Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk
| Main page | Talk page | Submissions Category, Sorting, Feed | Showcase | Participants Apply, By subject | Reviewing instructions | Help desk | Backlog drives |
- This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
- For questions on how to use or edit Wikipedia, visit the Teahouse.
- For unrelated questions, use the search box or the reference desk.
- Create a draft via Article wizard or request an article at requested articles.
- 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 |
|---|
August 2
01:56:19, 2 August 2025 review of submission by 80.57.242.245
- 80.57.242.245 (talk · contribs) (TB)
- Draft:Commercials related to gyaru (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) I have a draft (that for some reason is not appearing here) and though I am struggling to get it to be at the Wikipedia standard I recently got into a problem. I have a citation on the draft I am currently working (the cited information is currently unfinished) and that citation is worrisome as I think it relays to the actual seller of the source as an article for the information (which is chocolate).I presume that this is an incorrect Wikipedia practices. Can you please help me? 80.57.242.245 (talk) 01:56, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Yet again; thank you Helpful Raccoon! (I've been misspelling raccoon haven't I...) 80.57.242.245 (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
02:18, 2 August 2025 review of submission by Nsberklee
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)
- @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)
- 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)
04:05, 2 August 2025 review of submission by Lymenghong69khgaming
- Lymenghong69khgaming (talk · contribs) (TB)
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)
- @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)
04:52, 2 August 2025 review of submission by Swtysinha
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)
- @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)
12:33, 2 August 2025 review of submission by Utopian100
- Utopian100 (talk · contribs) (TB)
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)
- It no longer says it is a BLP(as the subject is long deceased). 331dot (talk) 13:43, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the update. Due to the obvious misapprehension of the article, I wonder whether the reviewer who rejected the article is not qualified to review articles in English? Please look into this. Thanks. Utopian100 (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
August 3
06:27, 3 August 2025 review of submission by Murtazanizam
- Murtazanizam (talk · contribs) (TB)
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)
- 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)
- Blocked as a sock. 331dot (talk) 08:23, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
10:13, 3 August 2025 review of submission by 94.231.243.33
- 94.231.243.33 (talk · contribs) (TB)
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)
- 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)
Requesting review for Draft:One Global Capital
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)
- @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)
- I did, thank you. Can you review it please? Thank you very much, appreciate it SydneyEditor01 (talk) 03:56, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
10:57, 3 August 2025 review of submission by Quest and questions
- Quest and questions (talk · contribs) (TB)
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)
- @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)
- @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)
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)
- thank you Quest and questions (talk) 12:57, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
12:17, 3 August 2025 review of submission by Kellyfromgoi
- Kellyfromgoi (talk · contribs) (TB)
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)
- @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)
- @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)
12:36, 3 August 2025 review of submission by Jnknpl
recent updates established subject notability. need revise review to inclusion Jnknpl (talk) 12:36, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- Pinging rejecting reviewer @Bonadea. qcne (talk) 12:37, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
17:16, 3 August 2025 review of submission by 2A02:A447:4E23:0:44FC:6CC4:C90:D1B9
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)
- 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)
- Irrespective of whether Cointelegraph is regarded as a reliable source (and WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 242#Cointelegraph source, for example, seemed to come down on the side of "no"), those citations I have looked at are not independent of Brickken.
- 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) 18:36, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
17:32, 3 August 2025 review of submission by AddInfinty
- AddInfinty (talk · contribs) (TB)
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)
- 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)
19:44, 3 August 2025 review of submission by 2601:380:8400:2E50:88E:965C:7EC2:4637
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)
- 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)
- Simple: Find reliable published sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:08, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
August 4
Request for neutral editor to submit article about Loki Ojha
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)
- Hi. Your draft has already been deleted because it was written in a promotional style. If you are only here to write about yourself, I'm afraid you won't be successful in getting any articles published. Deb (talk) 07:46, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, @Loki Ojha Artist. Autobiography is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. In order to see why, consider that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
- This means that to successfully write an article about yourself, you would need to:
- Find several places where people wholly unconnected with you have published at some length about you in reliable publications
- Effectively forget everything you know or think about yourself, and write a neutral summary of what those independent sources said about you even if you disagree with them.
- Do you see why this is hardly ever successul? ColinFine (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
02:53, 4 August 2025 review of submission by ExodiaBoss
- ExodiaBoss (talk · contribs) (TB)
Why is the topic not notable? He is joining the election for Senate in Illinois. ExodiaBoss (talk) 02:53, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- @ExodiaBoss: Candidates are not by-default notable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 04:50, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Ramniwas Yadav of Kotputli Yadavramniwas (talk) 04:27, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Indian politician and public servant Yadavramniwas (talk) 04:28, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Politics, India, Rajasthan, Public figures Yadavramniwas (talk) 04:29, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Please check and review Yadavramniwas (talk) 04:30, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- @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)
05:53, 4 August 2025 review of submission by SpainMMAfan123
- SpainMMAfan123 (talk · contribs) (TB)
he is ranked #10 in fightmatrix which makes him pass WP:NMMA SpainMMAfan123 (talk) 05:53, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- @SpainMMAfan123 I fixed the link in this post to point to your draft. As explained in the first few sections of Wikipedia:Notability (sports), the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (sports) do not provide notability on their own; sportspeople still usually need to pass the general notability guideline. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:08, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
06:29, 4 August 2025 review of submission by Cristina1969
- Cristina1969 (talk · contribs) (TB)
I have added a clear reference to my involvement with the subject on my user page, as per your previous guidance, and I would appreciate an update on the current status.Thank you in advance for your time and support. Cristina1969 (talk) 06:29, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Cristina1969: there isn't much to update. The draft was already rejected earlier. The mainspace article (which should never have been created in the first place) is undergoing AfD deletion discussion, which will complete soon and likely result in the article being deleted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:34, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clarification.
- Assuming the article is deleted following the current AfD discussion, would it be acceptable for me to attempt a new version in the future, fully rewritten and aligned with Wikipedia’s content and notability guidelines?
- I understand the issues with the previous submission and would like to ensure that any future draft meets the required standards, both in tone and sourcing.
- I appreciate your time and guidance. Cristina1969 (talk) 06:46, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Cristina1969: you are of course free to create a new draft. But given that so far no evidence of notability has been produced during multiple reviews of the draft, and in the week that the mainspace article has been published, I would question whether this subject is actually notable enough to warrant that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:56, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, @Cristina1969. If you do decide to begin a new draft, the only sensible way to begin is by finding several sources that each meet all the criteria in WP:42: independent, reliably published, secondary, and containing significant coverage of the Exchange. If you do anything else before finding those, you will likely be wasting your time. ColinFine (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
07:49, 4 August 2025 review of submission by MrBeanAndBear
- MrBeanAndBear (talk · contribs) (TB)
I was hoping someone could help me and maybe suggest where I am going wrong with my article. I've tried to be as neutral as possible! Any advice welcome :) MrBeanAndBear (talk) 07:49, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- @MrBeanAndBear: Let's have a look. Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
- We can't use https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/the-halifax-group-invests-in-trimech-a-leading-provider-of-engineering-design-solutions-300982212.html (connexion to subject, no editorial oversight). PRNewswire only ever publishes press releases, which are generally worthless as sources in most instances. Even if this weren't published by them, it wouldn't help for eligibility as investment news (routine coverage).
- We can't use https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/the-halifax-group-announces-sale-of-majority-stake-in-trimech-301501737.html and even if we could it wouldn't help for eligibility, for the exact same reasons as above.
- https://www.staffingindustry.com/Editorial/Engineering-Staffing-Report/March-24-2022/Private-equity-firm-sells-majority-stake-in-TriMech doesn't help for eligibility (routine coverage). Investment news.
- https://www.automationmag.com/trimech-unites-with-solid-solutions-to-expand-global-presence/ doesn't help for eligibility (routine coverage). M&A news.
- We can't use https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/trimech-group-acquires-product-development-specialists-mako-design-invent-to-expand-design-and-engineering-services-for-clients-807729557.html (connexion to subject, no editorial oversight). Cision is PRNewswire's corporate parent and has the exact same business model. And as before, even if this weren't the case this wouldn't help for eligibllity as M&A news (routine coverage).
- https://www.tctmagazine.com/additive-manufacturing-3d-printing-news/latest-additive-manufacturing-3d-printing-news/trimech-solid-solutions-acquires-additive-manufacturing-service-3dprintuk/ doesn't help for eligibility (routine coverage). M&A news.
- https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/trimech-invests-2m-to-expand-3dprintuks-3d-printing-capacity-236049/ doesn't help for eligibility (routine coverage). Investment news.
- https://www.metal-am.com/one-click-metal-partners-with-trimech-to-expand-metal-additive-manufacturing-solutions-across-eastern-us/ doesn't help for eligibility (routine coverage). Corporate partnership news.
- https://www.adsadvance.co.uk/hav-signs-mou-with-dassault-syst-mes-and-trimech.html doesn't help for eligibility (routine coverage). Corporate partnership news.
- We can't use https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/trimech-is-north-americas-newest-and-largest-provider-of-solidcam-software-for-cnc-manufacturing-technologies-302205423.html (connexion to subject, no editorial oversight) and even if we could it wouldn't help for eligibility as corporate partnership news (routine coverage).
- https://www.appliedtechnologynews.com/article/809965968-trimech-group-partners-with-dgpt-bringing-innovation-to-the-disc-golf-community doesn't help for eligibility (routine coverage). Corporate partnership news.
- We can't use https://mtdcnc.com/news/mtdcnc/amt-postpro-and-trimech-group-partner-to-deliver-scalable-automated-postprocessing-solutions-across-north-america/ (unknown provenance) and even if we could, you guessed it, it wouldn't help for eligibility as corporate partnership news (routine coverage). The fact every single source thus far has been routine business coverage is rather concerning.
- https://www.solidsolutions.co.uk/press-releases/2022/triMech-acquires-solid-solutions.aspx is 404-compliant (redirects to website homepage). If this page were live, it wouldn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject, routine coverage). Same applies to the other Solid Solutions sources.
- https://www.design-engineering.com/javelin-technologies-acquired-by-u-s-based-trimech-1004036761/ doesn't help for eligibility (routine coverage). M&A news.
- We can't use https://3dprintingindustry.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/image-5.png (too sparse). Contextless image. We don't cite images in the first place.
- https://www.ft.com/ft1000-2023 is a non-sequitur and even if it weren't, it wouldn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Lists for non-exclusive rewards like this don't help a whit for eligibility to begin with.
- https://www.voxelmatters.com/3dprintuk-ranked-as-third-fastest-growing-manufacturer-in-the-uk/ is a non-sequitur. It would help for an article on 3DPRINTUK but is worthless for an article on TriMech.
- https://www.tctmagazine.com/additive-manufacturing-3d-printing-news/solid-print3d-acquires-3dverkstan/ is 404-compliant (redirects to bespoke 404 page). If this page were live, it would be a non-sequitur.
- https://www.voxelmatters.com/3dverkstan-acquired-by-solid-print3d/ is 404-compliant (redirect to bespoke 404 page). If this page were live, it would be a non-sequitur.
- https://www.automation.com/en-us/articles/november-2021/trimech-acquires-adaptive-corporation-vision doesn't help for eligibility (routine coverage). M&A news.
- Nothing here works. What isn't routine business news is irrelevant or dead. This means you don't have the sources to support an article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:03, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
09:02, 4 August 2025 review of submission by CultureWriter2025
- CultureWriter2025 (talk · contribs) (TB)
Requesting Review of Draft: Loki Ojha Hello,
I have written a draft article about multimedia artist and short filmmaker **Loki Ojha**, and I’m requesting help to know if it is ready for review or article space.
🔗 Draft link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CultureWriter2025/sandbox
I tried to follow Wikipedia’s guidelines carefully and included references and neutral wording.
Could someone please check and guide me if any improvement is needed?
Thank you! CultureWriter2025 (talk) 09:02, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- CultureWriter2025 I fixed your header so it links to your draft as intended- you had other wording there creating a link to a nonexistent page titled "requesting review of draft: Loki Ojha".
- You link to your sandbox, but you also created a draft in Draft space. Draft:Loki Ojha- you should submit this for review, as now instructed on the draft itself. 331dot (talk) 09:07, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
10:14, 4 August 2025 review of submission by Viljowf
My AfC draft was at the point of being accepted by an editor (pending the removal of a block dating back to 2011 prior to my involvement in the page) when the submission was stopped before it could be accepted (can provide diffs if necessary). I feel the final review was especially helpful in assisting me in demonstrating the subject's notability (and the editor in question agreed), but that the process was interrupted before their intended actions - to accept the article - could be completed. I was hoping we could have another set of eyes on this, please. Viljowf (talk) 10:14, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- If you had an editor say that they would accept the draft, you should ask them directly about it. 331dot (talk) 10:19, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, they apparently struggled to get it off the blocked list, I will try again. Viljowf (talk) 11:00, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- Given that Cabrils is happy to accept this draft, and the admin who applied the PP twelve years ago does not object, I think we shouldn't stand in the way, either. I'll go and remove the protection. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:31, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks @DoubleGrazing. Cabrils (talk) 11:33, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks so much @DoubleGrazing and @Cabrils Viljowf (talk) 11:55, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't understand page protection was involved. 331dot (talk) 13:52, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks so much @DoubleGrazing and @Cabrils Viljowf (talk) 11:55, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks @DoubleGrazing. Cabrils (talk) 11:33, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- Given that Cabrils is happy to accept this draft, and the admin who applied the PP twelve years ago does not object, I think we shouldn't stand in the way, either. I'll go and remove the protection. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:31, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, they apparently struggled to get it off the blocked list, I will try again. Viljowf (talk) 11:00, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
12:45, 4 August 2025 review of submission by Polly Leung
- Polly Leung (talk · contribs) (TB)
Hi, the article is declined for the reasons below. Could I ask is it possibly state more specific which reference is not okay, so I can work on it? Thank you -in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements) -reliable -secondary -strictly independent of the subject Polly Leung (talk) 12:45, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- Wikipedia requires there to be significant coverage in reliable, independent sources not passing mentions, not business listings, not press releases. Theroadislong (talk) 13:40, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
13:39, 4 August 2025 review of submission by Pineapplethen
- Pineapplethen (talk · contribs) (TB)
How could I improve the article for it to be accepted as Articles for Creation? Should I add sources to the article or complete the table of his Discography? Pineapplethen (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Pineapplethen: The discography does not require cites (except for sales certifications) and is the absolute least of your worries. The Biography section is for all intents and purposes completely unsourced. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:25, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
13:43, 4 August 2025 review of submission by Nkechi Mordi
What I sent was the introduction to different aspects of the role of Human Resources. The other parts would be added as articles in due course. Is it wrong to publish this? Nkechi Mordi (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a blog website or other website that hosts personal testimonials. 331dot (talk) 13:51, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
16:48, 4 August 2025 review of submission by FreeformCortex
- FreeformCortex (talk · contribs) (TB)
Hello, I would like to request a second opinion regarding the rejection of my draft article: Draft:Chosen Masters.
The draft was originally reviewed without citation issues, but was later rejected by another reviewer who claimed the sources are not sufficient. However, I’ve cited established and widely used music journalism publications such as Mixmag, DJ Mag, and Symphonic Blog (run by Symphonic Distribution, a Spotify-preferred distributor).
These sources are commonly cited in existing Wikipedia music-related articles and have editorial oversight and reputations for reliability in the field of music technology and artist tools.
Could an experienced editor familiar with music-related notability guidelines please take a look? I want to ensure the draft is being held to consistent standards.
Thank you for your time.
FreeformCortex (talk) 16:48, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- @FreeformCortex: Unfortunately for you, WP:NCORP is the governing specific notability guideline here, not WP:NMUSIC. Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
- https://chosenmasters.com/tutorials - and anything else on that ___domain - doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject)
- https://mixmag.net/read/chosen-masters-software-music-mastering-semi-automated-online-new-tech doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). Not-so-clearly-labeled press release ("In association with Chosen Masters" is the byline). Same issue applies to https://mixmag.net/read/chosen-masters-launches-new-free-merchandise-maker-for-artists-tech
- https://djmag.com/tech/chosen-masters-new-semi-automated-music-mastering-service-launches-online doesn't help for eligibility (routine coverage). Service launch news.
- We can't use https://weraveyou.com/tech/chosen-masters-affordable-online-mastering-service/ (no editorial oversight, connexion to subject). This is quite blatant native advertizing.
- We don't cite Spotify (streaming service). (Incidentally, the specific link is actually 404-compliant, redirecting to a bespoke 404 page.)
- https://blog.symphonic.com/2020/08/14/chosen-masters-updates-mastering-tool/ doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject, no editorial oversight). Looks like native advertizing.
- Nothing here is any good. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:01, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
18:10, 4 August 2025 review of submission by DLVDJ
Hello, a while back I received the following explanation as a reason for rejecting the article. "Needs better sources to prove notability. The references in the UNESCO paragraph doesn't mention him. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 01:39, 27 June 2025 (UTC)" I replied that references in the actual notice of the listing by the UNESCO (referenced in the article) never mention the persons behind the submission and that I had added a reference to the document of the request for submission to UNESCO (which goes through the Swiss government) that actually refers to Denis Flageollet as part of the group 'sponsoring' the request for having the horological and mechanical arts crafts of the French-Swiss Jura Region included in the UNESCO List of Intangible Cultural Heritage. I have added secondary references; I realize that one of the concerns is that sources for Denis Flageollet either mention De Bethune, the watch company Denis Flageollet co-founded in 2002, or are about De Bethune and mention Flageollet's role. However, it is impossible to separate the two – Denis Flageollet founded the company and his work revolves around the watches he designs and makes there (with the team at De Bethune). There are a number of respected sources that attest to Denis Flageollet's notability and worthiness, most of them French or Swiss. Among English-speaking publications, articles/texts by auction houses Christie's and Phillips deserve not to be discounted as their reputation is based on providing exact and reliable information on the provenance of pieces they sell. https://www.phillips.com/article/64244963/scholars-denis-flageollet https://www.christies.com/en/stories/de-bethune-watches-collecting-guide-3d3ca0ef3fdd4ff5ba3d44c1322345fe I'm translating a number of French articles and will add these to French articles referenced and for which a translation is not available when looking up online. As I haven't heard back, I would would be very grateful if you could tell me this is going in the right direction and what the next steps would be ensure that Wikipedia publication standards are met. Thank you very much for your time; as I'm getting started with this, I realize the work behind it and greatly appreciate your time and support. DLVDJ (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, @DLVDJ. To pick out one issue from your "wall of text": nobody disputes the reputability of the auction houses. But if they sell Flageollet's work then they are not independent, for Wikipedia's purposes. ColinFine (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @DLVDJ, I think there may have been some miscommunication. We are not concerned that sources about Flageollet mention De Bethune or vice versa; the main problem you have is that to establish notability you need sources that meet all the criteria in WP:42: they must be independent and reliable and significant coverage of Flageollet. Many of your sources are interviews, which are not independent. You have a lot of sources, to the point where I would suggest selecting your three best sources and linking those specifically on the draft's Talk page so that reviewers can immediately assess those and establish whether Flageollet is notable by Wikipedia standards. I hope that is helpful! Meadowlark (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
19:30, 4 August 2025 review of submission by Sanfrancisco25
- Sanfrancisco25 (talk · contribs) (TB)
Hi!
I’m reaching out as this is my first time creating a Wikipedia page, and I’m currently working on a draft for Alex Bastian. I received the following message after the draft was declined: "The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you."
I’d appreciate any additional clarification on how I can meet the proper citation standards, or if there are specific areas in the draft that need improvement. Any guidance you can provide to help me revise and resubmit successfully would be greatly appreciated.Thank you very much for your time and support! Sanfrancisco25 (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
20:04, 4 August 2025 review of submission by Sobek2000
My draft was rejected because 'This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.' I have trouble to understand why topic is 'not notable enough'. Like, I get that child who lived 1 day did not do anything himself . However, there are other royal children, including Polish royal children, who also did not live long, and they had their own pages - for example Albertus's relatives: Anna Maria Vasa, Sigismund Casimir Vasa, Maria Anna Vasa, John Sigismund Vasa, Marie Catherine Vasa. Why wikipedia allowed articles to be made for those children but article about Albertus was rejected? I would say it is even more notable, because all Vasa children were not even hereditary heirs for Poland and Lithuania. Albertus on other hand lived in times when Lithuanian's throne was still hereditary, was second-in-line for it, and that was making him also the candidate for Polish crown. His death had grave impact on whole dynasty and history of Poland and Lithuania, as it left Sigismund August as sole heir of Jagiellonian dynasty.
I try to understand where there is consistency of wikipedia. I admit that Albertus was not notable person himself (in the sens he himself didn't do anything - he simply passed away), but same can be said about other children. I would even argue I gave more sources than some of those articles. Sobek2000 (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- Notability in this context is not about how long he lived, how much he did, or who he is related to. It is about about if he meets Wikipedia’s special definition of notability, which is almost entirely (save for some subject specific notabilities) based around if there are reliable, independent, in-depth sources about him. See wp:42. -- NotCharizard 🗨 22:15, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, @Sobek2000. In addition to NotCharizard's reply, I want to answer your point about consistency. We would all love Wikipedia to be consistent; but this is a volunteer project, without any kind of editorial oversight. So it is only as consistent as the volunteers make it.
- Our standards for sourcing and for acceptability of topics have risen over the years, and in an ideal world, people would have looked at all the thousands of old articles which no longer meet our criteria, and either improved them or deleted them. But not many people wamt to spend much time on such a job, so it rarely happens.
- So we evaluate any article (and, especially, any draft) against the current criteria, not against existing articles. See other stuff exists ColinFine (talk) 09:39, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- @ColinFine@Notcharizard I understand theere is need for reliable sources - however I do consider sources I used reliable ones and I guess independent, as they were written by different researchers and published by different publishers. As for in-depth - well... Problem with all of this is that phrase "in depth" is much subjective. What exactly is "in-depth"? 500-pages long monography on person in question? (It's rethoric question of course, I know it's not about number of pages. However requirement still seems subjective, as depedning on informations on subject, there will be different results of 'deep' analysis. I think it should matter who the subject was when we are discussing "detailed analysis". There will be different number, length and quality of "in-depth" materials when it comes to leader of a country, a different when it comes to royal child, who lived briefly, but whose death had huge impact.)
- You cannot write many studies about life of a child who lived one day. However, I believe circumstances of death and lasting legacy of this early passing away were all discussed in detail much as it can be possible in case of 1-day-old baby, as important factor that steered dynasty's course.
- According guideline "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". Albertus Jagiellon is definitely not a "main topic" of sources I used, I agree. However circumstances of his life are detaily discussed - it's lot more than "he was born prematurely and died", but: what exactly happened that caused his death, informations of burial and of legacy for future generations. The statement "Notability in this context is not about how long he lived, how much he did, or who he is related to' seems logical, but I cannot help but notice that it basically excludes all people with brief life because how much in-depth material you gonna get about them? And how many sources I need to provide for subject to be considered "notable" enough? I would say 5 is quite enough, as it would be sufficient for college essay. If it's low number number that is problem, I can look for more positions. But I won't expect much new informations to come - as I said before, there are limited numbers things you can write about subject that lived 1 day, so I analysis can be "deep", but it never will be that deep as for prince who died at 20. So what "deep" excatly would be in case of infant prince? Sobek2000 (talk) 13:56, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
22:08, 4 August 2025 review of submission by Theultrakeith
- Theultrakeith (talk · contribs) (TB)
Hello, I've received a message indicating the article has to be more NPOV, where can I find information on improving the content? Theultrakeith (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- There are lots of issues, and the whole draft is very promotional. Here are some examples (you can find more information at the link I have provided):
- You have sentences like “The program is the vision of David and Cheryl Duffield, longtime Nevada residents and philanthropists known for their contributions to animal welfare and technology innovation.” with no citation. This comes across as unnecessary praise and your own opinion.
- External links should not be used in the article body
- The “mission” section is unsourced, and seems like just what the company wants people to know about them.
- “highlighted its groundbreaking campus and its goal” is plain promotion using peacock terms. I am sure you can see this.
- Given how positively you speak of the group, I will note that if you are connected with them, you need to declare your conflict of interest, especially if you are a paid editor. -- NotCharizard 🗨 22:27, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
23:08, 4 August 2025 review of submission by FreeformCortex
- FreeformCortex (talk · contribs) (TB)
Subject: Request for experienced reviewer – inconsistent reviews on Draft:Chosen Masters Hello, I’ve been working on Draft:Chosen Masters, citing reliable secondary sources like Mixmag, DJ Mag, We Rave You, and Magnetic Magazine — all of which are frequently cited in other music-related Wikipedia articles.
My draft has been rejected for “not enough in-depth sources,” even though these articles provide detailed coverage on features, pricing, and industry impact. Some were previously accepted, then suddenly rejected under different reasoning.
Could a more experienced reviewer please re-assess the draft for consistent application of notability and sourcing standards? Thank you for your time. FreeformCortex (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- FreeformCortex I fixed your header, which should only contain the title of the draft as it serves as a link.
- You were already advised by a reviewer that "As you have been previously advised, the Mixmag sources are press releases, Spotify is a primary source and the last one is a blog". I advise you to withdraw your last resubmission.
- Different reviewers see different things, and can only give so many reasons when they decline a draft. This is why one reviewer may see one issue but a different reviewer may see another. This may appear to be "inconsistent application" of standards, but we do the best we can. Please see other stuff exists; that other articles exist does not necessarily mean that they meet standards. 331dot (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- If you are associated with this platform(you have edited about no other topic), that needs to be disclosed, see conflict of interest and paid editing(which includes employment or any financial relationship with a subject). 331dot (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- @FreeformCortex: You pretty much ignored my assessments above. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:27, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- i am not part of the platform, i am a user of the platform tho and wanted to see them added to historical record since they have been great to me and my friends who make music. i am not being paid.
- Mixmag is one of teh worlds leading music publications and same with DJ mag, i removed many of the sources and have tried to find others but nothing seems to be good enough even tho i hav eput every kind of source now. FreeformCortex (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- i think you guys are not being fair mixmag is written by 2 writers from one of the worlds leading music publications, it has editorial over sight, so the fact that source keeps getting denied is not right and does not make sense to be honest. i didnt see the comments from reviewrs until you pointed out that was a thing but now that i see it it helps to understand what they are saying but still obviously mixmag and magnetic magazine aricles alone are clearly in-depth articles written my writers and have editorial over sight. i have met the criteria and want to be treated fairly. you have all of Chosen Mastes competitors in there so you have no reason to deny this entry, it actually only helps monopolies and is dangerous cant you see that? i need a manager to help me here please FreeformCortex (talk) 23:37, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- i meant written by writers not written my writers FreeformCortex (talk) 23:38, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- There are no "managers" here.
- Maybe their competitors should not have articles, either. I don't know- but again, see other stuff exists. Wikipedia is not a mere database of things that exist, and it does not provide equal time and access to all members of a field. It depends on the sources. 331dot (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- you are ignoring that i have credible hi quality in depth sources and multiple of them from industry leaders you are not making sense and clearly deflecting and discriminating. i have informed Chosen Mastes of your enforcement of monopolies that use Wikipedia to sky rocket SEO scores to stay on trop of google and make million and even billions, the wiki mods are clearly infiltrated by malicious actors, there is no reason to have denied this entry so many times with lies for reasons, straight lies, no managers well i wonder how it can be an abused platform for mega corps, so Spotify should not be in wiki? that is what you just said, you are a lier and i demand an honest reviewer. FreeformCortex (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- @FreeformCortex: You cannot use the existence of tangentially-related articles to argue for your own. I stand by my comments in re the Mixmag sources given the byline on both of them is not ambiguous about the articles being written on behalf of Chosen Masters. Also, SEO? Really? We NOFOLLOW literally every outgoing link. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:55, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- Wiki is a huge part of seo you are a lier, clearly and committing acts of monopoly and all the mods need to be investigated and put in prison if found to be guilty FreeformCortex (talk) 23:58, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- I fail to see how nofollow across every single page on Wikipedia helps with SEO. What is your connexion to Chosen Masters? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:59, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- Wiki is a huge part of seo you are a lier, clearly and committing acts of monopoly and all the mods need to be investigated and put in prison if found to be guilty FreeformCortex (talk) 23:58, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- it is a crime to assist in monopoly behaviour and mentioned to Chosen Masters they should notify the FBI and state department as you are committing crimes here and need to be held to account. FreeformCortex (talk) 23:56, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- @FreeformCortex: You have two options: Retract the blatant frivolous legal threat or be blocked. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:57, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- your gas lighting and clearly mods are idealogical and gatekeepinga dn to deny that proves yoru a leir FreeformCortex (talk) 23:59, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- And OP has been blocked for the legal threat. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 00:00, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- I've seen plenty of legal threats that were unmoored from basic reality, but this one is impressive even against such lofty competition. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- And OP has been blocked for the legal threat. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 00:00, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- your gas lighting and clearly mods are idealogical and gatekeepinga dn to deny that proves yoru a leir FreeformCortex (talk) 23:59, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- @FreeformCortex: You have two options: Retract the blatant frivolous legal threat or be blocked. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:57, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- @FreeformCortex: You cannot use the existence of tangentially-related articles to argue for your own. I stand by my comments in re the Mixmag sources given the byline on both of them is not ambiguous about the articles being written on behalf of Chosen Masters. Also, SEO? Really? We NOFOLLOW literally every outgoing link. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:55, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- you are ignoring that i have credible hi quality in depth sources and multiple of them from industry leaders you are not making sense and clearly deflecting and discriminating. i have informed Chosen Mastes of your enforcement of monopolies that use Wikipedia to sky rocket SEO scores to stay on trop of google and make million and even billions, the wiki mods are clearly infiltrated by malicious actors, there is no reason to have denied this entry so many times with lies for reasons, straight lies, no managers well i wonder how it can be an abused platform for mega corps, so Spotify should not be in wiki? that is what you just said, you are a lier and i demand an honest reviewer. FreeformCortex (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
August 5
03:31, 5 August 2025 review of submission by Xixixi321
Hello, could somebody tell me the possible reason why my article submission was declined? The content was collected by myself and not generated by ChatGPT. Xixixi321 (talk) 03:31, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Xixixi321, the reviewer JesusisGreat7 might have suspected a chatbot's involvement because the tone of your draft is highly promotional and puffs up Prof. Lu's achievements.[a] This kind of language is common to chatbots, but whether it's written by a human or a bot, it's not a suitable tone for an encyclopaedia.
- From a scan of your draft, it looks like Prof. Lu might meet the notability requirements for academics, but in order to be accepted, the draft would need cite independent, secondary sources (not the websites of universities where he has worked or journals he has edited) and be rewritten extensively to remove the promotional language and not just walk through a timeline of his achievements. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 08:00, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Notes
- ^ A few examples:
With a thirst for further knowledge
;he elevated his role to Professorial Fellow and Professor
;in recognition of his valued contribution to the advancement of the engineering profession
.
03:45, 5 August 2025 review of submission by Jean-Louis Pinault
- Jean-Louis Pinault (talk · contribs) (TB)
But the neologism "gyral" appears in the title of the article. I'd like to replace it with "Long-period Rossby waves." How can I do this? Thank you for your help. Jean-Louis Pinault (talk) 03:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Jean-Louis Pinault: page name changes are effected by moving the page. There's no point in moving it now, though, because if/when the draft is accepted it will have to be moved anyway. I've noted your preferred title in a comment for the accepting (assuming) reviewer. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:29, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
04:18, 5 August 2025 review of submission by Storybysource
- Storybysource (talk · contribs) (TB)
Hi! I’ve created an article draft at User:Storybysource/sandbox and would like it to be moved to mainspace under the title “Elvin Daniel Rodriguez.” Can someone assist with this move? Thanks!
Storybysource (talk) 04:18, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Storybysource: Not in its present state. See Help:Referencing for beginners and WP:Biographies of living persons. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 04:23, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
07:08, 5 August 2025 review of submission by 122.163.126.203
- 122.163.126.203 (talk · contribs) (TB)
I am Subham Kumar Das, and I’ve created a draft biography about myself. It was previously declined due to missing references. I’ve now improved the content and would like help reviewing the draft again or advice on how to add acceptable references.
I would also appreciate suggestions to improve the chances of acceptance. Thank you! 122.163.126.203 (talk) 07:08, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- This draft has been deleted as promotional. Please do not create further such content. Also see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:40, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
08:10, 5 August 2025 review of submission by DataNest
Hello, I submitted an article for publication on Wikipedia, but it was declined with the reason "insufficient notability." I disagree with this assessment, as I believe the topic is of public interest and has clear encyclopedic value. I would greatly appreciate your assistance and consultation on the following:
Which specific notability criteria, in your opinion, were not met in my article?№ I am willing to make any necessary edits and improvements — please let me know what needs to be revised for the article to meet Wikipedia's standards.
Thank you in advance DataNest (talk) 08:10, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- @DataNest: this draft was rejected for lack of evidence of notability. Whether the subject is
"of public interest and has clear encyclopedic value"
is not at stake here. We would need to see multiple sources which meet the WP:GNG standard, and your draft cites none. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:26, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
11:31, 5 August 2025 review of submission by YenteG
Hi, my page draft was declined and I could use some help to improve it as I'm new to Wikipedia. I would want to create a page called Manuport Logistics, which is a global freight forwarder. I have added a few third-party sources to verify my story about the company (e.g., Project Cargo Journal). Do I have to leave out the company website and/or blog posts from the company? YenteG (talk) 11:31, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- What was ur page Tarpat2 (talk) 11:49, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- YenteG I fixed your link for proper display, you need the "Draft:" portion. 331dot (talk) 11:51, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- If you work for this company, that must be disclosed, see your user talk page for instructions.
- Your draft just tells about the company and its offerings. That's the wrong approach(also see WP:SOLUTIONS). Instead, you 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) 11:54, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
This is weird
How is Inanimate Insanity II: The Movie allowed on Wikipedia but Wonderoos has more references (by one) and still got declined?!? Tarpat2 (talk) 11:48, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- Please see other stuff exists. We judge each article or draft 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. That another article exists does not mean that it is "allowed" or approved. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- Note that first link is also a draft and was also declined for having unacceptable sources (we don't cite Xitter, IMDb, PMs, or the subject themselves). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:38, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- But how many references at least do I need to add? The Wonderoos draft has 6 references now, Tarpat2 (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Tarpat2: to establish notability per WP:GNG, we typically require 3+ sources meeting the GNG standard. You currently have at best two, and that's me being pretty generous as to the quality of your sources.
- As for referencing, you need as many sources and citations as is required to properly support the information. Currently vast swathes of it is unsupported. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- But at least how many references are required? Tarpat2 (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- Generally a minimum of three strong sources. qcne (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- Do you cite PluggedIn? Tarpat2 (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- I have no idea what that is. I can't see it having been discussed on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. qcne (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- It’s this website:
- https://www.pluggedin.com/ Tarpat2 (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- Also, the YouTube and IMDb references were removed from the Wonderoos draft. Tarpat2 (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- YouTube is rarely a suitable source, and IMDb cannot be used as a source. PluggedIn looks like a review site but doesn't seem very mainstream, I would exercise caution. qcne (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- What do you mean by “mainstream”? I think it’s trustworthy. Its Wonderoos article has only said accurate information about the show. Tarpat2 (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- Sources generally have to be from reliable, mainstream publications: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. That seems to be a niche Christian-focused website. qcne (talk) 18:56, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- I may or may not go to a Christian church myself… Tarpat2 (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- I don't see how that is relevant? qcne (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- u just called PluggedIn a “Christian-focused website” (oh also I don’t see any related mentions to Christianity on PluggedIn) Tarpat2 (talk) 20:08, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- It is owned by Focus on Family, a very specific Christian organisation. It may mean the content they produce is not reliable. qcne (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- https://www.pluggedin.com/about/ literally states they produce Christian reviews, complete with a Bible quote. qcne (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- u just called PluggedIn a “Christian-focused website” (oh also I don’t see any related mentions to Christianity on PluggedIn) Tarpat2 (talk) 20:08, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- I don't see how that is relevant? qcne (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- I may or may not go to a Christian church myself… Tarpat2 (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- Sources generally have to be from reliable, mainstream publications: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. That seems to be a niche Christian-focused website. qcne (talk) 18:56, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- What do you mean by “mainstream”? I think it’s trustworthy. Its Wonderoos article has only said accurate information about the show. Tarpat2 (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- YouTube is rarely a suitable source, and IMDb cannot be used as a source. PluggedIn looks like a review site but doesn't seem very mainstream, I would exercise caution. qcne (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- I have no idea what that is. I can't see it having been discussed on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. qcne (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- Do you cite PluggedIn? Tarpat2 (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- Generally a minimum of three strong sources. qcne (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- But at least how many references are required? Tarpat2 (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
12:33, 5 August 2025 review of submission by LeRoboticien
- LeRoboticien (talk · contribs) (TB)
I am trying to improve the draft or an article on a person but some references are rejected because written by the same person, and therefore considered as not independent. BUT these references are articles from very serious journals like "Nature machine intelligence" and "Science Robotics", both extremely serious journals with very hard peer review. Therefore I consider that such a source and the statements included in it should be reliable, as they have been checked by experts in the field, and this even if the article is written by the person who is taking credits from such statements. My question is simple: is this reasoning not aligned with the principles of wikipedia? This is what I am told, but I am very surprised by this principle applied to such journals. LeRoboticien (talk) 12:33, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- LeRoboticien It may be published in a reliable source, but a person speaking about themselves or their work is by definition not an independent source. As noted by the reviewer, it is very rare for an associate professor to meet WP:NACADEMIC. 331dot (talk) 12:40, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- Then we have an issue with all our scientific literature, which has created a system of peer reviewing to ensure that what one is writing is objective. We are not speaking about journalism here, we are speaking about (serious) scientific literature.
- The question of an associate professor to meet these criteria is a clear issue, I fully agree, but if we cannot argue based on objective facts and papers, then we get into the religion that "an associate professor cannot be good enough" without basing this on evidence. LeRoboticien (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- I read on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability that "academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources on topics such as history, medicine, and science". Why is this not applied here? Especially for magazines related to Science and Nature, which are the most serious peer-reviewed journal we have on earth? LeRoboticien (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- @LeRoboticien: we may be talking at cross purposes here. If the draft says that Hughes has authored a paper, you can cite that paper as evidence of that. But if you say that Hughes is one of the foremost experts on X, you can't cite something written by Hughes as evidence of that. Even if that something is peer-reviewed, it's still Hughes saying that about Hughes, and that clearly isn't an independent source.
- In any case, I think this self-authored sources issue is a bit of a red herring. The draft was declined for insufficient evidence of notability. You have two ways of demonstrating notability, either via the general WP:GNG or the special WP:NACADEMIC route. The former requires significant coverage of Hughes in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject and of each other; however, the sources cited here are primary (including but not only works authored by Hughes). The latter requires substantial career achievements, and I for one didn't see anything in the draft which would meet NACADEMIC in any obvious way, but if you believe otherwise, then tell us which of the eight criteria in it is/are met, and what evidence supports this. The point about assistant profs was that experience tells us they don't normally clear that hurdle, but if you have evidence that says otherwise, please do share. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, I disagree that if somebody says in a Nature paper that the approach is innovative, this is not objective: experts have checked that and if this has gone through 3-4 independent experts, this is objective. I agree with you that despite this Professor is incredible and has plenty of achievements at a very young age, it is hard to push her to the notability level you require to be in wikipedia. Thank you for the clear and balanced answer, I think I will abandon the article. LeRoboticien (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- LeRoboticien All of your edits seem to be related to the EFPL in Switzerland. Are you associated with it or Professor Hughes? 331dot (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- I am not associated at all with Professor Hughes but I am an old alumni from EPFL and learned robotics there. The recent death of Prof Clavel is the reason I have started to contribute in the most objective way about some of the work he did, and some of the colleagues that took the role there. Is this an issue? I hope the quality and transparence of my work and edit is sufficiently objective. LeRoboticien (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- You may continue your work but I would disclose a conflict of interest with the EFPL. 331dot (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- OK, thank you for the guidance. I have posted a similar statement on my talk page to another similar question, is this sufficient? Or should I edit my talk page to put this more visible? LeRoboticien (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- I might post it on your user page(click your username in red above. 331dot (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- Please do, thank you. Or should I do it? LeRoboticien (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- I have published the text on my user page, feel free to comment if this is sufficient or not. Thank you again. LeRoboticien (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- It's sufficient. 331dot (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- I might post it on your user page(click your username in red above. 331dot (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- OK, thank you for the guidance. I have posted a similar statement on my talk page to another similar question, is this sufficient? Or should I edit my talk page to put this more visible? LeRoboticien (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- You may continue your work but I would disclose a conflict of interest with the EFPL. 331dot (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- I am not associated at all with Professor Hughes but I am an old alumni from EPFL and learned robotics there. The recent death of Prof Clavel is the reason I have started to contribute in the most objective way about some of the work he did, and some of the colleagues that took the role there. Is this an issue? I hope the quality and transparence of my work and edit is sufficiently objective. LeRoboticien (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
13:07, 5 August 2025 review of submission by Yoellem
Dear reviewing team I took the lead in writing this entry and hope I added enough references to support all claims evidence of past employments (dates etc) are hard to find though as employers update their sites. Did my best Thanks
Yoellem (talk) 13:07, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Yoellem: okay, well you seem to have resubmitted the draft, so I guess we'll find out once a reviewer gets around to assessing it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
15:35, 5 August 2025 review of submission by Marcoderi
When does a topic become relevant if it's a new field? New advances in artificial intelligence are made every day; a topic proposed today may already be obsolete after a few months.
I ask you to reconsider this content. There is no profit motive behind it.
An example is the term AEO, widely used worldwide but not present on Wikipedia.
Thank you Marcoderi (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- Your draft was rejected, it is 99% AI generated. Theroadislong (talk) 15:56, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
18:04, 5 August 2025 review of submission by Assafalon
I am only trying to create a redirect. I was led to believe that I need to create a new page with the redirect code to the existing page. I tried to communicate this to the reviewers, w/o success. Please delete this draft so that I can create the redirect. Thanks! Assafalon (talk) 18:04, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- I will delete it, though that's not germaine to creating a redirect. 331dot (talk) 18:29, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Assafalon: Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects was the right place for this, and your requested redirect has been created. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 01:08, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
18:34, 5 August 2025 review of submission by 207.151.52.57
Need some pointers on how to get this wikipedia page approved 207.151.52.57 (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- If you're one of the accounts that has edited the draft, please log in when posting. If you work for this company, that must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID.
- Routine business activities like the raising of capital does not establish notability, see WP:ORG. 331dot (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- Awards don't contribute to notability unless the awards themselves merit articles, like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award. 331dot (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
19:20, 5 August 2025 review of submission by AlbertoCuevasHU
- AlbertoCuevasHU (talk · contribs) (TB)
Hello, I would like to request assistance with a review of my article. Any feedback is more than welcomed, and much appreciated. AlbertoCuevasHU (talk) 19:20, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- You have resubmitted the draft, the next reviewer will leave you feedback if it is not accepted. 331dot (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
August 6
00:37, 6 August 2025 review of submission by JoobleResearcher
- JoobleResearcher (talk · contribs) (TB)
Hi there, I’ve revised my draft article on Mount Adrah, a rural locality in New South Wales, in response to the previous AfC decline. I’ve made substantial improvements to sourcing, tone, and structure, and believe the article now meets Wikipedia's requirements for neutrality, verifiability, and encyclopedic tone. Would someone be willing to review the current version and provide any final feedback before I resubmit? Here’s the draft: Draft:Mount Adrah Thank you in advance for your time and help! JoobleResearcher (talk) 00:37, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- We don't do pre-review reviews- the best way to get feedback is to resubmit. 331dot (talk) 00:55, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
03:39, 6 August 2025 review of submission by Kfi edits
what is missing for creating this page as i feel i have all the references for the same , but i am first time user in creating page kindly guide me or help me Kfi edits (talk) 03:39, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- The draft is mostly unsourced and written in a promotional tone. -- NotCharizard 🗨 04:05, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, @Kfi edits
- My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 14:18, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
06:11, 6 August 2025 review of submission by WebHostEditor
- WebHostEditor (talk · contribs) (TB)
HI I want to edit my submission as it has been declined. How do I do that? I dont seem to have an edit button anymore also the sandbox does not let me edit the article. can you please share a link where to make requested edits in order to get the wikipedia page live? WebHostEditor (talk) 06:11, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- There's an edit tab at the top of the draft. You also submitted it four minutes before you posted this.
- Your first priority, however, is answering the concerns from last month where you were told you needed to make a formal WP:PAID disclosure of your status as a paid editor. The link gives you the exact template you need to use and tells you what specific information you need to provide. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:18, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
09:08, 6 August 2025 review of submission by ASDefoe
I need more guidance on the issue of not being able to reference everything.The person I create this page for is still alive today and supplied all the information I included, but not everything is on public record. This does not mean that it is not correct or acccurate.
I need some thoughts or guidance. Thanks. ASDefoe (talk) 09:08, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- @ASDefoe: first, we have no interest in what the subject wants to tell the world about himself. Second, it isn't enough that the information is correct, it must be verifiably correct, by reference to a reliable published source. Anything that cannot be thus supported must be removed; this is a hard requirement, especially in articles on living people (WP:BLP).
- You clearly have an external relationship with this person, giving rise to a conflict of interest (COI) which must be disclosed. I've posted a message on your talk page, please read and respond to it. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:16, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
Help moving translated article to Draft
Hi! I translated the German Wikipedia article on Sebastian Deindl into English. The draft is currently at: User:Worldsciencebug/Sebastian Deindl Could someone please help move it to Draft:Sebastian Deindl for submission? Thanks! Worldsciencebug (talk) 13:04, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Worldsciencebug:
Done. I also added the AfC template, which has the submission button. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:10, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
13:33, 6 August 2025 review of submission by SatiHema
Need help with updating this article. SatiHema (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- @SatiHema: you will need to pretty much blank this draft, and start again. We're not interested in what you want to tell the world about your product. We're almost exclusively interested in what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about. You need to find a few sources that meet the WP:GNG standard for notability, summarise their coverage, and cite each source against the information it has provided. This approach is outlined in WP:GOLDENRULE, and is the only one that will result in acceptable content and the necessary evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:38, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
14:14, 6 August 2025 review of submission by 216.68.121.133
- 216.68.121.133 (talk · contribs) (TB)
Hi. My draft was declined and I'm confused for the reason why. I was supplied with the following: "None of the sources here demonstrate notability. You would need there to be significant coverage of Lamb in multiple reliable, independent sources. None of the Kona websites are independent sources."
I am confused because none of the references provided include the Kona website. All sources are from reputable, third-party news journals. Can you provide direction? 216.68.121.133 (talk) 14:14, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
15:03, 6 August 2025 review of submission by Plmoin2514
- Plmoin2514 (talk · contribs) (TB)
This is the second time I've asked for help on this article, I've no idea why my first request was summarily archived without any resolution. This is a major immigration system in Singapore that affects millions of travelers every single week, I would like to nominate it for community approval. Plmoin2514 (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- Threads are archived automatically, @Plmoin2514 because you didn't reply to @TheTechie's last comment. I would suggest you re-factor the draft so it includes some information about the history and governance of the card. qcne (talk) 16:36, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation, I didn't realize that. I've rewritten the article already. Plmoin2514 (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
15:25, 6 August 2025 review of submission by RachelCollins25
- RachelCollins25 (talk · contribs) (TB)
Hi fellow member, request you to see this content good enough to be submitted. RachelCollins25 (talk) 15:25, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- @RachelCollins25: This draft has not been submitted for review, but if it were, it would be summarily declined. It reads like an investment brochure rather than an encyclopaedia article. As to your sources...
- https://www.gartner.com/doc/reprints?id=1-2K1LZVSG&ct=250123&st=sb seems OK.
- We can't use https://www.ptda.org/iCore/Contacts/OrganizationLayouts/Organization_Profile.aspx?ID=60167&WebsiteKey=e7590042-1672-4d0f-a20c-335e0bf62de2 (unknown provenance). Who wrote this?
- We can't use https://tracxn.com/d/companies/bluemeteor/__tJwfN9IpoIeQH7B1TLWlH83B80STpltiC8Cyo_iOb68#about-the-company (unknown provenance). Who wrote this?
- https://20161714.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/20161714/Reports/24.PIM.ATLAS.pdf doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). No discussion of Bluemeteor beyond a one-page pictoral profile and several name-drops.
- https://www.pivotree.com/newsroom/pivotree-announces-definitive-agreement-to-acquire-data-management-firm-codifyd/ is a non-sequitur. More importantly, it doesn't support the claim that Bluemeteor was spun up after the merger.
- https://in.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/PIVOTREE-INC-114463433/news/Pivotree-Inc-entered-into-a-definitive-agreement-to-acquire-Codifyd-Inc-for-16-million-36883006/ is a non-sequitur, and has the same problems as the source above.
- I can't assess https://www.structureresearch.net/2021/11/04/msp-pivotree-acquires-data-management-firm-codifyd-enhancing-e-commerce-depth/ (walled).
- We can't use https://www.prweb.com/releases/blue-meteor-appoints-industry-veteran-kerry-young-as-president-and-coo-875504140.html (connexion to subject, no editorial oversight). Cision and its various subsidiaries only ever publish press releases on behalf of other companies.
- We can't use https://www.ptda.org/MBRR/iSamples/SharedContent/ContactManagement/Directory.aspx?Directory=2 (too sparse). Content-free directory.
- I can't assess https://my.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=EUR152018624 (copy required). I don't have 7,500 USD lying around just to assess a source.
- We can't use https://www.capterra.in/software/1014949/amaze-pxm (online storefront). Capterra is effectively the real-world equivalent of a cyberpunk fixer, offering access to other services.
- Your sourcing is somewhat dodgy. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:09, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
16:08, 6 August 2025 review of submission by Kittymds
Hi! I’ve written a draft article in my sandbox at User:kittymds/sandbox about British artist Gary Ray Smith, but I’m getting blocked by the spam filter when I try to submit it. Could someone help move it to the Draft namespace for review? Thanks! Kittymds (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- Userspace sandboxes can be submitted as drafts. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:10, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- Kittymds It's not a "spam filter", it's an edit filter. It appears the content of the draft is triggering filters meant to detect certain things. As noted, you can submit your sandbox itself. 331dot (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
16:29, 6 August 2025 review of submission by Mark Fe
What is missing, that this article is not a draft anymore? Mark Fe (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Mark Fe. You have not proven that this organisation meets our criteria for inclusion for organisations, which you can find at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). qcne (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- Also, although you have added new sources since I reviewed this back in May, you haven't resubmitted it for a new review. You need to click on the blue 'resubmit' button, when you're ready. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
17:56, 6 August 2025 review of submission by Opal Green
- Opal Green (talk · contribs) (TB)
Hi, Three reviewers have looked at this article and flagged it for using AI. I do not use AI at all. I am a professor -- so maybe my writing sounds like AI? Each time that it has been flagged -- I have re-written the article -- I have tried to make it like an encyclopedia and just about facts, by removing any parts that are essay like. If you look at the 3 drafts so far -- you can see that I made many edits and changes. Is it possible to ask for reconsideration of the reviews -- so the article can move on to the next step? Thank you very much for your assistance. Opal Green (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Opal Green Your draft breaks several of our core content policies and is an unreadable wall of text. I have given it some section headers so it at least is more readable.
- - An extremely large portion of the draft is dedicated to distinguishing Norman Cameron from D. Ewen Cameron which is not required: it gives far too much weight to the comparison and hijacks the focus of the draft.
- - Your draft repeatedly seems to synthesize information by making comparisons between different theories and researchers. Synthesis is a form of original research and is prohibited. You also contain actual original research ("Internet and Ancestry.com research did not reveal information about Cameron's two older brothers.") which is, again, prohibited.
- - There is a reference to an unpublished lecture from a personal archive: Wikipedia articles must only be based off published sources.
- - The draft structure is non-standard. A standard biography would follow a clearer path: Early Life & Education, Career, Key Theories, Personal Life.
- - It reads more like an essay, not an encyclopaedic article. You've written an opening statement and a conclusion: both things that should not be in an article.
- Honestly you need to re-write the entire thing from scratch. Only summarise the independent reliable published sources that discuss this person. Remove all original research and any information in the draft which is not verified reliable source. Remove any conjecture, evaluative language, advocacy. Cut out a good 60% of the irrelevant text.
- Alternatively, publish this on a blog instead of Wikipedia. qcne (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- I have to concur with qcne; I think it would be less work to re-write this article in a more Wikipedia-appropriate matter than try and fix the fundamental problems in medias res. The synth is a massive problem, not just occasionally; too often, arguments are made and conclusions are drawn in the article. But we don't do that here. There's just a lack of focus on this as a biography, with far too many asides and tangents.
- Take the article for Albert Einstein. His theory of relativity is a key part of his notability. The theory of relativity is mentioned and some basics are provided so as to contextualize what it means for a reader, but the basic thrust is to mention it where it tells us about the subject of the article, the man Albert Einstein. The bio doesn't come screeching to a halt for page after page of background detail and justifications for the theory of relativity. There's an article about that because it's quite notable. That's the place for more extensive descriptions of the theory.
- An article about Norman Cameron should primarily tell us about Norman Cameron the man. Why was his work important and what reliable sources said so? How did his work affect his life? I find after reading this article I still know very little about the man Norman Cameron, who appears to be an obscure supporting character in the article in which he's the subject!
- A far better approach would have been to start with a handful of sources, the best ones about Cameron, and writing a simple three or four paragraphs from those sources that outline the basics of the man himself, and why his work is considered important, and why he is notable. Then you can slowly expand on it from there after we actually have a good foundation for an article. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:37, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
19:31, 6 August 2025 review of submission by 2404:C0:7050:0:0:3:547C:7E31
Please Help Me, Because im send a reference 2404:C0:7050:0:0:3:547C:7E31 (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- Your draft has been rejected and will not be considered further: there is no evidence this person meets our criteria for inclusion. qcne (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
22:48, 6 August 2025 review of submission by MaxtOut298
- MaxtOut298 (talk · contribs) (TB)
I need assistance with this article; I'm new at Wikipedia and would like to submit an article for Josh Pan, and have gone through multiple reivisions this past month trying to ensure the details are noted. If i can grab a list of what exactly i need to edit, I would be more than happy to revise in order for this article to be approved. Thank you very much. MaxtOut298 (talk) 22:48, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- The draft has been rejected, which is typically the end of the line for a topic. You have not demonstrated that the person meets the definition of a notable musician or the definition of a notable songwriter. 331dot (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
August 7
09:10, 7 August 2025 review of submission by Ch4m1ll1on2025
- Ch4m1ll1on2025 (talk · contribs) (TB)
Hello I was wondering why my page was denied Ch4m1ll1on2025 (talk) 09:10, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Ch4m1ll1on2025. Articles on living people require in-line citations to reliable, published sources. Please see the referencing tutorial at Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1 and our criteria for sportspeople at Wikipedia:Notability (sports). qcne (talk) 09:16, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
12:25, 7 August 2025 review of submission by Sliyanage1967
- Sliyanage1967 (talk · contribs) (TB)
I am quite surprised with a number of comments and suggestions on this article on one of the most prominent journanalist and an activist from Sri Lanka. I have made numerous edits to comply and latest comments says sources are not reliable. The sources I have listed are publicly available and credible sources. I am now a bit worried whether there is an objective assessment of this article by wikipedia editors or someone is trying to deliberately block it. Sliyanage1967 (talk) 12:25, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- Sliyanage1967 Please assume good faith absent direct evidence of malicious motives by specific users. We want to accept articles, not deny them, but certain criteria must be met.
- That something is publicly available does not mean that it is a reliable source, please click on and read WP:RS to learn more about what is considered to be a reliable source- but in short, the source must have a reputation of fact checking and editorial control.
- You have summarized the journalists' work, but not summarized what independent sources say it is about his work that makes him notable. Writing about journalists can be tough, as they don't often write about each other, so finding sources is challenging. 331dot (talk) 12:29, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clarification. You are correct, that writing about journalists is not easy. I will give another try for another round of edits to comply. Sliyanage1967 (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
15:24, 7 August 2025 review of submission by KnoxChefEditor
- KnoxChefEditor (talk · contribs) (TB)
Hi editors,
I would really appreciate any feedback on my draft article for Joseph Lenn, a James Beard Award-winning chef and owner of J.C. Holdway in Knoxville, Tennessee.
The draft is located here: User:KnoxChefEditor/sandbox
This is my first attempt at writing a Wikipedia article. I’m a university professor, and I’m trying to ensure this biography meets Wikipedia’s notability and neutrality standards. The draft is supported by reliable, independent sources including The New York Times, Forbes, Esquire, Eater, and Garden & Gun.
I would be grateful for any suggestions on whether this draft is ready to move forward through Articles for Creation, or what improvements are needed.
Thank you for your time and guidance! KnoxChefEditor (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @KnoxChefEditor. Your basically asking for a pre-review before going through the review process. We don't really do that since the point of the review is to get feedback. It might be helpful for reviewers if you make a note at the top of the draft which three (and only three) are your best sources, each of which should meet WP:42? qcne (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @qcne, thank you for the quick response and for the helpful clarification. That makes complete sense—I now understand that the Articles for Creation review is the appropriate place for feedback.
- Per your suggestion, I’ve added a hidden comment at the top of the draft highlighting the three strongest sources I believe meet WP:42, including The New York Times, Esquire, and Forbes Travel Guide (all independent and substantial coverage).
- I’ll go ahead and submit the draft through AfC and appreciate your guidance in helping me prepare it appropriately. KnoxChefEditor (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- No prob. I've also moved it to Draft:Joseph Lenn for you. qcne (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- @KnoxChefEditor: Let's test that theory.
- https://cooking.nytimes.com/recipes/1018796-gochujang-bbq-ribs-with-peanuts-and-scallions doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). Recipes in general aren't good sources for articles on people.
- https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/20/dining/chef-joseph-lenn-j-c-holdway-restaurant-knoxville.html seems OK.
- We can't use https://www.forbes.com/sites/katiechang/2022/08/20/7-reasons-why-knoxville-tennessee-is-a-hidden-culinary-gem/ (no editorial oversight). Any Forbes piece written by/attributed to a "contributor" or "council" is little more than a glorified opinion piece, as it did not go thru Forbes' editor's desk. (The only exception to this is if the piece ran in a print edition of Forbes, which has stricter standards; the piece will note when/if it ran in print.)
- https://stories.forbestravelguide.com/talking-tennessee-cuisine-with-a-james-beard-winning-chef doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). Interview.
- https://www.esquire.com/food-drink/restaurants/a12775917/best-new-restaurants-in-america-2017/ doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Listicle.
- Of the sources you suggest, only one of them is any good. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:02, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Jéské_Couriano! Thank you for taking the time to review and offer such detailed guidance. I really appreciate the feedback.
- I understand that recipes alone may not satisfy notability requirements, especially when not paired with substantial editorial commentary. That said, I wanted to ask a clarifying question:
- In cases where a chef is consistently published in print editions of major national outlets like The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal—even if it's in the form of bylined or editorially assigned recipes—does that help support their notability as a recognized professional in their field, particularly when combined with a James Beard Award?
- Also, could I ask your view on whether multiple print articles in the Knoxville News Sentinel (a Gannett/USA Today affiliate) that profile the chef, cover his restaurant opening, and report on national awards (such as Wine Spectator recognition) might carry notability weight as part of the broader picture?
- Thanks again for your help and for pushing us toward Wikipedia’s standards. I’m learning a lot through this process! KnoxChefEditor (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- Awards do not contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). The opening of his restaurant is meaningless in terms of his personal notability, unless there is something significant about such an event(and that would still probably only mean that the restaurant would merit an article, and not him personally).
- A profile would depend on what it says and who wrote it- often they are written by the person themselves or their employer. 331dot (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- As well as how much is in it. A content-free profile that only lists vital statistics and a CV isn't going to be acceptable no matter its authorship. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:34, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Jéské_Couriano and @331dot ... thank you both sincerely for your time and input! I appreciate your willingness to offer guidance, and I am learning a great deal from this process.
- To clarify one point: the chef in question is a recipient of the James Beard Award, which is often described as “the Oscars of cooking” and is widely regarded as the highest culinary honor a chef can receive in the United States. (There is a Wikipedia page on the James Beard Foundation Award that helps explain its prominence.)
- Regarding your comments on profiles and authorship, I had a quick follow-up question for my own understanding. When you reference “a profile,” are you referring to the profile of the chef (i.e., whether it was self-authored or written by a neutral journalist), or to the profile of the writer (e.g., someone like Jane Black, who authored the New York Times cover story, or Jeff Gordinier, a noted food journalist)? I hope I am not misunderstanding, but I want to ensure I am interpreting your point correctly.
- Also, as the person working on this draft, do I personally need to meet certain publication or academic qualifications—such as being a culinary historian, journalist, or otherwise—to contribute such a biography in alignment with best practices? If so, I am happy to revise my approach accordingly.
- I apologize for any naivety, but I am truly trying to read and apply all the applicable guidelines as carefully as possible. If there is another route I should be pursuing (e.g., submitting this type of entry via a different pathway), I would be grateful for your direction.
- Thank you again for helping me better understand Wikipedia’s standards! KnoxChefEditor (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- @KnoxChefEditor: When we say "profile" assume we mean a profile for the subject of the article (in this case, the chef; people commonly try to use profiles as sources for any person or film). And no need to apologise for asking questions; that's what this page is here for. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:07, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, Jéské, for clarifying that by “profile,” you are referring to a profile of the subject (the chef) rather than of the writer. That makes perfect sense and helps me better understand your earlier point!
- I also appreciate the reassurance about asking questions.. that is kind, and it has been very helpful to learn from this process. I will continue to review the relevant guidelines carefully and work to ensure that all sources align with Wikipedia’s standards.
- Thanks again for your time and guidance! KnoxChefEditor (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- @KnoxChefEditor: When we say "profile" assume we mean a profile for the subject of the article (in this case, the chef; people commonly try to use profiles as sources for any person or film). And no need to apologise for asking questions; that's what this page is here for. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:07, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- As well as how much is in it. A content-free profile that only lists vital statistics and a CV isn't going to be acceptable no matter its authorship. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:34, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
Request review for draft on Eshan Chattopadhyay
Hi! I’ve submitted a draft article at User:TCSResearcher25/sandbox on theoretical computer scientist Eshan Chattopadhyay, known for his Gödel Prize–winning work on two-source extractors and other contributions in pseudorandomness, complexity theory, and cryptography.
The draft includes reliable sources such as the Annals of Mathematics, STOC, SIAM J. Computing, and coverage in media like Times of India, Hindustan Times, and BBC.
Would appreciate feedback or review. Thanks so much! TCSResearcher25 (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @TCSResearcher25. You haven't submitted this for review. I have added a button to allow you to do so. qcne (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
16:35, 7 August 2025 review of submission by Mitch-sd
Hello,
I've been working on a draft for "Alcatraz City Cruises," the official and exclusive ferry operator to Alcatraz Island, but it has been repeatedly declined for not meeting notability guidelines (WP:NCORP). I'm trying to understand the best path forward and would appreciate some guidance.
I understand that notability requires significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources. My argument for notability was based on:
Its status as the exclusive U.S. National Park Service concessionaire since 2006.
Its role in pioneering hybrid ferry technology in the U.S. with the Hornblower Hybrid.
The fact that it is the sole means of transport for the 1.5 million+ annual visitors to a major world landmark.
However, I suspect the reviewers see "Alcatraz City Cruises" as a brand name for a service, rather than a notable organization in its own right, with most in-depth coverage focusing on its parent, Hornblower Group, or the destination, Alcatraz Island.
My question is: What is the correct approach here?
Is there a path to establishing notability for a standalone article that I am missing?
Or, would it be more appropriate to create a detailed section about the ferry service within the existing Alcatraz Island article?
I want to ensure this important information is on Wikipedia in the correct way. Thank you for any advice you can offer. Mitch-sd (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Mitch-sd: notability does not arise from any of the factors you mention, it arises from being covered at significant breadth and depth in multiple secondary sources. Routine business reporting, which is what your draft cites, does not count. Unless your company is doing some pretty remarkable things which have caught the attention of multiple authors, journalists or other commentators, it's very possible that you are simply not notable enough. That is pretty much the norm, as the vast majority of the world's companies are not notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- I appreciate the reply here. Understood and thank you for the details 2600:8801:C80D:4000:50B1:8040:9316:F31C (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
18:03, 7 August 2025 review of submission by 102.97.188.132
- 102.97.188.132 (talk · contribs) (TB)
i gave my sources tho it still got declined i don't know what i have to do 102.97.188.132 (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- You cited one source, once. That is neither enough to establish notability or to adequately support the contents.
- Also, that source is cited with insufficient bibliographic detail, meaning it would be difficult if not impossible to verify. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
18:59, 7 August 2025 review of submission by Duckmooseduck
- Duckmooseduck (talk · contribs) (TB)
I am hoping to understand as to why this is rejected. Would you have rejected the Halifax Jazz Festival then? How is that allowed on Wikipedia but Area 506 Festival isn't? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Jazz_Festival
Or what about this one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_Beach_Music_Festival
Honestly, I have way more detailed and up-to-date information about Area 506 than what’s written on the Halifax Jazz Festival or the Canvedish page. And I've not even finished the older years yet.
Also, kind of wild that the Area 506 Waterfront Container Village, where the festival is located, has its own page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_506_Waterfront_Container_Village But the actual festival, which updates annually with new artists and has significant regional impact, gets rejected?
Not sure I understand the thought process here, especially as I have included sources from Billboard.com, CTV & Global which is a Canadian National News organization. If Wikipedia wouldn't block CBC citations, I'd have more national citations from CBC.
Again please help me understand how other festivals of the same size are allowed pages, but this festival isn't allowed, but it's ___location/grounds is allowed. Duckmooseduck (talk) 18:59, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- Duckmooseduck That another article exists does not necessarily mean that it is "allowed" or has been approved by anyone. There are many ways inappropriate content can exist, that cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. See other stuff exists. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can, when they can, it takes time to address probelmatic content. You can help us by identifying it so action can be taken.
- It is entirely possible for a ___location to be notable, but not an event that occurs there, just as it's possible for a book to be notable but not its author personally. 331dot (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hey 331dot,
- I added more citations and sources that I believe fall in live with what you're looking for. Articles from The Globe and Mail, Business Magazine etc.
- I appreciate you taking the time to explain the process and I can see why it's set that way. However, it can be a little frustrating understanding the "other stuff exists" rule. As you mentioned, it's all volunteers who help keep Wikipedia the way it is, and that in itself might allow for users to get "lucky" timing for when their draft is being reviewed.
- Again not to beat the drum about other stuff existing but this new hockey team that was formed in a village of 900 people in the same province as Area 506 Festival was approved for a page. They only provided 2 sources and one of them was directly from the website of the league they are playing in.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Charlotte_Kingfishers. Duckmooseduck (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Duckmooseduck again, the existence of other articles has not bearing on whether the draft is accepted or not so let that go as it is not a helpful argument. There was a time here where no sources were required or simply existing was enough and there are different guidelines for different topics. Focusing on this draft, I will start on a discussion with you on the draft's talk page but I do have a question which I will post on your talk page first. S0091 (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- Awesome thank you, I appreciate it! Duckmooseduck (talk) 16:57, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Duckmooseduck again, the existence of other articles has not bearing on whether the draft is accepted or not so let that go as it is not a helpful argument. There was a time here where no sources were required or simply existing was enough and there are different guidelines for different topics. Focusing on this draft, I will start on a discussion with you on the draft's talk page but I do have a question which I will post on your talk page first. S0091 (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, @Duckmooseduck. A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people, wholly unconnected with the subject, have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and little else.
- If there are few sources which meet all the criteria in WP:42, then the subject is not notable, irrespective of what they may have done or how they are held.
- Your use of the word "allowed" suggests that, like many people, you have the idea that a Wikipedia article is somehow for the benefit of the subject. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, that is absolutely not the case: apart from a few special cases regarding criminal allegations or privacy, benefit (or detriment) to the subject is simply not a matter that arises in any way in considering the suitablility of a draft. (Of course many subjects do draw benefit from a Wikipedia article about them; but others definitely do not, and sometimes try aggressively to get something removed from an article.) ColinFine (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
20:53, 7 August 2025 review of submission by 2601:449:4881:83D0:7063:BA44:93E9:7847
This keeps getting rejected by editors who don't engage with the text. I want them to read it, examine the claims, check the sources, and make specific, useful suggestions on how to improve it. I'm getting the runaround. Please don't just say "this looks like an LLM and therefore I'm not going to actually examine what is here." It's my writing, revised, and structured to be readable for non-specialists. If there is anything incorrect, I'll be happy to revise it. If there are better sources, I can add them. The reviewers say that it 'feels' LLM and it 'feels' like a source dump (those sources were put there in response to a previous reviewer who said there weren't *enough* sources). Lots of talk about feelings, but it's not very actionable. Can someone please read this and assume good faith (true) and that a subject matter expert wrote this (also true)? 2601:449:4881:83D0:7063:BA44:93E9:7847 (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hi IP editor, you are off to a good start with this draft. I agree with the previous reviewer that the text is too focused on specific examples of games where the provided sources do not explicitly describe them as persuasive games, including several examples that do not cite any independent sources at all. It is original research to describe these games as persuasive games when the provided sources do not explicitly make this connection. Ideally, an example should only be included if you can cite secondary, independent sources that have significant coverage about the game, and these sources have placed the game in this subgenre.
- You possibly implied in a comment at Draft:Persuasive Games that the article includes some of your own published research. While this is allowed, per Wikipedia:SELFCITE, it is best to be transparent and disclose your conflict of interest (assuming you are citing your own research). You may also want to read Wikipedia:Expert editors and Help:Wikipedia editing for researchers, scholars, and academics; being a subject-matter expert does not confer any extra authority on Wikipedia. As for other articles, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, Wikipedia has a lot of problematic articles, many of which need to be improved or deleted, but all articles are judged on their own merits. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:34, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- Also, remember to log in when editing Wikipedia. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:42, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks Helpful Raccoon! These are good, actionable suggestions. I've removed most examples of games and will let other contributors add those they think are relevant and well-covered in secondary sources. I have also removed any primary sources or original research. When I mentioned my research, I meant that I'm one of the people researching this generally. Not promoting/citing my own work here. Gunderson555 (talk) 13:33, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
21:56, 7 August 2025 review of submission by IslamZahurul
- IslamZahurul (talk · contribs) (TB)
Why my article is decline? If any mistake please tell me the solution.
Thank you. IslamZahurul (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- Um....the draft just contains your name. If you thought you put more content, you didn't.
- Also know writing about yourself is ill advised, please see WP:AUTO 331dot (talk) 23:51, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
August 8
07:43, 8 August 2025 review of submission by Indiepostrockmegazine
- Indiepostrockmegazine (talk · contribs) (TB)
Hi,
Thank you for reviewing the article. As someone with a deep knowledge of the post-rock genre, I can confirm that Antonio La Rocca, the artist behind Lost Between The Roads, is a real musician and composer.
One clear proof of this is the in-depth interview published by Idioteq.com, a respected independent webzine in the post-rock scene: https://idioteq.com/instrumental-post-rock-act-lost-between-the-roads-captures-impermanence-and-memory-in-debut-single-fading-lights/
In that piece, Antonio answered detailed questions via email — something that is not consistent with AI-generated content, but rather with a human artist sharing personal insights about his creative process.
Additionally, the debut single Fading Lights was covered by other independent publications such as:
Post Rock Nation: https://postrocknation.com/bands/3214/lost-between-the-roads?sfnsn=scwspwa
Progrock Journal: https://progrockjournal.com/news-lost-between-the-roads-unveil-the-first-single-fading-lights-taken-from-upcoming-debut-album/
It is also worth noting that Antonio La Rocca has a past in other independent projects, such as Before We Die, which was covered by MeridioNews:
https://meridionews.it/before-we-die-una-band-catanese-post-wave-un-album-musicale-tra-pessimismo-e-ironia/
MeridioNews is a highly respected Sicilian news outlet, often compared in its role and influence to what The Washington Post represents in the U.S., but for the Sicilian and Southern Italian context. Its coverage of local music culture is considered reliable and authoritative, making it a valuable independent source.
Beyond this, Lost Between The Roads has been discussed and shared across multiple international post-rock communities, including forums, Facebook groups, and specialized pages dedicated to the genre. This ongoing presence in independent communities, together with coverage from recognized niche publications, supports the project’s notability within its music scene.
I believe this information shows that the article subject is a real, active artist with verifiable, independent coverage. Would it be possible to reconsider the article in light of these points?
Thank you for your time and attention. Indiepostrockmegazine (talk) 07:43, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- Interviews do not establish notability, as by definition an interview is not an independent source, being the person speaking about themselves or what they do. You can ask the rejecting reviewer to reconsider(typically the first step) but I don't see how it has been shown that he is a notable musician. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
09:49, 8 August 2025 review of submission by Nflicks
Could someone please review Draft:ECOUNT? It was resubmitted three weeks ago after improvements to independent sourcing and neutrality, but it remains pending. For context only: a Korean Wikipedia article has existed since 2011, titled “이카운트”. I understand this doesn’t establish notability or serve as a source; I mention it only as background to ask whether the draft—given the independent coverage now cited—is on the right track. If anything obvious is blocking review, or if further changes are needed to meet notability and sourcing guidelines, I’d appreciate your feedback. Nflicks (talk) 09:49, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- Nflicks Your draft was submitted and is pending. As noted at the top, "This may take 4 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 1,109 pending submissions waiting for review." Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 09:50, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for the update. I understand the review backlog and will wait accordingly. Nflicks (talk) 11:21, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- Do you have a particular need for a speedy review? 331dot (talk) 09:51, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- I was just checking in after the initial decline and extensive revisions to see where things stand. I'm happy to wait. Thank you Nflicks (talk) 11:26, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, @Nflicks. I am not a reviewer, but looking at the draft, I do not see anything there that is not run-of-the-mill reporting about any company. What is it that makes ECOUNT noteworthy? And, more importantly for Wikipedia, what is it that independent commentators have taken note of and written about. Please read WP:ORGDEPTH carefully. ColinFine (talk) 14:14, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- I was just checking in after the initial decline and extensive revisions to see where things stand. I'm happy to wait. Thank you Nflicks (talk) 11:26, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
10:03, 8 August 2025 review of submission by Canadasmusiclover
- Canadasmusiclover (talk · contribs) (TB)
(Redacted) Me and my Teaching assistant have run into problems and what we feel insulted Canadasmusiclover (talk) 10:03, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- curprev 09:58, 8 August 2025 Aydoh8 talk contribs 4,966 bytes −435 Undid revision 1304817534 by Canadasmusiclover (talk) As someone who is neurodivergent myself, saying that "hallucinations is an ableist way of thinking" isn't particularly nice. I was referring to AI hallucinations in particular, completely different from the normal sense of the word. Also, please don't edit my comment, reply on the talk page. updated since your last visit undothan. ..
- Im just feeling very frustrated. I apologize for hurting your feelings but you are hurting mine. I have heard of scams of editing and to be honest- its kind of sketchy when no help gets provided and accusations of chatgpt with no proof came about. I did use bing chat for a template. Canadasmusiclover (talk) 10:09, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Canadasmusiclover. You have misunderstood the decline notice posted by @Aydoh8. No one has said that you are hallucinating. AI chatbots like ChatGPT or Bing's Copilot can "hallucinate" information and sources which means they imagine or make up information. Please see Hallucination (artificial intelligence) for more information. qcne (talk) 10:18, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- +1 Pretty much what Qcne said. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 10:20, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- I am sorry to misunderstand. Sometimes that can happen to the best of us - when seeing language that is harsh and to be honest not very helpful. An apology is due as , no one is implyong i am having a hallucination but rather the bing template but the other thing is... how do i fix this then -i understand no one owes me anything because this is volunteers- Canadasmusiclover (talk) 10:22, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- It is for a womens music page...i thought wiki needed more of this Canadasmusiclover (talk) 10:23, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- What was uncredited Canadasmusiclover (talk) 10:24, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Canadasmusiclover. I understand the decline notice may have felt personal, but it’s a standard message used whenever a reviewer suspects an AI tool (like Bing Chat) was involved in writing a draft. It’s applied to many drafts each month and isn’t directed at you personally.
- Since you mentioned using Bing Chat, please check every source to confirm it is correct, accurate, and actually supports the text it’s cited for. Some parts of the draft will also need rewriting to meet Wikipedia’s neutrality requirements, as AI tools often add wording that doesn’t fully meet those standards.
- I would recommend having a read of Wikipedia:Everything you need to know which outlines our key policies in an easy to understand way.
- But do let us know if you have any more questions. qcne (talk) 10:29, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- Its is accredited. I used a template only. Canadasmusiclover (talk) 10:32, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- "Some parts of the draft will also need rewriting to meet Wikipedia’s neutrality."
- Any ideas? Canadasmusiclover (talk) 10:32, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Canadasmusiclover. When I mentioned a “template,” I meant the automated decline message placed on your draft, not anything you added yourself. That decline notice is standard text we use for many drafts each month, so it wasn’t aimed at you personally.
- If the sources were collected from Bing Chat, we still need you to double-check each one to be sure it matches the wording in the draft and supports what’s being said. This is because AI tools like Bing Chat sometimes cite good sources but summarise them inaccurately or add wording that isn’t neutral, or sometimes even make up sources that don't actually exist.
- Once those checks and small rewrites are done, your draft will be in a much stronger position and you can click the big blue Resubmit button to re-submit the draft for review. qcne (talk) 10:34, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- You saying"I would recommend taking a break to let your emotions settle, then maybe come back to the draft in a few days when you are feeling less frustrated?"
- Is just the icing on the cake. I am just saying ... you have a lack of women articles and this is why
- I am not angry. To be honest im not frustrated now. It makes sense what is happening. Alright buh bye - getting the sense you are saying you will not help Canadasmusiclover (talk) 10:48, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- This line, specifically, is written in a way which isn't appropriate for Wikipedia:
- "Mainstream media coverage remains limited. However, her ArtistRecap profile highlights her inventive use of field recordings and textured layering to create immersive soundscapes, and her streaming metrics reflect a dedicated, expanding fanbase" qcne (talk) 10:35, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- Just frustrating- I did use correct citation.
- This has been a really horrible experience to be honest. I might need to ask a co-worker when school starts so we can add this musician to our curriculum Canadasmusiclover (talk) 10:37, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- I am really sorry you feel frustrated, @Canadasmusiclover.
- I wasn’t saying your citations were wrong: only that we ask human editors to check and confirm that any information from a chatbot like Bing Chat is accurate. If you’ve already done that and everything is correct, then you’re fine. The issue is that reviewers can’t tell whether those checks have been done unless you let us know.
- Writing a Wikipedia article is one of the hardest things for a new editor, so it’s natural to feel frustrated: it’s a bit like trying to build a house without construction experience!
- I understand the decline notice felt personal, but it’s really just a standard message, and this interaction between you and @Aydoh8 seems to be a misunderstanding.
- I would recommend taking a break to let your emotions settle, then maybe come back to the draft in a few days when you are feeling less frustrated? qcne (talk) 10:43, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, @Canadasmusiclover. I'm sorry you have had a frustrating experience, and you're right that we want more articles about women (see WP:WIR).
- Unfortunately, your experience is common for new editors who plunge straight into the very unfamiliar and challending task of creating an article.
- My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 14:19, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- It is frustrating when celebrities like Taylor Swift and Gwenyth Paltrow who clearly are doong every bad marketing ploy here on wiki with their bot made descriptions are getting free passes... and to say "to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks." And the above comment about leave wiki for a few days when all that is happening is an attempt to improve the space is sickening . Who makes these admins that are commenting here able to talk in such a privileged tone . The reading is hard - not everyone can employ pr like the celebrities 2605:8D80:13B1:31D0:EC54:32AE:DDB2:5D10 (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- Its is accredited. I used a template only. Canadasmusiclover (talk) 10:32, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- What was uncredited Canadasmusiclover (talk) 10:24, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- It is for a womens music page...i thought wiki needed more of this Canadasmusiclover (talk) 10:23, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Canadasmusiclover. You have misunderstood the decline notice posted by @Aydoh8. No one has said that you are hallucinating. AI chatbots like ChatGPT or Bing's Copilot can "hallucinate" information and sources which means they imagine or make up information. Please see Hallucination (artificial intelligence) for more information. qcne (talk) 10:18, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
12:26, 8 August 2025 review of submission by Bridgestonetech
- Bridgestonetech (talk · contribs) (TB)
hey why our article was rejected please share the reason and where to improve it can you share the guidelines and ways to resubmitt the article Bridgestonetech (talk) 12:26, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Bridgestonetech: it was rejected, and now deleted, because it was purely promotional with no evidence whatsoever that the subject is notable.
- What is your relationship with this subject? I noticed that all your drafts are on related subjects, and all are similar in tone, content and (lack of) referencing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:41, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
16:21, 8 August 2025 review of submission by Devaraj1966
- Devaraj1966 (talk · contribs) (TB)
Hello! My draft about Rev. Dr. Anish N.R. was declined. Can someone please review it and tell me what specific improvements are needed? Draft link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Devaraj1966/Draft:Rev._Dr._Anish_N.R Thank you! — Devaraj1966 (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Devaraj1966: do you mean User:Devaraj1966/Draft:Rev. Dr. Anish N.R.? That hasn't been declined, or even reviewed, you seem to have only just created it. Are you referring to something you've had previously declined which you created under a different username or IP address? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- PS: Oh, you probably mean Draft:National Theological Association? (That's not the topic you mentioned, is it?) This has been declined because it is very poorly supported by referencing, and provides no evidence that the organisation is notable, which is a core requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia. You need to find a few (3-5) secondary sources that clearly meet the WP:ORG guideline, and summarise what they have said about this association, then cite them against the information each of them has provided. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- PPS: You need to also disclose your conflict of interest (COI) regarding this association, in the same way as you did for Anish. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
16:24, 8 August 2025 review of submission by Drmanto
Dear Sirs, I am writing to understand how it is possible to publish an article about a mediterranean tv channel. This is not an advertising but people gets confused when they look for med.tv and the article of an old turkish med tv channel comes up. The need to have a description of the new med.tv channel is purely informative and to do not promote the channel itself but to avoid misunderstanding for the people that is looking for med.tv. Please let me know your thoughts on how this can be fixed for the benefit of the people looking for updated information. Thanks a lot in advance for the help on this matter
Drmanto (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Drmanto: this is advertising in the sense that this is you telling the world about your venture, which is pretty much the definition of promotion (see WP:YESPROMO). We're not interested in that. We instead want to see what others, esp. reliable and independent secondary sources, have said about this TV channel and what in their view makes it worthy of note. You need to find multiple sources meeting the WP:GNG standard, which have provided significant coverage of this subject, and summarise what they have said. That approach is outlined at WP:GOLDENRULE. Any other approach will result in failure, as sure as eggs are eggs.
- Please disclose your relationship with this subject. I've posted a message on your talk page with instructions. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- Dear @DoubleGrazing, thank you for your clear message. I understand your concerns and I agree 100% with your points. As a viewer i have found those information online about the tv channel and the ones i found on WP were not reporting the reality of both those tv channels. I was just interested of having both tv channels listed one for his past and one for his present. Thanks again for sharing WP guidelines about articles. If I will consider to contribute again on WP I will try to be more accurate on the articles creation. 77.71.146.40 (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- Please log into your account so that I know who I'm talking to. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- Dear @DoubleGrazing, thank you for your clear message. I understand your concerns and I agree 100% with your points. As a viewer i have found those information online about the tv channel and the ones i found on WP were not reporting the reality of both those tv channels. I was just interested of having both tv channels listed one for his past and one for his present. Thanks again for sharing WP guidelines about articles. If I will consider to contribute again on WP I will try to be more accurate on the articles creation. 77.71.146.40 (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
17:06, 8 August 2025 review of submission by 88.233.233.119
- 88.233.233.119 (talk · contribs) (TB)
Needs better sources 88.233.233.119 (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- The draft has been rejected, meaning that it won't be considered further. 331dot (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- Quite so. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
19:44, 8 August 2025 review of submission by Ahariri72
Thank you for taking the time to review my draft article on Amir R. Hariri. I understand your concerns regarding notability and tone. I’ve since revised the article to align more closely with encyclopedic standards, and I’ve trimmed promotional language while ensuring that all factual statements are now supported by independent, reliable sources.
Could I kindly ask why multiple published articles (including in *Hyperallergic* and *Whitehot Magazine*), solo exhibitions at recognized institutions (Wave Hill, Atamian Hovsepian), and representation by a New York gallery do not meet the threshold for notability under the WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST guidelines? I’d like to better understand how to move forward and ensure the article meets Wikipedia standards.
I truly appreciate your time and guidance.
Best, Ahariri72 (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- Are you Mr. Hariri? Please see the autobiography policy. While not absolutely forbidden, writing about yourself is highly discouraged.
- You have just documented your work, you instead need to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about you, showing how you are a notable artist. 331dot (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
21:38, 8 August 2025 review of submission by AllisonAndTree
- AllisonAndTree (talk · contribs) (TB)
I am trying to find out how make this article better Pease could someone suggest edits that would increase the likelihood of being accepted
AllisonAndTree (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2025 (UTC)