Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2025 July 12

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< July 11 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 13 >
Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.


July 12

edit

01:05, 12 July 2025 review of submission by Ajrnm91

edit

I believe I added enough required sources and references and also provided clear confirmation of this person's notoriety in the state of New Mexico. I believe I am meeting all of Wikipedia's guidelines and I believe my denial should be reviewed and I would like to know specifically why it has been rejected and what specifically does it need to be accepted. Ajrnm91 (talk) 01:05, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajrnm91 As explained in a comment above the draft, the article was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Ronchetti (2nd nomination) and you need to show that the reasoning in that discussion no longer applies (which seems unlikely given that only three months have passed). Per WP:NPOL, political candidates are not considered notable just because they received coverage of their candidacy.
Did you use ChatGPT or other AI to expand the draft? AI will not help your draft get accepted, see WP:LLM. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:17, 12 July 2025 review of submission by Ajrnm91

edit

I believe I meet all Wikipedia guidelines for notability I provided all appropriate sources and references this person is very notable and well-known in the state of New Mexico , and has been for decades. Ajrnm91 (talk) 01:17, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ajrnm91, this person fails WP:NPOL as a political candidate who has never won an election. An article was previously deleted at AfD and you need to provide evidence that things have changed. They haven't. The only other plausible claim to notability is as a meteorologist but the references in the article do not support that claim. Writing your draft in an argumentative tone, insisting that he is notable, is the wrong approach. The Neutral point of view is a mandatory core content policy. And what the heck is going on with those bizarre double asterisks sprinkled through the draft? We don't write encyclopedia articles like that. Cullen328 (talk) 03:21, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The double asterisks are a common LLM addition- it's attempting to boldface, as many text editors outside WP use asterisks to bold. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 23:57, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:41, 12 July 2025 review of submission by 24.146.248.117

edit

what am i doing wrong? 24.146.248.117 (talk) 01:41, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft lacks references to reliable sources that are totally independent of Fanzo and the companies he is affiliated with. Significant coverage in reliable independent sources is mandatory to establish that Fanzo is notable and therefore eligible for a Wikipedia biography. Cullen328 (talk) 03:07, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:53, 12 July 2025 review of submission by Sahina78

edit

Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I have submitted my article multiple times, but unfortunately, it keeps getting rejected. I am respectfully requesting that if there are specific issues with my article, kindly let me know the exact reasons clearly so that I can correct them accordingly.

Alternatively, if possible, I would deeply appreciate it if you could help improve the article directly, or guide me step by step. I am willing to cooperate fully and follow all Wikipedia guidelines.

My intention is only to contribute helpful and accurate content to Wikipedia. Please help me understand what is wrong, so I can fix it or improve it under your supervision.

Thank you for your time and support.

Sincerely, [sahina] Sahina78 (talk) 05:53, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sahina78. Your draft violates the Neutral point of view, which is a mandatory and non-negotiable core content policy. Examples of non-neutral phrasing include noble and revered and renowned for her deep loyalty and dedication and spiritually rich and enlightened and surrounded by knowledge, piety, and a steadfast commitment to truth and justice. This noble upbringing imbued her with the values and virtues and so on. This is an encyclopedia not an Islamic tract and you must write in a dry "just the facts" style and not engage in any praise of this person in Wikipedia's voice. Your draft also lacks inline references, making it difficult for a reader to verify the statements that you make. Cullen328 (talk) 06:20, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for taking the time to review my draft and clearly pointing out the issues regarding the neutral point of view and lack of inline references. I truly appreciate your guidance.
If there are any other problems or shortcomings in the article, I kindly request you to let me know, so I can work on them as well.
Also, if it is possible and allowed, I would be very grateful if you could help me improve the article directly by making the necessary changes or showing me how to do it step by step. I am eager to learn and fully follow Wikipedia’s guidelines.
Thank you again for your support Sahina78 (talk) 08:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sahina78 Please read WP:REFB and WP:CITE. Instead of using citations you have clustered your references at the end. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:36, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sahina78, I do not read Arabic and have no knowledge of the topic area and which sources are reliable for this type of content, and which are not. Therefore, I cannot improve the draft myself. Please feel free to leave a message on my talk page after you have substantively revised the draft and I will comment then. Cullen328 (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Cullen328,
As you kindly suggested, I have now revised the draft of the article and made sincere efforts to fix the issues you pointed out, especially regarding the neutral point of view and the lack of inline references.
I’ve tried to rewrite it in a more encyclopedic and factual tone and have added citations to support key statements. If you have time, I would be very grateful if you could please take a look and let me know if it’s improved or if further changes are still needed.
Thank you again for your guidance and support Sahina78 (talk) 04:36, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sahina78, you have not addressed my points. The draft still violates the Neutral point of view and lacks inline references. Cullen328 (talk) 07:46, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.holykarbala.net/v2/index.php/ar/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%83%D8%AA%D8%A8%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A9/page/997#head1 Sahina78 (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The entire article has been composed after thoroughly studying the material from this source. Cullen, you may kindly review the link to verify the authenticity Sahina78 (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:58, 12 July 2025 review of submission by Rohit1976

edit

Last time I was told to use sources which are reliable and as per the policy of Wikipedia. I have tried my best to incorporate only those references which are reliable and fall within notability guidelines as per previous advice and suggestion. But the article has been rejected with the remark that the topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia but I have not been clarified how this topic is insufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia. There are many references which so far I think the topic is sufficiently notable. The person has had immense contribution as a writer and critic and even available on Google knowledge panel. There are so many reviews written on him by eminent writers, academics and scholars. Still it's surprising for me that the person does not fall under notability guidelines. It's more frustrating that even my right of further editing over this article has been taken away. May I humbly ask on which ground such claim has been made that this topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia? Rohit1976 (talk) 08:58, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please disclose your connection with Mr. Giri; you had access to him to take his picture where he posed for you. See WP:COI and WP:PAID.
You summarized his work but not summarized what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say makes him a notable creative professional or more broadly a notable person. 331dot (talk) 09:01, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do now see your discussion of the image on the draft talk page; please see my reply there. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors/reviewers, I also request you if I'm doing any mistake you should guide me. I have become confused over writing this article. There are many references over the internet. Every time I'm trying to make it better but it it is rejected. I have tried to choose best ones this time but the topic is again rejected and even I have been stopped from further editing. This is my first article. It'll be helpful if you help me step by step with your expertise.

Thanks and regards Rohit1976 (talk) 09:08, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit1976 Please do not create a new thread with every post, just edit this existing thread. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:19, 12 July 2025 review of submission by हर्ष कुमार झा

edit

This page not advertising ok. This page is notable person of Harsh Kumar Jha. Harsh Kumar Jha is an indian actor, singer, lyricist and many more occupations. हर्ष कुमार झा (talk) 09:19, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft was wholly promotional and was correctly rejected and then deleted. It seems that you are writing about yourself, this is highly discouraged, please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @हर्ष कुमार झा. A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people, wholly unconnected with the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else.
It follows that writing an article begins with finding reliable independent sources (see WP:42, and then continues with putting aside everything that the writer knows about the subject, and writing a neutral summary of what those sources say. Do you see why writing an wncyclopaedia article about yourself is so difficult? ColinFine (talk) 10:06, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:57, 12 July 2025 review of submission by Projowio

edit

Hello, I am not a native speaker and yes I use AI for translation. help me in writing the article. I am a Russian speaker, and this concept of the model has proven itself well in my homeland, and I would like it to develop worldwide, as it contributes to the development of good economic relations and global peace. here is my short retelling in Russian :"B4B (Business-for-Business, «бизнес для бизнеса») — управленческая концепция и модель взаимодействия между компаниями, в основе которой лежит идея создания взаимовыгодных партнёрских отношений как важного элемента устойчивого развития и роста бизнеса. Компании, применяющие принципы B4B, рассматривают долгосрочное сотрудничество с деловыми партнёрами в качестве одного из ключевых факторов повышения собственной конкурентоспособности. Подобное сотрудничество, как правило, включает технологическое и организационное развитие партнёров, обмен ресурсами, финансовую поддержку, совместную реализацию проектов, интеграцию бизнес-процессов, создание стратегических альянсов и другие формы совместной деятельности. Модель опирается на концепцию «win–win», которая применительно к В4В предполагает, что возникающая синергия способствует росту эффективности и развитию бизнеса всех участников партнёрской сети." Projowio (talk) 09:57, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are unable to write in English without using an AI, you should edit the Russian Wikipedia. AI is not perfect and has certain problems, see WP:LLM. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is already such an article on the Russian Wikipedia. Projowio (talk) 10:05, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. AI should be avoided here, be it for writing articles or communication with us. 331dot (talk) 10:08, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessary to publish it on my behalf, I just want everyone to have knowledge and not necessarily do business like sharks.That's why I'm asking for help. Projowio (talk) 10:10, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't really the place to ask for others to edit your draft for you; the help we offer here is related to the draft submission process itself. You could ask at the more general Help Desk, but the odds that someone will want to do as you ask are low. Your best bet would be to improve your English skills so that you can write a translation yourself.
Also, each language Wikipedia is a separate project, with its own editors and policies. What is acceptable on the Russian Wikipedia is not necessarily acceptable on the English Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 10:15, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the detailed answer, I'll try to fix it. Projowio (talk) 10:21, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Projowio. "I just want everyone to have knowledge and not necessarily do business like sharks." is, perhaps surprisingly, not consistent with the purposes of Wikipedia.
That sounds like either WP:PROMOTION or WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS, neither of which are appropriate. ColinFine (talk) 15:34, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:34, 12 July 2025 review of submission by BlackNightMan

edit

Why was article rejected? What's wrong with article? BlackNightMan (talk) 10:34, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @BlackNightMan. It doesn't appear to have any independent reliable sources.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia.
Remember that a Wikipedia article should be a summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else. Unless you start with those reliable independent publications (see WP:42) your draft will have no chance of being accepted.
You appear to have taken a posed photograph of Astakhov yourself: what is your connection with him? If you have any sort of conflict of interest, you are strongly recommended to disclose this. ColinFine (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:50, 12 July 2025 review of submission by Rohit1976

edit

Dear editors, My article is being rejected over and again with this statement "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia" which I think is not enough to prove that the topic is not sufficiently notable. I think the reviewers should clarify in plain and simple words how this topic is not sufficiently notable for the inclusion in Wikipedia. If one googles Dipak Giri, one also finds him he has many followers on popular social medias and other platforms. This proves that the topic is notable. As regards good sources last time I was told to incorporate only three good sources to prove that the subject is notable. If you check my talk page you'll find. Keeping this in my mind, this time I have tried to incorporate more than three good sources. I have incorporates sources from popular newspaper and journals. These sources are even available on Wikipedia. These source are also unprofitable and have no relation with the subject. For example, Muse India, Journal of Comparative Literature and Aesthetics, Wilderness House Literary Review, The Hans India etc. are reliable sources and unquestionable and they are even available on Wikipedia. Still if you think I need any more improvement it's my humble and earnest request to locate the exact problem where it is. I'll surely try to solve the problem. However, it's not humanly if I'm being stopped from editing my article. I hope you'll take me request in positive way and allow me to work on my article. Rohit1976 (talk) 14:50, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors/reviewers,

My article has been rejected on the ground that it does not meet notability guidelines. Even my right over re-working on it is taken away. Now my situation is that I'm not able to work on it. Helplessly I'm looking forward to your help. In this connection I would like to bring your kind attention on the fact that my article was rejected some six years ago by TheBirdsShedTears who told me to incorporate three good sources to prove that the subject is notable. Keeping in mind what TheBirdsShedTears's once told me I have incorporated more than three good sources this time. Some of the sources incorporated by me this time are also available on Wikipedia, for example, Muse India, The Hans India, Journal of Comparative Literature and Aesthetics, Wilderness House Literary Review etc. These sources are popular journals and newspapers. I hope this time the article will be accepted but opposite to my expectation, it has been rejected and even my right over editing this article has been unjustly snatched away. Helplessly I'm looking forward to your help and proper guidance. Thanks and regards Rohit1976 (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rohit1976: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Your conflict of interest is not absolved by removing content, and repeatedly submitting a draft without making even a token effort to address concerns raised by reviewers generally leads to a rejection. I see claims that lack sources (unacceptable), massive walls of text (unreadable), and a promotional tone throughout (unwanted). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:46, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Better if you give me few examples from the text how they are unreadable and promotional instead of charging me that they lack sources (unacceptable), massive walls of text (unreadable), and a promotional tone throughout (unwanted). It'll help me for further improvement If you give me examples. I hope you'll respond to my humble prayer. Regards Rohit1976 (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rohit1976: Just remember, you asked for this. And I'm going to tear your sources apart as well.
Sources:
Text:
  • (born 7 March, 1984) - Source? (Yes, this does require a source.)
  • [Giri] was born and brought up in Cooch Behar, West Bengal, India. - Source? (Both sources cited here were dismissed above.)
  • He completed his PhD form Raiganj University, West Bengal, India[.] - Source? (You can't cite his own work for this; you'd need a third-party source.)
  • He started his career as a Part Time Lecturer in Cooch Behar College in 2007. - Source?
  • Since his first job as a Part Time Lecturer in Cooch Behar College... - Rambling. This needs to be broken up into discrete sentences, and each and every position mentioned requires a source.
  • The entire "Works" section is a massive wall of text, which makes it very difficult to read. It's incredibly easy for a reader to lose track of where they are in the text of a MWOT.
  • [Giri's] books encompass a wide range of subjects, especially related with Indian roots. - Irrelevant/redundant. 86 it.
  • [Giri's] main area of concern includes women, Dalits, tribes, homosexuals, transgenders & other marginalized people of Indian society. - Source? (Doesn't matter if you cite them elsewhere, you need to cite sources here as well.)
  • Apart from social issues, he has also brought out books of literary criticism, especially on Indian English literature. - Source? (The source cited here was dismissed above.)
  • [Indian English Drama: Themes and Techniques,] with twenty seven chapters includes all the major dramatists of India and their works. - This can be merged with the sentence before it and used to start a new paragraph.
  • As a critic [Giri] has had literary criticism in all possible genres of Indian literature, from poetry to drama, from short story to novel and from native Indian literature to diasporic literature. - Source?
  • [Indian English Poetry: A Critical Evaluation] captures the prominent poetic voices of India. - Editorialising. Attribute it.
  • Among other notable books, New Woman in Indian Literature: From Covert to Overt (2018) studies new woman in Indian literature against the old and conventional image of womanhood in Indian society.[sic] - Editorialising. Attribute it, remove "Among other notable books,".
  • Same Sex Desire in Present India: An Anthology of Literary Texts and Contexts (2019) quests for social validation of homosexual desire in reference to Indian literary texts.[sic] - Editorialising. Attribute it.
  • Woman-Nature Interface: An Ecofeminist Study (2019) glorifies Woman and Nature and seeks parallelism between the two. Add "according to Jernail Singh Anand" (and the source) at the end of the sentence and axe the direct quote from the review.
  • Queer sexualities in Indian Culture : Critical Responses (2020) scrutinizes the queer (LGBTQIA+) space in Indian culture in reference to all possible media of culture available to human world like art, literature and movie.[sic] - Source?
  • Perspectives on Indian Dalit Literature: Critical Responses (2020) deals with the plights and sufferings of Indian Dalits and their movements toward the attainment of mainstream social life. - editorialising. Attribute it.
  • Subaltern Perspectives in Indian Context: Critical Responses (2021) critiques subalterns in Indian context from all possible perspectives- from historical to modern and sexual to social. - editorialising. Attribute it.
  • Gender Perspectives in Indian Context: Critical Responses (2021) critiques against gender stereotypes in Indian society. - editorialising. Attribute it.
  • According to Indian critic P C K Prem... - 86 this sentence; the cite here is better off being used on the previous sentence with attribution to Prem.
  • Both of the awards are effectively unsourced as all their sources have been dismissed above.
  • "List of Major works" needs to be overhauled completely into a bibliography selection showing his most notable works, complete with ISBN/OCLC# and publisher.
Hopefully this is enough for you to chew on. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:15, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) You seem to have a very strong personal investment in this topic, yet you say you have no conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 15:49, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly give me some examples how I seem to you to have a very strong personal investment in this topic. Kindly give some examples so that I'll be careful from next time using such phrases or sentences. Rohit1976 (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most people don't persist with a subject this much, unless they have a connection to the subject matter. 331dot (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This opinion is not logical. I know Dipak Giri by his works only and so interested to write an article on him. Moreover, this is my first article on Wikipedia. So, I'm more interested to publish it. If I succeed to publish it, it will encourage me to write more articles. But unfortunately in my first article, I'm facing problems because I'm not meeting proper guidance and support. You're experiences editors/ reviewers so you should guide me properly instead of discouraging me. Rohit1976 (talk) 16:13, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, one has to read over the subject and collect references to establish the facts. I don't wish my labour to be spoilt so I'm persisting for guidance. Rohit1976 (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Rohit1976. As far as I can see, every single one of your 134 edits to date have been on, or connected with, this one draft.
The chances of you learning enough in that way about how Wikipedia works to successfully create an article, are low. It's like saying "I want to be a builder. I'm going to start building this house, and when something doesn't work I'll pester the volunteer experts until they explain the problem to me in terms that I can understand - they'd better not talk any technicalities about building."
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) 19:19, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm facing problems because I'm not (g)etting proper guidance and support"- that's not it, you are frustrated because we are not telling you what you want to hear. In any event, you're now blocked. 331dot (talk) 08:03, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:14, 12 July 2025 review of submission by CedarsToMaple

edit

Request for Clarification and Reconsideration of Rejected Article Submission – Antoine Tayar

Dear Wikipedia Review Team,

I am writing to respectfully request a reconsideration regarding the declined article submission on Antoine Tayar, a notable Canadian municipal councilor and community leader. I also seek clarification as to why the article is now blocked from resubmission, despite having been written with reliable sources and in alignment with Wikipedia’s notability and verifiability guidelines.

Antoine Tayar was elected as a city councilor in Ville de Mont-Royal, Quebec, in 2021, and in 2024, he received the King Charles III Coronation Medal in recognition of his public service. These are verifiable achievements, documented by reliable news sources such as The Suburban, La Presse, and Gulf News.

The article includes:

Public office held: Elected municipal councilor (2021)

National recognition: Coronation Medal (2024)

Professional roles in major organizations: Coca-Cola, American Chamber of Commerce, Chambre de Commerce et d’Industrie Canada-Liban

Community leadership: Chair of the FCCQ Overregulation Committee; multiple board positions in recognized institutions

While I understand Wikipedia’s high standards for inclusion, I have observed many biographies of public figures with comparable or lesser public engagement who have retained their pages. I would appreciate understanding why this particular article does not meet the threshold, especially when the subject has held elected office and received national honors.

The article avoids promotional tone, is supported by multiple third-party sources, and adheres to Wikipedia’s Biographies of Living Persons policy. I am committed to improving the article further if needed, but I believe a flat rejection and block from resubmission contradict the open and collaborative spirit of Wikipedia.

I kindly request a second review or at least the reinstatement of the ability to resubmit with improvements. Your clarification and guidance would be sincerely appreciated. 


CedarsToMaple (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CedarsToMaple Please do not communicate to us with a AI chatbot like ChatGPT. Councillors rarely meet Wikipedia:Notability (people) and I saw no indication that this person meets that criteria. There are, unfortunately, tens of thousands of articles on Wikipedia of people who do not meet our criteria. We do not wish to add more bad articles. Let me know if you have any questions, but I will not reply if you just send an AI-generated reply to me. qcne (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To add to this good advice, municipal officials do not meet WP:NPOLITICIAN. 331dot (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help with declined draft: Ethics and Privacy in AI-Enhanced Digital Marketing

edit

Hello! I recently submitted a draft titled "Ethics and Privacy in AI-Enhanced Digital Marketing", and it was declined. I would like to understand what specific improvements are needed for it to meet Wikipedia’s standards.

I'm new to Wikipedia editing and would really appreciate any guidance on how to improve the draft—especially regarding notability, tone, or references.

Here is the draft: User:Kellyfromgoi/sandbox

Thank you in advance for your help! — Kellyfromgoi (talk) 17:55, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use an AI to write articles or communicate with us. See WP:LLM. 331dot (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi :@Kellyfromgoi. I rejeced it, not declined it. If you want to try again you need to completely start the draft from scratch without using an AI chatbot. qcne (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Kellyfromgoi. A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several independent reliable sources have (separately) said about the subject, and very little else.
It should not contain any argumentation or conclusions, other than, possibly, summaries of the arguments or conclusions in a single reliable source.
Chatbots (at least, current ones) are unlikely to confine themselves to the sources, (even supposing that they cite real sources, not hallucinations), and they are also unlikely to distinguish good sources (that are reliable, independent, and contain significant coverage about the subject) from bad ones. See WP:42.
I notice that your bot has cited Wikipedia a couple of times: this should almost never be done, as it is not a reliable source. You also need to give proper bibliographic information for the citations from ResearchGate - author, title, date, publication etc. ColinFine (talk) 19:27, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:12, 12 July 2025 review of submission by IndianHistoryLover99

edit

Why is the draft being rejected again and again?

Also some editor Astra Travasso has commented this - "After multiple declines, the subject of this page issued a public relations (PR) release to note his role as "Media Advisor to the Government of India". It is mentioned in the first reference now, https://up18news.com/pm-modi-commends-media-advisor-soumyabrata-senguptas-role-in-indias-north-east/ However, there is no government press release that notes the same. For future reviewers, please note the page history before approving the page."

- This is an extremely uneducated comment on a person who has extensively worked in the North Eastern part of India under hostile conditions, and has been commended by the Prime Minister of the country for the same. He seems to be be quite aware of North East India as he seems to have edited several pages on the topic. But the tone of his language says otherwise.

He should understand that the subject 'Soumyabrata Sengupta' works as an independent media advisor (hence are are no government press releases about him) and he has his own PR team. So, of course he will share press releases to highlight his work, right? Just because a press release coincided with the timing of your edit, he commented such a stupid thing? How is he even allowed to be an editor? IndianHistoryLover99 (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IndianHistoryLover99 I highly suggest you strike out your personal attack on @Astra Travasso immediately, they are inappropriate for Wikipedia.. Please carefully read Wikipedia:No personal attacks.
I have read the draft and it's sources. I see no indication this person meets our criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people). If these are the only sources you have, please abandon this draft for now and edit something else. qcne (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @IndianHistoryLover99. I understand your frustration but since you posted this here for clarification, I thought this needed some explanation even though much was already provided. Also, I do not appreciate you leaving a long comment on my talk page which was unnecessary, especially, "extremely uneducated comment." I do live and work in Northeast India where the subject of this page works "under hostile conditions." So, I do know well enough the state politics and government working of the region. Here is a recap of the events (which I will also post on the talk page of draft), some of which were resolved,
  1. You fail to declare Wikipedia:COI at the start. The question on this comes from your access and posting of photographs of the subject which he uses on his social media pages which may just be a copyright issue. More significantly, you could trace his family lineage to the 11th century, which linking pages of his apparent great-great-grandfather, great-grandfather, grandfather, and father without citing any sources. Here it was important to know WP:INVALIDBIO. Thankfully, these sections were later edited out.
  2. Many people before me flagged the page for lack of significant coverage and/or independent sources right from the first submission. Some of these happened in a matter of days of the submission. Including @Kuru who pointed out to advertorials used twice. I am inclined to see your malafide intention in singling me out for your retribution.
  3. Thank you for admitting that the above mentioned link is a press release and probably issued by the subject himself. Please seeWP:GNG and note that these cannot be viewed as 'Independent of the subject'. While the timing of the release of the press release (after Wikipedia declines) to note nothing "new" your edit, my review, and release of the PR material is too strange. In addition, I could not find any mention of "honorary rank of Major in Indian Army’s Rajput Regiment" granted to him.
  4. The other claim to notability seems to show that the subject occupies the office of "media advisor" of the Government of India as which could also not be proved with independent sources. Only now, you have revised it as an "independent media advisor" further diluting the case for this page. Given how successive governments have viewed the Northeast of India, there are several government events every day organised even by the Indian Army. It is dubious that I could not find any mention even in the passing. Nevertheless, it does not add to the notability.
  5. The book published by the subject is also from a vanity press and/or self-publishing outlet.
  6. Returning to the attributes credited to the subject on the first submission, none could be found on independent sources: "His Excellency," entrepreneur, politician, author, and media advisor.
I rest my case. I promise I will never return to this draft again. Best wishes @IndianHistoryLover99
Thanks @Qcne for going through the draft and checking for the notability. Really appreciate your work and support. Sincerely, Astra Travasso (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:56, 12 July 2025 review of submission by Thelifestyleoftherichandfamous

edit

Please assist me if the article is correct and ready for submission? Thelifestyleoftherichandfamous (talk) 23:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2025_July_12&oldid=1301230075"