my infobox that isn't in the template? Can I use photos from events that have happened that I didn't take? Off the internet. Dose it help to have Wikipedia links to my article? TESENT Games (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @TESENT Games.
1. In general, no. An infobox can only display the information it was coded for: to add extra lines would normally require somebody to change the coding (and usually to add parameters). You can request that on the talk page of the Template, but you will need to make a strong case in order for a Template coder to think it worth spending time on. Some templates have "catchall" parameters, where you can put free-form notes - you'd need to look at the documentation of the template.
But the Infobox is a complete irrelevance to getting your draft accepted.
2. In general, no. Wikipedia (and Wikimedia projects generally) are meticulous about copyright. Unless you can clearly demonstrate that the photo in question has been explicitly placed in the public domain by its copyright holder, or explicitly released under a copyleft licence such as CC-BY_SA by its copyright holder, you may not use it. (There is a partial exception if your use meets all the criteria in the non-free content criteria, but one of those is that non-free images may only be used in article, not in drafts).
Again, photos are a complete irrelevance to getting your draft accepted.
The main issue is about citations, and hence notability. Your citations are all listed at the end, with no indication as to which information in the text they are intended to support. Since the main (and essentially the sole) purpose of citing a source in a Wikipedia article is to provide verification for a piece of information in the article, this is less than satisfactory. Please see referencing for beginners.
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) 18:17, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 1

[edit]

01:00, 1 August 2025 review of submission by Weilandofthefree

[edit]

Has been declined multiple times for LLM language. Have revised and rewritten everything. Looking for advice on why and how to correct. Weilandofthefree (talk) 01:00, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have resubmitted it. In time, a reviewer will get to it. We don't normally do pre-reviews here. ColinFine (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:22, 1 August 2025 review of submission by Jilletegreas

[edit]

Hi, I’ve submitted Draft:Serenade (company) three times and it continues to be declined with the vague statement that it "does not show notability". However, the article cites several high-quality, reliable, independent sources, including:

All are secondary, independent, reliable, and provide in-depth coverage (not press releases or brief mentions). I've also posted detailed justifications on the draft talk page and my user talk page.

Could an experienced editor review this for notability or possibly move it to mainspace if appropriate?

Thank you! Jilletegreas (talk) 02:22, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've already had three experienced editors review it for notability and decline.
I agree with those declines. Almost all the sources focus on acquisitions and funding rounds. Under WP:NCORP these fall under the category of trivial coverage (see WP:CORPTRIV). Arguably the only one that doesn't is a pseudo-interview largely sourced from discussions with the creator of the app and one of the artists affilliated with the app. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:29, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, it's a moot issue now as the draft has now been rejected, and will not be considered further. I'm not sure why you submitted it again multiple times without changes; AFC is not a slot machine on which you keep pulling the handle until you hit the jackbot. What exactly was so urgent? Was this a work assignment? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:02, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:24, 1 August 2025 review of submission by 95.82.155.121

[edit]

Hello, I would like to publish an article about an extraordinary Czech-American architect. I work at an institution whose library has acquired a large number of documents from the estate of architect Dvorak. Czech libraries have a number of articles and references to his life. A significant portion of the documents have been digitized, but they are only accessible to registered readers of libraries and archives. From the comments of reviewers of articles on Wiki, it appears that it is necessary to cite only those sources that can be easily and immediately verified on the internet. Essentially, reviewer Hoary argues that articles on Wiki can only repeat other easily accessible internet sources. I don't know how to deal with sourcing an article in such a case. Can you advise me please? 95.82.155.121 (talk) 06:24, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have to be published, meaning they cannot be private archives or correspondence or solely oral accounts, etc. They do not have to be online, however; for example an old book which only exists in hardcopy format but which is found in a number of libraries would be perfectly acceptable (in the case of offline sources, sufficient bibliographic detail must be provided to enable the source to be reliably identified for verification purposes, see WP:OFFLINE). Sources also don't have to be in English, and paywalled sources are acceptable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:37, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:33, 1 August 2025 review of submission by 2604:3D09:B977:1800:2F48:3957:FE1C:611

[edit]

I want be reason for a make biography page Nathan Delmo he very famous world on tiktok called adinclip on over 13 million views that why from tiktok video 2604:3D09:B977:1800:2F48:3957:FE1C:611 (talk) 06:33, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, but Draft:Nathan Delmo has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:38, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, IP user. Notability, as we use the word on Wikipedia, is not about being famous or popular: it is about whether there is enough independent published material available to base an article on (bearing in mind that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ) ColinFine (talk) 10:48, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:21, 1 August 2025 review of submission by Carlo322

[edit]

Declined submission. Can you please explain why this has been declined. I have compared the content to other people in her area of interest and cannot see what is missing. The links are verified as are the citations. Hayley is also a well known figure in the area. Can someone please advise what needs to be changed. Carlo322 (talk) 07:21, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Carlo322: One source, no matter how good it is, is not enough to support an article on Wikipedia, and especially not a biography which requires that literally EVERY claim a reasonable person could challenge be sourced. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:29, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Carlo322: it's not the content which is the problem, it's the sources. This draft cites a single, close primary source, and only once. This means that there is no proof whatsoever that the subject is notable enough to warrant an article (this is the reason why the draft was declined). Also, there is no way to verify that anything you've written is true. Articles on living people have particularly strict referencing requirements, and pretty much every statement must be clearly supported by an inline citation to a reliable published source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:29, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: You have plenty of inline external links in the text, some of which could probably be converted to inline citations. External links aren't even allowed, whereas citations are required. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:31, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:22, 1 August 2025 review of submission by Hazshez

[edit]

Articles for creation how Hazshez (talk) 07:22, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hazshez: are you asking how to create an article draft? Go to WP:YFA, you'll find pretty much everything you need there (well, obviously not the sources that you would need to summarise per WP:42, but other than that). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:27, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hazshez there's nothing here. Please see the instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 07:27, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:05, 1 August 2025 review of submission by LarsArtmann

[edit]

Hello, can somebody help me get my first article published? I had a bunch of questions about the review I got. It's posted here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Ralf_S._Engelschall LarsArtmann (talk) 10:05, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LarsArtmann Why don't you ask your questions then, or better yet, address the comments that the reviewer gave you? ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 00:55, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:37, 1 August 2025 review of submission by Jilletegreas

[edit]

Requesting reconsideration of Draft:Serenade (company) rejection

Hi there — I’m seeking help with the draft Draft:Serenade (company), which has now been **fully rejected** as "not sufficiently notable." However, I believe this decision was made in error, as the subject clearly meets both WP:GNG and WP:CORP.

The article cites multiple reliable, independent, and in-depth secondary sources that provide significant coverage of the subject, including:

  • The Australian Financial Review — Profile of Serenade’s fan engagement model and direct-to-fan monetisation strategy during COVID:

→ https://www.afr.com/technology/app-lets-you-buy-a-serenade-from-your-favourite-singer-20200825-p55p4s

  • Music Business Worldwide — In-depth feature on the company’s $4.2M funding round, use of eco-friendly blockchain, and product roadmap:

→ https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/serenade-just-raised-usd-4-2-million-whats-it-going-to-spend-it-on/

  • Startup Daily — Independent coverage of Serenade’s acquisition by ASX-listed Vinyl Group, with full deal terms and strategic context:

→ https://www.startupdaily.net/topic/business/asx-listed-vinyl-buys-blockchain-music-startup-serenade-in-shares-deal-worth-up-to-2-3-million/

  • Business News Australia — Coverage of Serenade’s funding history, investor base (e.g. Hugh Jackman), and market entry strategy:

→ https://www.businessnewsaustralia.com/articles/hugh-jackman-backed-nft-music-marketplace-serenade-raises-6-million.html

All four sources are: - Independent of the company - Non-routine and not press releases - In-depth (feature-length or major business write-ups) - Published in well-regarded, editorially controlled outlets

I’ve also integrated these citations directly into the body of the draft to make notability clearer. Could a senior reviewer please take another look or advise how best to proceed?

Thanks so much! Jilletegreas (talk) 14:37, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jilletegreas If you are associated with this company, that must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID.
Routine business activities like funding rounds do not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 14:43, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jilletegreas: please don't keep making the same argument over and over, and if you do, please add it to the existing thread (just a few threads above) so that the discussion is not fragmented.
These sources do not meet NCORP.
  • The AFR article seems okay, although I can't read it as it's behind a paywall; it alone isn't enough, though.
  • The MBWW piece is an interview, ie. primary source.
  • The other two are routine business reporting (finance raised).
Also, if you keep resubmitting a draft without any attempt at addressing the decline reasons, you risk it being rejected outright, which is what happened here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:51, 1 August 2025 review of submission by TJPR225

[edit]

Hello- how can I create a wiki page for an award winning author and physiologist? TJPR225 (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't violate copyright.
Creating a new article(not a "wiki page") is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia, and we usually recommend that new users first gain experience by editing existing articles in areas that interest them, as well as use the new user tutorial.
An article about a person should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. An award would only make someone notable if the award itself has an article(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). 331dot (talk) 16:33, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:13, 1 August 2025 review of submission by Jonkeren1

[edit]

Hi, I translated the page from the NL Wikipedia (https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulrike_Nagel_(journaliste). I can not get one reference to work, gives an error in red (nr. 18). Thx -- Jonkeren1 (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonkeren1: {{Cite news}} would seem to be the equivalent template on en.wp. Templates aren't shared 1:1 between Wikipediae. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:38, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:51, 1 August 2025 review of submission by Ddcvrrrr

[edit]

Premanidhi Majhi Ddcvrrrr (talk) 18:51, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Ddcvrrrr. The fact that you entitled your draft "Premanidhi Majhi official" implies that (like many people) you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is.
No Wikipedia article is ever "official" (in the sense you apparently meant it). This is because a Wikipedia article is not owned by its subject, not controlled by its subject or their associates, and does not necessarily say what the subject would like it to say. 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.
If you are trying to use Wikipedia to tell the world what somebody (or some organisation) wants the world to know about themselves, then Wikipedia is the wrong place. ColinFine (talk) 10:58, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 2

[edit]

01:56:19, 2 August 2025 review of submission by 80.57.242.245

[edit]
IP editor, I fixed the link to point to your draft as intended. In general, a Wikipedia article should aim to summarize what has been written in independent sources, but you can still use non-independent sources to complement the independent ones. The original manufacturer or a storefront selling the product is considered a non-independent source, but it can be useful for verifying basic information about the product. However, if you can't find independent sources that discuss the product, it should probably not be included in the article.
More importantly, to demonstrate that the topic belongs on Wikipedia, you need secondary independent sources that discuss the general concept of commercials related to gyaru. Your draft has lots of citations to the commercials and storefronts themselves (which are not independent sources), and news pieces that discuss either the products or specific advertisements. It's essentially an arbitrarily selected list of products and commercials, most of which lack independent sources. Where are the sources that discuss the broader topic? Can you find any secondary, independent sources that, for example, analyze several different gyaru-related commercials, or sources that discuss the history or general trends in these commercials? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:31, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Helpful racoon! I'll see if any other information in the article can be broaden with information or discusses said info. Otherwise the advice about for the chocolates will definitely be applied! (I've found three news sites discussing the matter) Thank you yet again! 80.57.242.245 (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Helpful Racoon, I have another question but about additional citations. Does it have to be time accurate or? For example for the first subject about make-up brand candy doll can I cite a most appropriate time frame (2015) as it is the oldest available article or is any article discussing candy doll on any subject and time frame alright? I assume the latter is incorrect but just asking. Thank you 80.57.242.245 (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the source verifies the information you're adding, it doesn't really matter how old the source is. In fact, newer sources are slightly preferred because they tend to have more up-to-date information. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:18, 2 August 2025 review of submission by Nsberklee

[edit]

All of the information submitted is true. I am submitting factual content. Perhaps I am doing something incorrectly. If Neal Smith Jazz is "googled" one can see that all of the information is correct and valid. I need someone to help walk me through the correct way on setting a page up. This is very confusing and frustrating. Nsberklee (talk) 02:18, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nsberklee: I've deleted your draft because it was a copypaste from an external source. You must write in your own words. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:47, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Nsberklee.
Your use of the phrase "setting up a page" suggests that, like many people, you are confusing Wikipedia with social media. A more appropriate expression is "writing an encyclopaedia article about". Such an article should be a neutral summary of what several people, wholly unconnected with Smith, had independently chosen to publish about Smith in reliable publications, and little else.
In particular, almost nothing written, published, or commissioned by Smith or his associates, would be of relevance.
If you are associated with Smith, you are not forbidden from writing such an article, but it would be appreciably more difficult, and you would be required to be transparent about your conflict of interest.
If you are Smith (as you username suggests), then I would point out that autobiography writing about yourself successfully is so difficult that it is strongly discouraged.
I also suggest you look at WP:PROUD.
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) 11:14, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:05, 2 August 2025 review of submission by Lymenghong69khgaming

[edit]

My draft Draft:Cambodia national football team results (2000–2009) was rejected as “contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.” I’m trying to create a results list similar to existing pages like Cambodia national football team results (1950–1959), which was accepted. I’d like help understanding what’s missing or incorrect in this version, and what changes I should make so it meets Wikipedia’s standards. Lymenghong69khgaming (talk) 04:05, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lymenghong69khgaming: Cambodia national football team results (1950-1959) was never accepted; in fact it was draftified by a New Pages Patroller, and YOU moved it back to mainspace. I will likely send it to WP:Articles for deletion soon. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:29, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:52, 2 August 2025 review of submission by Swtysinha

[edit]

Can you please specific on the lines in the content that do not comply with wiki rules. I am keeping on resubmitting, and not clear what is the issue. Swtysinha (talk) 04:52, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Swtysinha: this draft has too many issues to start listing everything here. The last decline was on the grounds that it looks AI-generated, which I quite agree with. Do no use AI to compose Wikipedia content, it causes all sorts of problems.
There is also far too much unreferenced information, with entire sections without a single citation. This is totally unacceptable in an article on a living person: every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal and family details must be clearly supported with inline citations to reliable published sources, or else removed.
The tone is also too promotional, with peacock terms like "mastery", "prominent figure", etc. throughout. Your job is not to praise or promote this person, merely describe them. If you do use terms like that, they must be direct quotations from independent and reliable sources, and must then also be marked as such.
And speaking of promoting, please don't link to Amazon or other platforms where this person's music can be purchased, that just makes an already promotional draft look even more so. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a sales channel. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:46, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:33, 2 August 2025 review of submission by Utopian100

[edit]

I submitted an article on July 7-25 and have now received a notice that the article has been declined by a reviewer due to "submission: ilc - Submission is a BLP that does not meet minimum inline citation requirements". I have carefully cited the facts presented in the article and in order to address the cause for the rejection I need to know what specific facts should receive additional citations. How can I fix the issue without knowing what I need to fix? Thanks. Utopian100 (talk) 12:33, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It no longer says it is a BLP(as the subject is long deceased). 331dot (talk) 13:43, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 3

[edit]

06:27, 3 August 2025 review of submission by Murtazanizam

[edit]

Hi, I created this draft for Humraaz (2025 TV series), a Pakistani drama featuring Feroze Khan and Ayeza Khan. It was rejected earlier, and I would appreciate any feedback or suggestions to improve it, especially about sources and notability. Thank you! Murtazanizam (talk) 06:27, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection typically means that resubmission is not possible. If something has changed about the draft, you should first appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly.
If you are associated with this program, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID and WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 08:21, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked as a sock. 331dot (talk) 08:23, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:13, 3 August 2025 review of submission by 94.231.243.33

[edit]

Dear editor, I have been struggling with this draft page for some while now, I feel that the sources do qualify and that I have quite a lot of them, and a few really good ones (i.e. the one from the European Parliament). What is still missing before it gets accepted? And are there any sources now that are really problematic? Thank you very much! ~ Leon 94.231.243.33 (talk) 10:13, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the creator of the draft, remember to log in when posting.
If you are associated with this organization, that must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID.
You are telling us what the organization wants us to know about itself and its activities- this is the wrong approach. Instead, you 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. 331dot (talk) 10:15, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting review for Draft:One Global Capital

[edit]

Hi, I would like to request a review for Draft:One Global Capital. I have disclosed a conflict of interest on the draft's talk page and rewritten the article to be neutral and factual. Feedback from independent editors is welcome to help ensure it meets Wikipedia's notability and neutrality standards. Thank you! SydneyEditor01 (talk) 10:48, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SydneyEditor01: you need to submit it for review. I've added a template which has a blue button on it, just click on that when you're ready. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:53, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:57, 3 August 2025 review of submission by Quest and questions

[edit]

hello dear people, I want to submit a page in sandbox but I get some errors which I don't understand Quest and questions (talk) 10:57, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Quest and questions You declined your draft yourself by asking a chatbot to help you submit it, and pasting in whatever nonsense the bot hallucinated for you. @Theroadislong has moved the draft to Draft:Kris Belaen and I have fixed the template. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 11:10, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Quest and questions: did you by any chance use AI to create your draft? You shouldn't. It doesn't know what it's doing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:10, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
trout Self-trout Apologies for introducing a different error when I tried to clean up @Quest and questions's error earlier. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 11:19, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thank you Quest and questions (talk) 12:57, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:17, 3 August 2025 review of submission by Kellyfromgoi

[edit]

I am seeking guidance to improve my draft article so that it meets Wikipedia’s notability and sourcing requirements. I would appreciate help with finding reliable, independent sources and advice on how to better structure the content for acceptance. Kellyfromgoi (talk) 12:17, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kellyfromgoi: This reads like an advertizing lullaby, and four of your five sources are 404-compliant. Unsurprisingly, GPTZero is highly confident the draft is the product of a chatbot. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:22, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kellyfromgoi: And as for the one source that doesn't 404 out, it's a non-sequitur, having jack to do with advertizing (it's about an employee recognition programme). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:25, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:36, 3 August 2025 review of submission by Jnknpl

[edit]

recent updates established subject notability. need revise review to inclusion Jnknpl (talk) 12:36, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging rejecting reviewer @Bonadea. qcne (talk) 12:37, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:16, 3 August 2025 review of submission by 2A02:A447:4E23:0:44FC:6CC4:C90:D1B9

[edit]

I see that my article got rejected because of the references that i used. For the references i mainly used cointelegraph articles about brickken that contained anouncements about the project, these were rather detailed articles that, beside the anouncement, also contained information about brickken in general and the real world asset market. Besides that, i don't see why cointelegraph cannot be considered a reliable source, since it is a very well known media outlet in the crypto space, second of all not a single article where i referenced too has any sponsored content. I also referenced to brickken's own website, but this was only for information i couldn't find anywhere else, such as the date of the whitepaper release. I also believe that Brickken is notable enough for a wikipedia page. For example, the company has around 10.000 followers on linkedin. Another company with the same amount of followers (Nuro,Inc.) does also have a detailed wikipedia page. 2A02:A447:4E23:0:44FC:6CC4:C90:D1B9 (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't care about LinkedIn (or social media in general) followers. We only care that the sources are acceptable. I will also point to WP:GS/CRYPTO, encourage you to read it, and strongly advise you to find a much less contentious area to work in. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:31, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:32, 3 August 2025 review of submission by AddInfinty

[edit]

This list keeps getting rejected for not having secondary sources for a Wikipedia article that is a list article and given the fact that most other list articles do not have a ton of secondary sources that seems out of character. The other things that it is dinged for about not being in the depth don't make sense for a list article. AddInfinty (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A list article about a topic requires that their first be an article about the overall topic. There is an article about the championship for Division III wrestling, but there doesn't seem to be an article NCAA Division III wrestling. 331dot (talk) 20:16, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:44, 3 August 2025 review of submission by 2601:380:8400:2E50:88E:965C:7EC2:4637

[edit]

As the leading expert with a PhD in special education and disability studies, I am the most published researcher on this topic. It might appear that this is self-promotion but it's not. I am genuinely interested in finding a way to make this more findable on Wikipedia...in much the same way that you allowed MagicAid to do the same. I wrote this entry...and am pretty insulted that you would suggest it's an AI entry. So what do I need to do to get Magic Therapy equal treatment as MagicAid? 2601:380:8400:2E50:88E:965C:7EC2:4637 (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing that you can do; Wikipedia does not host original research.
Please see other stuff exists; each article or draft is judged on its own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate, and just not yet addressed by a volunteer. Wikipedia does not provide equal time where independent reliable sources do not, see WP:FALSEBALANCE. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Simple: Find reliable published sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:08, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 4

[edit]

Request for neutral editor to submit article about Loki Ojha

[edit]

Hello editors,

I have created a draft article about **Loki Ojha (also known as Alok Ojha)**, an Indian independent artist and music creator. Because I am the subject of the article, I understand that I should not submit it myself due to Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest policy.

I would be very grateful if a neutral editor could kindly review the draft and, if appropriate, help submit it on my behalf.

    • Sources include:**

- https://stories.workmob.com/loki-ojha-motivational-speakers - https://www.kingsolomonsmine.com.ng/blogs_on/from-nowhere-to-somewhere - https://www.ganapmagazine.com/2021/12/15/loki-ojha-his-passion-for-music/ - https://www.indieactivity.com/performer-motivational-speaker-creative-director-cg-artist-loki-ojha-on-indie-films/

My draft includes sections like Early Life, Career, Artistic Style, Festival Recognition, and a list of music releases.

The profile image was uploaded as: **File:Loki Ojha Profile Photo.jpg**

Thanks so much for your time and help.

— *User: Loki Ojha Artist* Loki Ojha Artist (talk) 01:10, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:53, 4 August 2025 review of submission by ExodiaBoss

[edit]

Why is the topic not notable? He is joining the election for Senate in Illinois. ExodiaBoss (talk) 02:53, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ExodiaBoss: Candidates are not by-default notable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 04:50, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ramniwas Yadav

[edit]

Ramniwas Yadav of Kotputli Yadavramniwas (talk) 04:27, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indian politician and public servant Yadavramniwas (talk) 04:28, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Politics, India, Rajasthan, Public figures Yadavramniwas (talk) 04:29, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please check and review Yadavramniwas (talk) 04:30, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yadavramniwas: No sources, no article, no debate. The two sources you cite are not only woefully incomplete, they're unusable for notability even if they were complete (gov't document). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 04:53, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1304130199"