Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation
(Redirected from Wikipedia:AFC Help Desk)
Latest comment: 1 hour ago by Thilio in topic 19:53, 31 August 2025 review of submission by Thilio
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

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


August 26

edit

04:46, 26 August 2025 review of submission by D-Magic Rappeur A Haiti

edit
Latest comment: 6 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello everyone, today I am happy to address you because I want your help. Please, I want to write a biography of an artist and I know you have more hope than me, I want to help you. D-Magic Rappeur A Haiti (talk) 04:46, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi, it appears you're writing about yourself, and before you go any further, you need to read and understand WP:AUTO. Starting a new article from scratch is one of the hardest tasks in Wikipedia, and people who successfully write autobiographies are very rare. To successfully do so, you need to know Wikipedia rules inside and out, and be able to completely separate yourself, ignoring anything you know about your own life, and only source it from reliable, independent sources providing significant coverage about you.
The article you've written provides no such sources, and without sources, there's no article. You also use very flowery, promotional language. It's a tertiary concern at this point, but it's also very hard to read the article at all, as it's just a giant wall of text with sentences thrown together in no particular order.
At this point, before even thinking about writing about yourself, you should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and start off by making smaller, simple edits to articles. I would still recommend against writing an autobiography, and waiting for uninvolved editors to choose to write an article about you as a notable subject, but without more experience first, you may be spending a lot of time working on a draft that has basically no chance of being accepted. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

09:06, 26 August 2025 review of submission by Fahadch097

edit
Latest comment: 6 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I am Noble in my district Fahadch097 (talk) 09:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves, please see the autobiography policy. You sound like a bright young man with a promising future, but you aren't yet a notable person or a notable politician more narrowly. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

11:28, 26 August 2025 review of submission by S.M. FAZLEH HASAN

edit
Latest comment: 5 days ago11 comments5 people in discussion

I have written the article about my village providing enough evidence. when i go for submission . it given submission declined. now how can i solved that issue. i can you please identify exact issue what considered ? S.M. FAZLEH HASAN (talk) 11:28, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@S.M. FAZLEH HASAN: you added that faulty 'decline' template yourself, here: Special:Diff/1307910054. I've removed it for you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:46, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thanks a lot, now will it be published. Though I sent it for review. S.M. FAZLEH HASAN (talk) 11:51, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@S.M. FAZLEH HASAN: I couldn't say whether it will be published, that will be determined when a reviewer gets around to assessing it.
Is this about the same village as the one described in the existing Ghorua article? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
No! This is not the same Village, If you see the details you will find the difference. The Nmae same, but the place is totally different. So far I provided all the information about this village. Now, it shows reviewing time 6 weeks is so boring. 31.96.231.241 (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
It isn't saying that the review will take six weeks, it's saying it could take up to approx six weeks, based on the fact that the oldest draft currently in the system is six weeks old. Drafts are not reviewed in any particular order, though, so it could take six weeks, or it could take six minutes. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Lets see ! and will the existing Ghorua effect my article ? 31.96.231.241 (talk) 12:59, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Only in that if your draft is accepted, it will need to be published at a different title, with a disambiguator of some sort. The reviewer will do that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
So, at this point I dont have anything to do. Just wait. If accepted , it will be live and I will get notification. If any editing remains reviewer will do , is it ? 31.96.231.241 (talk) 13:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
If the reviewer does not accept the draft, they will leave messages explaining why. It will be up to you to correct the problems and resubmit, for a further review. ColinFine (talk) 23:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thanks a lot for this information 😊 2A04:4A43:582F:CE19:7460:9A56:F181:33EE (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

12:02, 26 August 2025 review of submission by Vaderoullis

edit
Latest comment: 3 days ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I have edited the content of the draft to a degree that I feel is satisfactory but I am still not sure if it satisfies all the requirements based on the initial review that resulted in the Submission being declined. I have not used any GPT on this version and doublechecked all the sources. Vaderoullis (talk) 12:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Vaderoullis: given that you have extensively edited the draft since it was declined, the way to find out whether it satisfies all requirements is to resubmit it for another review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thank you so much. How often an article get reviewed. THough its written 6 weeks. 31.96.231.241 (talk) 12:55, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
As DoubleGrazing said above, it may be anything up to six weeks: it might be six minutes. It is not predictable. ColinFine (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I keep working on the article in the meantime. Adding links to other articles and adding more references etc Vaderoullis (talk) 10:55, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

12:32, 26 August 2025 review of submission by ArmeVijay

edit
Latest comment: 5 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, want to understand why my submission declined despite adding reputed reliable publisher links, education university citations, verified reputed youtube channels. I have created the article only with all reputed online channel citations, the article can be further improved by anyone in future when more citation links available. Seem reviewers read one or two links and came to a conclusion, kindly let me know how to request reviewers to read complete article and citation links and let me know the feedback please. Thank you. ArmeVijay (talk) 12:32, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@ArmeVijay: seems a bit pointless, if you don't mind me saying, to ask why this was declined, when you've since then already edited and resubmitted this. The next reviewer will assess the revised draft when they get around to it.
What are you basing your suspicions on, regarding how the reviewers work? This has been reviewed by one administrator and two experienced AfC/NPP reviewers, who know what they are doing. If you have some evidence to support your comments, please present them. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:39, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@DoubleGrazing I am not intended to suspicious or tried to question any reviewers as I aware all reviewers take their best out of their time to review. Below was my experience for which I requested any support. The reviewer mentioned junk sources while I also submitted multiple citation links including University of Cambridge which wasn't noticed I suppose.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Sabarisan_Vedamurthy#Use_of_press_releases
However, I request help to take this ahead as I didn't get any response to my reply. Also apoligize if I made you think about my query. I am happy to align with any support offered from experts like you. Thank you very much. ArmeVijay (talk) 12:51, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hello, @ArmeVijay. 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.
It follows that press releases, interviews, and anything published by the subject or their associates or associated institutions, is of very limited value. ColinFine (talk) 23:28, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

13:58, 26 August 2025 review of submission by Meike.schulz

edit
Latest comment: 5 days ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, I need an editor to review my draft. I have rewritten my draft completely since Avgeekamfot reviewed it the first time. Can someone recommend an editor that is willing to work on a company related subject? Happy to hear feedback and willing to productively cooperate. Meike.schulz (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Meike.schulz: you have resubmitted the draft, so it will be reviewed again once a reviewer gets around to it.
We don't get involved in co-editing here at the help desk or the AfC project more widely. And given that you are paid to write this, isn't it only appropriate that you do the editing yourself, rather than asking for volunteers to chip in? Of course, if you have specific questions, you may ask those. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Sorry if that was misunderstood, it was not my intention to find a co-author. It was merely to ask about a feedback to see if I was on the right path. I will obviously wait my turn and will also do the editing myself. Meike.schulz (talk) 07:20, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
PS: Of your dozen or so sources, only four are online. While you may of course cite offline sources, they are much more difficult for reviewers to check, which may cause delays in reviewing. If online versions of these sources exist, please cite them instead. (And if you must cite offline ones, please make sure to include sufficient bibliographic detail to enable the source to be reliably identified for verification; see WP:OFFLINE for advice.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
This is good feedback, thank you for that. I have tried to find the articles online but was so far unsuccessful. I have most of them in PDF-form, however upload is complicated. I will have a look at WP:OFFLINE and see how this situation can be improved. This is valuable feedback already, the kind that I hoped to find Meike.schulz (talk) 07:23, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Meike.schulz: you needn't upload copies of the sources; in fact you shouldn't, because that is likely to violate copyright. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:43, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hello, @Meike.schulz. 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) 23:30, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your feedback here. I am past the frustration-part already. Done my edits, worked my way through Reliable sources, Neutral point of view, Verifiability, Notability and most prominently (obviously) with Conflict of interest. Need to get into WP:MOS some more but other than that I think I have a grip on it.
And yes, you are right, when starting with wikipedia, I never thought there was so much bureaucracy connected with it. It would be great though to have an experienced editor look at the draft from time to time to see if the efforts go in the right direction. After all: Editing should be done according to the rules. Meike.schulz (talk) 07:36, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

15:30, 26 August 2025 review of submission by Defaultthis101

edit
Latest comment: 4 days ago5 comments4 people in discussion

The article has not been accepted as it "shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT." Since it was most emphatically not created using an LLM, it would be good to know which of the sub-reasons provided (i.e. Promotional tone, editorializing and other words to watch) were the reason for the rejection, so that I can make the necessary changes. Thanks for your help Defaultthis101 (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Pinging @MediaKyle qcne (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the ping. This draft was most certainly at least edited by an LLM, a fact that becomes even more clear when viewing the initial text, which was since cleaned up to remove some of the most obvious hallmarks. My recommendation would be to read some similar articles and start from scratch without using an LLM at all, even for editing. Beyond that, large portions of the article are uncited. You can generally assume that everything you write will require an inline citation. Hope that helps. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I fully accept the point on citations and will certainly increase them.
What are the clear hallmarks of LLM editing? If I start from scratch, it will be written in a similar way (with more inline citations) and I don't want to end up in the same situation.
I've looked at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_AI_writing and my initial guesses are overuse of boldface (fair enough, this is my first article and I didn't know the rules initially, hence the edits) and possibly incorrect use of markdown (again, that's inexperience).
If the best course of action is to start from scratch, how should I do that? Delete everything in the current draft, or delete the entire thing and enter a new page with the same name?
Thanks for your help - learning a lot here. Defaultthis101 (talk) 08:47, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@MediaKyle I gave Defaultthis101 some general pointers before the article was created (suggesting that he go through AfC, and making him aware of WP:COI and Wikipedia:Content assessment, and how to go about citing independent sources) and I can vouch for them that if they say emphatically that the draft was not created with an LLM that the draft wasn't created with an LLM. FWIW I agree that clamping down on slop articles is a good thing and that reviewers need to be alert and reactive, and that reviewing many such slop articles is tedious, but I fear your heuristics have lead you to the wrong conclusion here and you've unintentionally ended up being a little bit WP:BITEy; instructing a new editor not to use an LLM when they haven't used an LLM is not very actionable advice.  M2Ys4U (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

15:56, 26 August 2025 review of submission by Okeywhatever48

edit
Latest comment: 5 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Could you please help with making it have reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Okeywhatever48 (talk) 15:56, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Okeywhatever48: Absolutely not. Any controversies about her privacy should go in an article about her parent(s), and not her own. (Writing a Wikipedia article about a subject who's a minor notable for her parents' attempts to protect her privacy is also self-defeating.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

17:55, 26 August 2025 review of submission by Tlauer2

edit
Latest comment: 3 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hello! I'm working on a draft article [Draft:John_C._Volin] which satisfies [WP:NPROF] criteria #6, specifically point #6b, as he is the current president of Gustavus Adolphus College. I only really have two references, one of which is a publication from the institution, but [WP:NPROF] point #6a says that since it is being used "For documenting that a person has held such a post" it would be considered a reliable source. The reviewer said it was a promising article, but it just needed some clarification and justification.

I based the structure of the draft off of the existing article for our previous president [Rebecca_M._Bergman]. In that article, two of the three references there are the same URL pointing to the institution's "President's Office" page, and yet it still got accepted.

The problem I'm having is that it looks like almost all of the content was removed and hidden due to an RD1 violation, but as stated in my multiple COI declarations, I am an employee of the college and own the copyright for that content. I'm not sure if I need to do another total re-write or what, because rearranging the sentences in 1.5 paragraphs doesn't seem like it will be satisfactory either. Any advice is appreciated, thanks! Tlauer2 (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Tlauer2: it is debatable whether a small, even if relatively old (at least by US standards), liberal arts college satisfies the NACADEMIC #6 requirement of "major academic institution". It may do, I'm not categorically saying it doesn't, but this is by no means obvious.
And whether an article exists on the previous holder of the same post is quite frankly neither here nor there (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), because drafts are assessed not by comparison to existing articles but by reference to the prevailing policies and guidelines.
As for the copyright violation, just because you are an employee of this organisation does not, in and of itself, mean that you own the copyright to their content. Even if you created the said content, if you did so in the course of employment, it is much more likely that your employer owns the right, not you personally. The easiest way around this particular point, by far, would be for you to rephrase (not closely paraphrase, which in itself can violate copyright) the content in your own words. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Tlauer2: To add to what DoubleGrazing says, Wikipedia is dual-licenced under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike and the GNU Free Document Licence, both of which are copyleft licences that are wholly incompatible/mutually-exclusive with standard all rights reserved copyright. As such, we can't use content that has been published under the latter (which includes any work that outright lacks copyright information) regardless of who owns the copyright to it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:19, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

20:36, 26 August 2025 review of submission by Dpatrick100

edit
Latest comment: 5 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi -- I just inserted a <ref> for a reference about a person who is mentioned in Wikipedia pages but does not have his own page. I wasn't sure how to format it best, as the wiki brackets ... didn't seem appropriate. the ref i constructed was: <ref>{{cite web |title=Walter and McBean Galleries |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_and_McBean_Galleries?utm_source=chatgpt.com |website=Wikipedia |publisher=Wikimedia Foundation |date=1967–1977 |access-date=August 26, 2025 |quote=Philip E. Linhares was Director of the Walter and McBean Galleries from 1967 to 1977. Linhares later became Chief Curator at the Oakland Museum of California, serving from 1990 to 2011.}}</ref> So I tried to construct a <ref> that appeared to be correct to me... but when I looked at the history, it had this entry notation about it: curprev 20:11, 26 August 2025 Dpatrick100 talk contribs m 37,719 bytes +435 No edit summary undo Tags: possible " AI-generated citations use of deprecated (unreliable) source Dpatrick100 (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

sorry the cite error was because i did not do a complete example ... the reference that was correct and is in the piece now is <ref>{{cite web |date=1967–1977 |title=Walter and McBean Galleries |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_and_McBean_Galleries?utm_source=chatgpt.com |access-date=August 26, 2025 |website=Wikipedia |publisher=Wikimedia Foundation |quote=Philip E. Linhares was Director of the Walter and McBean Galleries from 1967 to 1977. Linhares later became Chief Curator at the Oakland Museum of California, serving from 1990 to 2011.}}</ref> my question is still the same ... how should i have created this reference and why is it giving the " AI-generated citations use of deprecated (unreliable) source" notation? Dpatrick100 (talk) 20:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
You cannot use Wikipedia as a reference. Theroadislong (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

22:16, 26 August 2025 review of submission by Inemed

edit
Latest comment: 5 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion

My draft keeps getting rejected, and I am genuinely confused. Please, can I get help with this draft? Inemed (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

It was initially declined- meaning it could be resubmitted- before being rejected, meaning that it can't be.
You have mostly summarized what the UK government says about this topic. Since it creates regulations, it isn't an independent source about itself. You need to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic. 331dot (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Okay, I will do that. Thank you Inemed (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Once you do, you will need to appeal to the rejecting reviewer and ask them to reconsider. 331dot (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

August 27

edit

01:07, 27 August 2025 review of submission by MylesContributes

edit
Latest comment: 4 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I would like to know why my page was denied, thanks! MylesContributes (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, @MylesContributes. Your sandbox User:MylesContributes/sandbox was declined (which means it could be submitted again if you edit it to address the problems) becuase it does not have a single independent source.
A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and not much else.
If you do not have several sources each of which meets all the criterai in WP:42, then no article on the subject is possible.
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) 13:40, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

02:45, 27 August 2025 review of submission by CHAOGEJILATU

edit
Latest comment: 3 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia and my draft article about the scientist "CHAOGEJILATU" was recently declined. The reason given was that there is not enough significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.

As a beginner, I would greatly appreciate kind advice from experienced editors:

- What kinds of sources would be sufficient to demonstrate notability for a scientist? - Are academic journal publications (where the subject is a co-author) acceptable as significant coverage, or do I need more independent media coverage such as newspapers, interviews, or magazines? - If my current references are not enough, what steps should I take to improve the draft so that it has a realistic chance of being accepted?

Thank you very much for your time and support. CHAOGEJILATU (talk) 02:45, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, @CHAOGEJILATU. As you have been advised on your user talk page, writing a Wikipedia article about yourself is so extremetly difficult that you are strongly discouraged from trying.
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.
You would need to find several places where people wholly unconnected with you (or with any of your institutions) had decided to write about you, in reliable publications.
If you can find several such sources, you would then need to effectively forget everything you know about yourself and write a neutral summary of what those sources said about you. Do you see why this is so difficult?
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. And that is even without the added problems of writing about yourself. ColinFine (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
There are topics that may fail a strict application of WP:GNG but might be notable by other measures. WP:BAND offers many alternatives for music ensembles, for example.
In this case, we have a guideline WP:NPROF, which might be applicable to scientists in academia. One could also make an argument that a scientist is notable based on an influence factor, provided that influence factor is way beyond what's expected of an average scientist at that point in their career. I don't recall seeing this reasoning covered by our policies; indeed, most of the time I've seen these scores used is to argue against notability for run-of-the-mill academics.
Winning a notable award would qualify for notability, even for a scientist who was previously obscure, although a Nobel Prize winner would probably have lots of coverage anyway as a consequence of winning the prize. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

10:45, 27 August 2025 review of submission by Kirtan kalathiya

edit
Latest comment: 3 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

`Draft:Kirtan_kalathiya`

    • Reason for requesting assistance:**
I recently submitted a draft about Kirtan Kalathiya, an Indian web developer and SEO specialist. The draft was rejected as not meeting notability guidelines and tagged as promotional. I have a declared conflict of interest (COI) since I am closely connected to the subject.
I would appreciate guidance on:
What kinds of reliable, independent sources would be considered sufficient to establish notability for this subject.
How to rewrite the draft in a more neutral, encyclopedic tone (rather than sounding like a résumé or promotional profile).

Whether trimming sections such as “Skills” and “Portfolio” would make the draft more acceptable, and if I should wait until stronger sources are available before resubmitting.

Thank you for any advice on how I can proceed constructively within Wikipedia’s policies. 

Kirtan kalathiya (talk) 10:45, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Kirtan kalathiya It is pure spam and will shortly be deleted. We have no interest in promoting your SEO spam biography. Go elsewhere. qcne (talk) 10:53, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Also keep in mind there are three outcomes to a review of a draft: accept, decline, or reject. If a reviewer accepts a draft, the reviewer publishes it for you. The "decline" outcome means the draft needs improvement before it can be accepted. The "reject" outcome means you should stop immediately, do not proceed further, this isn't an acceptable topic now or in the foreseeable future. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

14:12, 27 August 2025 review of submission by SATENDERA72

edit
Latest comment: 4 days ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Why you did that please let me post this article pls it's not anything wrong in it SATENDERA72 (talk) 14:12, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Is English the main language that you use to communicate? If not, you may find it easier to contribute in the version of Wikipedia that is in your primary language. 331dot (talk) 14:16, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@SATENDERA72: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further.
Furthermore, you should not be editing in a contentious topic area at all, until your account is extended confirmed, which you are fall very short of. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
He's been told this.
@SATENDRA72: You are not allowed to edit about castes (or any other social group or strata in South Asia), full stop. Desist. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:56, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

14:30, 27 August 2025 review of submission by 185.254.35.82

edit
Latest comment: 4 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I want to know what I can add to be approved 185.254.35.82 (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

If you are the creator of the draft, remember to log in when posting.
You have been left advice by reviewers, do you have a more specific question?
You took a very professional looking picture of Mr. Kaawar; what is your connection to him? 331dot (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

14:58, 27 August 2025 review of submission by Thomas93201

edit
Latest comment: 4 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I am unsure why my draft is getting rejected. It feels like it is fit for wikipedia as it states information that is 100% fact, no fiction. I have not shown bias or favouritism, it simply informs people of important information about many peoples lives. Thomas93201 (talk) 14:58, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thomas93201 The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
Wikipedia is not a mere database of information. For war veterans from this community as a group to merit a Wikipedia article, there must be independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the community's veterans as a distinct group, showing how it is a notable group, in order for it to merit an article. For the veterans individually, the same applies- each veteran must have coverage of their military career in independent reliable sources that can be summarized in an article. Government/military records are insufficient.
If you just want to document these people, you might try social media, a website about war veterans, or other website with less stringent requirements. 331dot (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

18:49, 27 August 2025 review of submission by IdahoChateau

edit
Latest comment: 4 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Please help with draft. My first edit/creation and would like to have assistance to ensure quality content and correct references. Thank you. IdahoChateau (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

You don't specify what assistance you are seeking, but I can say that YouTube is generally not considered a reliable source as most of its content is user-generated without editorial oversight. 331dot (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I'm extremely confused by the article. You're writing an article Ipsen Bottle, but most of the cites seem more fitting for an article about its creator, and don't really talk much, if it all, about the named type of bottle. If you decided to cover the bottle, you need to provide sources about the bottle that explain why and how the bottle itself is notable. But a good place to start is to just sit and decide what you want this article to be about, and then write based on only those sources that provide significant coverage about the subject. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:00, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

21:23, 27 August 2025 review of submission by Benia Mazaheri

edit
Latest comment: 4 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

it has many reliable sources such as transfermarkt and used all the relaible sources so I don't know what else I can do Benia Mazaheri (talk) 21:23, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Transfermarkt is not currently considered a reliable source by the community, and in case, you haven't shown Mazaheri's notability only his existence. There's no source provided that cites significant coverage about him; databases that simply list his stats do not count for that. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:55, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

21:24, 27 August 2025 review of submission by 76.9.53.56

edit
Latest comment: 4 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why was this declined? There are many independent reliable arms length new sources including CBC Canada's National Broadcaster as well Yukon News both detailing RGH work in open source emergency alerting published history on these sources going back over 20 years. Additionally, RGH appears on public CRTC decisions for radio licencing. RGH doesn't work for CBC or Yukon News 76.9.53.56 (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

The ancestry section is completely unsourced. 331dot (talk) 21:46, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

August 28

edit

03:12, 28 August 2025 review of submission by IanResearch

edit
Latest comment: 4 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi editors, just wanted to ask what I can do to improve my draft and write it in a way that is aligned with Wikipedia's guide and tone. Thank you! IanResearch (talk) 03:12, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

The draft just tells of the offerings and activities of the company; a Wikipedia article must do more, it must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company.
The awards are meaningless towards establishing notability; for an award to contribute to notability, it must itself merit an article(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). 331dot (talk) 06:59, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

05:28, 28 August 2025 review of submission by AndeHuang

edit
Latest comment: 4 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The draft has been declined multiple times. I have already revised the wording to make the tone more neutral, but it was still labeled as containing false information. Could you please review the draft and provide guidance on how to correct the issues and bring it in line with Wikipedia’s requirements? AndeHuang (talk) 05:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't see where anyone has said it contains false information, but it does say that it appears to have been written by an AI/LLM.
Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about a company and what it does, a Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 06:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

06:40, 28 August 2025 review of submission by 109.252.122.222

edit
Latest comment: 4 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Good day! Thank you for your work! Help, as a professional, to correct this page, to work on it, so that it is acceptable for Wikipedia. This is a famous Russian entomologist who studies the world fauna of longhorn beetles. For Wikipedia, such personalities are important, as for the world encyclopedia. Help improve this page. Maybe it should be shortened, and leave some small extract? Until new sources. With respect. 109.252.122.222 (talk) 06:40, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. If something changes in the future, you are welcome to edit the draft and then appeal to the rejecting reviewer. 331dot (talk) 06:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

08:37, 28 August 2025 review of submission by Casa Coto

edit
Latest comment: 3 days ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Hello Wikipedians, I'm kindly asking for advice. Many months ago, I created a draft on the Bihler company (Draft:Otto Bihler Maschinenfabrik). It has since been declined multiple times, but I don't quite understand why. It is said that WP:NCORP is not met. However, in that draft, I have demonstrated, using a source assessment table, why I believe that the Bihler company has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. I know that not every source that I have cited falls within the WP:SIRS criteria, but still, I feel that, the number of sources that do, is sufficient. It would be very helpful to have a second thought on this. Any advice is very much appreciated. Thank you! @ User:Novem Linguae. -- Casa Coto (talk) 08:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I haven't done a detailed analysis yet, but if other reviewers are still declining it, maybe your source assessment table is being too generous. Do all your sources have 3 meaty paragraphs of detail about the company? Are they independent (i.e. no press releases disguised as articles, no articles that are mostly quotations, no advertorials, etc)? Is at least one of the sources regional, national, or international? These are all things needed to pass WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. See also User:Novem Linguae/Essays/Nuances of GNG and User:Novem Linguae/Essays/Novem's words of wisdom #6. It's been 2 months since you submitted this... if you think it passes, maybe submit it again and add a comment asking for detailed source feedback in the event of a decline. Hope this helps. Good luck. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
cc Casa Coto. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Comments on your assessment table:
  • You list the Hesse source as secondary, but describe it as an encyclopedia. That means it's a tertiary source.
  • You assess four sources in total to meet the criteria of reliable, independent, and significant coverage. Those would be good sources, but...
  • it isn't clear that they provide significant coverage of the company, its products, the punch-bending process, or Otto Bihler himself. Those are four different topics, and this draft is about one topic. For example, the Kolbe source discusses the technology and how the machine works, but what about the company, which is the topic of this draft?
The assessment table is a great start, but reading it only brings up more questions. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:16, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Quick note that in my experience, tertiary sources are usually accepted as counting towards GNG. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I wasn't saying that they aren't acceptable, although our policies recommend using them more to assess due weight. I was just pointing out an error in the table. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

12:11, 28 August 2025 review of submission by 78.150.201.201

edit
Latest comment: 3 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Because I cannot find any more references to fusion candles 78.150.201.201 (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Then this topic doesn't merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 12:20, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

14:57, 28 August 2025 review of submission by Aras2025

edit
Latest comment: 3 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello,

My draft, "Draft:Radio Duhok," has been declined multiple times due to a lack of "in-depth coverage" from reliable, independent sources, according to the last reviewer.

I have tried my best to find good sources and have included: 1. Two official announcements from the Duhok Governorate's website congratulating the radio on its anniversary. 2. A feature article about the radio in the well-known regional "Gulan Magazine" (Issue 829, 2010), which refers to it as the "authentic voice of the governorate."

Could an experienced editor please take a look at these sources and provide some feedback? I am struggling to understand why these are considered insufficient for notability. Specifically, I would like to know if the Gulan Magazine article is just a "brief mention" and what an example of an "in-depth" source would look like for a subject like this.

Any guidance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Aras2025 (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

An in depth source will, on its own, go into detail about the topic and discuss what they see as important/significant/influential about it- what makes it notable. Mere congratulations and a mention do not qualify. 331dot (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than other language versions; I don't know if this content would be acceptable on the Arabic Wikipedia, which has its own policies. 331dot (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

16:50, 28 August 2025 review of submission by Saysky2

edit
Latest comment: 3 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

may i know the reason why the article has been stoped 

Saysky2 (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

17:10, 28 August 2025 review of submission by Saysky2

edit
Latest comment: 2 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

May i know the exact reason of rejecting the article. Even i had asked weather i can use newspapers cuts as reliable sources or not as in 2000s no digital media was there no any answered to my question. This i really disgusting no supports Saysky2 (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

This draft has been rejected for failing to heed previous criticism and will not be considered further. The reviewers explained a fair bit in their comments, and the draft was rejected once it became clear you were blowing them off. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:13, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Saysky2: re-signing to fix ping —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:14, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
You have three non-independent sources, and one which might be independent, but gives a 404 when I look at it. (Even if it is both independent and gives substantial coverage, one source is not enough).
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) 15:58, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

18:10, 28 August 2025 review of submission by 80.41.119.0

edit
Latest comment: 3 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

please dont remove my draft when i send it to you even if its rubbish 80.41.119.0 (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Don't waste reviewer time with rubbish. We don't accept AI-generated articles, period. It has been deleted. If you want to submit an article on that topic, you must write it in your own words and cite actual reliable sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

18:26, 28 August 2025 review of submission by SindhuG2025

edit
Latest comment: 3 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hello team, I have submitted an article on an Indian agriculturist AligiReddy Vishwanath Reddy but the article has been declined. Could you please assist me in improving the article. SindhuG2025 (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

SindhuG2025 it seems like no one has declined the article. When you created the page you included a 'decline' banner in the page. I've fixed it for you.
In its current state, the article would not be accepted. In addition to a lack of inline citations to support the claims made in the article, the article seems like it was written for the express purpose of promoting the subject rather than to be encyclopedic.
Also, it's best to avoid external links in the body of an article, unless necessary. See the page WP:External links. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 04:24, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Those blank decline templates are made up by ChatGPT and the like. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 04:33, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

19:01, 28 August 2025 review of submission by RavenFireblade

edit
Latest comment: 2 days ago4 comments4 people in discussion

We have edited the article along with new, reliable, independent sources. Please help us improve it. Thank you! RavenFireblade (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi @RavenFireblade. Who is "we" and "us"? qcne (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@RavenFireblade, Qcne, Kalaboomsky, Athaenara, SoWhy, Bearcat, and MWFwiki: back in August 2018 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CJ Santos, Kalaboomsky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) wrote "Just tell us what needs to be removed or questionable areas on the article that needs removing" here. It would appear to me that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jack Logan Show back in 2018 may possibly also be relevant here. All that said, Jack Logan (filmmaker) is now a mainspace article: any windmills I chose to joust here in 2025 may seven years too late, I guess. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 11:03, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I was the approver. For what it is worth, this was a borderline pass. I felt the subject just meets notability, especially when considering WP:NOTLEVEL (I realize this is not a policy). However, even keeping the COI in-mind (and I have a feeling the disclosed COI may be a "sacrificial lamb" disclosure, and the actual COI may be deeper... But, AGF and all that) I feel that the article was ready for mainspace. Particularly with the additional COI labelling. Anyways, I am of the opinion that we have enough notability to push us over the edge, and that any further discussion regarding the article should take place via AfD. I would abstain from such a discussion. MWFwiki (talk) 20:42, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

August 29

edit

01:29, 29 August 2025 review of submission by Hyperbolick

edit
Latest comment: 2 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I am confessedly not entirely objective on this because Jimmy was a longtime acquaintance.

He drowned in a boating accident this weekend. Had one of those quirky lives where he did many different things, MMA fighting, recording music, winning American Gladiator, publishing philosophy, managing the Texas Songwriting Championship. He was a guest menace in a few episodes of Burn Notice (no media source for that, but he posted it on his socials and if you watch the episodes you can see him plain as day). His death was reported more than anything else in his life, but it was quite a life. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:29, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Do you have a specific question about the draft? -- NotCharizard 🗨 06:38, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yes, does Jimmy's eclectic set of points of notability add up to actual notability? Could probably find a few more sources touching on a few more points (he was a high school gymnastics champ and an FAU cheerleader before going to Oklahoma), but this is close to being what there is. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:47, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hello, @Hyperbolick. Notability, as Wikipedia uses the word, is not about what the subject is, or does, or has done, but about whether enought independent material has been reliably published about the subject to base an article on. ColinFine (talk) 10:11, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

How to add extra references which helps draft will go for mainspace.

edit
Latest comment: 2 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

hello ! Help on article Draft:Tanka Timilsina  ! Please improve and take this article to mainspace.i will be very thankful for your kindness. MountainWriter42 (talk) 10:48, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, @MountainWriter42. Wikipedia is a volunteer project, where people work on what they choose. It is unlikely - not impossible, but unlikely - that anybody will decide to work on your draft just because you ask.
It is possible (no more than that) that if you asked at WikiProject Music or WikiProject Nepal you might find somebody interested enough to work on it. But don't set your hopes too high. ColinFine (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
YouTube, press releases and interviews are not reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

11:32, 29 August 2025 review of submission by Newacctowork

edit
Latest comment: 2 days ago12 comments3 people in discussion

I am requesting assistance with my draft article Draft:Trinity_Private_School. Each word of the text was written manually without the use of AI tools. However, three times I received feedback that the draft was written by AI. I respectfully emphasize that I wrote the article myself, and therefore I ask you to indicate exactly which sentences or parts appear to you as AI-generated. In addition, I was told that my sources are “not relevant.” Could you please clarify how relevance is determined? For example, The Heritage Private School article was accepted with only one source, while my draft contains 17 independent sources, yet it has not passed review. Finally, the article cannot be considered promotional, because it contains no evaluative or laudatory language. I removed all subjective judgments and left only verifiable, encyclopedic content supported by citations. I would greatly appreciate clear feedback on what exactly prevents the draft from being accepted and what specific improvements are required. Newacctowork (talk) 11:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Newacctowork: you will note that the most recent decline, by me, was not for AI but for promotionality and lack of any evidence of notability.
You then resubmitted the draft without any attempt at addressing those reasons. Why did you do that? Are you disputing my review, or did you think if you keep submitting it will eventually go through by brute force? You only have finite number of chances, so I would suggest you make the most of them.
And yes, The Heritage Private School is even weaker in terms of sourcing (in that, it has none), and I have tagged it accordingly. That doesn't mean we should create more insufficiently sourced articles, though. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:04, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@DoubleGrazing No, I submitted it by accident. Could you please clarify what exactly needs to be fixed? I have already removed most of the adjectives that could make the text appear promotional. What further steps should I take? How can I rewrite it so that it reads as neutral, rather than advertising? Newacctowork (talk) 12:26, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Newacctowork: you're normally meant to summarise what the sources say. But on this occasion, those sources are just churnalism etc., therefore summarising them will only ever result in a promotional draft. So you should go back to square one and look for sources that are entirely independent of the subject (meaning no interviews, press releases, advertorials, sponsored content, etc.) and base your draft on them. Personally, I doubt you will find such sources, but nothing to stop you trying. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:40, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@DoubleGrazing There is a category, Category:International schools in Cyprus. Could you provide an example? From my perspective, I do not see any pages there that match what you are describing. At the moment, all the pages appear to be in the main space. Newacctowork (talk) 12:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Newacctowork: don't concern yourself with any other articles that may exist, we're talking about whether your draft can be accepted; WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is invariably a red herring.
The long and short of it is that the vast majority of schools are not notable enough to justify an article. At two years old, this school is basically a startup, and the vast majority of startups are likewise not notable. Any media coverage that may exist is therefore almost by definition likely to originate in the school's marketing team, as is clearly the case with the sources cited in this draft. If the school was a major new initiative or an attempt at educational reform by the gov't of Cyprus, there might be independent mainstream media coverage of it, but here we're talking about a niche private school for a particular group of expats. As I said, you're welcome to search for better sources, but I wouldn't hold my breath. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:01, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@DoubleGrazing "No, we are just talking about other articles. When I take another article as a reference, I see that it has far fewer sources than mine, yet it passed. Can this be considered a biased approach? What does the marketing team have to do with it, if there is no link to any commercial offer and not a single word about cost? This is exactly what concerns me: does it comply with Wikipedia rules that a school without media coverage is published, while a school with coverage is not? For Cyprus, these media are public and authoritative. For comparison, my house has also stood since 1987. There are no publications about it — can I publish an article about it without coverage, as others did? Newacctowork (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Newacctowork: no, you cannot "publish an article about it without coverage". Your draft's subject must meet our notability requirements, which it has not yet demonstrated.
If you've found existing articles which also fall short of the standards required, you're very welcome to improve them, or to commence deletion proceedings (WP:AFD is that-a-way) if that's not possible. But just because such articles exist, is no reason to create more such problems. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:26, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@DoubleGrazing L’Officiel Cyprus, Cyprus Times, and Boussias News (in Greek) - are these not considered reliable sources? Could you please explain the definition and criteria of reliability in this case? These outlets are public and widely recognized in Cyprus. There is no 'churnalism' here, as you described earlier, and no interviews with the school itself. What exactly is wrong with these sources? Newacctowork (talk) 13:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I will note that just because another article exists does not necessarily mean it was "approved" by anyone. There are many reasons this could be, and that cannot justify adding more inappropriate articles. 331dot (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Are you connected to this school in some way? 331dot (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@331dot Absolutely not. I just saw an article on the Internet and decided to create an entry about them, since I am from Ukraine myself. Newacctowork (talk) 14:09, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

12:00, 29 August 2025 review of submission by GeorgeHav

edit
Latest comment: 2 days ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Article was denied for npov, but I'm not sure i can personally see specifically where/why that's the case? Any thoughts on how I could improve that? GeorgeHav (talk) 12:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

All the draft does is document occurrences of this event- in essence, promoting them. 331dot (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Interesting, what would you recommend then in this case? Adding a section on "Reception"? GeorgeHav (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I would talk much less about occurrences of the event and much more about what independent reliable sources say about it. You meed to show that it is a notable event. 331dot (talk) 23:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Awesome, thanks for the advice. GeorgeHav (talk) 23:19, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

13:02, 29 August 2025 review of submission by Vaibhav9786

edit
Latest comment: 2 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Could you please let me know why my article was rejected. Just wanted to get an understanding so I do not make the same mistakes again Vaibhav9786 (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Courtesy link: Draft:Virtual CFO Services in India
@Vaibhav9786: your draft was purely promotional, and written not like an encyclopaedia article but a sales brochure.
Presumably you work for YourCFO, which is what the spam link at the end of the draft was pointing to? In which case, you need to disclose your paid-editing-status (this has already been queried on your talk page), and I would also advise against continuing down this promotional road, lest you get blocked. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:12, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

17:25, 29 August 2025 review of submission by FurretSuperFan

edit
Latest comment: 2 days ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hi my article got denied for the reason that it does not qualify for a Wikipedia article due to not having reliable sources. I'm trying to aim for the notability that the album charted in a national music chart, specifically in the Oricon and Billboards charts. I just wanted to make sure that these links count towards reliability and notability under secondary or independent sources

https://www.oricon.co.jp/prof/552646/products/1042567/1/

https://www.billboard-japan.com/charts/detail?a=top_albums&year=2013&month=11&day=18 FurretSuperFan (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, @FurretSuperFan. A sales site is almost never acceptable as a source: it is not independent.
The Billboard might be reliable, but does not contain significant coverage, as it is just a listing, and I don't think it would count as a secondary source either. We really need independent, in-depth reviews. ColinFine (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Would this link work for Oricon instead?
https://www.oricon.co.jp/prof/552646/rank/album/ FurretSuperFan (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Would this link cunt for a secondary source?
https://otakumode.com/otapedia/vocaloid/hatsune_miku/mitchie_m FurretSuperFan (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Count* FurretSuperFan (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
It doesn't matter which link you use for Oricon - sales sites are almost never acceptable, period.
The Otakemode bit appears to be a wiki, with no byline. It therefore fails to be a reliable source, and it is very likely not an independent source either - we can't tell who submitted it, but it is likely to be the subject or their agents. ColinFine (talk) 10:16, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

18:02, 29 August 2025 review of submission by Jetsonesque

edit
Latest comment: 2 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can anyone provide any guidance or input on the latest draft? Regarding comments on 29 April by editor Paul W, a public media search likely supports relevance/notoriety for Sam Bregman, but that was not established with proper sources and citations.

Earlier entries for Sam Bregman were rejected for relevance, formatting, peacocking and lack of supporting citations. The latest edits attempt to remove problematic text, clean up formatting and citations, comply with tone and informational intentions of Wikipedia entries for public figures, and establish relevance.

It may be helpful to compare with the entry for former Las Cruces Mayor, Ken Miyagishima. Intention of latest edition is to create a similar entry for Bregman, with similar tone and proper support material. 

Jetsonesque (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hello, @Jetsonesque. It is almost never relevant to compare articles with existing article. Unless the article you are comparing with is either a good article or a featured article, its quality is unclear, and may be terrrible. See other stuff exists. ColinFine (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

August 30

edit

Feedback on revised draft: Gerald P. Curatola

edit
Latest comment: 2 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, I’m seeking feedback on Draft:Gerald P. Curatola, which was previously declined for formatting and sourcing issues. I have now:

  • Rewritten in neutral prose.
  • Replaced weak/self-published links with strong independent sources (Forbes, Miami Herald, Vogue, New York Post, Purist, Yahoo).
  • Corrected citations (ISBN for book, Vogue link, NYU Nexus PDFs confirming Acton Medal and Curatola Wing).
  • Removed Markdown formatting that triggered the last decline.

Could someone review and let me know if the draft now appears ready for resubmission? Thanks very much.

GCNYdentist (talk) 05:41, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Your autobiography is totally unsourced please don't use AI here it is notoriously bad at creating articles. Theroadislong (talk) 08:16, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

09:17, 30 August 2025 review of submission by Rsakib188

edit
Latest comment: 17 hours ago7 comments4 people in discussion

My submission was rejected and the reason that was given is "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.". Although there are similar articles on wikipedia. Such as 2025 DUCSU election and 2019 DUCSU election. Want to know how can I improve this arcticle to that it get published. Rsakib188 (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Please see other stuff exists, each article or draft is judged on its own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inapproprate and just not yet addressed. Perhaps those two articles should be removed. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I'm really struggling to understand why we should have any information on some students' union elections (!) in a global encyclopaedia. (I'm even doubtful about the viability of Draft:Chittagong University Central Students' Union.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:27, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
There are four autonomous public universities (out of 41 public universities) in Bangladesh that has student parliament (simply called student union) and those are of big deal, as these parliment shape national issues and the elected leaders of these student parliament gets to play role in national politics and even become future national leaders and ministers. These parliment also has say on appointment of Vice-chancellors and teachers of these university. Rsakib188 (talk) 09:54, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Then provide some reliable independent sources that talk about the union in depth, @Rsakib188. Without several sources that each meet all the criteria of WP:42, a draft (or an article) is like a house without foundations, and not acceptable to Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 10:23, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Are you saying that by law these student bodies have formal input into the operation of the public universities they are associated with? I ask because that's unusual- in the US, at least- where most student bodies are advisory or only have privileges at the pleasure of the university, not in law. 331dot (talk) 12:33, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yes, by law student leaders have 5 seat in university senate. And these four universities were established and govern by the act of Bangladeshi parliament as autonomous body. Rsakib188 (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

13:24, 30 August 2025 review of submission by Devolver789

edit
Latest comment: 1 day ago5 comments4 people in discussion

You wouldn't know Steal a Brainrot would be suitable for Wikipedia if you looked for proper, notable and reliable citations yourself Devolver789 (talk) 13:24, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, was that a question? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:25, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Devolver789: There is a very distinct possibility that Steal a Brainrot is a notable subject. The problem is that pretty much all of your sources waste time on the feud between its and Grow a Garden's lead developers. Only GameRant discusses Steal a Brainrot in the context of a review. I have no trouble finding sources that are actually about the game and not the tangential beef. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 14:35, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I would like to note I attempted to help out with the draft, locating reviews from Polygon, Kotaku, and GameRant. Problem is, two of the sources fall under purview of WP:VALNET, and an additional NME source I've discovered doesn't qualify as WP:SIGCOV. As such, I had to regrettably abandon my efforts pending the publication of more reliable reviews. — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C 04:32, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
One option would've been to post at WP:VG to seek the input of editors more familiar with reliable videogame sourcing, but then I discovered the Kotaku source was listed under the opinions section, which was the nail in the coffin for me. If any other editors feel this version is salvageable feel free to do so. — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C 04:52, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

18:01, 30 August 2025 review of submission by VasyaPetrovna

edit
Latest comment: 1 day ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi - this is the first time I've created a new page. The documentation is a little overwhelming? 😅 I tried submitting the draft for review but the "Draft article not currently submitted for review" box came up, and I don't know what to do next. VasyaPetrovna (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

VasyaPetrovna I fixed your header so it links to your draft as intended; you need the "Draft:" portion of the title.
You just need to click the blue "Submit your draft for review!" button in the bottom right corner of the notice that you speak of. 331dot (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
When I click it, it brings up another window, "Template - Generated from: AfC submission." I don't know what if anything I should be changing in that window? VasyaPetrovna (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Never mind, I got it - thank you! VasyaPetrovna (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

18:27, 30 August 2025 review of submission by Tanja0615

edit
Latest comment: 22 hours ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, thanks for your review. The draft was not written with ChatGPT. One citation I formatted accidentally contained a tracking parameter (utm_source=chatgpt.com) in the URL, which I have now removed. I spent considerable time collecting and checking references from reliable published sources. Could you please point me to any specific passages where you think the language may not be neutral or where style should be adjusted? I’ll gladly revise those. Tanja0615 (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Tanja0615 I declined without prejudice, you have now re-submitted which was the correct thing to do. qcne (talk) 11:57, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

21:31, 30 August 2025 review of submission by Matthewbyver

edit
Latest comment: 1 day ago3 comments3 people in discussion

My page is not for promotion, is to help a small music artist to build his career by offering additional informations Matthewbyver (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

What you describe is the exact definition of promotion. Wikipedia is the last place to write about something, not the first. A subject must have already arrived and be noticed in order to draw the necessary coverage in independent reliable sources that can be summarized in an article. It needs to show that you are a a notable musician already, you cannot use Wikipedia to generate notability. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves, please read the autobiography policy and also how an article is not necessarily desirable. I wish you luck with your career, I suggest thar you focus on that and allow an article to develop the usual way, when an independent editor takes note of coverage of you and chooses to write about you. 331dot (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
In other words, you're trying to use Wikipedia as a publicity platform, and that is not allowed under any circumstances. To merit a Wikipedia article, you can't be up-and-coming. You must have already arrived. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:07, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

21:40, 30 August 2025 review of submission by 69.255.14.163

edit
Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments2 people in discussion

has my artilce been rejected ? 69.255.14.163 (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Be sure to log in before you write anything here.
That draft has been declined, not rejected. If it's declined, it means you can improve it and submit it again once you have addressed the reviewer concerns. If it's rejected, then you give up and move on to something else. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:12, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

August 31

edit

09:18, 31 August 2025 review of submission by Txcraig75

edit
Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm a bit gobsmacked that this has been rejected for lack of "reliable sources." Three New York Times articles, an article from the state historical association, a retrospective by the local ABC news affiliate, an article published in an Abilene newspaper, and a published memoir by one of the group's members are not "reliable?" Txcraig75 (talk) 09:18, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it's the sources themselves that are the issue, but I see some unsourced sentences. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

19:53, 31 August 2025 review of submission by Thilio

edit
Latest comment: 1 hour ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This Draft:AY_Poyoo got declined by TheBirdsShedTears, Reasons "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics)." Okay wait a minute, let me list the independent sources (BBC Newss, Vanguard News, Savanna News, The Guardian Nigeria, Modern Ghana, Pluse Ghana, News Hunter, Daily Guide Network including the Secondary sources et cetera. "they do not show significant coverage" really?? can other editor please search this subject "AY Poyoo" on Microsoft Bling, Google search or any other search engine, because I did that and I found +50 pages and on and on, I also add new references. I'm just curious, PLEASE can experience Editor go and take a look at it. @TheBirdsShedTears thank you though, you can also check and leave afc comment if there is issues that need to be corrected. Thanks ThilioR O B O T🤖 talk 19:53, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, @Thilio. You're misunderstanding independent. If an article is based on an interview or a press release, then it is not independent, irresepctive of who publishes it. Some of your sources certainly have that problem: some may be independent, I haven't looked.
You need several sources which each meet all the criteria in WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 09:43, 1 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
@ColinFine Thanks, got it ThilioR O B O T🤖 talk 09:46, 1 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

21:03, 31 August 2025 review of submission by ProfZacchaeus

edit
Latest comment: 13 hours ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, I will like to be educated on the vital websites that one can use to cite in line in an article i am writing. infact i need credible sites i can be using. Becuase i have beautiful aricles but i dont have citations for them and when i tried submitting a draft to be considered. It was declined and one of the reasons was that i didnt use credible citations.

and that i was using model language like chatgpt to write my articles.

So in summary, i need guidelines that can help me avoid declines when i post or publish my article through my sandbox.

I am a newbie but a passionate one at that. Thank you ProfZacchaeus (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Don't write articles WP:BACKWARD, which is what you are doing. You should find sources first, before you write a single word. Your sources should meet the three criteria in WP:Golden Rule. And write in your own words. Don't use an AI. ChatGPT is horrible at writing articles, and tends to hallucinate things and write in a non-neutral way, even though it may insist it's neutral.
That's how you avoid your drafts being declined. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

September 1

edit

05:22, 1 September 2025 review of submission by 濵島

edit
Latest comment: 4 hours ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, I'm the author of this draft. My article submission was declined, but I'm having trouble understanding some of the reasons. Could you please provide some more specific feedback on how to improve the draft and get it approved? Is it okay to cite sources from Japanese sites?Thank you for your help. 濵島 (talk) 05:22, 1 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

@濵島: We accept non-English citations. (We also accept cites to print media and cites to non-English print media.) I would note, however, that most reviewers are going to be using automated translation for non-English sources, and automated translation tends to fare poorly on context-heavy East Asian languages. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:51, 1 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1308952816"