🇮🇷 Iran Proxy | https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AFCHD
Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Dec 2025
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


November 30

[edit]

01:30, 30 November 2025 review of submission by Jonmogenson

[edit]

When I submitted a draft for Princia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Princia), I was told there was not enough coverage on Princia, but that "unusually, there may be an option for Kukreja to have an article instead" since there were "about 6 sources". Thus, I submitted a draft article on him (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rushil_Kukreja) and included those 6, plus an additional 16 sources (including 15 independent sources total). However, this article was rejected without any specific comments, so I was wondering why that is and how I could correct it. Jonmogenson (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonmogenson: this draft was declined (not 'rejected', which would mean the end of the road) for insufficient evidence of notability. Please study all the guidance linked to from the decline notice, to understand what sort of sources we need to see. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I do think there were enough (15ish) sources that met this criteria, but maybe they were diluted by the other sources that didn't. Would you recommend I remove the other sources (and corresponding content) and resubmit the article? Jonmogenson (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:13, 30 November 2025 review of submission by Jinhma

[edit]

The article creation was declined for the reason: 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 people).

I need help identifying which sources fail to demonstrate the subject's eligibility for a Wikipedia article, because I see many Vietnamese news sources discussing the person, which i provided in the references section of the draft. Jinhma (talk) 04:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jinhma: that means the sources collectively do not demonstrate notability. There may be one or two sources among the 13 that contribute towards notability, but we typically require 3+ for notability to be established, which the reviewer concluded hasn't been done here.
That long list of 'Further reading' needs to go, either cite those sources as references if they support something in this draft, or else just get rid of them, please. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:58, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:08, 30 November 2025 review of submission by GreeceP

[edit]

My submission was denied, and I want help with editing the articles based on the feedback so it can be accepted. This was the comment: The sources do not support the claims of notability in the article, particularly in the lead. – bradv 17:11, 25 November 2025 (UTC). Does this refer to the first paragraph of the text or is there a wider issue? If I could understand which sources/sentences are problematic I would love to fix it up. Thanks so much :) GreeceP (talk) 07:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GreeceP: yes, the 'lead' is the lead section, ie. the content up to the first section heading. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:23, 30 November 2025 review of submission by Mark Teget

[edit]

First draft was not to the standard. Second draft I am hoping is, but am new to contributing towards Wiki. Any guidance in making sure this draft meets guidelines would be helpful. A pointed question - should I remove anything currently included to make the draft more neutral? A second ask, are the citations that build notoriety good and/or in large enough quantity to be valid? I am a first timer seeking guidance. Thank you! Mark Teget (talk) 08:23, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark Teget: we don't do on-demand reviews here at the help desk, you've resubmitted your draft and will get a review once a reviewer gets around to assessing it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:52, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:34, 30 November 2025 review of submission by ~2025-37302-75

[edit]

hello. Does my article look good now. i did all the edits ~2025-37302-75 (talk) 08:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're Saria116, please log into your account when editing.
Assuming by "my article" you mean Draft:Ahmed Osman Shatila, then the draft has been resubmitted and will be reviewed in due course. I don't want to review it myself again, although I can tell you that the sources almost certainly still don't establish notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:51, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the help. Sorry for any inconvenience Saria116 (talk) 08:53, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:34, 30 November 2025 review of submission by Wiki's Slash

[edit]

Greetings Admins and Members of Articles for Creation,

I am writing to request your review and consideration of the City College of Angeles article, which contains numerous references and citations from local, regional, and national sources. As a local college, this institution is primarily featured in local and regional news. I am asking that this article be published, similar to already approved articles such as Mabalacat City College (MCC), Bacolod City College (BCC), City College of Calapan, Gordon College, and others under the Association of Local Colleges and Universities.

Please consider the City College of Angeles article, as I have put significant effort into finding references and citations to establish its notability. Wiki's Slash (talk) 09:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki's Slash You have submitted it for review and it is pending. Asking for a review does not speed this entirely volunteer driven process, as reviews are conducted in no particular order. Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Purely coincidentally, I've just reviewed, and declined, this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:33, 30 November 2025 review of submission by KirbySoda

[edit]

Need help finding more information for this so it gets accepted, thank you I don't mind it being a stub if there isn't enough info KirbySoda (talk) 12:33, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@KirbySoda: it seems you're trying to do this WP:BACKWARD, first writing the draft, and then looking for sources to support it. What you should do is first research your sources, then summarise what they have said, citing each source against the information it has provided; see WP:GOLDENRULE. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:40, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I technically found the information first in my sources, then I citied them. Some of the information like what the company sells I know from real life experience KirbySoda (talk) 12:50, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@KirbySoda: I'm not sure what to make of "my sources", given that your draft cites precisely one source, the company's own website. We need to see, and more to the point you need to base this draft on, multiple secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject, per WP:NCORP.
Also, your "real life experience" shouldn't come into it at all, the draft must summarise what secondary sources have previously published about this subject, not what you know about it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any easy way to find these sources? I only really have experience with editing articles and not citing sources KirbySoda (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@KirbySoda: well, lazy as I am, I'd probably start with Google (other search engines are available) from the comfort of my easy chair; then maybe move on to some digital newspaper archives and the like; and if I still couldn't find what I wanted, I might hike it to the nearest business reference library or similar and look for some good old-fashioned print sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll work on it KirbySoda (talk) 16:54, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:40, 30 November 2025 review of submission by K. R. T. L. K. Dayananda

[edit]

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you so much for your valuable comments on my Wikipedia page on human NAT10. As you mentioned in your reviewer comment, I'm not a native English speaker; hence, I would be much obliged if you could refine this article in terms of readability and clarity, and then keep it available online for readers to read. Finally, I would appreciate your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely, K. R. T. L. K. Dayananda K. R. T. L. K. Dayananda (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@K. R. T. L. K. Dayananda: you don't need to be a native English speaker (I'm not!), as long as you can read and write the language well enough to be able to make constructive and relatively error-free edits. We don't get involved in co-editing here at the help desk, if you require assistance in that area you may ask eg. at one or both of the WikiProjects tagged on the draft's talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:49, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:46, 30 November 2025 review of submission by Wiki4RAMZY

[edit]

Hi, I'm new here and recently tried to create a page about my grandad, Stephen Ramsey, a scientific glassblower who has alot of notable information about him but was recently rejected due to my mistake of using Ai to help write it, which I realise caused issues with toning or sourcing. I'd really appreciate any advice on how to rewrite the draft (or with help) properly without sounding promotional. Just looking to learn and do this the right way. Thank You! Wiki4RAMZY (talk) 15:46, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TNT is required... next time don't use AI it produces hallucinated sources amongst other problems. Theroadislong (talk) 15:50, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Theroadislong so will I have to start again or would I be able to get help with rewriting it so it's created correctly? Wiki4RAMZY (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have also written in the discussion section of my page to also hopefully get help or assistance on my page. Wiki4RAMZY (talk) 16:30, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Others are unlikely to see your draft talk page post. What specific help are you seeking? 331dot (talk) 16:43, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @331dot, I would like assistance on the creation of my page itself, rewritten as It was rejected due to me using Ai. I have added all the notable information but would like help for resubmission if possible or a review on what needs to be changedor added. Thank you. Wiki4RAMZY (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you have rewritten it and fundamentally changed the draft to address the concerns of reviewers, the first step is to ask the rejecting reviewer to reconsider. 331dot (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback @331dot I have sent a message to the reviewer of my page now just waiting on a response, hopefully they can reconsider. I'd be really grateful as I'd want my grandad to be notable on Wikipedia. Thank you. Wiki4RAMZY (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:55, 30 November 2025 review of submission by JoeProse

[edit]

Hello! I used to have an account a while back but couldn't log in (I remembered the password but it was 2FA'ing to an email address I no longer have access to). I started a new account (JoeProse) and was going to add Dara Vandor to wikipedia and added the subst:submit tag since my account is new.

I was surprised to find the page had attemped to be created in October and was rejected for being too promotional. Since it's been rejected, does that mean that my submission won't be reviewed? Any insight you can give will be helpful.

THANK YOU! ~JoeProse JoeProse (talk) 16:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JoeProse: The draft was declined, not rejected. You can still work on it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:57, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:57, 30 November 2025 review of submission by VernardoLau

[edit]

The company was long existed at the Anime and gaming industry, but currently lacking on reliable sources (for English). VernardoLau (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not need to be in English as long as they are otherwise reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:17, 30 November 2025 review of submission by RichardNZL

[edit]

Hi there, I want to find out if this article on Lizzi Whaley should qualify under WP:Entertainer as she is a media personality with her being TV show judge in on a popular TV show: "The Block" in New Zealand which is produced by Warner Bros. Discovery? RichardNZL (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENTERTAINER requires significant roles in multiple notable productions, so she does not pass under that guideline, leaving aside the issue of whether being a judge for a single season counts as a "significant role". Helpful Raccoon (talk) 23:54, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 1

[edit]

00:11, 1 December 2025 review of submission by Sead Spuzic

[edit]

I am wondering whether it is consistent with Wikimedia principles and interests to reject a draft article that is still in development. I would also like to understand where the argument by the colleague who declined this draft can be disputed. In particular, the statement that the proposed draft offers “a model on aspects of sliding which are already discussed in extensive detail in articles on tribology, friction and others in physics” is, in my view, incorrect. The further statement that “this topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia” is also highly debatable.

Could you please advise how I might have this difference in judgement reviewed by a wider Wikipedia group? Finally, given that I believe the matter remains unresolved, I am unsure why a single colleague has decided that this recent article submission “has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted,” especially as it is still only a draft and the reasons for rejection appear open to question. Sead Spuzic 

Sead Spuzic (talk) 00:11, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Sead Spuzic, the best way to discuss or overturn a rejection is to discuss with the rejecting reviewer. Z E T AC 01:42, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one who submitted the draft for approval, after all, so it's not exactly fair to then complain that it was evaluated, which is the whole purpose of submitting a draft. There are some significant problems; the articles is a rather unfocused essay in the context of an encyclopedia, and seems largely written to support your specific model, rather than even an exhaustive look at the topic. I think this was properly rejected as a standalone article. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:51, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As another reviewer, I agree with the rejection. While most drafts can be resubmitted, this example reads as an textbook chapter rather then an encyclopedic article. The instructional tone, narration and commentary, and essay-like self justification is a far shot from what is expected on Wikipedia. Articles under Wikipedia:Good articles/Mathematics are good examples to encyclopedic explanations of mathematical topics. GGOTCC 04:07, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:44, 1 December 2025 review of submission by 123quincyjeeds

[edit]

I got rejected for a new reason on a draft that was cleaned up from any kind of AI-sounding sentences. Can I get some guidance on where I'm being flagged in my draft? I cleaned up the page so that it wouldn't have any vague statements. Almost every single paragraph is cited by a reliable source. Please help me understand what sections need to be fixed in order for the draft to be accepted. Thank you so much! 123quincyjeeds (talk) 03:44, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 123quincyjeeds. Your draft was declined not rejected. Those are two very different outcomes. Declined drafts can be corrected and resubmitted. Can you describe your disclosed conflict of interest in greater detail? Please describe how you used AI tools to create your draft and the steps that you have taken to ensure that there are no AI hallucinations in your draft. Please read WP:LLM. Cullen328 (talk) 09:08, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I can do that - where should I post that information? On the draft itself? 123quincyjeeds (talk) 17:05, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
123quincyjeeds, your user page is the best place to make detailed disclosures. Cullen328 (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:26, 1 December 2025 review of submission by ~2025-37555-41

[edit]

I need help to upload photos of the artworks. I also need help formatting the article. Thank you. ~2025-37555-41 (talk) 04:26, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Public domain images can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. You can read about the process here.
For formatting, Help:Wikitext and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting are useful resources! You can also see how other articles are structured for inspiration.
Does this help? GGOTCC 06:18, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @~2025-37555-41. (Are you @Ancaruh? Please remember to log in)
Please, please, please do not spend any time or effort in trying to upload artworks at this stage. Images will not affect whether or not your draft is accepted. The inappropriate formatting, and complete lack of citations to reliable sources, will prevent your draft from being accepted. Doing anything at all to the draft other than fixing those problems would be a waste of time. (In fact, I'm pretty sure that the best thing to do with that draft is to read WP:YFA carefully, and start again from the beginning)
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, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 14:37, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:36, 1 December 2025 review of submission by SufyanMN

[edit]

Hello, I submitted an article which declined almost immediately. After the first decline, I removed all the initial references I had and added more credible ones like 2 news articles on the plant published by Arab News, an article on Bloomberg, a vision 2030 government website etc. I would request your guidance on why these articles are not considered reliable and how I can improve my article. The plant is widely covered on secondary sources and I only choose a few to avoid over referencing. Below is a list of articles online 1.https://www.vision2030.gov.sa/en/explore/projects/alkhafji-desalination-plant 2.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0011916425000505 3.https://www.arabnews.com/node/2535111/saudi-arabia 4.https://www.ediweekly.com/saudi-solar-powered-desalination-plant-will-worlds-largest/ 5. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0011916424005356 6.https://www.technologyreview.com/2010/04/08/204900/solar-powered-desalination/ 7.https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-11/abengoa-desalination-plant-to-supply-water-to-500-000#:~:text=With%20works%20including%20power%20lines,meters%20of%20seawater%20each%20day. 8.https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-10-04/swcc-plans-three-solar-powered-desalination-plants-zawya-says 9.https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-03-08/saudi-arabia-s-solar-powered-desalination-plant-to-start-running-in-2013 10.https://www.eco-business.com/news/saudi-arabias-solar-powered-desalination-plant-to-start-running-in-2013/ These are just but a few. There are also several mentions on published books like you can see on this link -https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=ce954c2cf051adce&sxsrf=AE3TifMz5E7r2r7ZQvwZED6tsmJjXDIJKg:1764570778456&q=Al-Khafji+solar+desalination+plant&udm=36&source=lnms&fbs=AIIjpHxU7SXXniUZfeShr2fp4giZ1Y6MJ25_tmWITc7uy4KIeuYzzFkfneXafNx6OMdA4MQUafbvnu2jqORbxlgbMxvgrTi9UaAV7tT2sMyBnokiqIY-ey3pOCX3JrRByMtXThwCSVAjz-2eP9ivrIxzVasqMgv6aY6NWp6iiKKqvtaHe9lvkjJlD5BxpoPjS_xfyCt9mHHrgUa9xG7pelw7lGWKrA-t-Q&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwji_riz4puRAxVdwAIHHYBfKsAQ0pQJegQIVBAB&biw=987&bih=883&dpr=0.9 I will appreciate your guidance on how to improve my article and references before I can resubmit. Thank you all. SufyanMN (talk) 06:36, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SufyanMN, the issue is that there are sources that describe the plant, but they are not obviously independent (Vision 2030) or do not indicate why Al-Khafji solar desalination plant is a notable structure. Many of the references are also about the processes related to desalination in general but don't discuss the plant (this doesn't mean they should be removed - just that it does not establish notability). -- Reconrabbit 18:17, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:17, 1 December 2025 review of submission by SeidaChico

[edit]

hello.

I have created a draft with the name Elena Papandreou and it was declined with this explanation: "Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. Wikipedia guidelines prohibit the use of LLMs to write articles from scratch. In addition, LLM-generated articles usually have multiple quality issues, to include: Promotional tone, editorializing and other words to watch Vague, generic, and speculative statements extrapolated from similar subjects Essay-like writing Hallucinations (plausible-sounding, but false information) and non-existent references Close paraphrasing Please address these issues. The best way is usually to read reliable sources and summarize them, instead of using a large language model. See our help page on large language models."

However, I have carefully checked my sources, what I mention in my draft has been documented with references, some from very reliable sources as The Washington Post, The Gramophone Magazine etc. I am not sure what exactly is wrong with my draft. The language? Any specific section where I should focus more?

Thank you very much in advance for any help you may provide! SeidaChico (talk) 07:17, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft reads as a resume, and not a summary of what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about Papandreou, showing how she meets the special Wikiepdia definition of a notable musician. If you had an AI generate this, please don't, and write in your own words. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for your answer. I will rewrite it, hoping it will get approved. SeidaChico (talk) 09:51, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:39, 1 December 2025 review of submission by ~2025-37510-22

[edit]

Good Day, Please can you kindly advise how many more additional references we need before we resubmit the page for review? ~2025-37510-22 (talk) 11:39, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to log in when posting.
It's not the specific number of references that is the issue, but their quality. You just have basic profiles and product information, not significant coverage in independent reliable sources that shows how the company is a notable company. 331dot (talk) 11:44, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:58, 1 December 2025 review of submission by Tomhay972

[edit]

I am stumped on how I can edit the current submission to meet your requirements. I could specify which trades or publications in the statements made which I have summarized from the statements, but the many references are already doing that work. Since the business folded in the 1987, I cannot see where a promotional tone is bing made. Further, there is no editorializing, statements are backed up with reliable references, very specific, and not speculative. If you might help point out what problems I have, I would be grateful. Tomhay972 (talk) 13:58, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear on how the company is a notable company as Wikipedia defines one. You have just documented what the company did, not summarized independent reliable sources with significant coverage that say what is important/significant/influential about the company. 331dot (talk) 14:07, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The draft is written in a style that is typical for AI tools: it focuses on the fact that sources have written about Music Motions. Of course the draft must have sources, but the draft text should not mainly be about these sources! A typical example is "Publications described Music Motions as..." – humans don't normally write like that (unless they are emulating an AI, which would be bad news!) and definitely not to the extent we see in this draft. --bonadea contributions talk 16:37, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:56, 1 December 2025 review of submission by Kumarmayank2025

[edit]

I was public Kumarmayank2025 (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:56, 1 December 2025 review of submission by Kumarmayank2025

[edit]

I public show biography please immiditaly action Kumarmayank2025 (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not social media. 331dot (talk) 15:10, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:50, 1 December 2025 review of submission by Tracy Scott

[edit]

Hi and thanks for looking at my page. I'm at a loss though. Icebocce is close to Ice Stock but not the same. It uses different devices to play the game and the rules are not even close. Like the difference of pickleball and tennis, like softball and baseball and several other sports that have the same concept but different rules. So I can't see me going on to the Ice Stock Sport page and start making changes to their page, because it's not the same. Can you review my page again? Thanks.

FYI: The sport of Icebocce is being taught at Arrowhead Union High School in Wisconsin where that same ice arena is also home of the Wisconsin Ice Stock Sport club. Two different sports. 

Tracy Scott (talk) 16:50, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:54, 1 December 2025 review of submission by ~2025-37731-70

[edit]

Hello, Thank you for taking the time to review my article. Based on the references, news coverage, and supporting sources I have gathered, I would greatly appreciate any advice or specific recommendations you can share to help ensure the article meets your standards and can be approved for publication. ~2025-37731-70 (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @~2025-37731-70, the draft has been rejected and the reviewers' messages are pretty clear. It's time to move on; this draft will not become an article. Additionally, please don't use AI/LLMs to write drafts or communicate with us. Meadowlark (talk) 04:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Thank you for your respond. Based on references, how can I rewrite and create this article again? should I wait after 30 days to this article completely remove? Hvn85 (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:01, 1 December 2025 review of submission by Hvn85

[edit]

Hello, I would appreciate your assistance in having this article approved, based on the valid references, news sources, and supporting articles on which it is founded. Thank you in advance. Hvn85 (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has been rejected as AI slop it will not be considered further. Theroadislong (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Thank you for your respond. When can I recreate and rewrite new article? Hvn85 (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:57, 1 December 2025 review of submission by Naveenlambawiki

[edit]

Hello. My draft has been fully rewritten with a neutral tone and reliable independent sources. The previous decline is now outdated. Kindly undecline or restore the submission option so that I can resubmit it for review. Thank you. Naveenlambawiki (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was correctly rejected, there is zero indication of the topic passing WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above. Even now the sources do not provide more than brief mention of the subject. -- Reconrabbit 18:05, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:26, 1 December 2025 review of submission by RoJusVA

[edit]

Hi, Recently, my draft has been declined for using LLMs. I would like to know (or specify) what's the problem with this article. The reviewer 'Pythoncoder' has left a review on the draft that said – my article used LLMs to write from scratch. Their comment was vague and confusing to me. I would like to receive some guidance on this manner of subject specifically on this draft. Thank you in advance. RoJusVA (talk) 18:26, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So.....you didn't generate this draft with an LLM? 331dot (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is it seems to the reviewer that you used AI which isn't allowed. You haven't denied using AI which suggests that you did. MmeMaigret (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:46, 1 December 2025 review of submission by BalramBT

[edit]

I am uploading my page in wikipedia with news source and other, how long it would take to accepted? BalramBT (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is blatant promotion and has been deleted. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. Please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:05, 1 December 2025 review of submission by Annavonschm

[edit]

Hi, I have a question about this page. It seems like the English version has been rejected several times. But, Exotec has a page in multiple other languages including French, German, and Japanese, and the language is very similar. Why is it not possible to submit in English?

Thank you for the help. Annavonschm (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Each language Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own editors and policies. What is acceptable on one(if it is) is not necessarily acceptable on another. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others. Here, articles about companies must not just tell of the offerings and activities of the company. 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. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't edited this draft yet, how did you come to be interested in it? 331dot (talk) 20:10, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria for inclusion on English Wikipedia is presumed notability or significant coverage in multiple (more than 2), reliable, independent, secondary sources. So inclusion in other wikis might suggest notability but isn't sufficient. However, the fact that it's got entries on multiple wikis suggests that sig cov may exist. You just have to find it. MmeMaigret (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:45, 1 December 2025 review of submission by Awesomecat713

[edit]

How do I find a source that talks about laundry nets neutrally? — Awesomecat / ✉ / ✎ / 20:45, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Awesomecat I don't know if anyone has ever really waxed lyrical about laundry bags. Also you don't say what all searches you've done. But I suspect that these have different names in different English-speaking countries so my starting point would be the various names as these might allow you to expand your search results. MmeMaigret (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My draft was rejected because all my sources originate from websites which also sell laundry bags (fair point) but I can’t find any websites that are about laundry bags which do not originate from a laundry-related website. Yeah, they aren’t “waxing lyrical” about laundry bags but it’s not a neutral source.
I’ve searched using “laundry bags”, “laundry nets”, “mesh laundry bags”, and “laundry mesh bags”. I’m not so sure about regional variations but I assume it’s similar across countries.
I’ve tried searching in a normal search engine, Google Scholar, and the Wikipedia Library but I found no 3rd party sources about laundry bags. — Awesomecat / ✉ / ✎ / 21:48, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not all types of products merit Wikipedia articles. Something that might merit laundry bags an article is if there are any sources that discuss the history of the product. 331dot (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Awesomecat713. I’ve tried searching in a normal search engine, Google Scholar, and the Wikipedia Library but I found no 3rd party sources about laundry bags is pretty good evidence that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article is possible. ColinFine (talk) 11:16, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:30, 1 December 2025 review of submission by Mmemaigret

[edit]

Background: I worked on this page until I thought it was ready for mainspace. Then requested a technical move as the existing page redirected to a predecessor school, which was granted.
However, overnight the page was moved back to draftspace by User talk:Timtrent.

Review: Could I get a second opinion please. Or a steer as to why the attached sources aren't sufficient SIGCOV IRS.

(Note: The McPherson source reprints 7 articles about the school from newspapers, any of which can be added directly as sources.)

Thanks MmeMaigret (talk) 21:30, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have not shown that this defunct school meets the definition of a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 23:05, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how a bare assertion moves the discussion forward. I’ve indicated that there is SIGCOV in IRS sources. If you believe those sources are insufficient or the existing coverage does not qualify eg WP:CORPTRIV, could you specify which part of WP:ORG is not met and why? MmeMaigret (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source 3 is a blog; blogs are rarely considered reliable sources as they usually lack editorial control and fact checking.
You wrote "The school was known for its liberal arts education and small class sizes" but don't source this statement. Most of the rest of the article just summarizes the routine activities of the school(WP:ORGDEPTH). 331dot (talk) 01:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you why there wasn't SIGCOV and, out of 12 sources, you chose to criticise 1.
Why are you directing me to WP:ORGDEPTH, it's the sources that must consider the organisation in depth, not the article. MmeMaigret (talk) 01:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was sig cov in:
I have also added:
If there are no concerns, I plan to restore it to mainspace. MmeMaigret (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:51, 1 December 2025 review of submission by Miamijane

[edit]

Hi! I'm hoping you can give better guidance on why this article was denied. The reason given was "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed."

I'm not sure how to fix this because the article has 60 footnotes citing to independent, currently available sources and not one to any material produced by the creator or the subject.

This subject's legal career has been profiled in 3 different news publications and is cited to in 4 other wikipedia stories. He is the lawyer for Ghislaine Maxwell, perhaps the nation's most famous current criminal defendant. The article is neutral and includes references to several instances in which he was criticized by judges. Could you help me locate what part of the submission reads in a non-neutral way? That was not my intent. Thank you very much. Jane Whitmor (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miamijane As odd as it may sound, you have too many sources. I haven't examined them all, but they seem to just document specific pieces of information and are not necessarily significant coverage of Mr. Markus. He has certainly had notable clients, but notability is not inherited by association. If his podcast receives attention, that might merit the podcast an article but not necessarily him personally.
It's fine to say that he gets quoted a lot in the media, but there needs to be information as to why that is- why are his views on a legal topic solicited? What is his particular influence on the legal field? Has he been recognized for having novel or unique legal arguments? Things like that.
I would pick your absolute best three sources with significant coverage and start by summarizing those only(or at least primarily).
I see that your username is "Miamijane" and you wrote that Mr. Markus practices in Miami. Are you associated with him? 331dot (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for your feedback. In answer to your question, I am aware of Mr. Markus because he taught a law class I took many years ago. I was trying to write a thorough article referencing the independent sources I found when I googled him. Do other people on here agree that simpler would be better? I'm concerned that if I summarize the articles profiling him (which are largely complementary) and discuss that his views are solicited by the media because he is very well regarded in the criminal defense field, the criticism will be that it reads like an advertisement or promotional entry. Jane Whitmor (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(feel free to obtain other viewpoints, but to respond to you) "He is very well regarded in the criminal defense field"- why is that? Why is he well regarded, according to sources? Is it because he's successful?Obtained large monetary judgements? Are his legal arguments emulated by other attorneys? That's what an article should say. If the sources that you have are complimentary, that's fine as long as you accurately and neutrally summarize what they say. 331dot (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 2

[edit]

02:02, 2 December 2025 review of submission by DigitalPhantoms

[edit]

This article is suspected of having been generated with an LLM. It was originally translated from Russian, so I cannot speak on whether or not it was. However, per Wikipedia rules, I disclosed that I have a COI (see Draft talk:Dystopika) and only made changes to align with US based sources. Due to this am I allowed to change the article significantly to ensure it was not created with an LLM? DigitalPhantoms (talk) 02:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request to undecline Draft:Naveen Lamba

[edit]

Request to undecline Draft:Naveen Lamba

Hello. My draft Draft:Naveen Lamba is currently in declined/STOP state. I have completely rewritten the draft with a neutral tone and added reliable, independent sources.

However, the 'Submit for Review' button is not appearing because the draft remains declined. Kindly undecline the draft or restore the resubmission option so that it can be reviewed again.

Thank you very much. Naveenlambawiki (talk) 02:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Naveenlambawiki. Writing articles about yourself is strongly discouraged, as is immediately resubmitting after a decline without making substantial changes. @Spiderone has provided comments on the draft page. It appears the main reason given for the rejection is that the sources only provide trivial mentions, which is not enough to satisfy the general notability guidelines. 11WB (talk) 04:04, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note, Naveen, that you are currently blocked from editing. Logging into a different account to evade the block is considered a serious offence and this is why you have also been blocked from this account. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:49, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:40, 2 December 2025 review of submission by Syw20250802

[edit]

你好，我看给我的原因是缺少更多的参考资料，是不是可以这样理解，需要多个报道来源，如果只有一家媒体报道，是不可以的 Syw20250802 (talk) 02:40, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Syw20250802: Most of us here cannot read Chinese, and automated translation of same returns unintelligible results due to how context-heavy the language is. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 04:42, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:59, 2 December 2025 review of submission by Bao At CabinZero

[edit]

Hi,

My draft got rejected due to "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia."

I think I've written it in a neutral point of view? Could any please give me some pointers on how to improve my draft to get approved?

Many thanks. Bao At CabinZero (talk) 03:59, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, you have not shown that the company satisfies our notability guidelines for corporations. Press releases/company announcements, routine business reporting of company announcements, listicle entries, brief one-sentence mentions, industry awards, and promo pieces do not count towards notability. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:31, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the prompt answer. I take that mean the sources should be about the company itself (history, founding, milestones, etc.) right?
However, I also saw some brands citied primary sources or listicle?
Does a piece from a newspaper such as TRBusiness counted as a reliable source? What about colloborations? Bao At CabinZero (talk) 07:09, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bao At CabinZero, it depends. You need sources that meet all three criteria in WP:42. Don't use other articles as models for your draft unless they are community-vetted Good Articles - here's the Business ones for you to look at. Meadowlark (talk) 07:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. Honestly I'm kinda overwhelmed, there's just too much of everything. So I'm really appreciate you guy pointing me to these. Bao At CabinZero (talk) 07:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sources should be about the company itself; the company does not inherit notability from coverage about its products.
Primary sources and listicles can be cited sparingly if notability has already been established; see also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, there are many inappropriate articles out of the millions on Wikipedia that nobody has taken the time to check.
Pieces from trade publications are unlikely to count towards notability, since they tend to just regurgitate company announcements. Pieces from business partners are not independent, if that's what you mean by "collaborations". Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed explanation.
If notability has already been established -> Could you please elaborate on this? How does on has an established notability if they haven't been covered on wikipedia/had a Wiki article yet?
By collaborations I mean the company works with, say, a sport organisation to launch a limited edition product. If the piece is from the partner it doesn't count, but if another publisher/newspaper cover this, it will be considered a reliable source yes?
And do pieces in foreign languages acceptable?
How can I tell if a piece is promo or not?
Any advise on writing the article to be less like an advertisement? Bao At CabinZero (talk) 08:06, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bao At CabinZero: I'm going to be blunt here: you're wanting to use Wikipedia to publicise your business, which you're allowed to do to a very limited extent and as long as you play strictly by the rules, but don't expect too much hand-holding along the way because we're all volunteering our time whereas you're (presumably) getting paid to do your job. We're happy to answer specific questions, but you're also expected to put reasonable effort into understanding core concepts like notability and reliable sources by yourself – all our policies and guidelines are publicly available, so feel free to avail yourself of them. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up :) Yes I will be looking into the details more. I'm just trying to wrap my head around how everything would make sense and abide by the guidelines. Bao At CabinZero (talk) 08:37, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request to undecline Draft:Naveen Lamba (Second Request)

[edit]

Request to undecline Draft:Naveen Lamba (Second Request)

Hello. My draft "Draft:Naveen Lamba" is still in declined/STOP status. I have now created a fully neutral and properly referenced Hindi Wikipedia article which establishes notability with independent coverage.

The Hindi Wikipedia article here: https://hi.wikipedia.org/wiki/नवीन_लाम्बा

confirms the subject's public recognition and reliable sources.

Kindly undecline my English draft or restore the “Submit for Review” button so that I can resubmit it properly under AFC.

Thank you. Naveenlambawiki (talk) 05:36, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Naveen Lamba
As your draft was rejected after multiple declined submissions, you need to appeal to the reviewer who rejected it, who is Spiderone. However, I don't see any improvement – the new sources don't help demonstrate notability. Please also see why we strongly discourage writing autobiographies here. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 05:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Naveenlambawiki, multiple people have now told you that the draft is rejected and will stay rejected unless you can significantly improve it with reliable sources. You have not done that. It seems likely you cannot do that because your subject is not notable, and increasing someone's notability is not something you can do in a draft or article. What you can do is keep an eye out for new reliable sources, and if three or more good sources are found you can appeal to the rejecting reviewer. For the moment, you will have to stop working on this draft. If you keep asking after repeatedly being told no and given reasons why not, you run the risk of being blocked for promotion or disruptive editing.
The Hindi Wikipedia is not relevant to the English Wikipedia. Each language's version has different policies and guidelines, and the English Wikipedia is generally considered to be the strictest. Meadowlark (talk) 07:17, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Naveenlambawiki, I did already answer this above. I am unsure why you posted about the exact same thing again... 11WB (talk) 10:09, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked this user as a rather obvious sock of Naveenlambasahb. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:25, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:02, 2 December 2025 review of submission by GTays

[edit]

Hello, I am asking for help because my draft was declined and I would like clarification about the reliability and sufficiency of the sources I added. Could you please review my listed sources and let me know which ones qualify as reliable, independent coverage and which ones do not meet Wikipedia’s standards? I want to revise the draft properly. Thank you. GTays (talk) 08:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GTays: we don't do pre-reviews here at the help desk, you'll get a new review after you resubmit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:19, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing, they'd recieved reviews and removed the decline tags. There was a rejection, too, but I've reverted that. -- asilvering (talk) 12:56, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GTays: I've added a submission button to the top of that new version draft. However, it appears to be identical to the draft that was declined four times, then rejected today, You then requested its speedy deletion a few hours ago, which was granted. Now, half an hour ago, you've recreated the draft. What exactly are you hoping to gain by this? Wikishovel (talk) 22:32, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikishovel, I had already reverted that rejection. I expect what they hope to gain by deleting and starting over is people not edit-warring a rejection back onto their draft. -- asilvering (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:02, 2 December 2025 review of submission by Szabó Bálint Tamás

[edit]

I would like to inquire about the current status of the submitted page and whether any additional information or adjustments are required to facilitate its review and publication. The subject of the article will be undertaking an international trip in the coming weeks, during which an English-language Wikipedia entry would be important given his role as a public figure. Szabó Bálint Tamás (talk) 08:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Szabó Bálint Tamás You have submitted it and it is pending. As noted on the draft, this could take some time as reviewes are conducted in no particular order by volunteers. Wikipedia is not concerned with any outside deadlines you might be under(WP:DEADLINE). Everyone wants their draft reviewed quickly, but we cannot guarantee a speedy review, please be patient.
I see you took a professional image of this man where he posed for you; please disclose your connection to him, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. (if you too are employed by the Hungarian government you are a paid editor) Please see your user talk page for more information. 331dot (talk) 10:17, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Oh, I was not aware that it worked liked that, my bad! I will try to disclose and straighten it out as soon as possible. Thanks for the fast update, have a good day!
Regards, Szabó Bálint Tamás (talk) 14:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:46, 2 December 2025 review of submission by ~2025-37836-44

[edit]

Written by Aura; sorry for the misplaced post. ;

On that page (which I've just deleted), there was the following, which I'm bringing here FWIW:
Got it, thanks for the heads up and the correction, bonadea. My bad for running the first reply through that tool; won't happen again. I’ve taken the instruction to use my own words. I just wanted to make sure the main request for a writer, and the evidence I dropped (CBC, ISRC, Moses Corey video, all that stuff), is still sitting active in the queue for somebody to pick up. Thanks for your time, man.
It wasn't signed, but we can probably guess the authorship from context. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:16, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After some investigation, it appears that the draft was deleted for inactivity. Bonadea has left refund instructions on the user's talk page. Meadowlark (talk) 12:54, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for an Unaffiliated Editor: Anthony Dulong (Musician, IT Expert, Creator)

[edit]

Please use only your own words, not an AI tool, to communicate. --bonadea contributions talk 08:50, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:36, 2 December 2025 review of submission by Ranak Jahan

[edit]

Hello, I need help with my draft. It has been declined several times under “AI-generated writing” concerns, even after multiple rounds of human rewriting and restructuring.

The current version is fully human-written and entirely based on reliable secondary sources. No LLM-generated content remains.

However, the historical AI-decline templates seem to be influencing each new review — resulting in repeat rejections even when the issues have been addressed.

Could an experienced editor please remove the past AI-decline tags so the draft can be evaluated on its current merits?

I would greatly appreciate a fresh look or advice on anything that still seems problematic.

Thank you very much for your time and guidance. Ranak Jahan (talk) 10:36, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ranak Jahan The image of Mr. Lum seems to come from a blog website that does not have an explicit copyright, meaning the image cannot be on Commons(we can't assume the copyright is compatible).
Do you have a connection to him?
The draft just summarizes his work, it doesn't say what is notable about him or his work. The lead says his work has been covered by the media- what do they say about it? What makes his advocacy important? Has it led to policy changes or influenced politicians directly attributable to his advocacy? That's what Wikipedia is interested in. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for taking a look and for the detailed feedback.
Image:
You’re right about the photo. The current image came from an external site without a clear free license, so it should not be on Commons. I will remove it from the draft and won’t re-upload it unless I can get a version that is explicitly released under a Commons-compatible license by Mr. Lum or the photographer.
Connection / COI:
I do have a connection: I’m working with Mr. Lum on a professional project, and I’m trying to follow Wikipedia’s conflict-of-interest guidance by keeping the work in Draft space and asking uninvolved editors to review it. I’m not trying to promote him; I’m just trying to summarize what independent sources have already published.
Notability / impact:
I see your point that the current draft mainly lists roles and projects. I will rework the lead and career sections so they explain why independent sources have written about him, not just what he has done. In particular, I plan to highlight that:
Pacific Business News ran a profile focused on his role coordinating Hawaii’s statewide broadband and digital equity strategy, including device-access programs and work with Hawaiian Hope.<ref name="PBN" />The Honolulu Star-Advertiser “5 Questions” piece treats him as the state’s key broadband strategist and discusses how his work ties into Hawaii’s long-term economic planning.<ref name="5Q" />
StateScoop and Maui News report that the governor’s State of the State address cited the Broadband Hui (which he helped organise) as shaping the state’s post-pandemic digital-economy agenda.<ref>StateScoop</ref><ref>Maui News</ref>
KITV and Hawaii News Now cover him in connection with Hawaii’s first Digital Equity Plan and public outreach around that process.<ref>KITV</ref><ref>HNN</ref>
I’ll use those sources to revise the text so it shows concrete outcomes (policy planning, the Broadband Hui’s role in the governor’s agenda, and the digital-equity plan) rather than just listing his positions. Once I’ve done that, I’d really appreciate if you could take another look and let me know if the notability is clearer.
Thanks again for your help and for pointing me in the right direction. Ranak Jahan (talk) 11:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:53, 2 December 2025 review of submission by Valentina.oliveira

[edit]

Hi! I'm having trouble adding an English version of Miguel Tamen's profile. The Portuguese version, with the same links, has been published. I believe that the sources that i linked are trusty and serious. could you please help? Thank you. Valentina.oliveira (talk) 10:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Valentina.oliveira The Portuguese Wikipedia is a separate project with its own editors and policies, what is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others. It's up to the translator to make sure the topic meets the requirements of the Wikipedia for which they are translating. Please see the messages left by the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 10:57, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Valentina.oliveira. The fact that you think that what you are writing is a "profile" is probably the main part of the problem.
What we want is an encyclopaedia article: 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, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.
Unless you can find several such independent sources, there cannot be an article. (If you can find these, then you should probably throw away anything you already have, and summarise what those sources say). ColinFine (talk) 11:23, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:35, 2 December 2025 review of submission by Misterpotatoman

[edit]

you see, i made a draft called list of articles related to units, and alphabetaomega linked me to notability for list articles, but that didn't help at all because my article is a list of x of y which the page itself say there's no help for, heck you could say that its list of x y of z because of related because list of articles of units isn't the same thing. Misterpotatoman (talk) 12:35, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Misterpotatoman I fixed your header so it links to the draft as intended and not to a nonexistent page entitled "why does my list article need more references?".
See WP:NLIST. You must show that this grouping is itself a notable topic through coverage in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 13:52, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:03, 2 December 2025 review of submission by Kampalka

[edit]

Hi, I was working on Draft:Cleeng, and it was declined with feedback that it reads like an advertisement and needs independent sources. I would really appreciate a few pointers please, as I followed the structure of other company listings, added "negative" info like the company laying off 25% of the team and losing their biggest client. I also added 20+ independent references (not company blog/press releases). Could you clarify what exactly might be the issue or what I should focus on improving? I’d really appreciate any pointers before I resubmit. Thanks so much! Kampalka (talk) 14:03, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Cleeng
@Kampalka: approx half your sources are user-generated (LinkedIn, YouTube, blogs), which are not considered reliable. Most of the rest are just routine business reporting (partnership announcements etc.). None of these contribute anything towards notability per WP:NCORP. In fact, with a quick scan of the sources I couldn't immediately find any that do contribute.
And just to explain, what makes this inherently promotional is that it is you telling the world about this business (your employer or client, as the case may be), whereas we want to see what unrelated third parties, and specifically reliable and independent secondary sources, have said about it and what in their view makes it worthy of note. Your job is merely to summarise their published coverage. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:50, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:26, 2 December 2025 review of submission by Lacerda1

[edit]

My draft was rejected with the observation that a previous discussion on notoriety is still relevant. However, since that discussion took place, several new independent and reliable sources have been published, offering significant coverage on the subject. I would like guidance on the appropriate next step: should I request a Deletion Review (DRV) to reopen the discussion on notoriety, or is there another recommended process for cases where substantial new sources exist? Lacerda1 (talk) 15:26, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lacerda1: I assume these new sources you mention have been added to this draft before its most recent review? In which case, they clearly did not establish notability (which presumably is what you refer to as 'notoriety') because the draft was subsequently rejected. If you were to open a deletion review case on this basis, it would almost certainly be dismissed for that reason. I'd say this is very much starting to look like the proverbial dead horse, and you should probably drop the stick and stop flogging it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification and for taking the time to review my question.
I understand your point regarding the previous AfD outcome and the likelihood of a DRV being dismissed at this moment.
I will take your advice and avoid pursuing a deletion review for now.
Instead, I will focus on gathering stronger, more in-depth coverage from additional independent sources before attempting any further steps.
I appreciate your guidance and will proceed with caution. Thank you. Lacerda1 (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:36, 2 December 2025 review of submission by Kapparently

[edit]

Hello,

I submitted Draft:Collier Prize for State Government Accountability and understand it was declined for lacking sufficiently “in-depth, reliable, independent” sources per the last reviewer's comments. 

I have since improved the draft by adding multiple citations from reputable, independent publications (e.g., major news outlets). Specifically: coverage in USA TODAY and The Hollywood Reporter discussing the Prize publicly, awards announced by established journalism-industry press (e.g., Editor & Publisher), examples of winners with national-level publications (e.g., The Los Angeles Times, The Miami Herald, ProPublica) that won the Prize over several years. 

I believe these show that the Prize meets the notability guideline for awards that it has earned significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources, over time. 

Could a reviewer please take another look? I hope the additional references address the concerns, and I’m open to feedback or further edits if needed.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Kapparently (talk) 15:36, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kapparently: you will get another assessment after you resubmit your draft.
Just bear in mind that we need to see reliable and independent secondary sources discussing the prize as a concept, not merely reporting who has been awarded it, etc. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thank you! Kapparently (talk) 16:35, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:22, 2 December 2025 review of submission by ~2025-37947-48

[edit]

What else is required to create this page? ~2025-37947-48 (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to show that this person is notable according to the WP:GNG guideline. That requires multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent, which have provided significant coverage directly of him. Now this draft cites several primary sources, and the few secondary ones I checked don't seem to mention him.
Alternatively, if he manages to get elected into the US Senate, that would qualify him automatically under WP:NPOL. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:56, 2 December 2025 review of submission by DrumsForFun

[edit]

I have been working on this article, and I'm not sure how to update/fix the AI issues they are describing. I'm human, and everything I've written is real.

I've also been accused of changing a timestamp. Why would I do that? I am new to editing a wiki page, and it may be above my head without some assistance. Thank you in advance. DrumsForFun (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DrumsForFun: I've no idea why you would change the timestamp, but you did: Special:Diff/1325205273. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing that what makes this look AI-generated are those multiple statements along the lines of "Publication X covered this subject", which is one of the hallmarks of LLM: it doesn't summarise what the publication has said, it just says it has found such coverage. Whether that was AI or you, we don't want a list of media outlets or publications where this person has been featured or mentioned, we want you to summarise what such outlets or publications have said about him and what in their opinion makes him worthy of note. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this! I thought that you wanted me to list the publications and what they covered. I will work on it, and I hope you all can be patient with a newbie like me until I can figure this out.
As for the timestamp issue, I did not change anything and wouldn't. How would this benefit me? I apologize if I did it by accident, but again, I don't believe I did it. DrumsForFun (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DoubleGrazing,
I tried to correct things with the info you provided. Please let me know any comments/critiques so I can improve the quality of my article and of Wikipedia. Thank you! DrumsForFun (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:31, 2 December 2025 review of submission by Sheila Hernandez1209

[edit]

I submitted my article and have mainly primary sources, there is limited information abour Dr. Rieske online, hence the limitied sources, one of the main ones being his obituary... I dont know why my draft was not accepted Sheila Hernandez1209 (talk) 19:31, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sheila Hernandez1209. You used ChatGPT to write your draft. Please note this is not permitted. You will need to re-write this from scratch. qcne (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sheila Hernandez1209, we also do not want primary sources - information about the kind of sources you need can be found in WP:42. If there are only limited sources, it may be that Rieske does not qualify for a Wikipedia article. However, you don't need to only use online sources: offline is fine (eg newspapers, books) and, if relevant, the sources do not need to be in English (although English sources are preferred). You just need to include enough information to ensure someone else can find the source you're using. Meadowlark (talk) 03:42, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Sheila Hernandez1209. The applicable notability guideline is NACADEMIC. Please read that carefully and structure your draft so that Rieske's compliance with that guideline is clear. I suggest that you read some Good articles about biomedical researchers to see how such a biography should be structured. Your reference to an obituary is of no value because it lacks basic bibliographic information such as the name of the publication that printed it. I recommend that you remove the "family lore" content unless you can properly cite a reliable source. Cullen328 (talk) 04:51, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
His discovery of the Rieske protein is a strong claim of notability. Cullen328 (talk) 04:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I did think of removing the family aspect, as all the info I have is from his obituary.
I will try to focus more on his research, as you can see his contributions to biochemistry are truly influential and I still strongly believe he should at least have a page ~2025-38073-78 (talk) 05:27, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:34, 2 December 2025 review of submission by CharlieD1955

[edit]

Hello, and thank you for taking the time to review my draft.

I’d like to better understand the specific improvements needed for Draft:Carl Allocco to meet Wikipedia’s notability and sourcing guidelines. I’ve included the strongest independent, third-party coverage I could locate, but I may be missing what is considered sufficient under WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO.

If you could clarify the following, it would help me revise the draft appropriately: 1. Which parts of the article require additional independent, secondary sources? (I want to ensure every major claim is backed by reliable, published coverage.) 2. Are there particular sections that appear promotional or non-neutral? I’m happy to adjust tone, remove content, or rewrite areas that come across as self-aggrandizing. 3. Would older print publications or archived local/industry press be acceptable, as long as they are verifiable and from reliable sources?

My goal is simply to meet Wikipedia’s content and sourcing standards. Any specific guidance on what the draft currently lacks, or examples of the types of sources needed, would be extremely helpful.

Thank you again for your time and consideration.

Best regards, Carl CharlieD1955 (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The personal section is unsourced.
It's not clear to me how he meets either WP:BAND or WP:NWRITER. The awards nominations/finalist doesn't contribute to notability as those don't have articles themselves(like Grammy Award). 331dot (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:56, 2 December 2025 review of submission by J.B.Franklin

[edit]

I included several from reliable news sites and some from other independent sites. I am struggling with what makes this article less notable or credible than this published article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dinner_Detective. Can you give me specifics on what disqualifies my draft? Thank you! J.B.Franklin (talk) 22:56, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@J.B.Franklin The issue is not as you state. Your references do not demonstrate nor verify notability. One doesn;t even mention Jest, others are interviews with Jest personnel, others announcements, others are churnalism
Ideally you wood have asked the declining reviewer first, but, since you are here, I have answered you.
Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @J.B.Franklin. Thank you for pointing us at the inadequate article "The Dinner Detective", which has now been deleted (not by me!) ColinFine (talk) 11:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:12, 2 December 2025 review of submission by Bcosentino

[edit]

Hi there. I am getting an error message for one of my sources. Here is the one I am referencing: 

Devona, John; Contributor, Community (2015-09-08). "How One Woman Changed Western Springs". Western Springs, IL Patch. Retrieved 2025-11-18.  {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help): |last2= has generic name (help)

Could I get some guidance on how to fix this? Devona is the author's last name.

Thank you! Bcosentino (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When you use a template, Bcosentino, please put correct elements in the parameters. I removed some of the oddities you places in two different references. The history tab will show oyu what I have done. Parameter names give really big clue There is no place for a street address in the templates oyu have used. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bcosentino As a self declared paid editor you are expected to use the reward you receive to learn how to use the tools. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. My apologies - I am a paid editor as in I am an employee of the theatre. However, I am not an expert by any means. I appreciate all the help I have received. Bcosentino (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bcosentino, paid editors are expected to be fully competent instead of relying on unpaid volunteer editors to train them. Cullen328 (talk) 05:10, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Thank you for your kind reply. I appreciate all the help while I am learning. ~2025-38070-31 (talk) 05:16, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please log in to edit. Cullen328 (talk) 05:18, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Cullen328. Please know that I appreciate all of your assistance as I learn to do this properly. I hope you have a good evening. Bcosentino (talk) 05:33, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Bcosentino. 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.
That advice applies if anything more strongly to paid editors, because by definition they have a conflict of interest, and so are likely to find writing an article even harder. ColinFine (talk) 11:22, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is great advice @Cullen328. I truly do appreciate all of the help, including the advice regarding knowing the ins and outs of Wikipedia more thoroughly. Thank you and have a good rest of the evening. Bcosentino (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 3

[edit]

04:31, 3 December 2025 review of submission by Religioniscool

[edit]

I've edited it to take out the water father link (which I do agree was a bit unnecessary) and added a small section about some things I found out a little bit ago. Religioniscool (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What can i add to make this more factual? Religioniscool (talk) 04:32, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Religioniscool, you have provided no evidence that this supposed deity is or was actually worshipped by any group of Native Americans or studied by scholars of religion. Accordingly, your draft has been rejected. Cullen328 (talk) 05:07, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:51, 3 December 2025 review of submission by SharmisthaSau

[edit]

I require assistance in rewriting this article to be accepted in AFC. I am new to contribute and learning the ways but can I get a sample of how to rewrite this? SharmisthaSau (talk) 05:51, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SharmisthaSau. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Examples of dependent coverage. Remove every such dependent reference from your draft, as well as the content supported by those references. Cullen328 (talk) 06:40, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @SharmisthaSau. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 11:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:12, 3 December 2025 review of submission by Patricija17

[edit]

I provided all the in-depth, reliable and objective sources, but the page is still not approved. Why are the provided sources not sufficient? Patricija17 (talk) 07:12, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Patricija17 Your draft has zero independent sources. Your sources are all either written by the company or regurgitated versions of press releases. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 09:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:17, 3 December 2025 review of submission by Autumn astronomer

[edit]

I'm looking for advice on how to improve this submission given that it was flagged as potentially AI. Needless to say I didn't write it with AI, but the info box says there's usually numerous issues with drafts that get this flag, so I want to address those.

I thought I was pretty careful avoiding a promotional or overly biased tone, especially considering a lot of the sources are articles covering various awards she won, so I had to reword all the information from those and focus on the facts. I do see that bullet points in general are suspicious, but other biography articles I checked use bullet points for the Awards section. What are the best practices here? It's only my second article drafted from scratch so I still have a lot to learn.

Thanks! Autumn astronomer (talk) 08:17, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:46, 3 December 2025 review of submission by Lucreziamini

[edit]

ear Wikipedia contributors and community members,

I am reaching out with respect and appreciation for the work you do every day in collecting, verifying, and sharing free knowledge.

I would like to ask for your help in creating and structuring the article about Eterno Ferenc Venturelli, a political figure associated with the Lega party. His public activity and political career deserve—if they meet Wikipedia’s notability and verifiability standards—to be documented clearly, neutrally, and with reliable sources.

For those interested in gathering more materials to write or improve the article, you can also find content, statements, and official updates on his social media profiles:

Instagram: officialeterno

TikTok: officialeterno Lucreziamini (talk) 08:46, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucreziamini: we don't get involved in co-authoring drafts; you write, we review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:57, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lucreziamini Information on social media generally is not acceptable, as social media is user-generated without editorial oversight.
Please disclose your connection to him, since you took his picture; see WP:COI and WP:PAID.
We don't really do co-editing here at this help desk. 331dot (talk) 08:57, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am a photographer for the Lega
, Emilia-Romagna regional section, Italy. I have no personal connection with him, but I am promoting him since he ran for city council. He has a large following on social media, on TikTok and Instagram. He started a project called 'Flag Project,' where he goes around giving away the Italian flag and shows how, in his view, the left rejects the Italian flag. Lucreziamini (talk) 09:02, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lucreziamini: you should not be promoting him or anything else on Wikipedia. You may write about him in a neutral, non-promotional manner, but even then you must disclose your conflict of interest (COI); I have just posted a message on your talk page with instructions.
Whether this person has a large social media following is not relevant. We assess a subject's notability, and decide on that basis whether an article is warranted. For national-level elected politicians the notability guideline is WP:NPOL; us mere mortals need instead to satisfy the general WP:GNG guideline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:55, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Know that the English Wikipedia has different policies from the Italian Wikipedia- what is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others. If your content would be acceptable on the Italian Wikipedia, you should focus your efforts there. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks anyway. Lucreziamini (talk) 10:21, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:23, 3 December 2025 review of submission by Satheeshckr

[edit]

Why dont this page be published when she has acted in a lead role for a big banner Satheeshckr (talk) 10:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Satheeshckr: appearing in one film does not automatically make someone notable. Besides, this draft is very poorly referenced.
What is your relationship with the subject? You've taken a portrait of her, so you must have been at fairly close quarters. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:24, 3 December 2025 review of submission by Jaredryandloneria

[edit]

Please help me to make Claire Dodgson's Wikipedia pages meet Wikipedia rules and I need help with source and other. Thank you Winter (talk) 11:24, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jaredryandloneria: I just left a note on your user talk page, at the end of this section, about this draft. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 11:32, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Jaredryandloneria.
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, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.
Since you at present do not have a single source that is both independent and contains significant coverage of Dodgson (see WP:42), your draft therefore does absolutely nothing to establish that Dodgson meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability ColinFine (talk) 14:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:13, 3 December 2025 review of submission by R2025kt

[edit]

Should this article go through? I followed the guidelines about how to make a new article and I did not choose living people this time because I chose other as a means to steer away from living people category to not cause any disruptions. This guy is an animal naturalist along with being a retired host on WGAL. Can you help me with this please? R2025kt (talk) 12:13, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, as you have submitted it five times without addressing the fundamental problem of the lack of sources which meet all the criteria in WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 15:02, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This time and I could be wrong, but I addressed the fundamental problem on the talk page of Draft:Jack Hubley and now it's ready for submission. Oh and I already removed that extra citation from newspapers.com that said Lititz Records. R2025kt (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@R2025kt: You said I did not choose living people this time. But surely Jack Hubley is alive? --bonadea contributions talk 15:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he is R2025kt (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought if I left off living people category while I'm creating a new article and choose Other when completing it, it would hopefully prove I'm trustworthy because I thought if I steered away from BLPs, it would be something else. R2025kt (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How very trust-inspiring and non-disruptive. Wikishovel (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. R2025kt (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@R2025kt, I just want to check. You thought that if you lied about your subject, that would show you're trustworthy? Why would it be less disruptive if you chose the wrong category? Meadowlark (talk) 04:52, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No I wasn't lying about it. I was going in a different direction by steering away from BLPs due to my being blocked from editing. R2025kt (talk) 10:29, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@R2025kt: Draft:Jack_Hubley is a BLP, a biography of a living person. It doesn't become a BLP by having that category attached to it, rather it should have that category attached because of its topic. --bonadea contributions talk 10:42, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then I guess a retired person is a living person. The STOP block will probably have to be lifted so I can select Living people category unless anyone else has any objections. R2025kt (talk) 14:36, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:22, 3 December 2025 review of submission by Tesfalem Atnafu

[edit]

Kindly looking for further clarification and advice on the rejected paper for Wiki publication.

Your contribution will have immense value and be appreciated ahead. Best regards! Tesfalem Atnafu (talk) 13:22, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tesfalem Atnafu: there isn't much to clarify, the draft has been rejected which means the end of the road. There was also a recent AfD discussion which resulted in unanimous decision to delete an earlier version. Until such time as sufficient coverage has been published about this institution in reliable and independent secondary sources, there is no point in pursuing this further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:36, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:11, 3 December 2025 review of submission by Tomhay972

[edit]

I'm not sure what I'm missing. I provided a Source Assessment Table showing how each citation met your criteria. Please advise what you need further. Tomhay972 (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomhay972: Considering Variety seems to have digitised a lot of its older articles, I find it extremely odd I can't find any of the sources you cite from it on their website. (strings: ["first run screens"], [music motions]) The latter string also fails to find anything responsive in the 1984-5 window, with or without quotation marks. I have to assume, barring someone with access to the physical issues other than yourself verifying the sources, that the references are hallucinated. The Cashbox reference is a mere mention and does not discuss Music Motions at any length (we do not do notability-by-osmosis; h/t to the Internet Archive). I can't speak to the other offline sources, but unless they are in-depth discussion of Music Motions specifically they aren't going to be useful sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:00, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:41, 3 December 2025 review of submission by Jclayc

[edit]

Can you help me understand what advertisement-like language remains here? (and don't the good references/cites from WSJ, etc. provide the notability required?) Jclayc (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's an advertisement because it just describes the offerings of the company and its routine business activities, it does not summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company and what makes it a notable company as Wikipedia defines one.
The vast majority of companies on Earth(and most people) do not merit Wikipedia articles. 331dot (talk) 16:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:42, 3 December 2025 review of submission by Schoellt

[edit]

Hi y'all, unfortunately, my draft wasn't approved. I'd really like to publish the entry though, can you please help me pinpoint the exact issues? I'd like to change them and get approved. Here is the reasoning:

"This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies."

1) I used the exact same structure as Lokalise, do you know what they do differently? Lokalise

2) Can you pinpoint which sources I should exclude/which sources I should exchange so that they are considered independent, reliable, published sources?

Thanks in advance, really appreciate your help! Schoellt (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Schoellt I fixed your link, the whole url is not needed.
You have based your draft on another poorly written article. It is actually a poor idea to use any random article as a model, as it too could be inappropriate and just not yet addressed by a volunteer. This is why each article or draft is judged on its own merits and not based on the presence of other articles, see other stuff exists.
If you work for this company, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID.
You did a nice job telling about the activities and offerings of the company, but that is not what we are looking for. You need to 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. Press releases and the reporting of routine activities does not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles or featured articles, which have received community vetting. 331dot (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:15, 3 December 2025 review of submission by ~2025-38294-18

[edit]

I'm not sure why this article was rejected. It has quite a few third-party references showing Marc Resteghini's involvement as an executive and well-known producer of past, current, and future mainstream television programs, as well as his involvement in the community (sitting on boards/giving talks at industry events/etc.). Please advise. ~2025-38294-18 (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-38294-18 no Declined Perhaps you understand better after a further decline. "Well known" does not equate to "notable" and quantity of references does not trump quality. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:30, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:59, 3 December 2025 review of submission by Vinceren

[edit]

Hi! I recently submitted an article through AfC and it got accepted and marked as Start grade. The editing suggestions on the grading scheme, as far as I can tell, comprise three main areas: sourcing, style, and content. I understand that it doesn't have that much content, but are there problems with the sourcing and style?

Also, I wanted to find an exemplary article about a similar person on Wikipedia, but I am relatively new to Wikipedia editing and I'm not sure how to search for such a thing. Please advise. Thank you for your time. Vinceren (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since your draft was accepted, you may now use the general Help Desk to ask questions about it.
The best articles are those that are Featured Articles; good articles are the next step down. 331dot (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 4

[edit]

00:32, 4 December 2025 review of submission by Misterpotatoman

[edit]

why can my page not exist because it's already in international system of units when there's already articles that exist on other pages like a cary Huang in BFDI and cary Huang still gets to have a article? Misterpotatoman (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!
No one "gets to" have an article; instead, users write about topics with information that can be cited to reliable sources. Your current draft is already included in the encyclopedia. International System of Quantities both includes all of the information in your draft while adding substantial amounts of context and coverage. I am also unsure what the second part of your question is asking. GGOTCC 04:54, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

00:33, 4 December 2025 review of submission by SRoss25

[edit]

Article rejected Hello, my article was rejected and I would like to know what I can do to get it approved. SRoss25 (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SRoss25 I fixed your header so it links to the draft as intended and not ro a nonexistent page entitled "Article rejected".
Your draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
The draft is poorly sourced and shows no indication as to how this person meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. 331dot (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for the clarification. SRoss25 (talk) 00:53, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:06, 4 December 2025 review of submission by ~2025-38122-85

[edit]

Please check this article. he is notable director in Malayalam cinema. 

~2025-38122-85 (talk) 04:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Account is almost certainly a sockpuppet of Rydex64. Worth reporting? GGOTCC 04:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:44, 4 December 2025 review of submission by MgaLib

[edit]

The page has been declined several times with the same response even after updates have been made including secondary reliable sources. I have also added a comment referencing other pages that are similar which have a lot less references that have been approved. How do I make sure the page gets approved and actually reviewed? MgaLib (talk) 07:44, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MgaLib: what secondary sources? The sources up to and including #14 are primary, and mostly close to the subject. From #15 onwards they're just cited against individual names in the 'Notable Alumni', where those sources are unlikely to contribute towards the notability of this outfit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:12, 4 December 2025 review of submission by Joy OSalami

[edit]

I wrote an article which was accepted and then merged with a prior one. The two articles may have the same name but are of two different people. i want the merger undone. Joy OSalami (talk) 10:12, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is no longer an issue with a draft, please first speak with the user that performed the merge, Guninvalid. 331dot (talk) 10:15, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:35, 4 December 2025 review of submission by ShalhoubM

[edit]

The article has been declined multiple time and each time I would try and edit according to the comments provided with no luck of passing the review section. I need help if possible to make the article ready for publishing. ShalhoubM (talk) 11:35, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @ShalhoubM.
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, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.
Just looking at your list of citations, only one of them even mentions Yu in its title: most of the rest seem to be WP:CORPTRIV about Lenovo, not about Yu. (I can't read the Chinese ones, so it's possible these are better).
Notability is not inherited: an article about Yu is possible only if there are sources which have significant coverage of Yu, as well as being reliably published and independent of Yu and of Denovo. ColinFine (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:47, 4 December 2025 review of submission by Umi951

[edit]

Need to resubmit with sources Umi951 (talk) 11:47, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may make any changes you wish, then you should first appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly and ask them to reconsider the rejection.
Please disclose your relationship to this institution, per WP:COI and WP:PAID, as you claim to have personally created and personally own the copyright to its logo. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What you need is to submit with reliable independent sources with significant coverage of the institute (see WP:42) At present, not one of your sources is independent.
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, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source. ColinFine (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:11, 4 December 2025 review of submission by Ragnarvrollo

[edit]

Hello altruistic people, Recently I've created the page of Draft:École de guerre, and submitted for review after adding multiple citations. But unfortunately it got declined. So I hope experienced Wikipedians may help me in this regard, by adding suitable citations. Thank you. Ragnarvrollo (talk) 12:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ragnarvrollo: we don't get involved in co-editing here at the help desk, or in looking for sources; those are squarely your responsibilities. What I can tell you is that this draft only cites primary sources, which cannot establish notability according to the WP:ORG guideline. You need to find secondary sources that meet the WP:GNG standard, and summarise what they have said about this institution. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:16, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:18, 4 December 2025 review of submission by Amenemhat3

[edit]

Hi I did make the skeleton of the article with Gemini (especially all the referencing links code), but I have then written the sentences myself based on the skeleton...

What else can I do ? Amenemhat3 (talk) 14:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Amenemhat3: you need to support the information throughout with inline citations to reliable sources, there is currently far too much unsupported content.
Then you need to show that this person is notable, either per WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST.
And don't use AI, it doesn't know what it's doing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:43, 4 December 2025 review of submission by Sibmarlow

[edit]

Hi, I am a new editor, and still learning the ropes. The previous incomplete draft of this new page was not meant for review - and was hence rejected by someone. The page is now complete; please confirm it is fully relevant now. Many thanks. Sibyl Sibmarlow (talk) 14:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sibmarlow: okay, I've undone the rejection ( Courtesy ping: Bobby Cohn) so this will get a new review. Don't submit a draft until it's ready, there is no benefit in submitting too early. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to do a good BEFORE if I reject on notability and I have to say I'm pretty sure I would stand by my previous decision but I won't quarrel with the resubmission @DoubleGrazing. Though my preference is to usually leave the rejection in the AfC history and a comment explaining the endorsement of the resubmission over the prior decision.
It is possible that as an author, the subject is not yet notable and an article on them would be too soon--I don't want you to feel like you're spinning in circles putting in work if the end result won't produce an article. @Sibmarlow, your task is to demonstrate notability for AfC reviewers. Citations like "Genealogy of van Grevenstein in the 16th and 17th century" and LinkedIn (see WP:RSPLINKEDIN) aren't of any use in this regard. Instead, look at WP:NBIO and WP:NAUTHOR and find citations that support a claim of notability demonstrated by any of those criteria. Then, once you've found those citations, write about what they say and cite to them.
ColineFine below has left a lot of useful links in this regard. I will also leave a pro forma welcome message on your talk page that has some other useful links for getting started.
All the best, Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm practising being unBITEY towards new editors. I seldom succeed, but I try, it builds character. And Christmas is coming... :) DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:45, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
)) Sibmarlow (talk) 08:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bobby, thank you for having taken the time to answer :). Your remarks are very useful and duly noted. Sibyl Sibmarlow (talk) 08:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Sibmarlow, and welcome to Wikipedia.
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, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.
Start with the independent sources, summarise what they say, and then stop.
Your citations would be very very much more useful if they gave page numbers, and URLs if they happen to be available on-line.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Colin, thanks for the comments and input. I understand better now. I thought that I was being quite factual, but take your thoughts in my stride. Sibyl Sibmarlow (talk) 08:25, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:12, 4 December 2025 review of submission by Cullimorer

[edit]

Hi there,

I am trying really hard to get this page added and I keep getting this "not enough coverage" feedback. This person is a co-creator of a Bafta award winning TV show with plenty of references to highlight this. It's a huge TV show for the BBC and has plenty of coverage in news articles that I've supplied. I have no idea what else I need to provide further coverage - please could you assist me?

Thanks, Robin Cullimorer (talk) 15:12, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Cullimorer.
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, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.
I haven't looked at your sources, but judging from their titles and publication, I doubt whether a single one of them is both independent of Hughes, and contains significant coverage of Hughes (as opposed to things he has worked on). I recommend you review each of your sources according to all the criteria of WP:42. Unless you have at least three sources which meet all of them, you should probably give this up as doomed.
Note that notability is not inherited: A notable creator can create non-notable works, and vice versa. ColinFine (talk) 15:34, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:01, 4 December 2025 review of submission by Muhammad.anas.siddiqui86

[edit]

I need to understand the reason for rejection and how can it be fixed Muhammad.anas.siddiqui86 (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad.anas.siddiqui86 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.
Do you have a connection to this man? (as you took a picture of him) 331dot (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know him personally Muhammad.anas.siddiqui86 (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should formally disclose a conflict of interest, please see WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the reviewer said, "To meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for authors, we generally need at least two books that have received at least two professional reviews each. Are there any more reviews of Junaidi's books that you could include in this draft?" 331dot (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:40, 4 December 2025 review of submission by 123quincyjeeds

[edit]

My submission was rejected for using AI, but I only used it to ask ChatGPT how to make a sentence flow better. It's not like the entire thing was AI generated. I'm super frustrated because the reasons keep changing for why the article isn't getting approved. I have credible sources, the information is neutral, and I've disclosed everything regarding my affiliation with the club. Can I please get some help? 123quincyjeeds (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't use AI at all, please. Write it in your own words. We strive to be a human written project and try to resist AI taking over the world.
The drafy says "Independent news outlets including the Dallas Express, the Fort Worth Report, the Houston Chronicle, Spectrum News, and Politico have reported on the organization's activities and public statements"; the mere reporting of activities and of its statements doesn't contribute to notability. Has your group had a particular influence on voters in Texas or on public policy or the regular GOP apparatus either in Texas or nationally? (like Gov. Abbott having been a member and saying his time with the group profoundly influencedhim, as an example?) Some impact beyond just public statements and activities? 331dot (talk) 17:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you rewrite it in your own words, go back to the rejecting reviewer and ask them to reconsider. 331dot (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:24, 4 December 2025 review of submission by Sannanyden

[edit]

Resuest for review of my draft Hi! I hope you’re doing well. My draft has been waiting for review for quite a long time and hasn’t received any feedback yet. I have improved the article based on Wikipedia’s guidelines, added reliable sources, and ensured the tone is neutral and non-promotional. Here is the draft link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Mahyar_tabadkani Could someone please take a look at it and let me know if anything else is needed? Thank you very much for your time and help! Sannanyden (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was declined on November 15 for being poorly sourced, so it has already been reviewed. There's little about the person, and you've only sourced it with a list of PDFs of results. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sannanyden I fixed your header so it links to your draft as intended and not to a nonexistent page entitled "Request for review of my draft". It's unnecessary to specifically ask for a review once you've submitted the draft. It won't speed the review process. 331dot (talk) 01:12, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, got what you mean! Appreciate it. Sannanyden (talk) 06:38, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:09, 4 December 2025 review of submission by Dantestyrael

[edit]

My draft article (Le Mecaniche) was rejected as "show[ing] signs of having been generated by a large language model"; however, I wrote this article in my own words. The reviewer did not indicate what part of the article triggered the rejection. I was able to remove some things that could fall under "promotional tone, editorializing and other words to watch," but I'm only guessing that this was the cause of the rejection. I don't know the specifics. How do I overcome this LLM rejection? Dantestyrael (talk) 20:09, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dantestyrael 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(which you did).
I suggest speaking to the reviewer directly on their user talk page; click the word "talk" next to their username in the decline notice. 331dot (talk) 20:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Dantestyrael. Much of your draft looks like original research to me.
A Wikipedia article about a book may contain a brief summary of the book, but the bulk of the article should summarise what independent commentators have published about the book. It should contain no argumentation, conclusions, or interpretation, that is not found in one of these commentaries. ColinFine (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 5

[edit]

01:22, 5 December 2025 review of submission by Crystal Drawers

[edit]

The page was moved to "Curb Your Enthusiasm Season 3" when it should be "Curb Your Enthusiasm season 3" (note the lowercase 's'). A very minor issue but all other tv seasons have the "season" in lowercase, and I think a move would be non-controversial. I would do it myself, but a redirect with the lowercase 's' already exists. Is there any way this could be done here or do I have to apply a move request somewhere else? Crystal Drawers (talk) 01:22, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The place to request is Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:42, 5 December 2025 review of submission by VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004

[edit]

The anime has yet to be aired recently, as of this moment (premiering in January), Japanese Wikipedia still redirects the page to the original anime (but things can change if it airs) and giving it a separate page for it might be helpful to avoid confusion with the original and the sequel… VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004 (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004.
Wikipedia's policy says that we do not have articles on subjects which do not at present meet our criteria for notability - which includes most shows, books, records, which have not yet been broadcast/published/shown.
Avoiding confusion between notable subjects (which can appear in the encyclopaedia) and non-notable ones (which cannot appear) is not part of Wikipedia's purpose.
Or are you asking about the Japanese Wikipedia? if so, I suggest you ask at ja:Wikipedia:利用案内 ColinFine (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
but idk if information related to this anime will be regulated to a separate page or be included in an existing page? VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004 (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:20, 5 December 2025 review of submission by Jpromanager

[edit]

Can someone help with this article being declined. The subject produced, directed and starred in anew notable movie. He's also a pretty well known sports announcer on network television. Help? Jpromanager (talk) 05:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not an acceptable source as it is user-generated. You have just documented his work; instead, you need to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about him and what makes him a notable person as Wikipedia defines one.
If you are his manager or agent, that must be disclosed per the Terms of Use, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 09:36, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Jpromanager.
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) 17:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:48, 5 December 2025 review of submission by SindhuG2025

[edit]

I have submitted an article on a well-known agriculturist & Cooperative organizer from India. When I made the submission earlier, it was rejected citing that the content was more promotional. I have now changed the tone of the article, structured and rephrased it as per Wikipedia instructions and have resubmitted it on Dec 4th. The new submission has also been declined stating that there's an earlier submission that is being considered for contention. Request you to kindly consider the latest submission for contention as I have made the suggested changes and resubmitted it. SindhuG2025 (talk) 06:48, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should edit your original draft, not create a new one on the same subject. 331dot (talk) 09:37, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have done the same. Used the edit option of the existing article, changed the content entirely, added external links and citations and resubmitted the same. SindhuG2025 (talk) 03:26, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a different process to edit and resubmit the existing article other than the one I followed? Kindly suggest. SindhuG2025 (talk) 03:28, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:06, 5 December 2025 review of submission by Dirkadrianus

[edit]

Notability seems to be the main problem in my draft. The Buttlars is a new subject with a lot of primary sources discovered in German Archives. The consequence is that there are hardly any secondary sources. There are 2 main secondary sources: a study by University of Hamburg (online) and the publication of a book. How to find secondary sources to support the contents of my draft? Dirkadrianus (talk) 08:06, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The main purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize what independent reliable sources/secondary sources say about a topic. If you do not have such sources, you have nothing to summarize and nothing a reader can verify. so there can be no article. Sources do not need to be online, but they need to be publicly accessible, like newspaper stories in a library. Sources also do not need to be in English. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the comments and advice. I have now added a number of reliable secondary sources from newspapers and university in the literature section of the draft. Dirkadrianus (talk) 11:56, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:46, 5 December 2025 review of submission by ~2025-38028-67

[edit]

Hello, I hope you are doing well.

I am writing to kindly request clarification regarding my recently declined Wikipedia draft titled “Kollydee.” The review notice mentioned that the submission did not demonstrate sufficient notability and that the references provided did not show significant independent coverage about the subject.

I would appreciate your help in understanding the following:

Which specific references in my draft were considered insufficient or non-qualifying?

What type of sources would be acceptable to demonstrate notability for a music artist like Kollydee?

Are there particular areas of the draft (biography, career, discography, etc.) that require improvement or additional citations?

Would interviews, music reviews, press features, or profiles from established media outlets meet the requirement for significant coverage?

My goal is to revise the draft correctly and ensure it follows Wikipedia’s notability and sourcing standards. Any guidance, examples, or direction you can provide will be extremely helpful.

Thank you for your time and for the work you do maintaining the quality of Wikipedia’s content.

Kind regards, Edmund Johansson Stockholm, Sweden ~2025-38028-67 (talk) 08:46, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear on which aspect of the definition of a notable musician they meet.
Per WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA sources from Nigeria are viewed more skeptically, especially with subjects where paid placement of news is a possibility. Your sources are
  1. the announcement of the release of music, not significant coverage
  2. an interview, not an independent source
  3. another interview
  4. more of a review of his music than any content about him personally
  5. his Spotify profile which merely documents his music, not significant coverage
  6. more documentation of his music
None of these establish notability. If you are associated with this musician, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID and WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 09:33, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:39, 5 December 2025 review of submission by Arklone2020YT

[edit]

how can i get this published Arklone2020YT (talk) 10:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can't the topic is not notable and has been rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 10:42, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:29, 5 December 2025 review of submission by Freefloatfan

[edit]

This article keeps getting rejected, first for not having enough sources, then for having too many (and for listing the languages spoken by the person). I will remove some of the superfluous citations and rewrite the part about the languages spoken. The instruction from the reviewer is to write in a more biographical style, so if anyone can offer more help in that regard, that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance. Freefloatfan (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
You have summarized his work, but not what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about him and what makes him important/significant/influential. Certainly leading a UN agency is important, but you still need sources that discuss him personally. 331dot (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:45, 5 December 2025 review of submission by Jaredryandloneria

[edit]

Hello I wanna get help getting sources for Nathan Schauf Winter (talk) 11:45, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can't find sources for you; you should have sources in hand before you begin writing, instead of writing and then looking for sources to support what you wrote, see WP:BACKWARD. 331dot (talk) 14:35, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:14, 5 December 2025 review of submission by LegalVistaEditor

[edit]

Draft:Alaa Nasr , any advice is very appreciated , thanks LegalVistaEditor (talk) 14:14, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LegalVistaEditor I've fixed your header to link to your draft as intended and not to a nonexistent page entitled "I need help and support in my first article".
You have documented this person's work, but not summarized what independent reliable sources say about him amd how he is notable. 331dot (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:17, 5 December 2025 review of submission by KbSalame

[edit]

I want assistant because am new to wikipedia page creation, and the page is important page because Salame is historic town dating back from precolonial era. The information about Salame can be found on the first reference that i give, and the source is very reliable considering the fact that the source of information is from archive (endangered archived) station at Kaduna National Archives in Kaduna State, Nigeria. Even for the sake of that archives which is posted online because it is endangered, there is need to create wikipedia page for Salame, Sokoto. This will preserve the history KbSalame (talk) 14:17, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot use Wikipedia articles to source other Wikipedia articles. 331dot (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @KbSalame.
"Preserving the history" of something is not a function of Wikipedia, though sometimes collecting the history in one place can be.
Unless the history has already been published in reliable, independent, secondary sources, no Wikipedia article is possible. Sources in national archives are nearly always primary sources. See WP:42 ColinFine (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:48, 5 December 2025 review of submission by Slavaly

[edit]

Hi. I have made the page and have added info but it was declined with the note that "The cited sources had a ton of blank sections." I did not see any blank sections and am confused.. Slavaly (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Basically how do I get this to get approved? Slavaly (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GGOTCC @AlphaBetaGamma Slavaly (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Slavaly: the draft has been resubmitted and is awaiting review, there is no need to ping reviewers; just wait. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Slavaly (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not review the article, but I did leave a comment. I am not sure what the "blank sections" refer to. GGOTCC 02:23, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:04, 5 December 2025 review of submission by Misterpotatoman

[edit]

my page base quantities was first rejected because of a miscommunication that it was the same as Si baseunits and then got rejected because it already has on international system of unit, that purely is a mergist belief and not neutral. Misterpotatoman (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there was any miscommunication. Whether or not base quantities must be the same as SI base units, all the article is about the SI base units, all the links are to definitions of base units, so it's not providing any useful information the SI base unit article isn't already doing, but with more awkward sourcing and poor writing and formatting in places.
The only addition is your "important thing to note" which is completely unsourced, and appears to simply be your commentary.
It is also improper to simply create the same essential draft with a new name after the old one was rejected. You ought to be contacting the reviewer if you believe you've fixed the fundamental problems with your rejected draft.
The rejection looks accurate to me and this one is likely to face the same fate. If it did pass AFC, I imagine it would show up at WP:AFD very quickly. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Misterpotatoman I fixed your header so it links to your draft as intended and not to a nonexistent page entitled " why did my page get rejected?". 331dot (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:27, 5 December 2025 review of submission by Ricardozocca

[edit]

I respect the decision to decline my draft, even though I disagree on one point. I was told that the article sounded like advertising, even though I tried to use the most neutral language possible. It was also mentioned that the text seemed AI-generated. In fact, I did use an AI tool to help “soften” the wording, but I tried to stay within Wikipedia’s style guidelines.

My question is: does this mean that creating an article about a company is essentially impossible, or would it be acceptable if I rewrite it in an even more neutral and encyclopedic tone? I would appreciate guidance on what would be needed for a future version of the draft to be considered acceptable. Ricardozocca (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardozocca I fixed your link, you need the full title, including the "Draft:" portion.
You have just summarized the activities and offerings of this lawfirm, which does not establish that it is notable organization. That requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The vast majority of companies/organizations on Earth actually do not merit articles, as most coverage of organizations is about its routine activities. 331dot (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ricardozocca: Three of your sources are Oikonomakis Law itself (connexion to subject), two others are Globe Newswire (connexion to subject), and the last is a quite literally content-free profile (too sparse). We are looking for evidence that third-party outlets with editorial oversight have written about Oikonomakis Law at length, discounting routine business coverage; none of your sources come close to this. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:10, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:29, 5 December 2025 review of submission by AnsiklopediMeraklısı

[edit]

Hi my draft has been rejected. Yet, please find my explanation for the following topics:

The draft has been rewritten to remove promotional language.

Content has been limited to verifiable information supported by independent secondary sources (Anadolu Agency, Hürriyet, Grant Thornton, Army Technology, EuroSD).

All technical descriptions were adjusted to maintain a neutral, factual tone.

Please review the updated version for neutrality and sourcing compliance.

Thanks a lot,

Regards. AnsiklopediMeraklısı (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
If you have edited the draft and fixed the concerns raised by prior reviews, you may resubmit the draft for a new review. That said, you have just summarized the activities and offerings of the company, which does not establish that the company is a notable company as Wikipedia defines one. These things may be different from the Turkish Wikipedia, a separate project with its own policies.
If you are employed by this company, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 16:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:38, 5 December 2025 review of submission by Apora12

[edit]

I don't understand why my article has been declined a second time. Many, nearly all of my sources are secondary sources with few being primary sources/from social medias. Could someone please tell me what exactly I've done wrong/how to improve my article?

Thanks. Apora12 (talk) 18:38, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apora12 You are claiming that you created and own the copyright to the image in the article. What is your connection to this man?
You have just summarized his work, it's not clear how he meets WP:BAND. 331dot (talk) 18:50, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no connection to Ivy, and I will change the picture. Could you please explain how my article does not meet these guidelines? Apora12 (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you did not create the image, then you must either
  1. request its deletion from Commons or
  2. go to Commons and show where the image was explicitly released with a copyright compatible with Wikipedia's
Images are actually not relevant to the draft process, which only considers the text and sources. Images are an enhancement, not a requirement. They can wait until the draft is accepted.
As I said, it's not clear how he is notable. Which of the notability criteria do you feel he meets? 331dot (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe he meets many of the criteria, including
1: Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself. (has been featured on many magazines that are independent of himself
4: Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country (has been featured on tours with Porter Robinson and Keshi, citations of this are in my draft.)
5: Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable). (Ivy has released on FADER Label many times, a record label which has been operating since 2002)
11/12: Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network/Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network. (has been featured on notable outlets such as Triple J, XMU, MTV News, and more (via FADER: https://www.faderlabel.com/james-ivy)
Now, could you please explain to me how it is not clear how he is notable/fitting for a Wikipedia article? Apora12 (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I have nominated the image for deletion. Apora12 (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not here to argue that he isn't notable, just that your draft doesn't show any of these things. Interviews are not independent sources. Basic profiles do not have significant coverage. Social media is not a reliable source as it is user-generated. Some like Papermag are a brief mention, not significant coverage. Sources to establish notability must meet all of the criteria described at WP:42.
"Featured" on someone else's national concert tour is not he himself on a national concert tour(he needs to be the headliner).
The draft mostly summarizes releases of his music, if you have independent reliable sources with significant coverage of him, focus on them and what they say, not just documenting the existence of his music. 331dot (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:03, 5 December 2025 review of submission by Nikasandler

[edit]

Hello, and thank you for your work with AfC.

I would like to request a second opinion on my AfC submission: Draft:Nika Sandler.

The draft was declined with the comment that the subject lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources. However, the draft includes multiple substantial profiles, interviews, and feature articles published in major international media outlets that offer in-depth, independent analysis of the subject’s work. These include:

  • Dazed
  • i-D
  • Vogue / PhotoVogue
  • Libération
  • Harper’s Bazaar
  • Konbini
  • Público
  • The Calvert Journal
  • Fisheye Magazine
  • Metal Magazine
  • L’Oeil de la Photographie
  • Float Magazine

All of these are independent, reliable, published secondary sources that meet WP:N and WP:BIO.

Given this, I believe the decline may have resulted from a misunderstanding or oversight. I would greatly appreciate a new review from another experienced editor.

Thank you very much for your time and assistance. Nikasandler (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nikasandler I fixed your header so it links to your draft as intended. If you are Nika Sandler as your username suggests, please don't speak about yourself in the third person, it's confusing. Writing about yourself is ill advised, please see the autobiography policy.
Interviews don't contribute to notability. 331dot (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:37, 5 December 2025 review of submission by Invertedlybuoyant

[edit]

I am confused on how to properly cite the references in my article. I put the reference code in the article at the beginning and end of the paragraph of sources refernced. I get a message that there are no sources being referenced in my article. What am I doing wrong? I appreciate your patience with me as a newbie. Invertedlybuoyant (talk) 19:37, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Invertedlybuoyant. You used an AI chatbot (ChatGPT?) to write the draft. The chatbot added the decline notice to the top, declining the draft automatically. It is not permitted to use AI chatbots to write articles on Wikipedia. qcne (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not use a chat bot to write the article. I wrote the article in Word then copy/pasted into my Sandbox where I did a reformat using Wikipedia's writing tools. But I did ask ChatGPT to explain how to submit for review and I didn't understand the technical directions. Invertedlybuoyant (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Invertedlybuoyant I also see no indication that this "Larson-Clarke Dark Energy Conjecture" exists as a theory. Google shows no results? Please note that Wikipedia does not host original research, so this draft would not be accepted. qcne (talk) 19:42, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Invertedlybuoyant (ec) What you have done wrong is use an AI to write it, for some reason some AIs automatically put a decline notice on a draft. Please write in your own words without using an AI at all. For help with referencing, please see Referencing for Beginners. I would also suggest you use the Article Wizard to create a draft, which will place it in draft space(the preferred location) 331dot (talk) 19:42, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:42, 5 December 2025 review of submission by Heshamrakha

[edit]

I had submitted an article for creation and had received the following 

   Hesham Rakha, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
   Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
   The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
   Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
   If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
   Thanks again, and happy editing! Heshamrakha (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

A user by the name of "MediaKyle" now removed my article to a draft again. Could you please investigate this issue.

Thanks, Hesham Heshamrakha (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's inadvisable for you to contribute about yourself(though it is not forbidden), please see the autobiography policy. I suggest you ask MediaKyle directly why they decided to place the draft back in draft space. 331dot (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Different reviewers can have different opinions on whether a page should be approved. I suggest removing the majority of entries from the list of awards and "notable research contributions" to make it read less like a resume. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:21, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What it looks like happened is that User:MCE89 made some changes to the draft to cut down on the blantant resume parts only for Heshamrakha to similar content back in, which lead MediaKyle to push it back to draftspace. I certainly agree that the article reads like a resume, and some of the citations don't actually match the claim. The list of achievements is the biggest issue IMO, with the lack of context to his (your) research and its impact. Wikipedia:Good articles has a list of great articles that can be used as a template as to what an article about an academic should sound.
I'm also not going to officially review this article because I don't want to annoy my professor GGOTCC 03:03, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:18, 5 December 2025 review of submission by Rastegwee

[edit]

I am trying to provide information on a set of standards that has been developed in close coordination by standards developing organisations ISO, CEN, HL7 International, SNOMED International, and IHE International. Of course this reads like an advertisement for this particular set of standards, but I'm not sure how to improve the "neutrality" of the description. I've already tried to include a number of scientific articles on the topic. Would it help if I added more scientific articles from different authors? Rastegwee (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rastegwee An article should primarily summarize what independent sources have written about IPS. The cited research papers are insufficient because (1) most of them were written before IPS was even developed, (2) their authors are connected to IPS. Has IPS been analyzed by researchers or authors who are completely unconnected to its development? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:56, 5 December 2025 review of submission by Mae at The Urban Monk

[edit]

Hello, I'm seeking guidance on my draft.

My draft was declined on November 12 by reviewer Bonadea. I posted clarification questions on the draft's talk page on November 15, and followed up on Bonadea's personal talk page on November 25. It's now been 11 days with no response.

I'm trying to understand: 1. What additional coverage is needed beyond my 5 major media sources (Detroit Free Press, LA Times, Women's Health Magazine, TODAY Show, Inc.com)? 2. Which specific sections read as promotional so I can rewrite them properly?

Should I: - Continue waiting for Bonadea? - Request a different reviewer? - Make changes and resubmit?

I want to address the feedback correctly but need specific guidance to proceed. Thank you for any help! Mae at The Urban Monk (talk) 23:56, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thank you for reaching out. While I am not the original reviewer, I can help.
Coverage (from whatever source) should be cited for each claim made. While those five are good sources, "Medical and wellness practice", "Bibliography", "Filmography", parts of the lead (top) section, and several sentences currently lack citations. As Shojai is a living person, you need to have in-line citations to avoid accusations of slander. Focusing on only the sections with a source, little information is left for the reader. Other sources you cite, such as the publisher's blurb, is not a reliable source as the page tries to sell you his book. In addition, the article just lists achievements rather then providing an overview of him. You can see Wikipedia:Good articles for good examples of how an encyclopedia covers similar people.
You are encouraged to resubmit when you think these issues have been addressed! The draft will be added to a list for reviewers. While I can not guarantee Bonadea would not be the reviewer again, it will likely be someone else.
Does this help? GGOTCC 02:45, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mae at The Urban Monk Two of those sources are interviews and another source just repeats his advice. These sources are not independent of the subject and do not count towards notability. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:54, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, one of the sources is a negative review of his documentary, which would potentially be summarized in the article if he somehow got enough coverage to demonstrate notability; he would have no control over what the article says about him. Would you and Shojai be okay with an article that says negative things about his work? See Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:11, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 6

[edit]

03:48, 6 December 2025 review of submission by ArcheryMusic

[edit]

Hello, I would like to request clarification regarding the decline of my draft.

The draft currently cites two independent secondary sources with significant coverage (Film Daily and IndieActivity), both of which are interviews published by independent media outlets providing analysis of the subject’s work.

Before resubmitting, I want to make sure I fully understand AfC expectations. Could you please confirm whether adding a third independent secondary source with significant coverage would be sufficient to establish notability under WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR?

I want to improve the draft in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines, so any guidance on what exact type or number of sources is required would be very helpful.

Thank you for your time. ArcheryMusic (talk) 03:48, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ArcheryMusic Interviews are not independent sources. Have other people written about the subject in reliable sources who are not trying to promote him? Please respond to the conflict-of-interest inquiry on your talk page. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:58, 6 December 2025 review of submission by Itz Darkness

[edit]

dear pythoncoder please tell me my fault on creating the article on wikipedia and why you declined my submission 

Itz Darkness (talk) 03:58, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not pythoncoder, but you cite no specific sources nor is it an encyclopedia article. GGOTCC 04:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:17, 6 December 2025 review of submission by Philiphutchinson1990

[edit]

my article keeps rejecting although i am a very notable person with lots of international media coverage. Philiphutchinson1990 (talk) 06:17, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Philiphutchinson1990: you are evidently not notable, and in any case, you shouldn't be writing about yourself in the first place. Besides which, you seem to be evading your earlier block, so I will now block you as a sockpuppet. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1325965306"