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
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 13

[edit]

00:10, 13 November 2025 review of submission by Fgteevboi6532

[edit]

Why Did It Got Declined I Never Got The 3rd One Wrong. Fgteevboi6532 (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why Was The 3rd One Declined It Never Did Any Thing Wrong!!!! Fgteevboi6532 (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fgteevboi6532, did you read the comments left by the reviewers? They are at the top of your draft, just below the big pink boxes, and also on your talk page. The draft has now been rejected because you did not make the improvements the reviewers asked for, and that means you can't submit it again. It's time to move on and work on something else. Meadowlark (talk) 00:43, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:10, 13 November 2025 review of submission by ~2025-33186-40

[edit]

Dears， Hope you're all doing well. Previously, we created the Wikipedia page for 51Talk Chinese, and now we hope to reconstruct our English Wikipedia page from a global perspective. However, we have noticed that the review time exceeds two months. I would like to know if there are any ways to shorten the review time, or how we need to optimize the content to meet the standards. Since we have received a lot of feedback from users hoping to see the English Wikipedia page for 51Talk, and the current translated version is relatively old, I am asking for your help. Thank you very much. Looking forward to your feedback.

Sincerely 51Talk Team ~2025-33186-40 (talk) 03:10, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked and you literally submitted the draft yesterday. Why would you lie about something so easily verifiable? aesurias (talk) 03:19, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The temporary account is clearly referring to the AfC template stating This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:48, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had read we have noticed that the review time exceeds two months as a claim that their submission had been there for over two months. I definitely understand what you mean though. aesurias (talk) 03:49, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@~2025-33186-40: You cannot hide behind a temporary account and must register an account to properly disclose your connexion to the company, as required by our Terms of Use. As to shortening the review time, submitting an article that is clearly unsuitable is the best way to get a speedy review. If you want a successful review, then focus more on satisfying Wikipedia's content and sourcing policies AFTER YOU DISCLOSE (WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliable sources, WP:Notability (organizations and companies), WP:Neutral point of view) and acknowledge we do not care about whatever deadlines your bosses have set. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 05:42, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:22, 13 November 2025 review of submission by Margaretjones1203

[edit]

Hi! I work in communications at a growth equity firm (Spectrum Equity), and noticed after I joined that our wikipedia page had been neglected by the person previously in my role...it had been flagged, but no one responded so it was taken down. I've attempted to resubmit the page 3 times now, and each time get rejected. At first the issue was the quality of my citations, so I went through and removed or updated anything that didn't come from a well-known and credible source, removing any links to press releases. I also worried that it was coming off as marketing, so I removed any descriptors, leaving only the bare minimum facts. But now I've been rejected again with the same explanation, but no additional note from the editor. I don't know what to fix! Margaretjones1203 (talk) 03:22, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Margaretjones1203: Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
While the Wall Street Journal sources might be available via the Library, I heavily doubt PE Hub and Buyout Insider are. However, just from reading their headlines I'm confident the vast majority of the walled sources are some flavour of routine coverage (either fundraising or investment). You need to provide sources that aren't just "Company doing Company things". —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 05:54, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Margaretjones1203: There is a deleted article Spectrum Equity that was deleted in accordance with WP:PROD, which means it can be restored uncontroversially by a request at WP:REFUND. You may not want to, however, because your draft is basically the same, somewhat expanded, with similar sources.
However, once it is in main space, you cannot make substantive changes to the article directly, due to your conflict of interest. You may make minor corrections, like correcting typos, updating names, updating numbers, correcting dates. You can revert obvious vandalism. You can add citations to reliable sources that are independent of Spectrum Equity. Anything more substantive than that, you should use Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard to propose a change on the article's talk page. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:57, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:09, 13 November 2025 review of submission by Sickingm

[edit]

I'd like to understand in more depth about qualifying references. My recent submission was rejected, with these words: "Make sure you add references that meet all four of the criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia."

I think I've now corrected this problem, but would like an opinion before I waste people's time on another full submission. Specifically, I have 15 references altogether. I am rather sure that 14 of them meet all 4 criteria, as they are articles from respected newspapers (e.g., St. Louis Post-Dispatch, a Joseph Pulitzer publication). The 15th is an article from the McBride Alumni association, which was founded organically by school alumni, well after the school closed its doors and has never had any business or financial relationship to the school. So I believe it meets the in-depth, reliable, and secondary criteria. I'm not sure how to interpret "strictly independent of the subject" in this case, since all involved were students at the school.

Furthermore, the error message is ambiguous to when it says "add references that meet all four criteria". Do 14 meeting all four the criteria and a 15th that may meet only 3 qualify? 

Sickingm (Matt Sicking) 05:09, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I did a very good job with my second question. Let me rephrase:
Does "add references that meet all four criteria" mean
a. ONLY add references that meet all four criteria OR
b. "Make sure that you have (sufficient) references that meet all four criteria Sickingm (Matt Sicking) 05:24, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I approved the article before you posted this. I believe the previous issues were rectified. aesurias (talk) 05:41, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:18, 13 November 2025 review of submission by ~2025-33186-40

[edit]

Dears，

I hope you're doing well, and I'd like to thank you for quickly reviewing the content of the 51Talk entry and providing feedback.

I see you have such a comment ： Comment: Not able to really see notability, promotional in nature, probably AI-generated, and the creator has an undisclosed COI as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk#03:10,_13_November_2025_review_of_submission_by_~2025-33186-40 , where an IP user says "we created the Wikipedia page ...Sincerely 51Talk Team" and pretends that the draft was submitted 2 months ago rather than 22 hours ago. aesurias (talk) 03:21, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify that I didn't falsely claim that we uploaded the content two months ago. We uploaded the content yesterday, but it shows that the review period may take more than two months. So I'd like to know if there's any way to shorten the review period. We apologize for any misunderstanding caused. We will also complete the revisions as soon as possible based on your review comments. Thank you for your feedback.

Sincerely， 51Talk Team 

~2025-33186-40 (talk) 06:18, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would really help if you could log into your account, if you have one, and also link to the draft you're referring to, so we wouldn't have to play guessing games. As it is, there's nothing I can do regarding your 'question' other than to say no, there is no way to expedite a review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:33, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for everything！
I'm new here, and I really didn't understand many rules clearly. I've already completed the registration. Since we're not native English speakers, we used AI as an assistant when creating content. Could you please provide us some specific guidances, such as how to describe this content to better comply with the rules? I'm still researching how to add a draft. I'm not quite sure if this question is appropriate. If there's anything I've done wrong, please let me know. I apologize again.
"Business model
51Talk operates a digital platform that connects students with certified teachers for live, one-on-one English lessons. The model integrates standardized teaching frameworks, certified instructors, and proprietary classroom technology.
Courses are aligned with international standards such as the CEFR, and teachers typically hold TESOL or TEFL certifications. The platform uses AI-based analytics for progress tracking and feedback.
Courses and curriculum
The company’s curriculum is designed for K-12 learners, following frameworks such as the CEFR and the CCSS. Modules cover speaking, pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar, listening, and reading. In addition to K–12 English courses, 51Talk also offers programs for adult English learners and international students studying Mandarin. " Cynthia Ta (talk) 07:25, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my draft link.I don't know if it's okay to place it like this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:51Talk Cynthia Ta (talk) 07:27, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cynthia Ta: thank you for logging in.
This draft was created and edited by Sam15176. What is your involvement, if I may ask?
And another question to both of you: what is your association with this business? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:31, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am an employee of this company, responsible for providing content, and Sam is here to help me upload it. Cynthia Ta (talk) 07:38, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cynthia Ta: please make a formal disclosure of your paid editing, as instructed in the message I posted on your talk page; ask Sam to do the same. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:06, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that Wikipedia aims to present objective, true, and fair content, and we are also doing our best to provide such content without involving marketing elements. However, we still fall short, so we hope to receive more guidance. Which content is unnecessary, which links are inappropriate, and which wording is improper. Cynthia Ta (talk) 07:44, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cynthia Ta: the main problem with this draft is that it is you telling the world about your employer, and that makes it inherently promotional (see WP:YESPROMO). We are not interested in what you have to say about this subject, we almost exclusively want to know what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about it, and what in their view makes it worthy of note. Your job is merely to find such sources and summarise their coverage. And those sources have to be genuinely independent, covering your business on their own initiative and out of their own free will, not regurgitating press releases or other content supplied by you etc.
As for your use of AI, in a word – don't. AI is not very good at creating content suitable for Wikipedia, and can be downright rubbish at times. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:11, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your advice. I understand a bit. Since I am an employee, inevitably I will search for information from company materials, which is more convenient for me. However, third-party objective dissemination content should be used. Cynthia Ta (talk) 08:42, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:Golden Rule for a brief overview of the kind of sources we need. See WP:CORP for a detailed document about the requirements for companies to merit an article on Wikipedia.
And, don't us an AI to write the article. You can use an AI to help you find sources. The AI will likely find a lot of useless junk, with a few useful sources. Then, write the article yourself based on what those sources say. You can have the AI review and suggest improvements after you have written it yourself. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:14, 13 November 2025 review of submission by Logeshkumarbs94

[edit]

I have made the changes as requested even though I couldn't be able to submit my article in Wikipedia. How to proceed further? Logeshkumarbs94 (talk) 07:14, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Logeshkumarbs94: you cannot proceed further, because this draft has been rejected. The sources cited provide zero evidence that the subject is notable per the WP:NCORP guideline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:27, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can't I publish my same article in Wikipedia again? Logeshkumarbs94 (talk) 08:40, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Logeshkumarbs94: what do you mean "again"? The only time (that I know of) that Lumos Learning has been published in the encyclopaedia was ten years ago. It was done by the user Lumos Learning – was that you? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:59, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't submit my wikipedia article to you. It says, the topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in wikipedia. Eventhough I have inlcluded the reliable resouces in my article. I couldn't publish it. Logeshkumarbs94 (talk) 11:19, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, none of those references are useful. Just having patents doesn't make a subject notable, and the NJ Tech Weekly cite amount to significant coverage about Lumos. If these are the best sources available, I don't think there's any good chance of demonstrating notability here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:02, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not me Logeshkumarbs94 (talk) 11:15, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:47, 13 November 2025 review of submission by Arnieverdi

[edit]

Kindly help me with this article., Article about Artemio Vergel de Dios in main newspaper are hard to find because it is not digitalized though some article are compiled in an album. Articles about JCI Philippines in the 40th to the 70s are hard to find in the internet. So the way to make sure the his works are thru tribute. Arnieverdi (talk) 07:47, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Arnieverdi: please don't start multiple threads.
I have declined your draft, since it provides no evidence that this person is notable.
Sources don't have to be online (see WP:OFFLINE), but they do have to be independent of the subject, and reliable, and they must provide significant coverage directly of it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:16, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:24, 13 November 2025 review of submission by Satipem

[edit]

I created a page specifically for the mall in Ranchi, and I do the same for all the places across the country, but I have doubts regarding the references. I searched for reliable sources by typing the mall name into Google, but I couldn't find any, and they're either self-made news websites or related to political issues about ED raids. What sources shall I take, and I am in confusion regarding the mall's news citations. Also, I created the draft as per User:MPGuy2824's response as it was deleted/redirected for insuffient. I have confusion please tell me what to do. Satipem (talk) 08:24, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Satipem: per WP:NBUILD, for a commercial property like shopping mall to be notable enough to justify an article, it requires significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of it. If you cannot find such sources, there is little point in creating a draft, as it couldn't be accepted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:56, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it's not the problem. it's been more than months since the discussion was made. But i's very hard to find. Also need additional references that would be reliable and notable enough Satipem (talk) 09:17, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:31, 13 November 2025 review of submission by CKleiman

[edit]

Review request: Draft:Christian Kleiman (all fixes done) @Aesurias: @DoubleGrazing: @Theroadislong:

Hi team, Quick follow-up on **Draft:Christian Kleiman** — everything is now perfect: - Full beautiful awards table restored ✓ - Blacklist link removed ✓ - COI declared + Grok AI assistance fully disclosed ✓ - All exhibition/award errors fixed (Artio NYC group, London Photo Awards, TIFA Special category) ✓ - 32 independent reliable sources (TIFA, MUSE, Saatchi, Rossocinabro, Artio, One Art Space, etc.) ✓

Ready for mainspace whenever you have a second. Thank you so much! CKleiman (talk) 13 November 2025 (UTC) CKleiman (talk) 08:31, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please can we not use AI to write this message?
What's more concerning is that you seem proud in the draft comments that it was "prepared **entirely by Grok AI**", which is part of why I have just declined the draft. aesurias (talk) 08:35, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CKleiman: I'm not sure why you've pinged us, but just for future reference, once you've submitted your draft you don't need to announce it here, or ping anyone about it, you just need to sit back and wait for a reviewer to get around to assessing it. It may take a while, with 2,800+ drafts awaiting review, but it will happen eventually, and fortunately there is no deadline in editing Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:44, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:41, 13 November 2025 review of submission by Lbulic

[edit]

The ISABS Conference is a major scientific event with a long history of gathering top experts and researchers, including Nobel Prize winners. For this reason, I believe it deserves an entry on wikipedia. Lbulic (talk) 08:41, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lbulic: there is no such thing as "deserves an entry". Either your conference is notable, in which case an article can be published on it, or it isn't, in which case not. As you've not provided any evidence of notability, your draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:52, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:31, 13 November 2025 review of submission by Wikimaster2099

[edit]

How much information is generally required? Wikimaster2099 (talk) 09:31, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is required is a summary of what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about this topic- you have two sources both of which are associated with the topic. If you have no such sources, this doesn't merit a Wikipedia article at this time. 331dot (talk) 09:35, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:TRIPLEBUCKERS is rejected. 🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 09:55, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:09, 13 November 2025 review of submission by Wikimaster2099

[edit]

Could you please review the page again? Wikimaster2099 (talk) 10:09, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it has been rejected, and since then you've added no sources and made no edits to the text.
Please don't open multiple threads on the same draft. aesurias (talk) 10:11, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:15, 13 November 2025 review of submission by Wikimaster2099

[edit]

I mistakenly posted an image file without obtaining the copyright. I have deleted the image, so please review it again. Wikimaster2099 (talk) 10:15, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop creating separate threads. As I have previously said, the page will not be reviewed again. It has been rejected permanently -- all this is explained on the draft and your talk page. aesurias (talk) 10:18, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Attempting to recreate the article in mainspace is unacceptable. aesurias (talk) 10:28, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:47, 13 November 2025 review of submission by Clau

[edit]

Hi! Could you please help me improve Alena Rudenko's draft article? I've been asked to continue working on it because the draft must meet any of the eight academic-specific criteria or cite multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, which cover the subject in some depth. In my opinion, this person meets at least two of academic-specific criteria (1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources; and 3. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor). She is the author of over 250 books and articles in ethnolinguistics, cognitive linguistics, and semantics, which may not be visible in English-speaking academia but are crucial to Slavic and Belarusian studies; she is a member of the Ethnolinguistic Commission of the International Committee of Slavists, which is a highly selective and the most prestigious scholarly society in the field of Slavic studies. Is it not enough? How can I improve the draft to include secondary sources independent of the subject, which cover the subject in some depth? Why are the current sources insufficient? I would be very grateful for your help! Clau (talk) 09:47, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:03, 13 November 2025 review of submission by Priyanka choudhary1001

[edit]

Can her draft be reviewed once again? Priyanka choudhary1001 (talk) 13:03, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have edited the draft and fundamentally changed it to address the concerns of reviewers, the first step is to appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly, on their user talk page. 331dot (talk) 13:08, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Priyanka choudhary1001 (talk) 13:42, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Priyanka choudhary1001: Please do not remove the rejection template. Again, your first step is to appeal to the reviewer who rejected the draft – however, since the only change has been to add a source that does not meet the criteria for reliable sources, and which does not show how she is notable, there is no real point in doing that.
What made you decide to edit and submit this draft? --bonadea contributions talk 13:53, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She has got lead roles in two television shows, one punjabi film and a punjabi web series so I thought maybe if I had sources it will get accepted Priyanka choudhary1001 (talk) 13:55, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Priyanka choudhary1001: Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
None of the sources I can assess are usable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:05, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:23, 13 November 2025 review of submission by GeneticsPedia

[edit]

the review that i got of this draft page was off base and incorrect. can i please get a different reviewer? the reviewer did not read or understand the draft page. GeneticsPedia (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GeneticsPedia (ec) The header has been fixed so the link to your draft functions; using the whole url breaks the template; only the exact title of the draft should be in the header.
The problem with draft is not the reviewer. The draft reads as a resume, and as noted, most of the sources are affiliated with this man. This won't be remedied by a different reviewer. If the reviewer is incorrect about something they said, please explain how here. 331dot (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an expert on the notability guideline for academics and don't know whether Nachman meets it (most professors don't!) but GeneticsPedia does have a point – the guideline for academics is an alternative to the general notability guideline, and it looks like the reviewer only focused on the latter. --bonadea contributions talk 16:36, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricane Wind and Fire Could you comment? 331dot (talk) 16:38, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bonadea Thanks for your comments; I am usually skeptical of "the reviewer is the problem" comments and claims of not having read the draft. 331dot (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am skeptical that WP:NPROF is met here either. He's a run-of-the-mill professor, and also the director of a museum. If NPROF criteria aren't met, we fall back to GNG, in which case the reviewer was correct in declining the draft.
I also find it reprehensible that GeneticsPedia would engage in reviewer shopping to get a desired result, without even discussing it with the reviewer.
Statements like "His work has contributed to understanding mutation rates in humans, the genomics of laboratory mouse origins, adaptive pigmentation, recombination and speciation, and adaptive introgression" and then citing his own works don't contribute to verifying the assertion in Wikipedia's voice, it's just a WP:OR interpretation of his works, without reference to impact factors or anything else.
Listing "notable" students that have no Wikipedia articles themselves seems like more needless puffery. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I apologize for a late response, I can't really edit during the time period the comment was posetd. I did read through the draft, and I do admit to not being specific enough for the notability guideline. However, most of the references were related to the subject. I would appreciate it if another reviewer could give me feedback on how I could have improved on this review. @GeneticsPedia, it would have made more sense if you brought the issue up with me first because it seems I am the only reason you brought this up here. 🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) (contribs)🔥 22:20, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize @Hurricane Wind and Fire. i'm new to adding wikipedia pages. This person, Nachman, is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). This alone is a prestigious honor for a scientist and indeed he is a noted geneticist. GeneticsPedia (talk) 22:51, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A Fellow of AAAS would likely qualify for WP:NPROF then. See my comment above for other critiques of this draft. In particular, we cannot engage in synthesis to draw conclusions from sources that don't state those conclusions, and you did that in this draft. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:10, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i can certainly address the synthesis issue and revise GeneticsPedia (talk) 04:45, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:09, 13 November 2025 review of submission by Bouncy Raptor

[edit]

How do I move my draft to a new title? Googling my question doesn't seems to show steps that exist on Wikipedia for a draft article. Bouncy Raptor (talk) 18:09, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bouncy Raptor: since you are not in the autoconfirmed user group yet due to your account not being old enough and having too few edits, you can't move pages on your own yet. What is the intended title for this draft? -- Reconrabbit 18:14, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense, thanks. The intended title is "Delaware corporate exodus" Bouncy Raptor (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Helps if I @Reconrabbit first... I wanted to rename this to "Delaware corporate exodus" before resubmitting for review. Bouncy Raptor (talk) 13:00, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I left a note for reviewers (since moving the draft to a different title would make it inconvenient to re-route all of the incoming links post-acceptance. -- Reconrabbit 14:25, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bouncy Raptor (ec) I fixed your header, you need the full title, including the "Draft:" portion, when linking.
The specific title of the draft is not particularly relevant. It will be placed at the proper title when accepted by the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 18:14, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which isn't to say you can't move it- just that it's not necessary. 331dot (talk) 18:15, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that! Bouncy Raptor (talk) 18:15, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:23, 13 November 2025 review of submission by Goobusthekitten

[edit]

my page keeps getting denied Goobusthekitten (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has been rejected, as articulated to you in the thread you opened here yesterday. Your YouTube stop motion project is not notable.
Have a good day, aesurias (talk) 22:08, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
its also a comic strip Goobusthekitten (talk) 01:33, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I saw. Great for you, but not needed on Wikipedia. :) aesurias (talk) 01:34, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
but toby the pup is? Goobusthekitten (talk) 01:49, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Was Nibbles the cat made by some of the most well-known animators from the American Golden Age of Animation? Toby the Pup was. aesurias (talk) 02:59, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you say that when this site edited a woody woodpecker cartoon from a full page to just a redirect
nibbles just dropped the mic Goobusthekitten (talk) 03:39, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only because the shepherd's crook yanked him off the stage. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:03, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
if you think im stopping anytime soon, oh buddy your wrong Goobusthekitten (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Goobusthekitten Then, unfortunately, that will lead to your account being blocked. Please don't. qcne (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Goobusthekitten: By all means continue producing your web comic. Once it has become notable, somebody completely unconnected to yourself will probably create a Wikipedia article about it. --bonadea contributions talk 15:39, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
k Goobusthekitten (talk) 18:32, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do have plans to try and license nibbles the cat for compilation books in april Goobusthekitten (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Goobusthekitten: If you continue to come out on stage and put on a show that offends the audience, the bouncers will eventually kick you out into a trashcan in the back alley. Work on improving your act instead of trying to ram the same unfunny skits down their throats. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:06, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:38, 13 November 2025 review of submission by Dk159123

[edit]

Draft:Rizwan Sajan

Why was the article submission rejected? Dk159123 (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dk159123 I fixed your link, the whole url is not needed. The reason for the rejection was left by the reviewer, please read it, and the discussion linked underneath, carefully. 331dot (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is stated that I am paid or employed for the article which I am not. Dk159123 (talk) 02:43, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, the reason is this topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia - this is in the big pink box at the top of your draft, as well as the yellow box under 'Your submission' on your talkpage. Whether or not you were employed for the article is not relevant to the rejection. Meadowlark (talk) 04:20, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
what makes an article notable for inclusion in wikipedia. Dk159123 (talk) 06:04, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NBASIC lays out the eligibility criteria for people. May I ask how you discovered Rizwan, and what inspired you to write an article on him? Nil🥝 06:16, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I saw several articles associated with him, they are cited in the reference. Also I came to know of his company as Shah Rukh Khan is their branch ambassador. Dk159123 (talk) 09:14, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that others have been paid to write about this man, who does not seem to meet our guidelines. I suggest that you find a different topic to write about. 331dot (talk) 09:35, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rizwan Sajan (5th nomination) and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Rizwan+Sajan 🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 04:50, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 14

[edit]

07:17, 14 November 2025 review of submission by MohsenB11

[edit]

I have made multiple improvements to this draft page to align it with Wikipedia’s policies. Can anyone guide me on how to resolve these issues? MohsenB11 (talk) 07:17, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MohsenB11 Writing about yourself- while not forbidden- is inadvisable, please see the autobiography policy.
You put what seems to be a professionally taken image of you in the draft, but you claim that you personally created it and personally hold the copyright to it. Typically, copyright belongs to the photographer, not the subject. It would be unusual for the subject of the image to hold the copyright. If you did not take the image yourself and do not hold the copyright, you must ask that it be deleted. If you did not take the image, but the photographer assigned you the copyright in a contract, you need to work with the editors at Commons to change the information on the image to state that. 331dot (talk) 08:43, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Images are actually not relevant to the draft process, which only considers the text and sources. They are an enhancement, not a requirement. If you are going to have difficulty with the copyright process, it's best to just remove the image until the draft is accepted and the copyright issue addressed. 331dot (talk) 08:44, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MohsenB11, I think your current biggest problem is your sources. To show that a subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article, you need to have at least three sources that meet all three criteria in WP:42. Interviews with the subject, their friends or family, colleagues or employees are not considered independent. Having skimmed your sources, the only one I think might satisfy WP:42 is the ePlaneAI one - you may need to do some more digging. The book sounds promising but only if the author is not basing all their information on an interview/meeting. I hope that is of some help! Meadowlark (talk) 11:39, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:50, 14 November 2025 review of submission by Clever-student25

[edit]

Hi,

Thank you for your previous review. I have now fully revised the article to address the issues you mentioned — including improving sourcing, ensuring a neutral tone, and removing any promotional content.

However, since the draft was rejected, I can no longer resubmit it, even after making substantial changes.

Could you please advise me on the correct way to proceed so that the updated version can be reviewed? I’m new to Wikipedia, and I want to make sure I follow the rules properly.

Thank you for your time and guidance. Clever-student25 (talk) 12:50, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Clever-student25: okay, one more time, you need to make your case to the reviewer who rejected the draft; only the final reviewer, not any of the earlier ones who merely declined it. If you don't get anywhere, you can then come back here, but you should at least try that route first. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:43, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Clever-student25, the draft has a long list of citations which are mostly obviously WP:CORPTRIV, and do nothing to establish that the company meets Wikipedia's conditions for NCORP. There may be some useful sources in there, but if there are, they are hidden in a mountain of dross.
A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publication, and not much else.
Wikipedia basically does not care what the company says (whether it says it directly, or in interviews or press releases); and it especially does not care what the company wants people to know about it. See WP:YESPROMO. ColinFine (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:09, 14 November 2025 review of submission by ~2025-31690-13

[edit]

I am requesting assistance because my draft article about Yalla Venkata Ramamohan Rao (Yalla Dorababu) was declined and later rejected due to concerns about notability and insufficient reliable secondary sources. I need guidance on how to improve the article so that it meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria for politicians, specifically regarding:

Providing significant coverage from independent, reliable sources,

Ensuring the biography is based on verifiable secondary references, not primary links,

Understanding what additional sources or content changes are required to make the subject eligible for inclusion.

I want to properly address the issues mentioned by the reviewers and would appreciate help in identifying what types of sources or improvements are necessary to qualify the article for resubmission.

If you want, I can also prepare:

✔ A better version of the biography ✔ A list of acceptable secondary sources ✔ A strategy to meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines

Just tell me! ~2025-31690-13 (talk) 13:09, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do us the courtesy of writing in your on words, we've no interest in hearing what some algorithm 'thinks'. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:39, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Pinging Niharbillakurthi in case that's them logged-out.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:41, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@~2025-31690-13: You start by finding third-party sources with strong editorial oversight. Only once you have those do you start writing. Writing the text and then backfilling references is an exercise in futility, especially for a biography of a living person. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:01, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:24, 14 November 2025 review of submission by Homosapien 002

[edit]

I accidentally submitted an empty draft. I need to draft a new article. Homosapien 002 (talk) 15:24, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Homosapien 002: You can still edit a declined draft to fix it. (Blank drafts are not summarily rejected for this reason; it's fairly obvious that submitting a blank draft wasn't deliberate.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:58, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:04, 14 November 2025 review of submission by Shellaque

[edit]

I'm unsure of what I am missing or doing incorrectly for the article to be declined. Can you advise me please Shellaque (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Shellaque: You need more reliable sources that are not affiliated with Assenta Rail itself to show that the company is notable. For example, the company's LinkedIn profile does not help show notability because it was created by the company. You should also cite your sources inline, to show which parts of the draft are supported by which sources. Here's a guide on how to make inline citations. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask. Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note. Are links and references from the ORR (a UK government body) and press articles not enough? The company is also referenced in other articles on Wiki eg: The Royal Scotsman, Grand Hibernian etc. I'm trying to link those references to Assenta Rail Shellaque (talk) 19:20, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Railway News articles are good, but we need more than one press company to cover Assenta Rail. If you have any press articles from other companies, please add them to the draft. The government license does not add to notability for the same reason a driver's license doesn't make you or I more likely to get a Wikipedia article. Hope this helps. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Shellaque, did you read the comments from the reviewers? One of their concerns is that you have used an AI/LLM to write the draft. You would need to revise it so thoroughly that it would be easier to delete everything and rewrite it in your own words. Because your draft is about a company, you need it to meet the criteria in WP:NCORP. At least three of your sources also need to meet WP:42, and you will want to read WP:REFB to get a handle on how to cite those sources. Meadowlark (talk) 22:01, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:10, 14 November 2025 review of submission by Novatoca

[edit]

The draft I submitted was declined, even though every single text including dates is 100% accurate. I submitted whatever references I could find, but I suppose it was not sufficient. I need help with finding references or if there is another way to do it.

This article is regarding a famous national artist of Turkmenistan from Soviet Union era. The article is written and submitted by his son. Since country of Turkmenistan is isolated, it is incredibly difficult to find electronic references online. Or should I shorten the article? Would that help?

I would appreciate any type of assistance you can provide.

Thanks, Novatoca (talk) 19:10, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References do not need to be online, they only need to be publicly accessible. Books in a library in Turkmenistan are perfectly acceptable as long as you provide enough information for someone to locate them(author, publisher, publication date). 331dot (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Novatoca. Which of the citations meet all the criteria in WP:42?
Catalogues from his exhibitions do not, because they are not indepedent. of him. A newspaper report of a future exhibition probably does not contain significant information about him, or if it does, it is probably from a press release and so not independent; and so on.
A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and not much else. Almost nothing that comes from the subject, or his associates or institutions, is relevant to a Wikipedia article.
If you are Amansakhatov's son, then you have a conflict of interest - this does not mean that you are forbidden to write the article, but you need to be aware that it is likely to be difficult for you to be sufficiently neutral. ColinFine (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:30, 14 November 2025 review of submission by ~2025-33679-04

[edit]

Hi I got comments on the draft on the encyclopedic tone. How do i modify the draft to make sure that the update would be acceptable? 

~2025-33679-04 (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@~2025-33679-04 Have toyu checked the helpful links in the decline box at the head of the draft. That ought to help you substantially. For further clarification please return to this thread and ask. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:28, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:32, 14 November 2025 review of submission by Slgrandson

[edit]

Challenging mid-May rejection here, thanks to the G13 deadline and an invocation of WP:THREE by way of WP:Library PQ. In case these clippings aren't enough to fulfill WP:NBOOK, I'll be on the lookout for a few more.

  • Van Der Schyff, Liesl (2024-08-23). "Novel lays bare societal ills about body positivity". The Star. Johannesburg: IOL. p. 4. Retrieved 2025-11-14 – via ProQuest.
  • Cruz, Andrienne (June 1–16, 2024). "Only Big Bumbum Matters Tomorrow". The Booklist. Vol. 120, no. 19/20. p. 33. Retrieved 2025-11-14 – via ProQuest.
  • de Villiers, Mila (2024-12-22). "RECOMMENDED READING: We rounded up an assortment of bibliophiles and asked them what their favourite reads of 2024 were". Sunday Times. Johannesburg: Arena Holdings (Pty) Ltd. p. 18. Retrieved 2025-11-14 – via ProQuest. (Concludes with a mini-review of this title, apparently by a reader.)

Filing on behalf of page creator Marvelfriction (talk · contribs) (almost all of whose only edits were to this draft) and AFC clerk FuzzyMagma (talk · contribs) (whose most recent edit was last month). Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 22:32, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:16, 14 November 2025 review of submission by ObsoleteTruthyness

[edit]

Hello! I've been trying to get this published but it keeps getting rejected b/c of lack of secondary sources. I've added all the sources I can find! This person is doing good work for people and is NOTABLE!! Taking on the fight against convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein and his fellow accomplices is massively important and the people who are involved for the good of people need to be able to be found in credible sources like Wikipedia. ObsoleteTruthyness (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ObsoleteTruthyness Wikipedia is not a directory of people doing good work. For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:25, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that Wikipedia shouldn't be considered a "credible" source itself, Wikipedia makes no guarantees that the information presented is accurate. Readers should examine the sources provided when determining what they think about what they read. 331dot (talk) 23:29, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ObsoleteTruthyness, what I'm seeing in your sources is a lot of information about cases Merson has been involved in and very little about Merson himself. For a Wikipedia article, how good and deserving a person is does not come into play - I have no doubt that Merson is doing excellent work, but so too are many other people who also don't qualify for a Wikipedia article. You need to locate sources that talk about Merson's life, about what makes him important, and that demonstrate he meets at least one criteria for a person who's notable by Wikipedia standards. Three or more of these sources must also meet WP:42. You must also be very careful about saying things like [t]he case is considered one of the largest sexual assault verdicts in New York state history without qualifying this statement - Merson is the person who said this, so it's not exactly an objective opinion.
On another note, did you use AI/an LLM to help you write this draft? Meadowlark (talk) 02:25, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:35, 14 November 2025 review of submission by United States of America the 50th

[edit]

how can I have a page of me in wikipedia United States of America the 50th (talk) 23:35, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You probably can't. Most people on the planet do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability - roughly, that there has been enough independent reliably published material about them to base an article on (see WP:42). ColinFine (talk) 00:16, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, @United States of America the 50th, even if you are notable in Wikipedia's sense, writing about yourself on Wikipedia is very strongly discouraged, as it is so difficult that hardly anybody has ever one it successfully. ColinFine (talk) 00:18, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 15

[edit]

00:14, 15 November 2025 review of submission by Valorrr

[edit]

Can people decline an article for grammar issue's, which is not allowed per guidelines? As now I've been rejected because I didn't fix grammar, but there was no grammar to my sight? Valorrr (lets chat) 00:14, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Valorrr. Your draft was declined five times before being rejected. There was one passing mention of grammatical errors among the copious comments - they are not why the draft was declined and eventually rejected. Please read the comments carefully, and if there is anything you don't understand about them, follow the blue links. ColinFine (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You were not declined because of “grammar”, it’s clearly explained on the draft. Please don’t be disingenuous. aesurias (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed most issues? Valorrr (lets chat) 01:17, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The primary reason your draft was rejected the previous two times, as listed on the decline messages on your talk page and at the top of the draft, is because the topic is not demonstrably notable.
You resubmitted the draft multiple times without any effort to address this issue. Your draft has now been rejected and will not be reconsidered. aesurias (talk) 01:19, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:51, 15 November 2025 review of submission by Crystalite13

[edit]

this article has been deleted twice in AFD and there was a rejected draft. i would be hoping someone could double check there are no major sourcing errors. this is my first article and I'm nervous. Crystalite13 (talk) 06:51, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Crystalite13: we don't do pre-reviews here at the help desk, because a 'pre-review' is just an alternative spelling for 'review', and we also don't do on-demand reviews here. You've submitted the draft, and it will be reviewed once a reviewer gets around to it.
That said, I did notice that quite a lot of the content is based on primary sources, meaning those two 'double dagger' ones, and also at least one from your main list, namely #1 which is an interview. Especially in the case of BLP articles we need information to be verified by independent sources, not just the subject themselves. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:04, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:08, 15 November 2025 review of submission by WikiByRashmi

[edit]

How to resolve duplicate submission issue . WikiByRashmi (talk) 09:08, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiByRashmi: by not submitting the second draft when you already have one in the system. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:13, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:01, 15 November 2025 review of submission by Ritchy Dube

[edit]

The reviewr/editor wrote this: Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reasons left by Timtrent were: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: This is not an article in any sense of the word. In a single paragraph it's a mishmash of something about a book and something about an author, with no context and is blatant self promotion. Neither nook nor author has any demonstrated nor verified notability

My book received reviews in the globe and mail, montreal gazette, ottawa citizen, ottawa sun, so it is notable. Ritchy Dube (talk) 13:01, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchy Dube You need to provide the full title when linking, including the "Draft:" portion. I have fixed this- though your draft was deleted as unambiguous promotion. It seemed to be a mixture of being about you and about your book. If you want to write about the book, then that's what the draft should focus on. It is possible for a book to be notable but not its author.
Ideally, you should not be the one to write about your book; you should allow independent editors to take note of coverage of your book and write about it on their own. We have no interest in helping you promote your book. 331dot (talk) 13:10, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:16, 15 November 2025 review of submission by Digitizewithreshma

[edit]

The article is getting rejected on every submission. I have rewritten the whole content and put on submission. I would like to help on the exact changes in case this gets rejected again. Digitizewithreshma (talk) 13:16, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been 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.
Please see Referencing for Beginners to learn how to format references so they are not bare urls.
The problem is you are telling us what your organization wants the world to know about this program- not a summary of what independent reliable sources choose to say about it. 331dot (talk) 13:20, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:BOSS, and show it to your superiors in your government. It is rare for people in your position- be it a public entity or a private entity- to succeed in forcing the issue of creating an article about themselves. I suggest that you go on about the work of your program and allow independent editors to take note of coverage of your program and choose to write about it on their own. That's the best indicator of notability. 331dot (talk) 13:25, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Digitizewithreshma The draft has been declined again. Please research the things you need to do which I have noted for you with care.
I have also asked you a formal question about paid editing. This is a question which must be answered, please, before you make any other edits of any description. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:55, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have resubmitted the disclosure. I had already given that disclosure that I work at the organization. I am not specifically paid for it. But felt that such a recognized institution should be there on Wiki.
I have reframed the content to have only the information which can be backed by sources other than the organization website like- news and magazine articles. Shall I update it for review? Digitizewithreshma (talk) 11:08, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:22, 15 November 2025 review of submission by Thomas the real swifty

[edit]

I do not understand how to fix the issue of my article (the issue is reason is why it didn't got approved btw) Thomas the real swifty (talk) 15:22, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thomas the real swifty: We don't cite Fandom/Wikia (no editorial oversight), and the one source you do cite other than that (Billboard) is not enough in and of itself to support an article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:35, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:09, 15 November 2025 review of submission by ~2025-33435-60

[edit]

i have tried to keep the page informative and neutral. howerver, i need more advice to make it compleate. ~2025-33435-60 (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the draft creator, remember to log in when posting. The draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. You essentially posted his resume, not a summary of what independent reliable sources say is notable about him as a person. Not every business executive merits a Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 18:17, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:11, 15 November 2025 review of submission by R2025kt

[edit]

I haven't submitted this yet again but I want to see if the sources and new words I added are enough to establish notability and independence. R2025kt (talk) 18:11, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, we don't do pre-review reviews, if you feel that you have addressed the concerns, you should resubmit the draft. 331dot (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 16

[edit]

01:04, 16 November 2025 review of submission by Olegivvit

[edit]

How to move the draft to the main space without waiting in Pending AfC submissions? Olegivvit (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Olegivvit Is there a particular reason you want to bypass the review process? It is highly recommended to use this process unless you have experience in getting drafts accepted. You have moved a page before, according to your edit history.
Any particular reason you've had your account 10 years but didn't make a single edit until this past October, about this topic? 331dot (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked and found that drafts can stay in Pending AfC submissions for half a year. I see it impractical to wait without any deadline. I moved it before, but the draft was without previous discussions. I don't know how to move and keep the discussion and do it in the right way. I've had my account for 20 years, but it does not show my edits correctly. Admin moved the draft to Pending AfC submissions. I made corrections and the article is ready now. Olegivvit (talk) 01:43, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me please, I see you've edited other Wikipedias.
The review is very beneficial as other editors are involved with the process before the draft is an article. I encourage you to let the process proceed. However, if you wish to move it yourself, the move function is in the Tools menu. The exact location depends on how you are viewing Wikipedia. Please know that you should be confident that the article would survive a deletion discussion. 331dot (talk) 02:05, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Olegivvit, something important to keep in mind is that the article has been draftified once - the next time someone is concerned about whether the subject is notable, it will probably go to a deletion discussion. If it is then deleted, recreating it becomes much harder. Having it reviewed at AfC gives it a much better chance at survival.
I also believe that the Pending Submissions drafts you are seeing are either not currently waiting for review or you are looking at when they were created. The New Pages feed says that the oldest waiting draft was submitted on Sept 5; it was created earlier, but editors may take a while to work on their drafts and then rework them if they're declined. You wouldn't be waiting six months for a review. Meadowlark (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:55, 16 November 2025 review of submission by Nambiar123

[edit]

Reason for not Accepting draft request Nambiar123 (talk) 03:55, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see all the messages on the draft and your talk page, including mine: "Not able to see notability as the submitter did not make any changes after the previous review."? aesurias (talk) 05:29, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:47, 16 November 2025 review of submission by NordicSea

[edit]

Hello!

My draft was rejected with a comment on a perceived lack of notability but I had provided many external articles from worldwide press (Al Arabiya TV, Gulf News, BBC, etc). Could you pls advise me?

Thanks vm! NordicSea (talk) 08:47, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NordicSea 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.
Please disclose your connection with this young man, as you took pictures of him. Please see WP:COI.
As noted by the reviewer, interviews do not contribute to notability. 331dot (talk) 08:52, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@NordicSea, some useful links for you may be WP:BIO, WP:BLP, and WP:42. We are strict on articles about living people, and even more so if that person is a minor, so do your best to make sure your sources are impeccable. Happy editing! Meadowlark (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:52, 16 November 2025 review of submission by Politician Rajneta

[edit]

From this edit considerable data you pick and add in Wikipedia and other than that you don't consider that data not add. It's request so after that at least I start my first step in Wikipedia. Politician Rajneta (talk) 09:52, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry but I am unable to understand what you're talking about. aesurias (talk) 09:57, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Politician Rajneta Your question suggests that English may not be your first language, and your use of English is hard to understand.
I think you may be asking why this draft was rejected. It has had multiple reviews and does not show any true progress. None of your references are reliable sources, and the subject fails WP:NPOLITICIAN.
Is there anything we are able to help you with, please? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 11:52, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you consider Facebook post source about Amritlal Tiwari Politician Rajneta (talk) 13:13, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Politician Rajneta Almost never. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:36, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Politician Rajneta. Every source you cite is from what appears to be your blog.
Wikipedia articles should be based exclusively on reliable sources, which excludes almost all blogs.
What have people unconnected with Tiwari published about him in reliable publications? That is almost the only question you should be asking.
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) 12:16, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:29, 16 November 2025 review of submission by Guz13

[edit]

Am I allowed to copy text from one Wikipedia article and paste it into another? And keep the references. Or is that copyright infringement? Guz13 (talk) 13:29, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Guz13: yes, you are allowed; see Copying within Wikipedia. (In fact, Wikipedia content can be copied and used even outside of Wikipedia.) DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:33, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, @Guz13. But you must say where you got it from: most easily in the edit summary. ColinFine (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:46, 16 November 2025 review of submission by AjayTyagi1

[edit]

ATTENTION REVIEWER: This draft is about a DIFFERENT PERSON. This is Ajay Tyagi the ROWER (Sportsman, born 1999), NOT the IAS Officer/SEBI Chairman. The existing article 'Ajay Tyagi' is about a bureaucrat. This subject is a Gold Medalist athlete. Please verify the citations (Olympics.com, Times of India) and move this page to 'Ajay Tyagi (rower)' upon acceptance. I have distinguished him clearly in the article AjayTyagi1 (talk) 13:46, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AjayTyagi1: Draft:Ajay Tyagi is about the Indian rower, and Ajay Tyagi is about the Indian rower; both clearly about the same person, and both created by you.
In any case, why are you still concerning yourself with the draft, when there is already the published mainspace article? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:49, 16 November 2025 review of submission by AntBF YT

[edit]

why did it get rejected AntBF YT (talk) 13:49, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AntBF YT: because this is not a viable draft, or even an appropriate topic for an encyclopaedia. If you want to tell the world about some game you've played, post a YouTube video or do an interpretive dance or something else, somewhere else. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:55, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:05, 16 November 2025 review of submission by Oratenancy

[edit]

Hi, My draft was cancelled due to lack of sources, I understand that I jave misspelled the links of the addresses. My info mostly from PDF file so i dont know how to paste the link of PDF file to the page. Oratenancy (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oratenancy: I don't think you've misspelled the links, since they work. It's just that three of the four sources are website home pages which don't even mention Fairway. You need to cite the specific URL which supports the information against which you are citing the source.
Can you say more about this PDF file you mention – what and where is it, who has published it, etc.? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:13, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tdND75KHDcbIHh6DIHWIMhpJuyl3wlEB/view?usp=drivesdk (nautical PDF file)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1umzg-ifGkKJHrM0EZ37DPjBCdsSXo7es/view?usp=drivesdk (alaska name place PDF file)
+ Im sorry for the "Coastview" cite, i haven't notice that Coastview is a need to pay website Oratenancy (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Oratenancy: thanks, but I'm not keen on clicking on some files of unknown provenance. Please tell us what they contain.
If these are something you've uploaded to Google Drive yourself, then they are not published sources in the sense that we require.
Also, did you create them yourself, perhaps by scanning some third party sources? If so, they may be copyright violations. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have the google internet link of the NOAA Nautical Charts I was talking about, but if you click on google it will automatically download the file from google. I really don't know any other way, I know the wiki doesn't allow this so I asked first to be sure and if there is any other way? Oratenancy (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:49, 16 November 2025 review of submission by History edit25

[edit]

To know how to make article accepted History edit25 (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@History edit25: this draft has been rejected, which means it won't be considered further. It is barely intelligible, completely unreferenced, and provides no indication, let alone evidence, that the subject is in any way notable. Please see WP:GOLDENRULE for a summary of how Wikipedia articles should be composed and referenced. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:30, 16 November 2025 review of submission by Knowledge Pioneer

[edit]

What type of references is best for to be accepted and the given references is from top medias from Kerala, India. Knowledge Pioneer (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Knowledge Pioneer No allowances are made for regionality. This is a global English Language encyclopaedia.
We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:32, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Knowledge Pioneer I assumed that your asking the same questions a minute apart was simply an accidental circumstance, and have deleted the duplicate. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:34, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Knowledge Pioneer, did you use an AI/LLM to help with this draft? They're not very good at inline citations, among many other things - see WP:REFB for more on how to cite your sources. Meadowlark (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:16, 16 November 2025 review of submission by ~2025-33651-00

[edit]

I want to know why my article is rejected. ~2025-33651-00 (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the creator of the draft, remember to log in when posting.
The reviewer left the reason for rejection at the top of the draft. 331dot (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:08, 16 November 2025 review of submission by Jenfast

[edit]

I have given information are true and best of my knowledge regarding Mekkarai. Also the references are taken from public and government sites. You can either approve or reject. Thank you Jenfast (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's been rejected, sorry @Jenfast. qcne (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:58, 16 November 2025 review of submission by MotionMogul123

[edit]

Hello, I would appreciate a fellow Wikipidian reviewing this draft as I have have removed the obvious LLM ChatGPT text and added more citations. Does it need to be resubmitted? I want to adhere to the rules and correct procedures please. MotionMogul123 (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MotionMogul123: yes, once you felt you've sufficiently addressed the reason(s) for the decline, you need to resubmit it for another review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fast reply @DoubleGrazing I appreciate it. OK will do, I will give it one more check as well (fresh eyes!). MotionMogul123 (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:05, 16 November 2025 review of submission by Historicthebruce

[edit]

I am a new editor to Wikipedia, who recently noticed that the website didn't have an article about the battle of Varamin (1911), so I decided to create one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Battle_of_Varamin

Unfortunately, the article was rejected, as it did not appear to be "written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia". As a new editor, I failed to understand why the article was considered to not be formal enough, however, I was able to change a couple of minor things about the article to make it seem less formal. For example the sentence "The Battle of Varamin was a battle fought in 1911 between the forces of the Qajar dynasty under Arshad Al-Dawleh and the forces of the Majles under Yeprem Khan." Was changed to "The Battle of Varamin was a battle fought in 1911 between the Qajar dynasty under Arshad Al-Dawleh and the Majles under Yeprem Khan."

So my question is, do any experiences Wikipedia editors understand why my submission may have been rejected, and if so, how I can change it to get it accepted? Historicthebruce (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Historicthebruce Yes. WikiAviator may even now after this lomg gap, be able to help you. They declined it. You ought to have asked them because they know what was in their mind. However, that was on 27 March. I am surprised you have shown no interest in it since that date. I hope you have not been incapacitated in some manner. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:13, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 17

[edit]

06:38, 17 November 2025 review of submission by Texamedic4

[edit]

Would like help writing this article draft. I am not related to the founders, I just help out and am a local sidewalk artist that draws there and wants to see this space recognized. There are one Dallas-Fort Worth news ABC affilliate news broadcast, two local newspaper articles, one feature documentary that's been aired at film festivals and on our local PBS channel, one podcast with Texans Against Fentanyl non-profit group, and one local newspaper story. What else can I do to possibly create this as a new article, I'd love your help and support! Thank you so much for your help and time and efforts, I really appreciate you! Texamedic4 (talk) 06:38, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Texamedic4 We are not usually equipped to collaborate in writing drafts, though this might catch someone's interest. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 11:48, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Really hope so! I have plenty of national sources, just need to figure out how to have it be allowed. Thank you for responding, have a great day! Texamedic4 (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:15, 17 November 2025 review of submission by Ashequrrahmanresearch

[edit]
It's clear that this discussion has reached the end of the road. Closing to end time sink. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 11:50, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

why article rejected ? how to improve ? Ashequrrahmanresearch (talk) 07:15, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashequrrahmanresearch: We do not accept original research or thought, as we are an encyclopaedia. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:27, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please search the word "samophobia" in google , its been published in SSRN and also available in wikimedia. can you please write an article about samophobia in wikipedia and publish it. That would be great support.
SSRN : http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5417838
WIKI MEDIA: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Samophobia-Copyright-Certificate.jpg
www.ashequrrahman.com Ashequrrahmanresearch (talk) 07:38, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ashequrrahmanresearch: in a word, no. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:43, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First published in 13/3/2023 , it's been more than two years. 11/4/2023 got the copyright certificate from Bangladesh govt. official copyright office. please check
SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4381943
Copyright certificate: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Samophobia-Copyright-Certificate.jpg Ashequrrahmanresearch (talk) 07:52, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ashequrrahmanresearch: copyright certificate is totally meaningless, certainly in terms of establishing any sort of notability. You've coined this term and concept, even your SSRN paper says you "invented" it, and now you're trying to use Wikipedia to promote it.
This draft has been rejected, and that means the end of the road. Please find something else to edit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:57, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

08:16, 17 November 2025 review of submission by Sami Brhams

[edit]

Thanks for reviewing. I understand and respect Wiki's strict policies concerning content that may appear promotional. My intention was purely to create an objective entry about the company, not for marketing purposes...committed to meeting Wiki's standards.

Thank you for your time and guidance. Sami Brhams (talk) 08:16, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sami Brhams You have not responded to the important inquiry on your talk page two weeks ago; please disclose any connection you have to Redefine Meat. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:37, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is also no evidence that the company meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies; awards generally do not count towards company notability and your draft has zero independent sources (press releases and sources based on press releases are not independent). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:42, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Sami Brhams. "Promotion" has a wider meaning in Wikipedia than normal. If you say what the company wants people to know about itself, that is promotion.
{{HD/WIN
Two of your sources are from the company's blog, and therefore neither independent nor reliable, in Wikipedia's terms. And Incus appears to be a marketing and PR company, so that is also probably not a reliable source.
Writing an article begins by finding several places where people wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject at some length, in reliable publications (see WP:42). If you can't find any, then the subject is not notable in Wikipedia's terms, and no article is possible.
If you can find several such, the next step is to set aside everything that you personally know about the subject, and write a summary of what those sources say.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 13:34, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:47, 17 November 2025 review of submission by Stuffbymax

[edit]

i need help to finish this page mainly with

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject) reliable secondary independent of the subject Stuffbymax (talk) 11:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Stuffbymax In which case you need to perform significant research. Yoou also may find HELP:YFA instruction, and need to read and apply WP:REFB and WP:CITE.
We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 11:54, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is based on Slovakia and Czech wikipedia also how to exactly add primary and secondary sources Stuffbymax (talk) 12:01, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Stuffbymax The English Language Wikipedia has the strongest acceptance criteria. Having an article in either or both does not immediately mean an article here is acceptable, It must pass WP:GNG
With regard to the second part of your question, how to add references, I have answered that in my prior answer when I suggested you read and apply WP:REFB and WP:CITE. Others may wish to add extra information to that answer 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:12, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:51, 17 November 2025 review of submission by InfoLibres

[edit]

My draft Draft:Educational Records Evaluation Service was declined due to insufficient independent sources. I would appreciate help identifying reliable, secondary, in-depth references that demonstrate notability. I’ve included government listings, university recognition, and conference participation, but I’m unsure if they meet the criteria. Could someone advise on how to strengthen the sourcing or suggest examples of acceptable coverage? InfoLibres (talk) 11:51, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@InfoLibres You need to become familiar with the mantra "If it's to be, it's up to me" please. It's the title of a self motivation book by Dan Nielsen.
We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
We no not accede to requests for pre-reviews, I'm afraid. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 11:58, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:59, 17 November 2025 review of submission by The Tonic Communications

[edit]

Is it possible to gain advice on the best way to improve this page's chances of being published. It is my first attempt at a Wiki page. I'm guessing removing any citations to the brand website would be first? If it is not worth continuing to try please let me know and why. Many thanks The Tonic Communications (talk) 12:59, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Tonic Communications Please confirm that you have read and understood the information given to you already by Robert McClenon? That is the way forwards. If you have not yet understood the rational please talk to them directly. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@The Tonic Communications I have asked you the formal question about paid editing on your user talk page. This must be answered as your next edit.
If you believe that Wikipedia will enhance your client's corporate reputation please think again. Wikipedia adds no value to them, nor you. You and they must add value to Wikipedia. Their passing WP:CORP does that. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:32, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Timtrent - You might be interested that the submitter had left a question for me on their user talk page, but it began Hi Robert without pinging me. Of course, I didn't see it or answer it. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon If they were not a paid editor I woudk have alerted you directly. My view on paid editors is that they are paid to learn all policies, processes and 'stuff' here. As a hobbyist amateur editor I am not interested in helping poor paid editors get their invoices paid. I have total good faith that they are capable of learning on their own 😇 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:19, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Timtrent - I don't know if they are capable of learning on their own, but it doesn't matter. We are not paid to help them learn the rules. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon I see it as a definition of capability by virtue of the reward they (plan to) receive. This one is a PR Agency. We may seem them achieve their brief. if they do, good. If not, good. Wikipedia is improved either way. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:36, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:54, 17 November 2025 review of submission by Giga Bang

[edit]

I cannot find other website mentioning it other than for job offers. The references I gathered was somewhat "ok" as it was public info from the education board. I want to know any other way if it is possible to gather websites mention this? I heard trying web scraping works but not sure what to do. Giga Bang (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This college does not seem to be notable; I would suggest moving on to another topic. 331dot (talk) 16:00, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Giga Bang. A Wikipedia article should be based on what several people completely unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and not much else.
You should start by finding such sources (see WP:42), and if you cannot find them, then an article will not be possible. Note that government publications are nearly always primary sources, which do not contribute to this. ColinFine (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:55, 17 November 2025 review of submission by ~2025-34341-79

[edit]

how can i create this article ~2025-34341-79 (talk) 15:55, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in to your account when posting. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. Please read the autobiography policy. You should use your social media accounts to tell about yourself. 331dot (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@~2025-34341-79, @Clintmachuki, this is truly simple. No references = no article.
This will not proceed further. Rejection has no mechanism for resubmission. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 18:15, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline review of Draft:Anastasius Moumtzoglou by Wikishovel

[edit]

[Migrated here from WT:AFC 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:11, 17 November 2025 (UTC)][reply]


Hello, I am requesting a second opinion on the decline of my draft, Draft:Anastasius Moumtzoglou, by reviewer Wikishovel.

The draft was declined with the reason "Most of the sources are from predatory journals." However, the core sources establishing notability are:

  • Official award documentation from the Technical Chamber of Greece (TEE) (a professional body).
  • Digital preservation of award ceremony photographs in Zenodo (CERN) and the Internet Archive.
  • A professional news announcement from IGI Global.
  • An academic award from Emerald Publishing.

The reviewer's reason focuses on a claim about "predatory journals," which does not apply to these core sources. When I asked for specific guidance on what sources would be acceptable, I was told to "let someone unconnected with you... edit your biography" instead of receiving concrete feedback.

Could another reviewer please assess whether the existing sources are sufficient to establish notability, or provide specific, actionable guidance on what kind of additional sources are needed? Thank you. Anastasios Moumtzoglou (talk) 14:06, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Anastasios Moumtzoglou. I am another experienced reviewer and concur with @Wikishovel. Your sources which are not from unreliable predatory journals do not establish that you meet our criteria for inclusion. qcne (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. Could you please provide specific examples of the types of sources that would establish notability for an academic and health economist in my field? Anastasios Moumtzoglou (talk) 14:45, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable, mainstream journals or publications. This specifically excludes IGI Global which has been determined to be a vanity-publisher. Evidence of notable, highly prestigious awards. Being the chief editor of a well known journal. Being a named Chair or Fellow. qcne (talk) 14:50, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. To ensure I follow Wikipedia's sourcing policies correctly, could you please provide a direct link to the official Wikipedia page, policy, or guideline where IGI Global was formally 'determined to be a vanity-publisher'? I have been unable to locate this determination myself. Anastasios Moumtzoglou (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Anastasios Moumtzoglou Plenty of discussions if you search Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. qcne (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, qcne. I have searched Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and related pages. I cannot find any official, consensus-based policy or list that labels IGI Global a "vanity-publisher." These pages contain discussions and opinions, not firm determinations.
My question stands: On what specific, official Wikipedia policy page is IGI Global formally "determined" to be a vanity publisher, as you claimed? If this is not an official policy but an editor's interpretation, please clarify so future submitters have accurate guidance. Anastasios Moumtzoglou (talk) 16:02, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Anastasios Moumtzoglou I see consensus that IGI Global is an unreliable vanity publisher. A simple Google search also finds evidence from other people that concurs. qcne (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This convo has more or less ended but I should note that IGI is on ResearchGate's blacklist of sites for the same reason. aesurias (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Anastasios Moumtzoglou This is not really the venue for this. WP:AFCHD is a far better venue. That is what it is designed and intended for. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:53, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:23, 17 November 2025 review of submission by ThanosA1978

[edit]

I am not sure what is missing here as there are other wiki pages with similar content and pages that include less than what I have included. Please can you guide? 

ThanosA1978 (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ThanosA1978: oh come on, now. A company registered a few months ago, with £1 share capital and a single director, with zero evidence of any trading activity, and even less of notability. Wikipedia is not a business directory where everyone and their dog can create a 'profile' to tell the world about themselves; for that, you'll need to try the likes of LinkedIn etc. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @ThanosA1978. If there are other articles on Wikipedia with no sourcing and external links to primary sources, let us know so we can delete them. Unfortunately the company in your draft has no indication of meeting our criteria for inclusion at Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion (organizations and companies) qcne (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: That said, I did enjoy the SIC codes on the CoHo records:
  • 70229 - Management consultancy activities other than financial management
  • 81210 - General cleaning of buildings
:) DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:31, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:44, 17 November 2025 review of submission by Djwrex

[edit]

is this article fit the criteria to get published? Djwrex (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the vast majority of content has no sources. We also highly discourage writing about yourself. Have a read of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Autobiography. qcne (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:45, 17 November 2025 review of submission by ~2025-31338-27

[edit]

The draft Hyperscience page was rejected because apparently it reads like an advertisement. I looked at hundreds of company pages in the same space and in general and literally copied the same format, writing style and even the sections. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UiPath or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automation_Anywhere or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic

Please be more specific in your feedback on why this Hyperscience entry is any different from the other examples shared above. ~2025-31338-27 (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-31338-27: UiPath predates WP:ACPERM, while Anthropic and Automation Anywhere both predate WP:Articles for Creation as a whole. None were drafted. As to your sources...
None of what I can assess is any good. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:03, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:54, 17 November 2025 review of submission by Her Majesty of Basementian Empire

[edit]

My work has been rejected quite a few times and I am still unsure why as it has been denied for different reasons which do not make sense to me. I am sure I have not broke any guidelines or done anything which is irrevelant to Wikipedia. Her Majesty of Basementian Empire (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Her Majesty of Basementian Empire: you do realise Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, right? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:58, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Draft deleted, user blocked for !HERE.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:07, 17 November 2025 review of submission by Donplastic

[edit]

Hi, I am seeking help with the submission of a new artist page. I realise that it's not easy to get an artist page, but Robert Graff has had releases on a number of independent record labels since 2005, and has just scored his first major label writing credit, which has already been added to the FKA Twigs Eusexua Afterglow wiki page. Any steer to you can offer, to increase the chances of this page being accepted would be much appreciated. Donplastic (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Donplastic. Like many people who come here and immediately try to create an article, you are starting with a mistaken idea of what Wikipedia is.
I suggest you let go of the idea that you are "securing him a page", and think rather that you are writing an encyclopaedia article about him.
This might seem picky, but it's important. An article is not what he wants people to know about himself, or what you want people to know about him: it's based on what people who are not connected with him have chosen to publish about him in reliable publications. Any article you write about him will not belong to him (or you), will not be controlled by him, and will not necesarily say what he would like it to say. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, it is not in any way for his benefit (as implied by your "secure him a page").
If it happened that all the independent commentators who wrote about him said very negative things about him (I'm not saying that is that case, this is an example), then that is what should go in the article.
And if nobody unconnected with him has written much about him, or has only done so in unreliable places like forums, iMDB, or their own blogs, then an article is not possible.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @ColinFine, whilst I'm sure you meant well, at no point did I mention attempts to "secure him a page".
I am merely seeking helpful and friendly advice. Donplastic (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You said it in this edit(the comment immediately below). 331dot (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am trying to secure a page for a musician who has been writing music since at least 2005. Some of the labels he was associated with no longer exist, but, as he has just scored a major record label writing credit, I really want to secure him a page.

Are there any aspects of the draft which could be removed to secure an approval? If there is any contentious content here, I'd be more than happy to remove it. Any help you can provide would be very much appreciated. Donplastic (talk) 20:11, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Donplastic. Fundamentally, your sources do not prove this person meets our criteria for inclusion for musicians. discogs isn't a valid source to use, which just leaves datatransmission which is an okay source - but we'd need three or so sources of that calibre or better to prove he meets our criteria. qcne (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Qcne, I can understand where you're coming from. A compilation he appeared on was reviewed in the print edition of DJ Magazine back in April 2020, but it is not online. DJ Magazine is a very influential UK magazine that has covered electronic dance music since the early 90s, but I only have a paper copy of the review. How might I go about submitting it as an additional source of evidence?
Also, does his recent credit on the new FKA Twigs album not go a long way towards eligibility? His credit appears now on streaming services - how can I best prove his new major-label association?
His appearance on the Plastic City compilation is, I think, fairly relevant here, also. Plastic City are a label that have been around for over 30 years. Is there an alternative type of link to the Discogs entry, that would provide a more reliable level of evidence?
Any steer you could provide would be very much appreciated. I appreciate that you are only trying to retain high standards of information here. Donplastic (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Donplastic Paper offline sources are totally fine - don't take a photo and upload the source, as that's copyright infringement, just provide a full citation with as much bibliographic information as possible (author, page, date, etc) to allow readers to verify the information. Sources have to be published and accessible, but they don't have to be easily accessible.
A credit unfortunately isn't enough to prove notability, the test we use is "significant coverage", in this case some sort of transformative critical review by a mainstream music publication would be perfect.
If there are (offline or online) sources that discuss his involvement with Plastic City in an in-depth, transformative way that could work? qcne (talk) 20:30, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Surely a writing credit on a major label record counts towards significant coverage? This is poles apart from a bedroom producer self releasing his own material. Donplastic (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (music) states "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.". But it doesn't sound like he meets that? qcne (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The song is a major label release, and a video for the song was released today by Atlantic Records.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUvqvvTLKNA
Surely a song with a big budget video on a major record label qualifies as a notable composition? Donplastic (talk) 21:20, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mm, I don't think being fourth co-writer on a fairly niche song is going to cut it, unfortunately. qcne (talk) 21:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, the song now has 800k plays on Spotify, in a little under 24 hours. Under no circumstances could that level of traffic be considered niche. Donplastic (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
..and he has a co-writing (music) credit on the song. This can be verified on any streaming service. Donplastic (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Robert's writing credit has already appeared on the Eusexua Afterglow page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusexua_Afterglow Donplastic (talk) 21:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, not disputing he didn't co-write the song, but I just am not seeing it meeting that criterion. I could be wrong. Maybe submit for review again (with a few more sources?) and see if another reviewer disagrees with me? qcne (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the magazine citation that was suggested elsewhere in this thread. How might I submit my current draft to another reviewer? I sense you might be getting a little fatigued by this submission.
For instance, you've remarked that Robert is one of four writers, when, in fact, he is one of three. A second pair of eyes on the proposed article would, I think, not hurt at this stage.
I appreciate that you're only trying to secure high quality information, but I think we could do with another set of eyes on this. Donplastic (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, feel free to re-submit for review. Before you do - I would still remove the discog sources and replace them with better ones. qcne (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again @Donplastic. You posted that reply while I was posting my commet above. Yes, you can cite offline sources: as long as they are published, so that in principle a reviewer or a reader can obtain the source, eg from a library.
A review of something he produced might help an article about the compilation, but unless the review talks in some depth about him, then it doesn't help with an article about him. Nor will any credits. ColinFine (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One more point: I hadn't noticed the reference to Plastic City. Given your chosen username, need to ask, what is your connection with Graff? If you know him or work with him, then you have a conflict of interest, which doesn't prevent you from writing about him, but may make it even harder to be suitably neutral. Furthermore, if you are in any way employed or paid in connection with this work (even if you are not directly employed by him, and not paid to write this article specifically) then Wikipedia regards you as a paid editor, and you must make a formal declaration of that fact, as explained in that link. ColinFine (talk) 20:36, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @ColinFine, just to be clear, I have no connection to the Plastic City label nor Robert Graff personally. I am most certainly not being paid to do this - I sure you've been able to determine that nobody would pay someone with my level of wikipedia ability to create them a wikipedia entry.
I am merely a music fan more generally speaking. Donplastic (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Donplastic, I can promise you that your efforts to draft an article are significantly better than a number of paid editors we've seen.
It could be worthwhile spending some time working on improving some of our many subpar music articles before you tackle a new article - writing an article is the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia, and writing about a living person is the hardest kind of article. The task gets much easier if you already have a good grasp of Wikipedia's policies and criteria, and it's also possible that Graff will become more notable as time goes by. Certainly there's a lot of musicians who didn't initially qualify for articles, but ended up doing something that rocketed them to notability. Meadowlark (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:49, 17 November 2025 review of submission by ~2025-34455-85

[edit]

Why did you reject it ~2025-34455-85 (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no indication this short film meets our criteria. qcne (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 18

[edit]

03:51, 18 November 2025 review of submission by Nardevkanwar

[edit]

why my page is not being published yet. I has been corrected it and resubmitted it to publish. please tell me the exact reason why my article is not published yet. Kindly guide me. Nardevkanwar (talk) 03:51, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nardevkanwar, you have not resubmitted it. Once you feel you have addressed the reviewer's concerns, you may resubmit it. Meadowlark (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There have been no edits made since it was declined, so I'm not sure how the article has been corrected since the decline. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:43, 18 November 2025 review of submission by Siva1702

[edit]

can you tell me what is the reason Siva1702 (talk) 06:43, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Siva1702: this draft was rejected as non-notable, and deleted as promotional. As the reviewer said, we are not LinkedIn (we're instead an encyclopaedia, in case that wasn't clear). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:49, 18 November 2025 review of submission by ShahzaibExplorer

[edit]

I want to create a article on wikipedia but when i create article after some hours it is rejected by the wiki pedia team. This is the reason of assistance 

ShahzaibExplorer (talk) 10:49, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @ShahzaibExplorer. I rejected this draft as AI-generated slop, which isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. qcne (talk) 10:55, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft was an unsourced essay and entirely written by AI and so has been rejected. CoconutOctopus talk 10:56, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:58, 18 November 2025 review of submission by Yascohen

[edit]
Question answered. Article now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hived where its fate will be decided. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:36, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I would like to change the title to all capitals (HIVED) instead of Hived but I am unsure how to do this? Yascohen (talk) 11:58, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yascohen  Not done per MOS:TE; the company may stylise their name how they see fit, but our article titles use mostly sentence case, or title initial caps for proper nouns.
In the future, you may put such non-AfC questions to the Teahouse or Help desk. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:04, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hived. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

12:27, 18 November 2025 review of submission by Ériugena

[edit]

Where can I get help to satisfy your requirements?Ériugena (talk) 12:27, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ériugena. You can get help here. Let us know what help you need? Have you read our criteria for inclusion at Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion (people)? qcne (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:30, 18 November 2025 review of submission by User1988888

[edit]

What could help me get the page passed? User1988888 (talk) 12:30, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @User1988888. I unfortunately see no evidence Rory meets our strict criteria for inclusion at this time. Maybe try another website that is not as strict as Wikipedia? qcne (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:37, 18 November 2025 review of submission by Hirushakithmi

[edit]

why Hirushakithmi 12:37, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, @Hirushakithmi qcne (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is an AI generated essay on instagram complete with an advert link to your account; it is not an encyclopaedia article. CoconutOctopus talk 13:45, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:50, 18 November 2025 review of submission by ~2025-31710-58

[edit]

To make sure page is correct ~2025-31710-58 (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has been rejected, @~2025-31710-58. Feel free to expand the Blue Peter pets article. qcne (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:23, 18 November 2025 review of submission by MrDevolver

[edit]

Zxcvbnm thinks that Brookhaven RP is not notable for Wikipedia but I disagree about that and instead think that Brookhaven RP should be more properly sourced by fixing the text and adding more suitable citations that match with the topics of Brookhaven RP because it's unfortunately the best that I could do but failed which is why I'm crawling to the Help Desk for aid. MrDevolver (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging rejecting reviewer @Zxcvbnm. qcne (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "Pinging rejecting reviewer"? MrDevolver (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The draft was rejected by @Zxcvbnm, so I am pinging them into this conversation. qcne (talk) 14:11, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article was rejected due to failing WP:GNG. See also WP:AKON for an explanation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:27, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But that doesn't mean that there is no possibility to simply leave the rejected draft alone and wait a period of time until notable suitable citations are available online to note to what it talks about of that subject otherwise you can simply just remove all the text and/or citations that don't match to the topics of them or are not a suitable website for Wikipedian citing or are unsuitably not entirely properly talking about that topic of the subject and I'm also not going to be entirely listening to WP:AKON's advisors and policies. MrDevolver (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Devolver789: Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
The declines and rejection look to be correct. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:23, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay A) I wasn't responsible for that previous decline about the draft containing too much AI text and B) I'd rather like it if you'd refer to me as 'MrDevolver' even though my username is Devolver789. MrDevolver (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They just pinged you using the autocomplete feature on the text editor, it autocompletes your username. qcne (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne: I manually type my pings. @Devolver789: The ping does not work if I don't use your username. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:38, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano weirdo! qcne (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's only because I'm not able to change it to say 'MrDevolver' instead of Devolver789. MrDevolver (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Devolver789 Wikipedia:Changing username qcne (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eitherway, that doesn't matter right now because besides I'm literally subscribed to this section incase if I receive anymore comments or replies on this review of submission. MrDevolver (talk) 07:09, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And also why does lack of notability have to lead to an immediate rejection rather than just a simple decline? and also Wikipedia:AKON just makes this seem even more strict in Wikipedia, don't you think? That's the reason why I think Wikipedia:AKON should limit some of it's policies so it would seem easier or maybe suggest deleting it, which is too much of a case. MrDevolver (talk) 07:18, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:39, 18 November 2025 review of submission by SR75385

[edit]

Hi there, this draft was declined on the basis that the references didn't meet all 4 criteria: in-depth; reliable; secondary; strictly independent of the subject.

I would like to resubmit it asap with a different list of references, but I don't want to risk the draft being declined again, or rejected. If I post the new set of references in this chat that I want to resubmit with, would someone kindly be able to review them and check they would suffice? How many notable references does a Wiki page need to have? Is it at least 3, or more than that?

I previously received feedback that this reference is WP:CORPTRIV: https://www.business-live.co.uk/enterprise/bristol-ski-holiday-operator-heidi-29436570

But I've seen similar references on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidi_Health, which has been accepted. Example: https://www.mobihealthnews.com/news/anz/melbourne-based-heidi-health-expand-ai-scribe-capability-new-17m-fund

Could someone explain the difference of why that reference was accepted, and not considered WP:CORPTRIV?

Any help gratefully received, thank you. SR75385 (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SR75385: This is what Heidi Health looked like at time of acceptance. And frankly, it shouldn't have been accepted in that state; literally every source in that revision fails WP:CORPTRIV. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:48, 18 November 2025 review of submission by Zapag

[edit]

Hello,

I wrote this draft about my project, but it has been declined. I think all needed reference are present, they are reliable and secondary (website of the European Commission). Should I make a more in-depth presentation of the project? Many thanks in advance for your suggestion Zapag (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zapag: Government sources (incl. the European Commission) are by default primary sources and do not help for eligibility. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:50, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But in this case is not quoted as a source but as a reference about the statement that the project has been founded by the EU. Zapag (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A distinction without a difference. A source is what is referenced, and so "source" and "reference" are often interchangeable here on Wikipedia. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:16, 18 November 2025 review of submission by KiaVz

[edit]

I need help revising this draft tone KiaVz (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @KiaVz. A few of your sources do not exist, they lead to 404 errors. One of your DOIs also does not exist. This makes me think you used an AI chatbot like ChatGPT or Microsoft Copilot to write this draft, and it has hallucinated the sources. qcne (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also pretty certain the sourcing for this article would have to comply with WP:MEDRS. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:51, 18 November 2025 review of submission by ~2025-34635-18

[edit]

Hi everyone,

I’m working on improving the Wikipedia article for Jxrdanrdz, and I’ve encountered a blatant promotion warning on the page. The article seems to have some overly promotional language and possibly unbalanced coverage of Jxrdanrdz's career. I’m seeking feedback and guidance on how to revise the article to meet Wikipedia’s neutral point of view (NPOV) and citation guidelines.

Specifically, I need help with:

Removing superlative or promotional statements.

Balancing the coverage of their career by addressing both achievements and challenges or controversies.

Ensuring that sources are reliable and third-party, rather than promotional or self-referential.

Any suggestions on how to approach these revisions would be greatly appreciated!

Thank you for your help. ~2025-34635-18 (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:36, 18 November 2025 review of submission by Clk-muhammed

[edit]

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia.

My draft was declined because it does not have enough reliable and independent sources. I want to improve my draft, but I am not sure how to find the correct sources or how to show notability.

Could someone please help me understand:

What kind of sources I should add?

How to format the references correctly?

What changes I need to make so the draft can meet Wikipedia’s notability rules?

Thank you very much for your guidance. I appreciate any help. Clk-muhammed (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Clk-muhammed, your first problem is that you have written the draft WP:BACKWARDS - you have written the text, and now you're looking for sources. Wikipedia articles summarize what reliable sources say, but you have no sources to summarize. To revise your draft, please work your way through Wikipedia's notability rules, the 'golden rule' for sources (note that all three criteria must be met to count as a reliable source and help establish notability), and then referencing for beginners so you can cite sources that you find. Your first article might also be of use to you. Meadowlark (talk) 06:20, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:24, 18 November 2025 review of submission by CEKav

[edit]

Hi there! I want to change the title of this article from Jamil B. Ahmad (diplomat) to Jamil Ahmad (diplomat). How can I do this? Thanks so much! CEKav (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. You aren't able to move pages yourself until you become autoconfirmed. Ultraodan (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:04, 18 November 2025 review of submission by Tharpbellavista

[edit]

According to my research this does meet requirements for notoriety Tharpbellavista (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tharpbellavista: All of your sources have a "retrieved" parameter filled on them. This only applies to online sources - none of which you link. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:15, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To this end, I will be manually searching for and linking each source as I assess them.
Nothing you have is any good, and there are four sources that do not seem to exist. I'm not going to buy an argument that it's because of changes to website structure, because my search for Reference 2 turned up articles from 2008/9 as well as other letters-to-the-editor pieces, and I doubt 5NEWS's search engine would likewise fail to return stories it's published within the past two years. I'm thinking either this draft is unsanitised chatbot faeces, or the referencing is. Either way, the decline and the rejection for blowing off the decline look proper. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:44, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:21, 18 November 2025 review of submission by AlcubierreWarp

[edit]

First, thank you to @Hurricane Wind and Fire: for the quick review of my draft. I’ve gone through the linked WP:PRIMARY guidance and wanted to clarify the level of independence required for sources before I continue researching and strengthening the article.

By way of context, the Joint Meteorological Centre (JMC) is a unit within the Canadian Armed Forces, which itself reports to the Government of Canada. Some of the sources I cited are not affiliated with the JMC’s operations and function independently day to day, though they may fall within the broader defence or federal ecosystem. A few examples:

• Citation 4 – The Maple Leaf: A newspaper covering military activities, published by the Canadian Forces. It is part of the same parent institution but is not connected to the JMC in mandate or function.

• Citation 5 – Historical article: Written by a civilian who occasionally worked alongside military personnel but belonged to another government department (now Environment and Climate Change Canada). It is published by the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, an independent professional organization unrelated to the CAF or the Government of Canada.

• Citation 6 – Canadian Military Journal: Authored by a CAF member with experience in the broader meteorological service, though not at the JMC. The CMJ is a peer-reviewed journal published by the CAF.

My question is: does Wikipedia’s definition of “independent sources” require that contributors or publishers have no professional background in government, the military, or meteorology? I’m trying to understand how to demonstrate notability for topics that are significant but inherently low-profile, especially organizations adjacent to intelligence or specialized technical domains where public coverage may be limited.

Any clarification would be appreciated before I revise the draft further. AlcubierreWarp (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AlcubierreWarp: Hello. The primary source guideline is not necessarily experience in a field; rather, relation to the subject, and because the agency is part of the government, I did not count in the Canadian government domain towards notability guidelines. For Reference 5, I was unaware this was written by a civilian and not a government employee. The most ideal sources to add would be from reliable news outlets or websites that significantly cover the subject. 🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) (contribs)🔥 23:31, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 19

[edit]

03:33, 19 November 2025 review of submission by ~2025-33223-14

[edit]

Please explain what needs to be done for approval. ~2025-33223-14 (talk) 03:33, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-33223-14: Please see WP:Biographies of living persons, Help:Referencing for beginners, and Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: using a source more than once. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 04:57, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:54, 19 November 2025 review of submission by 89735s

[edit]

I want upload new page of "ID5". ID5 is similar go that of IP5. The IP5 wikipedia page is already formed. ID5 and IP5 is only the difference between design patents and general patents. 89735s (talk) 04:54, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@89735s: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Patent offices don't help for eligibility (gov't document). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 04:58, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1323033630"