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 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)
- We do our best to ensure there's as little bot editing as possible on Wikipedia; if we see PR people making edits on Taylor Swift's or Gwyneth Paltrow's, we'll be just as vigorous at upholding our standards and rules for conduct. These rules are here so that we have quality articles that readers can understand, obtain knowledge, and come from independent, reliable sources. Accusing people every time you don't like what is said is counter-productive. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:10, 9 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)
- Hello, IP user. I'm afraid that if it happens that of two things with the same name, one meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability and the other does not, then there can be an article on one of them but no article is possible on the other. If people confuse the two, then that is unfortunate, but it is nothing to do with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 22:53, 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)
- @AllisonAndTree: Did you read the link that was provided in the AfC comment on the draft? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:41, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
23:21, 8 August 2025 review of submission by 96.79.183.81
- 96.79.183.81 (talk · contribs) (TB)
How to add_ Miami Southridge sr high school - Pro football alum (Alberto White)? 96.79.183.81 (talk) 23:21, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, IP user.
- My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 23:39, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
August 9
06:49, 9 August 2025 review of submission by 2001:9E8:E1DA:900:1970:C2E7:816F:49ED
Can you please remove the middle name "B." in the lemma. For 'Ulrich_Kampffmeyer' there will show up enough relevance. Thank you. 2001:9E8:E1DA:900:1970:C2E7:816F:49ED (talk) 06:49, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter at this stage what the draft title is, as it will need to be changed anyway if and when the draft is accepted. I'll make a note of the proposed title in the draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:52, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
10:13, 9 August 2025 review of submission by 2605:8D80:13B1:31D0:EC54:32AE:DDB2:5D10
Needs assistance. Toronto musician. Full disclosure =roommate 2605:8D80:13B1:31D0:EC54:32AE:DDB2:5D10 (talk) 10:13, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- If you are Canadasmusiclover or the creator of the draft, remember to log in when posting. What assistance are you seeking? If you're the roommate of this person you should formally disclose a conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- • I am not receiving compensation for creating an article, nor is writing an article a part of my job.
- • The practice of editing or creating articles about yourself, your family or friends- your organization, your clients your employers', or 'your competitors' is strongly discouraged. I am confirming the O.G editor is my roomate.
- • I will login - for some reason occasionally using the same laptop there is problems with ip - i have contacted the user who helped the first time . Bushranger was the person, i think..
- • I am posting a suggestion that an experienced editor take control at this point due to an a.i mark that was warnted but perhaps the ammeneded edits and sources on the article's talk page, or in a draft have fixed the a.i template?
- • I am asking anyb neutral, uninvolved, disinterested editors to review my suggestions. I highly Respect the volunteer community's time; I will avoid making protracted or repeated requests. 2605:8D80:13B1:31D0:EC54:32AE:DDB2:5D10 (talk) 10:54, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hello again, @Canadasmusiclover. It is very unlikely that another editor with "take control" of a draft you have created - not impossible, but unlikely. We all work on what we choose, and unless your subject particularly appeals to somebody, it's not going to happen.
- The way to get your draft reviewed is by submitting it for review: we don't do pre-review reviews. If a reviewer thinks for whatever reason that they are not a "neutral, uninvolved, disinterested editor", they will simply not pick up that draft to review. ColinFine (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- Canadasmusiclover I did not say that you were a paid editor. I said that you have a conflict of interest. You should formally disclose this on your user page, see WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- There should not be an issue if you edit using the account you made the other day, if you are who you appear to be saying you are on my talk page. Also, note that if you are editing the same pages as your roommate, not only does WP:COI potentially apply (as mentioned, COI, not WP:PAID), but WP:MEAT is something to be careful of. It's entirely fair for roommates to be validly editing together, but at the same time it's a common excuse used by bad actors, so we have to be very cautious about it. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:00, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, very well explained . 2605:8D80:13B1:31D0:EC54:32AE:DDB2:5D10 (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- There should not be an issue if you edit using the account you made the other day, if you are who you appear to be saying you are on my talk page. Also, note that if you are editing the same pages as your roommate, not only does WP:COI potentially apply (as mentioned, COI, not WP:PAID), but WP:MEAT is something to be careful of. It's entirely fair for roommates to be validly editing together, but at the same time it's a common excuse used by bad actors, so we have to be very cautious about it. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:00, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
10:28, 9 August 2025 review of submission by Mihailonaca-photographer
Hi,
I'm having a bit of trouble understanding referencing for this page. If there's a Wikipedia author that would be kind enough to help me, I'd really appreciate it.
Thank you, Mihail Onaca Mihailonaca-photographer (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- It's unwise- though not forbidden- for you to write about yourself, please see the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves, and it is usually hard for people to set aside what they know about themselves and only write based on the content of independent reliable sources. Most of your sources seem to just document your work, not describe what the source sees as important/significant/influential about you as a photographer- in other words, how you are a notable creative professional. 331dot (talk) 10:31, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, @Mihailonaca-photographer. Please note 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 in order to write about yourself successfully, you will need to first find independent articles about yourself, and then in effect forget everything you know about yourself, and write a summary of what those independent sources say about you - even if you think they are wrong.
- Most people cannot do this.
- My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 15:06, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
11:25, 9 August 2025 review of submission by Dinu.nanjappa
- Dinu.nanjappa (talk · contribs) (TB)
Hi, wanted to know the status of my Wiki page which I tried creating. As this is my first page, I have tried to follow all guidelines set by Wikipedia and I really appreciate if you can help approve this.
The movie won the National Award and may people are asking for a Wiki page. Thank you. Dinu.nanjappa (talk) 11:25, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Dinu.nanjappa. You need to format your references correctly: you've got three, then 1 to 10, then 1 to 9 - which is all pretty confusing and none of them are in-line citations. Please format them all correctly by following the tutorial at Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1. qcne (talk) 11:34, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for writing back and also for sharing the useful link. I'm on it now! Dinu.nanjappa (talk) 11:35, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- I have done all changes as suggested by you. May I request you to kindly review the draft now? Thank you! Dinu.nanjappa (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- The draft is in the review queue, and will be reviewed whenever someone gets to it. — Tenshi! (Talk page) 13:27, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you! Dinu.nanjappa (talk) 14:14, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- The draft is in the review queue, and will be reviewed whenever someone gets to it. — Tenshi! (Talk page) 13:27, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- May I request one of the editors to look at the draft? Thank you in anticipation. Dinu.nanjappa (talk) 08:11, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- You have submitted it for review. 331dot (talk) 08:13, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- May I request you to kindly check the revised draft? The movie won the National Award in India and tons of people are asking for a Wiki page. Hence the urgency. Dinu.nanjappa (talk) 07:13, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Dinu.nanjappa: once again, the draft has been resubmitted and will be reviewed when a reviewer gets around to it. Please be patient. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:18, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
13:06, 9 August 2025 review of submission by Creedleak
My page has recently declined. I'm wondering why? Creedleak (talk) 13:06, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- As it says on your talk page, the draft was declined because
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources.
by JuniperChill, and later deleted by Jimfbleak as unambiguous advertising or promotion. Please note that all submissions must be neutral and be supported by reliable sources. — Tenshi! (Talk page) 13:16, 9 August 2025 (UTC) - Anything that says it has no references- especially if it's about a living person is a non-starter. 331dot (talk) 13:46, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
14:37, 9 August 2025 review of submission by 96.79.183.81
Draft title is not taking entry of Alberto White Would like to create Articles for creation. Reference: www.NFL.com 96.79.183.81 (talk) 14:37, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you're asking. You have created Draft:Alberto White.
- My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- Merely playing in a top-level league is no longer grounds for assumed notability. You also don't even give us bare URLs, making it impossible for us to actually read your sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:39, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
22:11, 9 August 2025 review of submission by Drsaidakhan
- Drsaidakhan (talk · contribs) (TB)
Hello,
I recently had my draft Draft:Salman Khan SK declined for not meeting Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for music-related topics. The reviewer noted that my previous references did not provide significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources.
Since then, I have added new sources that I believe meet the requirements:
HUM News (July 11, 2025) – “The unsung hero of TV dramas; SK Salman Khan and his musical journey” – A detailed, independent profile covering his background, body of work, and influence.
GTV News HD (June 12, 2025) – “Why is the life of music arrangers in Pakistan chaotic?” – An in-depth Urdu article including direct quotes, industry insights, and analysis of his role in the field.
IssueWire (April 2025) – “Music Director SK Embarks on Ambitious 100 Original Songs Project in 2025” – Coverage of his large-scale music project and its significance.
All three sources are independent, provide substantial coverage, and are not press releases or trivial mentions.
Could an experienced editor please review the updated draft and let me know whether these additions are sufficient to establish notability? I would also appreciate advice on any further improvements before resubmitting.
Thank you for your time and help.
Kind regards, Drsadiakhan Drsaidakhan (talk) 22:11, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- The second one is mostly an interview with the subject. That's not independent. IssueWire is a platform for people and companies to make press releases. That's not independent.
- The first one is more ambiguous. There's no actual author credit and the parts that aren't quotes read a lot like AI and HUM has publicly embraced AI use. Much of it seems sourced from the subject. I wouldn't be comfortable sourcing a WP:BLP from that article. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
23:12, 9 August 2025 review of submission by Chrisexplorzs
- Chrisexplorzs (talk · contribs) (TB)
Why was my article declined? Chrisexplorzs (talk) 23:12, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- Comment for other reviewers: this draft been substantially revised and re-submitted since this question was asked ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 01:35, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
August 10
01:42, 10 August 2025 review of submission by Newbamboo
I have translated a good article from the Chinese Wikipedia into this draft, and I ask for your help to review it, thank you very much. Newbamboo (talk) 01:42, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Newbamboo You have submitted the draft for review, and it will be reviewed when someone with the interest and expertise comes along – see the note at the top of the submission saying that there are currently >1,100 drafts waiting to be reviewed. Also, as noted at Help:Translation § Attribution, if you are translating from another language Wikipedia, attribution is required. You can add the attribution in a new edit summary by making a Dummy edit, or one of us can do this for you, but we would need to know the name of the article in Chinese (FYI, I cannot read Chinese). ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 01:52, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- @ClaudineChionh I am the author of the Chinese Wikipedia article[1]. Newbamboo (talk) 02:29, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Newbamboo Thanks – I've added the attribution. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 03:16, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- @ClaudineChionh I am the author of the Chinese Wikipedia article[1]. Newbamboo (talk) 02:29, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
04:21, 10 August 2025 review of submission by UnforgivingDolos
- UnforgivingDolos (talk · contribs) (TB)
I submitted a request to republish an article previously deleted under contested PROD, making changes before resubmitting, but it was declined again with the note that “some sources are primary and do not provide a secondary review-like reference” and that more reliable, secondary, independent sources with significant coverage are needed. I am unclear on exactly which references are considered primary and how best to replace or supplement them. I have already replaced academia.edu links with citations to published journal versions and improved formatting, but for some older career details (from the pre-digital era) it is difficult to find online sources. Could you clarify which parts need secondary sourcing and advise on how to handle verifiable but pre-digital information? UnforgivingDolos (talk) 04:21, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, @UnforgivingDolos. To answer the last part of your question: you cite non-electronic sources the same way as you cite online sources: by giving the important bibliographic information such as title, author, date, publication, volume etc, and page number. {{cite journal}} or {{cite book}} will help you do this.
- Even for most online sources, a URL is a convenience for the reader, not a core part of the citation: the citation should have all the above, except possibly a page number if the copy cited is one which is unpaged. ColinFine (talk) 16:58, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- And to address the first part, anything written or published by Poddar or by his colleagues or by any organisation he is affiliated with, is almost certainly primary. 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) 17:02, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you so much! Your explanation really helped me a lot. I have now added "secondary sources" as you suggested: book reviews by people non-related to the source person and citations of the book/chapter/article in other books/chapters. There was also a "citation needed" flagged against the note that the subject's D.Phil was under the supervision of Bhabha. It is a 1996 D.Phil - so the only way to validate this claim is to attach the thesis, where the supervisor is mentioned in the acknowledgements (records were not kept as it is now). Would that suffice? UnforgivingDolos (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
07:49, 10 August 2025 review of submission by Thunderlionhhh
- Thunderlionhhh (talk · contribs) (TB)
Please move my sandbox article to mainspace: User:Thunderlionhhh/sandbox → Phan Gia Nhat Linh Thunderlionhhh (talk) 07:49, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Thunderlionhhh: I won't move it to the mainspace, since it hasn't been reviewed and I've no idea whether it is ready to be published. I have, however, moved it into the draft space at Draft:Phan Gia Nhat Linh, and also added the AfC submission tag. When you're ready, you can submit your draft for review by clicking on the blue 'submit' button. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:08, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- Many thanks for moving the page to the draft space and adding the AfC submission tag. I’ll work on improving the article and submit it for review once it’s ready. Thunderlionhhh (talk) 08:56, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Thunderlionhhh: Per WP:CATDRAFT, drafts normally should not exist in article categories, as they are not (yet) articles that are ready for our readers. I have invalidated the category syntaxes by converting them into internal links, check changes in revision 1305145292. They will be automatically converted back into valid category syntaxes upon acceptance. Cc @DoubleGrazing. 1F616EMO (talk) 09:19, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
09:14, 10 August 2025 review of submission by 1F616EMO
My draft, which was translated from the Chinese Wikipedia, was declined because it did not meet the WP:GNG standards. After a while, a Chinese Wikipedia contributor added two sources to the source article. I asked about whether the newly added sources would make this draft suitable for expansion on the English Wikipedia, but got no response. Can someone join the discussion at User talk:1F616EMO § Your submission at Articles for creation: SaiDorSi (April 6) and give some advice? 1F616EMO (talk) 09:14, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
10:30, 10 August 2025 review of submission by Jacquelinelove
- Jacquelinelove (talk · contribs) (TB)
Please review the changes that have been made. Thanking you in advance for your time . Jacquelinelove (talk) 10:30, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Jacquelinelove If you feel you have addressed the concerns of the previous reviewers, press the blue Resbumit button to re-submit the draft for review. qcne (talk) 10:32, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- I see it was just declined a few hours before I wrote this. Have to agree with the reviewer; the sources are quite lacking. The Qobuz, Deezer, and Spotify links are simply places to listen to her music, not reliable, independent sources that provide significang information about Mackay.
- The Artist Recap citations also fail any test; they're both written by "Artist Recap Contributor" which the site itself says This article features branded content from a third party. Opinions in this article do not reflect the opinions and beliefs of Artist Recap. I don't have sufficient knowledge to say for sure about HipHipSince1987, but even assuming that's reliable for fact checking, that only leaves us with a single usable source, which is insufficient. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
10:51, 10 August 2025 review of submission by 114.10.152.110
Tell us why you are tequesting assistance 114.10.152.110 (talk) 10:51, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hi IP editor. Do you have a question? qcne (talk) 10:57, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
14:20, 10 August 2025 review of submission by Mollymcc
Google is indexing the "Talk" page, not the Article. I removed the following text
{{WikiProject Articles for creation |ts=20250601071935 |reviewer=GraziePrego |oldid=1293187954}}from the talk page as the article was rated, and no longer a draft (I think?). But it did not change Google's indexing practice. I haven't had this problem before, and despite searching "how to" pages, I wasn't sure what to do. I am not an editor. Sorry for the bother. (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
Search engines are indexing the Talk page rather than the Article page. Could you help me with this? Is there some text missing? I'm not an editor. (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Mollymcc Please see Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing. qcne (talk) 14:46, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- OK, added no index to Talk page. Is there anything else I need to do? (talk) 14:56, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
15:15, 10 August 2025 review of submission by Yadlappalli Mohan Rao
- Yadlappalli Mohan Rao (talk · contribs) (TB)
hi team, this is Yadlapalli Mohan Rao i have wikipedia page in telugu and i want to be in english also. i submitted the same matter from telugu language to english page for review but unfortunatley my submission is cancelled. can u help me in this page publishing Yadlappalli Mohan Rao (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hello @Yadlappalli Mohan Rao. Each Wikipedia language project is entirely separate and unaffiliated, with different policies and guidelines. What may be acceptable on one may not be acceptable on this one. The English language Wikipedia project generally has the strictest notability, referencing, and content requirements of any of them.
- Your draft was deleted.
- If you want to try to create another draft on the English Wikipedia, please carefully read our policies and guidelines which are different from the Telugu Wikipedia. qcne (talk) 15:20, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, @Yadlappalli Mohan Rao. In addition to what qcne said, please note that writing about yourself is very strongly discouraged on English Wikipedia, because almost nobody can do so successfully.
- 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. This applies equally to most translations. ColinFine (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
15:51, 10 August 2025 review of submission by R-paths
i actually dont understant the reason for the reject
R-paths (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- @R-paths: for events to be notable, they must have either widespread geographic and/or time-wise sustained noteworthiness, or some sort of lasting impact that extends beyond the event and its immediate aftermath. In this case, the helicopter crash may have been notable, and perhaps some of the people involved were notable, but it's difficult to see how their funeral would be notable in its own right. If the subject touches on any existing articles, perhaps you can incorporate the salient points from this draft into those? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- There is an article for the crash: 2025 Ghanaian Air Force Z-9 helicopter crash. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
19:08, 10 August 2025 review of submission by Googlealt
BRUHHHHHHHHHHHH Googlealt (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Googlealt That isn't a question. Do you have a question about a specific draft article? qcne (talk) 19:17, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
19:57, 10 August 2025 review of submission by Santanu puzari
- Santanu puzari (talk · contribs) (TB)
Hello, I created an article at User:Santanu_puzari and would like it moved to Draft:Santanu_Puzari for Articles for Creation review. I am unable to move it due to the autobiography filter. Could an experienced editor please assist with the move? Santanu puzari (talk) 19:57, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- Santanu puzari Using the whole url in the headers on this page breaks the formatting that provides a link, I fixed this. 331dot (talk) 20:09, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- There is no "autobiography filter"; new accounts cannot move pages generally. I've moved it for you to Draft:Santanu Puzari, but is extremely unlikely to be accepted. It is poorly sourced and shows no indication that you are a notable person. Please see the autobiography policy as well as why an article is not necessarily a good thing.
- You also claim to have personally created and personally own the copyright to the image of you, but it appears to be a professionally taken portrait, typically the photographer owns the copyright, not the subject. Please clarify. 331dot (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
20:55, 10 August 2025 review of submission by 24.1.110.112
- 24.1.110.112 (talk · contribs) (TB)
I feel like this is important to education and more people should have access to this information. I am not sure what I need to do next. Any advice would be appreciated. 24.1.110.112 (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- There is nothing you can do, it has been rejected. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell the world about something. It's the last place to write about a topic, not the first- independent reliable sources need to on their own first write about a topic. 331dot (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
21:37, 10 August 2025 review of submission by 173.94.128.206
- 173.94.128.206 (talk · contribs) (TB)
Hello, I am trying to make corrections to ensure Im following the guidelines to have this article published. I welcome any constructive criticism and solutions. Thank you so much for your time and consideration. 173.94.128.206 (talk) 21:37, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- It looks like you’ve been given quite a bit of feedback in the comments on the draft, is there something specific you are unsure about? -- NotCharizard 🗨 04:21, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
August 11
00:16, 11 August 2025 review of submission by Nflicks
I am currently working at ECOUNT and am in the process of trying to get ECOUNT listed on the English Wikipedia. I have encountered some challenges in this regard, and I would appreciate your guidance. Below are my questions:
The Draft:ECOUNT was rejected due to insufficient references. It seems the rejection is primarily due to a lack of demonstrated notability. Could you kindly provide advice on how to better prepare the necessary references? Specifically, I am wondering if I should approach journalists to conduct in-depth coverage of ECOUNT. ECOUNT currently operates global offices in South Korea, China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, and the Philippines, and serves over 80,000 customers worldwide. I do not believe ECOUNT lacks notability compared to other listed software, but it seems there is a shortage of supporting materials to prove this. If I arrange for journalists to write comprehensive articles, could I use those as references? Alternatively, any other suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
While reviewing other references, I noticed that ERPNext also seems to have a lack of references. Did the investment funding they received play a role in their successful listing? The remaining references come from their GitHub repository and official website. I am curious as to why ERPNext was listed despite seemingly having limited references, whereas ECOUNT was rejected. Understanding this could help me align my preparation to meet similar criteria.
Thank you in advance for your time and assistance. I look forward to your valuable advice.
Best regards, Nflicks (talk) 00:16, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- As you are connected with the company, any journalists who wrote about the company because you asked them to would not be creating independant sources, and so they would not help with notability. Note that sources do not have to be online.
- In regard to ERPNext, it is indeed a poorly sourced article. Unfortunately some things sneak through, and standards did not used to be as high as they are now. See other stuff exists.
- Sometimes, as frustrating as it is, you have to accept that a subject is not notable by Wikipedia standards even though you know it is very popular and well known. I have had to abandon some drafts for this reason, and it can feel really frustrating, but it is how Wikipedia works. -- NotCharizard 🗨 04:14, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
01:06, 11 August 2025 review of submission by George J. Gatgounis
- George J. Gatgounis (talk · contribs) (TB)
Please explain how I may correct or add what is required to earn your approval please. Thank you! George J. Gatgounis (talk) 01:06, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- It seems that the draft was speedily deleted for being unreviewed LLM content. It is best not to use LLM at all on Wikipedia, but it is very silly to not even check what you are copy and pasting before publishing. -- NotCharizard 🗨 04:19, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
01:06, 11 August 2025 review of submission by DallasNZ
Hi there, I rewrote this article before submitted but it was declined because it has it used an LLM. Even if I used it to assist me with a few sentences I don't think this should have been declined as it's mostly written by mean in a very professional format. DallasNZ (talk) 01:06, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
06:43, 11 August 2025 review of submission by Sachin.Beedigital
- Sachin.Beedigital (talk · contribs) (TB)
Hello Experience Wiki Authors,
I am trying to create a page for a brand, but each time I submit it for review, it gets rejected with the feedback that “the draft needs multiple published sources.”
I have already included references from trusted publications such as Reuters, Hindustan Times, The Economic Times, Mint, Fortune India, and Moneycontrol. Could you please review and guide me on what specific changes or additional references are needed to meet Wikipedia’s notability and sourcing requirements?
Thank you for your time and assistance. Sachin.Beedigital (talk) 06:43, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Sachin.Beedigital: please read the decline notice fully, it doesn't just say "needs multiple published sources", it says published sources that are in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements), reliable, secondary, and strictly independent of the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:58, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- Please read WP:42 to understand what criteria the sources must meet. ColinFine (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
06:57, 11 August 2025 review of submission by Momosnep
Hello,
My draft Draft:HexaHealth was recently declined by reviewer Qcne on 9 August 2025. The decline reason stated that my draft’s references do not demonstrate that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article, and that I should add multiple sources that are:
In-depth (not just brief mentions or routine announcements)
Reliable
Secondary
Strictly independent of the subject
The reviewer also mentioned: "I'm not seeing the WP:ORGCRIT."
I’ve read the WP:ORGCRIT guideline but I’m still unclear on exactly what kind of sources I need to add to meet this standard.
Could you please help me understand:
What kind of published coverage would meet WP:ORGCRIT for a company like HexaHealth?
Do press releases, interviews, or features in trade publications count if they are about the company?
How can I tell if a source is truly “secondary” and “independent” for Wikipedia purposes?
If such sources are scarce, does that mean the subject is not currently eligible for an article?
Any guidance or examples would be really helpful before I attempt a resubmission.
Thank you! Momosnep (talk) 06:57, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Momosnep: the draft currently cites mostly routine business reporting (funding rounds etc.) which is usually neither secondary nor independent, because it is based on press releases and similar material supplied by the subject, and is also not significant coverage, because it usually just covers a specific issue like the appointment of a new CEO or the opening of a new market. We need to see coverage that goes far beyond that, where eg. a journalist has on their own initiative said "hey, this HexaHealth seems to be doing really interesting and innovative things which are going to 'move the needle' in its sector – I should dig deeper into that and prepare a report for my readers/viewers". This is in distinct contrast to someone at the same publication monitoring their incoming e-mail and saying "oh, here's yet another press release from HexaHealth, something about getting $2m from a VC, ho hum". See the difference?
- So no, press releases do not count, or interviews (again, neither independent nor secondary), and trade publications are notorious for having very low news thresholds and accepting press materials unquestionably.
- And yes, if you cannot find sufficient sources to satisfy the WP:ORG / WP:NCORP notability guideline, then the subject is unlikely to be notable enough, and wouldn't therefore justify its own separate article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:15, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- @DoubleGrazing again thank you for taking the time to explain this in detail. I now understand the difference between routine business coverage (such as funding announcements and press releases) and the kind of in-depth, independent reporting that meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. I appreciate the clarification on why press releases, interviews, and certain trade publications don’t count as sufficient independent sources. I’ll review the available coverage to see if there are truly independent, in-depth sources that meet WP:ORG and WP:NCORP, and if not, I’ll reconsider whether the subject is ready for a standalone article at this time. Momosnep (talk) 07:48, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
10:08, 11 August 2025 review of submission by NozzleMaster
- NozzleMaster (talk · contribs) (TB)
It says [ Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. Their outputs usually have multiple issues that prevent them from meeting our guidelines on writing articles. These include: Promotional tone, editorializing and other words to watch Vague, generic, and speculative statements extrapolated from similar subjects Essay-like writing Hallucinations (plausible-sounding, but false information) and non-existent references Close paraphrasing Please address these issues. The best way is usually to read reliable sources and summarize them, instead of using a large language model. See our help page on large language models. ] i'm scared to submit it again and getting hours of work deleted forever, what do i need to change? A previous person told me i needed references and i added references, do i delete all references that aint doi articles or science articles? Please i need feedback. i also put the links under a "References" heading but im scared to click submit changes yet. NozzleMaster (talk) 10:08, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hi NozzleMaster,
- It can be discouraging to see that message but it’s not meant as a threat that your work will be “deleted forever.” It’s simply a flag that your draft still has issues that need attention before it’s likely to be accepted. Pages in the Draft namespace are not deleted for having problems they remain there until improved.
- You need to use reliable independent sources like news, books, reputable websites not blogs, press releases or self published pages except for basic facts. And also rewriting in your own words with a neutral tone no promotional language. Citing each fact with an inline ref tag not just a list at the bottom and removing weak or unused references.
Take your time drafts stay in place until improved
. Once cleaned up resubmit confidently. 🐍 Thilio🤖 🐍 Thilio🤖 10:24, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
10:26, 11 August 2025 review of submission by Ljverbakel
- Ljverbakel (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 Ljverbakel (talk) 10:26, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- You have documented the existence of the organization and its activities- this is not what is being looked for. A Wikipedia article about an organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. We want to know what others wholly unaffiliated with the organization choose to say is important/significant/influential about it.
- If you are affiliated with this organization, that must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. Note that in this context "paid editing" includes employment even if you weren't specifically directed to edit. 331dot (talk) 10:32, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
11:57, 11 August 2025 review of submission by 2A01:5A8:307:F5D7:E425:81B2:2FC1:5B59
Hello,
I recently submitted my first Wikipedia article, about the company Scalefocus, and it has been declined twice. The reason given both times was that it reads more like an advertisement and lacks sufficient independent, reliable sources to establish notability.
After the first decline, I revised the draft to remove promotional language and add independent references in line with Wikipedia’s neutral point of view and verifiability guidelines. However, it was still declined for the same reason.
As this is my first article, I would appreciate specific advice on:
What aspects of the draft still appear promotional.
Whether the sources I have included are adequate, and if not, what type of sources would be acceptable.
Any other changes that would make the draft more in line with Wikipedia’s standards.
Thank you in advance for your guidance. 2A01:5A8:307:F5D7:E425:81B2:2FC1:5B59 (talk) 11:57, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- I’ve reviewed your draft, well....there are sentences that read more like marketing copy than encyclopedic content. For example:
- 1.
"Scalefocus provides custom software solutions and nearshoring services that cover the entire software development lifecycle: Data and AI, Digital Engineering, Cloud and Operations, and Enterprise Platform Implementations.
- 2.
"The company works with Fortune 500 enterprises and start-ups across various industry verticals, including IT, Financial Services, Energy & Utilities, Healthcare, iGaming, Aviation and others."
- 2.
"Scalefocus is recognized by international organizations such as the International Business Awards, Forbes the Globee® Awards, Financial Times, and Deloitte."
and so on.. - I suggest you to rephrase these into a neutral fact based style that simply states what the company does or has received without implying prestige or making broad qualitative claims. Avoid marketing terms like "recognized by” “cover the entire lifecycle,” or name dropping “Fortune 500” unless the association is independently verified and relevant. Also see WP:NOTPROMO , WP:NPOV and WP:WTA. 🐍 Thilio🤖 12:46, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, IP editor. Like most people who try to create an article without first spending considerable time learning about what Wikipedia needs, you have made the mistake of writing either what you know or think about the subject, or what the subject wants people to know.
- Wikipedia isn't interested in either of these. 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.
- So, having found several sources each of which is independent, secondary, reliable, and contains significant coverage of the subject (see [[WP:42}}, you then need to forget anything you may know or think about the subject, and write a netural summary of what those sources say.
- My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
14:32, 11 August 2025 review of submission by Tedysh
My submission has been declined with the note "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article". This submission includes references to a Suisse website SikArt and also to "Wikidata". I believe that both are already listed on Wikipedia itself. I do not understand why these have not been excepted as reliable references. Could you please clarify this beyond the online help that I have already studied. Thank you.
Tedysh (talk) 14:32, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Tedysh. Let's go through your sources:
- SikArt is just a database entry with no critical coverage.
- Wikidata cannot be used as a reference, as it is a user generated Wiki-website.
- viata-medicala.ro is an okay source, being a detailed obituary in a mainstream newspaper.
- hommages is just a place to put remembrances.
- targulcartii is a place to buy his artwork.
- So we have one okay source, but a Wikipedia article needs in-depth critical coverage of the person in multiple independent reliable sources. qcne (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
21:13, 11 August 2025 review of submission by Apurba03
Suggest me Apurba03 (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Apurba03. I suggest you publish your essay elsewhere, not on Wikipedia. We do not host essays of original thought. qcne (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
21:43, 11 August 2025 review of submission by 15.220.16.220
- 15.220.16.220 (talk · contribs) (TB)
Hello, I am new to the Wikipedia and need some guidance. We paid a company to submit a Wiki page entitled Project Santa Fe Foundation. We were informed that the page had gone live, but it appears the page as of this time is a "draft" and the company/person has not responded. How do we get this page moved from draft status to LIVE? It looks like a BOT moved the page into a certain format on August 5.
15.220.16.220 (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- I am really sorry, you have been scammed out of your money. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning. qcne (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, we were concerned about this but it was too late. Two questions: 1. How do I get information on how to have the page submitted correctly? 2. Where can I report the scammer and email address. 15.220.16.220 (talk) 22:32, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- Please use the email address described at WP:REPORTPAID to send a copy of the email. My advice is that you go on about the work of your Foundation as if Wikipedia did not exist; if your Foundation is truly a notable organization as Wikipedia defines one, someone independent of your organization will write about it. Please see about how the presence of an article is not necessarily a good thing.
- Do you have an account? Remember to log in if you do. 331dot (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, we were concerned about this but it was too late. Two questions: 1. How do I get information on how to have the page submitted correctly? 2. Where can I report the scammer and email address. 15.220.16.220 (talk) 22:32, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
Hello, we are trying to get the Project Santa Fe Foundation listed on Wikipedia. We paid a company to assist but they are not responding. We have a "draft". Can you please tell me what your comment means below and can we request this go LIVE or what is needed to have it published? Thank you. Revision as of 23:38, 5 August 2025 edit Marksteven019956 (talk | contribs) This draft is not yet complete; more details about the foundation will be added so people will get more benefit. Tag: Visual edit 15.220.16.220 (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
22:30, 11 August 2025 review of submission by ICNTsurfer
- ICNTsurfer (talk · contribs) (TB)
My draft has been declined over issues with three photos. Do I have to delete those photos from Wikipedia Commons to be on the safe side? ICNTsurfer (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- Yes. Photos are an enhancement, not a requirement, in terms of the draft process, which only considers the text amd sources. Photos can wait until the draft is accepted. 331dot (talk) 23:06, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
August 12
01:23, 12 August 2025 review of submission by CookieAnn Song
The reviewer said that my references were not up to standard. I would like to know if this refers to all the references or just some of them. Are the following two references acceptable？ "DSIM - World's Fastest Simulation for Power Electronics". caeexperts.com. Retrieved on 2025-08-11. Zhao, Zhengming; Tan, Don; Shi, Bochen; Zhu, Yicheng; Jin, Hua (September 2020). "A Breakthrough in Design Verification of Megawatt Power Electronic Systems". IEEE Power Electronics Magazine. 7 (3): 36-43. doi:10.1109/MPEL.2020.3011775. ISSN 2329-9215. CookieAnn Song (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- @CookieAnn Song: Every dsimtechnology.com source needs to go. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 01:31, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- I noticed that some of the references in PSIM also come from its official website. Is this acceptable? CookieAnn Song (talk) 01:41, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- Most information should be sourced to independent sources, but a small amount of information sourced to primary and non-independent sources is acceptable if you have established the product's notability. However, almost all of the draft's information is sourced to the product's official website and its official reseller caeexperts.com, which are not independent sources. The academic paper is also non-independent, having been written by the developers of DSIM.
- Do you have a connection to DSIM Technology or CAEEXPERTS? Any connection must be disclosed, per WP:Conflict of interest and WP:PAID. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:19, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your reply! I would like to know if it's possible to use some independent Chinese websites as reference materials? CookieAnn Song (talk) 01:53, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- Sources do not have to be in English, but to demonstrate notability they should satisfy all three criteria in WP:42. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:20, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, but how can I prove that we have connection? CookieAnn Song (talk) 01:56, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- State your connection on your userpage, User:CookieAnn Song, by following the instructions in WP:PAID. This is assuming you work for the company or otherwise have a financial connection to them. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:18, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your reply! I would like to know if it's possible to use some independent Chinese websites as reference materials? CookieAnn Song (talk) 01:53, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- I noticed that some of the references in PSIM also come from its official website. Is this acceptable? CookieAnn Song (talk) 01:41, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
03:19, 12 August 2025 review of submission by CookieAnn Song
Hi editors I noticed that some of the references in PSIM also come from its official website. Is that also acceptable for the term DSIM? CookieAnn Song (talk) 03:19, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- Please see other stuff exists. That one article has similar content is not relevant to this draft- it could be that the content is inappropriate for the other article as well and just has not yet been addressed by a volunteer. There are many ways to get inappropriate content past us, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. 331dot (talk) 08:13, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- Got it. Thank you for your reply CookieAnn Song (talk) 01:59, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
04:07, 12 August 2025 review of submission by BihariEditor
- BihariEditor (talk · contribs) (TB)
@User:DoubleGrazing is right, it's looking like spam. And incorrect information. BihariEditor (talk) 04:07, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- You're telling us that you agree with the rejection of this draft- why? 331dot (talk) 08:12, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
05:12, 12 August 2025 review of submission by Plmoin2514
- Plmoin2514 (talk · contribs) (TB)
Hello this is the 3rd time I have added this request for help. The last 2 have expired without resolution. I would like to nominate this article for community approval since it was permanently blocked by a previous reviewer which I believe was erroneous. Thank you. Plmoin2514 (talk) 05:12, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- You haven't gotten a resolution because there is nothing to resolve. You have given no reason why the determination of the reviewer should be overturned other than that you disagree with it, which is understandable as most people want to see their work in the encyclopedia. You got several replies on the first discussion you started and were told why the rejection was not erroneous- and a commenter said that the version you claimed to have changed did not appear to be any different from the rejected one. The second discussion only told you why the first was archived.
- Is there a particular reason you have such a strong personal investment in this draft? 331dot (talk) 08:30, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hello thanks for replying. I was told to improve the draft, which I did. However it cannot be re-submitted as it has been permanently rejected. At minimum, I request this ban to be lifted. There are millions of travelers every day landing on scam websites and getting wrong information about the SG Arrival Card. I have already submitted the Malaysia Arrival Card article too using a similar format which was immediately approved, I'm not sure why @Thetechie feels this is not appropriate for Wikipedia as they haven't engaged very much in this discussion so far, it surely seems notable and important. Plmoin2514 (talk) 05:28, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
08:40, 12 August 2025 review of submission by Turkiyelegend1
- Turkiyelegend1 (talk · contribs) (TB)
The last time Verdis was mentioned was in 2022. It has since been on Fox News, Firstpost, and other major news companies. It should be considered notable Turkiyelegend1 (talk) 08:40, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- Mere appearance in media does not make a topic notable. You need to show that this micronation is a notable organization. That you haven't is why the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. If you can later fundamentally change the draft to address the concerns of the rejecting reviewer, the first step is to appeal to them directly. I would suggest you look at some articles on micronations that do merit articles, like Republic of Molossia or Principality of Sealand. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
09:30, 12 August 2025 review of submission by YAKSH75
What can i do now let me know the proper info.I apology if is there any miss behave from my side. YAKSH75 (talk) 09:30, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- The only thing you can do is wait for this TV show to be notable. Once it is, and there are sufficient independent reliable sources to summarize in an article, you should first appeal to the rejecting reviewer. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
09:46, 12 August 2025 review of submission by 146.200.138.208
- 146.200.138.208 (talk · contribs) (TB)
My submission was rejected with the following comment: "With the possible exception of the SDUT piece, none of the sources contribute towards notability per WP:NCORP."
Would it be better to submit the content without sources then? Our parent company has a page and many of the statements about the organization do not have sources such as the opening statements: Idera, Inc. (/aɪˈdɪərə/) is the parent company of a portfolio of brands that offer B2B software including database tools, application development tools, test management tools, and DevOps tools. It is headquartered in Houston, Texas and has offices in Australia, Austria, and the United Kingdom. It is owned by the private equity firms HGGC, Partners Group and TA Associates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idera,_Inc. They also cite businesswire ten times. It seems our own Businesswire source and comparable sources (geekwire, venturebeat) are not considered permissible in our case, but are in Idera's. Our parent company's page also uses a source from organizations that it has acquired, when speaking to the acquisition of said organization. I.e. "Froala is now part of Idera". Froala. 2019-08-04. Retrieved 2020-03-11. In our case, we have referenced Idera, Perspectium's parent company and information they have published about their acquisition of Perspectium as a source. Why is our version of this not permissible but Idera's is? Trying to understand how we can get this over the line as we've failed a few times now and feedback is inconsistent with other wiki pages. 146.200.138.208 (talk) 09:46, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- You need the "Draft:" portion of the title when linking, I've fixed this. 331dot (talk) 10:27, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- If you are Zak.cole, remember to log in when posting. The content of the encyclopedia is generally referred to as articles, not the broader "pages". This is not just semantics, but an important distinction. Your parent company does not "have a page" here that it owns and controls; Wikipedia has an article about your parent company, no different than if the New York Times wrote about your company.
- That another article exists or has certain content does not necessarily mean that such content is permissible or was "approved" by anyone. Please see other stuff exists. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, there are many ways for inappropriate content to exist, this cannot justify adding more. This is also the reason for the appearance of inconsistency- we'd love for everything to be consistent, but the nature of a volunteer project means that we are only as consistent as the time people have to invest in making Wikipedia so.
- Most of your sources merely document the routine activities of your company, this does not establish that your company is notable. It could be that your parent company isn't notable either(I don't know, I haven't looked yet), or that its child companies aren't even if it is itself.
- I fear that you are too close to your company to be able to write about is as Wikipedia requires. You need to be able to set aside everything you know about your company and all materials it puts out, limiting yourself to summarizing what independent sources choose on their own to say about a topic. Most people have great difficulty doing that. Please read WP:BOSS, and have your superiors and colleagues read it, too. Also know that an article is not necessarily desirable. 331dot (talk) 10:36, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
10:48, 12 August 2025 review of submission by 2A02:8071:6420:DFA0:C898:7621:A6CA:A8FC
Hello Wikipedia Community! 😊 I’ve recently made some updates to the "Andi Krush" Wikipedia page.
I would really appreciate it if someone could take a look and consider accepting the page.
Thank you so much for your time and support! 2A02:8071:6420:DFA0:C898:7621:A6CA:A8FC (talk) 10:48, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- You have resubmitted the draft, it will eventually be looked at. Asking for a review will not speed the process, as everyone would like their draft reviewed quickly. Please be patient.
- I would be very surprised if he created and personally owns the copyright to the professionally taken image of him that was used in the draft. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
11:24, 12 August 2025 review of submission by Theeshamarketing
- Theeshamarketing (talk · contribs) (TB)
Please advise us how to post this articles Theeshamarketing (talk) 11:24, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- Promo piece deleted, user (soft-)blocked. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:31, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
11:30, 12 August 2025 review of submission by Silvia Dalle Montagne
- Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk · contribs) (TB)
Can anyone help me on this draft? I thought I did a good job on my latest submission and yes, I've been using AI as assistance on formatting and translating but all contents are coming from reliable sources and have been written by myself. Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 11:30, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Silvia Dalle Montagne: what help do you need? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:32, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Silvia Dalle Montagne Rather hilariously, your use of ChatGPT included a broken bit of code that automatically declined the draft. It was never submitted for review, and a reviewer has never reviewed it, but because you used ChatGPT and it included some broken code it declined the draft immediately.
- I've removed the broken code so you can actually submit it for review. qcne (talk) 11:51, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- thank you so much for your help, very kind from you, and very helpful to help me understand how to make my contributions useful and smooth!
- Will submit the draft now. Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 06:52, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
12:17, 12 August 2025 review of submission by Dhe4computer
- Dhe4computer (talk · contribs) (TB)
Requesting feedback on moved draft
Hi editors,
My draft User:Dhe4computer/DheReckahsTeam Web Security Investigation was declined at AfC due to notability concerns. I’ve since revised it with independent, reliable sources (Forbes, ZDNet, SlashNext) that analyze the project’s MFA bypass techniques and contest recognition.
I’d appreciate any feedback on whether it now meets Wikipedia’s notability and sourcing standards.
Thanks! — Dhe4computer Dhe4computer (talk) 12:17, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- Dhe4computer Using the whole url in the header breaks the formatting that provides a link, I've fixed this for you. 331dot (talk) 12:24, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oh thanks Dhe4computer (talk) 12:40, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- We don't do pre-review reviews. The best way to get feedback is to resubmit. 331dot (talk) 12:25, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- Dhe4computer Oh- the draft was rejected. If you believe that you have fixed the problems that led to the rejection, the first thing you need to do is ask the rejecting reviewer to reconsider. 331dot (talk) 12:47, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
15:18, 12 August 2025 review of submission by Alex.Veliaon
- Alex.Veliaon (talk · contribs) (TB)
I am creating an article about the Kocha Rabha community but need help improving the draft to meet Wikipedia’s guidelines. Specifically, I want to ensure the article uses reliable sources, has a neutral tone, and follows proper citation and formatting standards. I would appreciate guidance on how to address reviewer feedback and improve the draft for successful publication.
Thank you
Alex.Veliaon (talk) 15:18, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Alex.Veliaon: don't use AI to generate your drafts. And make sure that the sources you're citing are actual sources, not just editing comments like "Reliable source needed here", or URLs that return 'page not found' errors. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you sir Alex.Veliaon (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Alex.Veliaon. Writing an article without first finding the absolutely essential reliable independent sources (see WP:42) is like building a house without bothering to survey the land or build foundations: it will probably fall down, and will be mostly wasted effort.
- My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you sir Alex.Veliaon (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
15:32, 12 August 2025 review of submission by Maethegreat
- Maethegreat (talk · contribs) (TB)
My draft was declined. I have addressed the concerns mentioned but do not know how to resubmit my article. Maethegreat (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- Maethegreat You just need to click the blue "resubmit" button, at the bottom of the last review.
- What is your connection to this person? You took a picture of her where she posed for you. 331dot (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
16:26, 12 August 2025 review of submission by Tintin007b
- Tintin007b (talk · contribs) (TB)
If I correct the reference to Tseytlin, it was actually a paper by Medvedev and Tseytlin, do I need to do anything else to validate this page? Tintin007b (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
17:47, 12 August 2025 review of submission by JASCbd25
I have a photo I would like to use in the Wikipedia article for Al Siniscal. It is a photo of him appearing with the singer Paul Anka at an awards ceremony in 2010. The photo copyright owner, Front of House Magazine, has given me written permission to use the photo in the Wikipedia article provided they are attributed as the copyright owner. They do not want to grant a Wikimedia Commons open license for use by anyone anywhere. How can I use this photo in the article with this limited usage right? JASCbd25 (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- @JASCbd25: You can't, full-stop. Also, you having permission means nothing as you are not the one hosting the image. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:58, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- Photos are not relevant to the draft process, which only considers the text and sources. 331dot (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
17:52, 12 August 2025 review of submission by 2409:40E2:2001:B3D3:8000:0:0:0
Kanutfilms is an Indian film production and distribution company based in Odisha, India. It was founded in 2025 and produces films in multiple languages. The company 2409:40E2:2001:B3D3:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- Your draft is completely unsourced and has no indication the organization is a notable organization. This is why it was rejected. 331dot (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
18:09, 12 August 2025 review of submission by ArynahParis
- ArynahParis (talk · contribs) (TB)
Someone indicated that a big portion of my article lacks reliable sources. How am I supposed to know the exact portion that lacks sources ? Secondly, why is it that there are thousands of articles on Wikipedia that are so brief (with less than 200 words) but, they are already published on Wikipedia? Check this article Hannz Tactiq and this too DJ Shiru ArynahParis (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @ArynahParis. In a biographic article, every single statement must be sourced to a reliable, published source. You have several unsourced sections which read more like promotion than a neutral article.
- Each draft must stand on it's own merits, and we don't compare them to existing articles. Wikipedia has many millions of articles, tens of thousands of which are poor quality and should be improved or deleted. We don't want to add more poor quality articles to the project. Did you not notice the big This article has multiple issues on DJ Shiru? I would not have accepted that had it came through the Articles for Creation process. qcne (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Qcne: I actually gutted that article in responce to this user asking for help on -en-help yesterday, and I explained literally everything you just brought up to them in as much detail as I could. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:31, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
19:11, 12 August 2025 review of submission by Moodytoo
thank you request Moodytoo (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Moodytoo: Find somewhere else to host this, maybe Wikitubia? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:43, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
20:17, 12 August 2025 review of submission by FernCurator
- FernCurator (talk · contribs) (TB)
The submission was rejected because "There is already a redirect from Neobladder to Urinary diversion. Subject doesn't seem to be notable enough to warrant an article by itself.". While it is accurate that the redirect exists, it is important to note that the Neobladder is the only Type of Urinary Diversion listed that does not have a corresponding page. Futhermore, there is no information on the Urinary Diversion page describing what a Neobladder is. The existence of the page not only serves to provide such a description and citations, but could also be used to note advantages and disadvantages. and well known people with such a diversion (e.g., Deion Sanders). Thanks for your help and guidance. FernCurator (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, @FernCurator. Your draft has two citations, both of papers authored or co-authored by Hautmann. Two sources from the same person are rarely enough to establish that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability.
- I further suspect that Hautmann was involved in originating the technique. If this is the case, the papers are both primary sources, and do not contribute to establishing notability. Wikipedia articles should be almost entirely based upon secondary sources.
- Unless you can find several sources that meet all the criteria in WP:42 (including the more stringent criteria in MEDRS), this subject will not merit an article. I too suggest you add to Urinary diversion. ColinFine (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. I'll work on making improvements. I had assumed (incorrectly) that primary sources were preferred. FernCurator (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
20:50, 12 August 2025 review of submission by ᖻᒪᓱ ᒋᔈᒪ
Hello, i need help. My article got rejected again. ᖻᒪᓱ ᒋᔈᒪ (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- @ᖻᒪᓱ ᒋᔈᒪ: Not to be rude, but if this is unique to the Blackfoot language wouldn't it be better to just put something about it in that article? This may very well be too narrow for a standalone article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:52, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
21:09, 12 August 2025 review of submission by Tony Holkham
- Tony Holkham (talk · contribs) (TB)
I am autopatrolled and I have helped the creator develop this draft article (elsewhere) to the point where it can be put into mainspace. Do I do that by pasting the new text over the draft text and submitting it, or can I just publish the article as if it was my own creation? I don't want to compromise the draft article or upset any process. Thanks. Tony Holkham (Talk) 21:09, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Tony Holkham: Replace the text of the draft, then either submit the draft or (if you think it'd stand up to NPP scrutiny) move it to mainspace. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 22:52, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- Brilliant, thank you. Tony Holkham (Talk) 22:54, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
22:56, 12 August 2025 review of submission by EvanBlumenfield
- EvanBlumenfield (talk · contribs) (TB)
hey,
How many more articles and sources do I need to make Hyim Shafner qualify for a Wikipedia article? I added many different sources. Let me know if you have any advice. EvanBlumenfield (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- @EvanBlumenfield: I'll go down your prose in order:
Shafner was born in New London, Connecticut.
- Source?[Shafner] received his rabbinic ordination from Yeshiva University and holds graduate degrees in social work and Jewish philosophy.
- Source?Shafner began his rabbinic career in St. Louis, Missouri, where he served for over a decade as the rabbi of Bais Abraham Congregation.
- Source?The appointment was covered by several media outlets...
- Irrelevant; you'd be citing those media outlets in the first place.Shafner has been a visible voice in media coverage of Jewish communal issues, Israel, and antisemitism.
- Says who?Following an antisemitic incident outside Kesher Israel...
- This doesn't contribute to eligibility a whit. As a rule, an interview in The New York Times is every bit as useless as an interview conducted by Borat Sagdiyev, especially where living and recently-departed people are concerned.
- Note that every claim a reasonable person could challenge has to get sourced or get out. This is a hard requirement and isn't negotiable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:03, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
August 13
01:47, 13 August 2025 review of submission by 154.92.130.89
- 154.92.130.89 (talk · contribs) (TB)
how do i like edit it to be wikipedia notable? i mean its a rly cool game and a lot of ppl dont know 154.92.130.89 (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- You can't - notability is a measure of how many sources there are to summarise for a subject. If there aren't any sources, there's nothing to work with. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 03:09, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
03:50, 13 August 2025 review of submission by AndeHuang
My draft has been declined twice, and I’m seeking guidance on how to address the issues. AndeHuang (talk) 03:50, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- As a publicly traded company listed on the Taiwan Stock Exchange, Winmate probably is a notable company. The article does not demonstrate this. It reads like an advertisement. I quickly found this source, which may be of use, but first I would remove all of the promotional material and information sourced directly to press releases, such as the "list of products and solutions" which is not useful unless their products as a list are described in depth by independent publications. -- Reconrabbit 14:56, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, @AndeHuang. If it says what the company wants people to know, it's probably promotional.
- The thing to realise is that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
03:54, 13 August 2025 review of submission by Anandrajdel
- Anandrajdel (talk · contribs) (TB)
Dear Sir/Madam, Dr. Pradeep Rai Mehendiratta has made significant contributions in promoting Indian languages to a global audience. His work has helped many foreign learners understand and appreciate various Indian languages, thereby strengthening cultural exchange and preserving linguistic heritage.
He has dedicated his career to serving the nation through his efforts in language education and cultural promotion. We wish to create and publish a Wikipedia article about Dr. Mehendiratta as a tribute to his dedication and service, and to ensure his contributions are documented for future generations.
We request guidance on how best to present reliable sources and meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria so that the article can be accepted. Anandrajdel (talk) 03:54, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- Before you can present reliable sources, you have to find them - and most of them should also be independent (not connected with Mehendiratta or any institution or organisation he was associated with).
- Sources that only mention him in passing are of limited use - they may possibly verify a particular claim about him. Sources that don't even mention him (like the top-level webpages about various institutions) do not belong in the reference list, period.
- I suggest you review each one of your sources against all the criteria in WP:42. If it does not mention him, or is not reliable, take it out. If it is not independent of him, or only has a passing mention of him, it may be useful, but will not contribute to establishing notability, and can only be cited for limited information. ColinFine (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
05:23, 13 August 2025 review of submission by VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004
Is there any way to improve the page, Tatsunoko considers it a separate show from Dashing Warrior Muteking (known as a reboot of the show) and said page was created on the Japanese Wikipedia? But, how can this page be improved? There's a lot of concerns here… VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004 (talk) 05:23, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- @VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004: I'd discuss this with the reviewer and point out the situation. They may not have realised this is an entirely separate series. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:35, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
Ghatail Cantonment English School and college
I genuinely want to contribute for my School that why i gather so information to write it in Wikipedia but as a new person in Wikipedia i am facing problem to publish it in Wikipedia. How to publish it by solving those problem. It is in draft section of Wikipedia. And declined already for Conflict of Interest. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ghatail_Cantonment_English_School_and_College ArafatImran (talk) 06:51, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hi ArafatImran Welcome to Teahouse
- I can see you’re eager to contribute your draft for Draft:Ghatail Cantonment English School and College Since your submission was declined due to a
Conflict of Interest (COI) anda lack of independent sources....- I suggest you review reliable sources guidelines to find strong third party references such as news articles or education board publications to show the subject’s notability
- Focus on adding solid third party sources news articles education board publications to show the subject’s notability
- Keep working in the Draft namespace or your user sandbox until it is well-sourced and written in a neutral tone.
- Once improved resubmit through Articles for Creation or ask a neutral editor to review. With clear disclosure and reliable sources there’s a much better chance your draft will be accepted.🐍 Thilio🤖
- 🐍 Thilio🤖 07:31, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- @ArafatImran: nowhere does it say that this draft was declined because of COI; in fact, I declined it before I even queried whether you have a COI in this subject. I declined it for two reasons:
- The draft is almost entirely unreferenced.
- The only source it cites is the school's own website, which contributes nothing towards notability per WP:ORG.
- (As an alumnus of the school you probably also have a COI, but that's just by-the-by.)
- Wikipedia articles should be composed (by yourself, not by AI) by summarising what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about the subject, and then citing those sources against the information they have provided. See WP:GOLDENRULE for more on this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:49, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, @ArafatImran. I hear that you want to create an article on your school. But most schools are not notable, and if they are not, then trying to create an article is a waste of everybody's time.
- In order to show that your school is notable (and, I repeat, most schools are not) you need to find several places where people who have no connection whatever with the school have chosen to publish material about the school in some depth, and been published by a reliable publisher (unconnected with the school). If you cannot find several such sources, you should give up.
- If you have found several such sources, then the next step will be to effectively forget everything you know about the school, and write a summary of what those sources say.
- My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 19:56, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
16:10, 13 August 2025 review of submission by Montezde
This page was declined because it reads too much like an advertisement. I feel the information presented is factual and written from a neutral point of view. It is also based on independent, reliable, published sources and not material published by MedWheel. Can you help me better understand how it should be revised in order to comply with wikipedia's requirements? Montezde (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hello @Montezde. I have had a look at the draft and it appears that although the draft is referenced, these references are either primary (ref 1-5) or are just pages that advertise the company (ref 6). The other references (such as those from gazette.com), I don't think add anything to help with proving notability. The first line of the draft reads the same as what is present on [this webpage] (which is also ref 1). The rest of the draft reads much the same way. I think that the information on this page WP:NORG will help you determine whether or not the company in this draft is notable! Happy editing and thank you for partaking in AfC! 11WB (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Montezde: We don't need mission statements, visions, or anything else MWTA wants to put out to the world. As for the sources...
- We can't use https://www.bicyclecolorado.org/advocacy-group/medicine-wheel-trail-advocates/ (too sparse). Too short to cite.
- We can't use https://www.info.routesoutfitter.com/routsider-blog/medicine-wheel-trail-advocates-cory-suleta (unknown provenance). Who wrote this?
- We can't use https://www.coloradogives.org/organization/MedicineWheelTrailAdvocates (unknown provenance, connexion to subject). Same as above, except the article is written in first-person and was thus likely authored by someone in MWTA's employ.
- We can't use https://www.americantrails.org/organizations/medicine-wheel-trail-advocates (too sparse, connexion to subject). Too short to cite, written in first-person.
- We can't use https://peakradar.com/organization/medicine-wheel-trail-advocates/ (unknown provenance). Who wrote this?
- We can't use https://www.mtbproject.com/trail/7042905/pikes-peak-plummet (too sparse) and even if we could it'd be a non-sequitur. A source that doesn't so much as mention a subject is useless as a source on that subject.
- https://gazette.com/high-school-sports/fountain-valley-school-brings-cycling-race-to-colorado-springs/article_3a0ee580-76d0-11ef-aae1-b73c7d21303f.html is a non-sequitur.
- https://www.cpr.org/2024/06/12/blodgett-open-space-master-plan-approved-after-colorado-springs-city-council-denies-appeal/ doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Name-drop and quote from organisation principal, no discussion of MWTA.
- https://gazette.com/life/outdoors/long-anticipated-master-plans-approved-for-2-colorado-springs-area-parks/article_162fabf6-bd87-11ef-9a7b-fbab7359456d.html doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Quotes from organisation principal, no discussion of MWTA.
- https://gazette.com/life/outdoors/breaking-down-the-plan-for-colorado-springs-fishers-canyon-open-space/article_c7a6a561-33b6-410f-a685-3ab1fec22720.html doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Quote from organisation principal, no discussion of MWTA.
- We can't use https://www.causeiq.com/organizations/medicine-wheel-trail-advocates,205765291/ (too sparse). Content on the profile is perfunctory and unattributed.
- None of your sources are any good. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:30, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
16:43, 13 August 2025 review of submission by 2A01:E0A:D30:1FA0:5048:1384:1018:A192
I would like to know where to note on the page that I am the maker of the film that I am writing about, and am asking is this contribution is considered to be a conflict of interest. I have included the URL of the distributor as the reference for the information written. 2A01:E0A:D30:1FA0:5048:1384:1018:A192 (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hello! Writing about something you are involved in is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. There is a link on the AfC banner on your draft that links here. That section will guide you on how to declare a COI on your draft! Happy editing! 11WB (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply, since it is strongly discouraged to write about something I am involved with, how do I delete the draft, Sisters of the Screen, African Women in the Cinema. Thank you Doing womanist work (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Doing womanist work You don't have to delete the draft: it's discouraged not banned. But since you are requesting a deletion, I will mark this for speedy deletion for you. qcne (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'd rather not do anything that is strongly discouraged. Perhaps I should have asked this question beforehand, but it was only after I was ready to send for review that I came across the topic of conflict of interest. Could you let me know when it is deleted. Thank you very much. Doing womanist work (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Doing womanist work You don't have to delete the draft: it's discouraged not banned. But since you are requesting a deletion, I will mark this for speedy deletion for you. qcne (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply, since it is strongly discouraged to write about something I am involved with, how do I delete the draft, Sisters of the Screen, African Women in the Cinema. Thank you Doing womanist work (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
18:01, 13 August 2025 review of submission by 76.126.75.28
Hi Charlie,
Can you let me know what is wrong with my submission? I've never done Wikipedia pages before, but I've tried to emulate those I've seen that have been approved. I've used third party articles and non-advertising language. This is a page for the JuliaHub company - just like Apple and others have.
I appreciate any advice you can give!
Best, Courtney
76.126.75.28 (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- Pinging @User:CharlieMehta qcne (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hello. Are you @Hurley.cour? Please remember to log in.
- 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.
- What I will say is that your draft looks to me like what the company wants to say. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- @IP 76.126.75.28 I believe it would be more meaningful to expand the existing article on the Julia (programming language), rather than creating a separate page for its proprietary variant. The open-source version of Julia is widely known, recognized, and generally more accepted in the programming community. You may differ from my notion, and I completely respect that. Charlie (talk) 03:03, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
18:17, 13 August 2025 review of submission by SeaPoint18
- SeaPoint18 (talk · contribs) (TB)
I had submitted news article links as references at the bottom of my article. I received a message saying my article was rejected. Could you kindly tell me what I need to do to fix this? I thought I had added enough reliable sources. Please help. Thank you! SeaPoint18 (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- @SeaPoint18 your draft has no references at all? Are you sure you pressed Publish Changes to "save" the version with references? qcne (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
19:19, 13 August 2025 review of submission by B0b3rp4ws
Hi,
I'd like to ask for some more direction regarding this draft. I decided to work on it because I've noticed this company's connections to major aviation associations, and found some secondary sources related to the subject. I'm trying to figure out what exactly makes it look like an advertisement - are the sources not good enough? Is the language I used not neutral? (While I've been using English for years and consider myself to be on the level of a native speaker, perhaps since it's my second language something could be escaping me) Is it simply not notable enough? Is it a combination of these?
While it would be a bit disappointing not to be able to successfully submit my first article, and I'd much rather prefer to be able to correct it, I'd still appreciate feedback even if the ultimate decision would be to delete it, since hopefully, it'd help me in the future.
Thank you in advance. B0b3rp4ws (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- To be frank, I didn't have to get past the first line. "Solutions" is just marketing speak. 331dot (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, @B0b3rp4ws. Generally, what makes a draft look like an advertisement is that it reads as what the company wants to say about itself. 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) 20:02, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
21:18, 13 August 2025 review of submission by Zackerman721
- Zackerman721 (talk · contribs) (TB)
This is not an autobiography, but it was not allowing me to add the links to Mojica's, nor the combined channel, I am wondering what links I could add for a chance to have it accepted. Any response would be greatly appreciated.
Kind regards, Zac and Daewon Zackerman721 (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, @Zackerman721. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publication, and not much else.
- It follows that unless you can find several independent reliable sources which talk at some length about Mojica, no article on him is possible at present. Nothing that he has said, written, or published, or that is based on his words, is relevant at this stage.
- @Cyberdog958's comment strongly implies that they have gone looking for such sources and been unable to find any, which is why they have rejected (not just declined) the draft.
- If you believe there are such sources (make sure each one meets all the criteria in WP:42), you will need to approach Cyberdog directly, and ask them to rescind the rejection. But please be very sure that your sources are adequate before you do this.
- 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) 22:25, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
August 14
00:41, 14 August 2025 review of submission by Butcan
The text for my article "Leon & Malia" is ready to submit, except that it does not have the photos intended to be used. All the photos have been uploaded in Commons. However, I cannot find instructions for how to import these photos into the article. Please, some help/ Butcan 00:41, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Butcan: Adding images from Commons isn't too difficult, this is detailed at Help:Pictures. But I must ask you a few questions.
- First, the copyright of the pictures you uploaded. You claimed that the works you uploaded were authored by "Leon & Malia Productions Inc.", and that the business has released the works under public ___domain. Copyright of a photograph typically belongs to the photographer; did the original photographers of these pictures explicitly transfer the copyright to the corporation? If so, has Leon & Malia Productions Inc. agreed to relinquish their copyright? It seems unlikely that the corporation would do that.
- Finally, do you have a connection to Leon & Malia? If you do, this must be disclosed, per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:PAID. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:06, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, @Butcan. As well as the issues Helpful Raccoon raised, I would point out that images will not affect whether your draft is accepted or not: this depends on the sourcing and text only. You can worry about images later. ColinFine (talk) 10:21, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
01:26, 14 August 2025 review of submission by CookieAnn Song
Hello, editors, the reason why my entry was not approved is that it "reads like an advertisement". Could you please specify which part of the content contains an advertising tendency? The editor also said, "It is not merely about the materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed." In fact, none of the cited references were created by the DSIM creator. Could you tell me more details about that? CookieAnn Song (talk) 01:26, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
01:46, 14 August 2025 review of submission by 2600:4040:745A:5000:5121:2A8E:4F5E:42F
This is my first attempt at creating a page on Wikipedia. I received the following decline submission (listed below) but am not sure how to proceed and have no experience creating references. Any insights you can provide would be much appreciated. Thank you!
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are: in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements) reliable secondary strictly independent of the subject Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. 2600:4040:745A:5000:5121:2A8E:4F5E:42F (talk) 01:46, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
- I assume you are User:Sgraci? Remember to log in when posting. You have not shown that the company meets Wikipedia's special notability criteria for corporations. There need to be sources that satisfy all the criteria in WP:42, which your current sources do not; a Wikipedia article should summarize what these sources say about Loaded Pixel. What Loaded Pixel has to say about itself is almost completely irrelevant to Wikipedia.
- Please disclose your connection to the company Loaded Pixel, per WP:Conflict of interest and WP:PAID. Are you the same person as User:LoadedPixel? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:59, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
10:13, 14 August 2025 review of submission by Cacodemonwiki
- Cacodemonwiki (talk · contribs) (TB)
The references I have taken are all either government or public news items which can be very well reliable. The institute is liable to the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 of government of India and hence there is no change of wrong information to be included.
But article is still rejected. How do I deal with this? Cacodemonwiki (talk) 10:13, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Cacodemonwiki: I'm sure gov't sources are reliable (well, within reason), but that's not the point. The point is, they are primary sources, and as such cannot establish notability per WP:ORG.
- And on a different point, you must stop tendentiously resubmitting your draft without any real attempt at improving it, or it will eventually be rejected outright without the option to resubmit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:17, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
- @DoubleGrazingI have used a mix of primary and secondary. I had resubmitted after removing Vision and Mission which was flagged to be removed by @331dot It was not submitted without any change. Cacodemonwiki (talk) 10:21, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Cacodemonwiki: as I already said in my decline notice, the 'vision and mission' was just an additional comment, the actual decline was for insufficient evidence of notability, and you did nothing to address that, you only removed the 'vision and mission' (Special:diff/1305827146) before resubmitting. And shortly afterwards, you resubmitted again, with no changes (Special:diff/1305828768). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:29, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
- @DoubleGrazingdoes that imply by default wikipedia consider government/public institutions as not notable. This is my first article, i assumed that adding profile of a government institutions would be a good contribution. Cacodemonwiki (talk) 11:13, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Cacodemonwiki: I didn't say, or imply, that
"government/public institutions [are] not notable"
. I said they are primary sources, and thus do not contribute towards notability per the relevant guideline WP:ORG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:19, 14 August 2025 (UTC) - Cacodemonwiki Government institutions are not inherently notable- they are treated like any other organization. You must show that it meets WP:ORG. It doesn't merit an article just because it exists. We don't have "profiles" here, we have articles. 331dot (talk) 11:20, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
- Are you employed by this organization? 331dot (talk) 11:22, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Cacodemonwiki: I didn't say, or imply, that
- @DoubleGrazingdoes that imply by default wikipedia consider government/public institutions as not notable. This is my first article, i assumed that adding profile of a government institutions would be a good contribution. Cacodemonwiki (talk) 11:13, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Cacodemonwiki: as I already said in my decline notice, the 'vision and mission' was just an additional comment, the actual decline was for insufficient evidence of notability, and you did nothing to address that, you only removed the 'vision and mission' (Special:diff/1305827146) before resubmitting. And shortly afterwards, you resubmitted again, with no changes (Special:diff/1305828768). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:29, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
- @DoubleGrazingI have used a mix of primary and secondary. I had resubmitted after removing Vision and Mission which was flagged to be removed by @331dot It was not submitted without any change. Cacodemonwiki (talk) 10:21, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
10:24, 14 August 2025 review of submission by AlaNuseibah
- AlaNuseibah (talk · contribs) (TB)
I do not see the issues that I am supposed to resolve. The page is getting automatically declined. AlaNuseibah (talk) 10:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
- @AlaNuseibah: nothing has been declined, automatically or otherwise. You've created your draft, presumably using AI, with a faulty ('declined') AfC template in it. I'll go remove that for you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:30, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
- I received a page saying "submission decline" the moment I submitted. And yes, you are right, there were some additional citations which were suggested by the AI tool I used. Got it now fixed and the article is in review. Thanks a lot for your response. 83.109.122.42 (talk) 11:00, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
10:34, 14 August 2025 review of submission by Mkellyecocem
Hi there,
I'm looking to publish a page on behalf of my company, and the first draft has been rejected due to needing more of a neutral tone.
I'm wondering if I could get help please to review and highlight what parts might be causing an issue.
Appreciate any help that can be provided,
Mark Mkellyecocem (talk) 10:34, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Mkellyecocem: you need to fundamentally rethink this. What you've created is a company presentation or online brochure. We have no interest in that; you can put that on your own website, plus use whatever other channels you wish – bar Wikipedia – to tell the world about your business. What we want to see is what third parties have said about your business and what in their opinion makes it worthy of note. And by 'third parties', I mean secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of you; independent in terms of ownership and control, independent in terms of content, and independent in terms of freedom of any financial or other inducements or rewards. Your job is then merely to summarise what they have said; see WP:GOLDENRULE for more on this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
- I would add that you should read WP:BOSS, and have your superiors/colleagues read it, too- what you are attempting is unwise for several reasons, and while success is possible, it's rare and not likely. Most people in your position have great difficulty in doing what you are trying. Are you the rare person who can do it? Possibly, but the odds are against it. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 14 August 2025 (UTC)