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


July 26

[edit]

00:47, 26 July 2025 review of submission by TVresource

[edit]

Hi @Qcne, thank you again for your time and feedback — and I truly appreciate the care and effort you put into maintaining high standards.

I sincerely apologize for the frustration caused by the previous submissions. I understand that missing or improperly rendered citations are a major issue. I've now double-checked every <ref> tag, properly defined all named references, and ensured the full article uses

to display the citations. Everything is now correctly formatted and renders properly in the draft submission editor.

Unfortunately, when copying wikitext into this Help Desk or comment box, it breaks citation rendering and produces errors (like undefined named refs), even if the full submission is valid. To avoid that confusion, I’m pasting the entire article wikitext inside a tag below so you can review the source code without parsing issues. Thank you again for your time, and I’m grateful for any additional guidance. Warmly, —TVresource - Added significant coverage from reliable, independent, secondary sources (e.g., *Shine On Hollywood Magazine*, *Budo Brothers*, *Martial Arts & Action Entertainment*, *Kihapp*, and *UCLA Recreation*) - Reformatted references to proper inline citations using <ref> tags - Removed promotional language and editorializing to ensure neutral encyclopedic tone - Tightened the writing to avoid vague or speculative statements - Verified that all listed credits and biographical claims are supported by cited sources Before the resubmission is reviewed again, I would appreciate if someone could take a quick look and let me know if anything still needs to be addressed. Here is the draft: [[Draft:Tomm Voss]] Thank you so much for your help and time! [[User:TVresource|TVresource]] ([[User talk:TVresource|talk]]) 00:47, 26 July 2025 (UTC) :{{re|TVresource}} I've fixed the link for you. We don't do pre-reviews here (we're all volunteers and have limited time as it is). Did you get a chatbot to write your comment here or any of your draft? '''[[User:ClaudineChionh|ClaudineChionh]]''' <small>([[Wikipedia:Editors' pronouns|''she/her'']] · [[User talk:ClaudineChionh|talk]] · [[Special:EmailUser/ClaudineChionh|email]] · [[m:User:ClaudineChionh|global]])</small> 04:46, 26 July 2025 (UTC) :Hi @[[User:TVresource|TVresource]]. You haven't re-submitted for review since my last decline? And you haven't included any in-line citations? <span style="background-color: RoyalBlue; border-radius: 1em; padding: 3px 3px 3px 3px;">'''[[User:Qcne|<span style="color: GhostWhite">qcne</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Qcne|<span style="color: GhostWhite">(talk)</span>]]</small></span> 10:36, 26 July 2025 (UTC) :Hi @ClaudineChionh and @Qcne, thank you both for taking the time to respond and guide me. :I’ve now updated the Tomm Voss draft with properly formatted inline citations using <ref> tags for each key statement, and included<nowiki> {{Reflist}} to generate the footnotes section. All references are from independent, reliable, secondary sources that provide significant coverage. I hope this addresses the concerns from the most recent decline.

Also, to clarify, while I’ve used tools for formatting help and citation support, I’ve personally reviewed, verified, and organized all sources in alignment with Wikipedia’s standards and the notability guidelines for biographies. I deeply respect the editorial integrity of this platform and want to ensure everything is properly constructed.
Please let me know if there’s anything else needed to improve the submission further.
Sincerely,
@TVresource TVresource (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TVresource You are clearly using ChatGPT to format this draft, and ChatGPT is getting it wrong. Your latest draft version has not a single ref, and just an empty reflist! So it's patently untrue that you have updated it with in-line citations! Stop using AI to format the drafts, actually do the work by following the tutorial at Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1 to properly cite and reference your draft. qcne (talk) 17:51, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Qcne, thank you again for your time and for the feedback.
I want to sincerely apologize for any frustration or confusion this process has caused. I understand how it might appear that I haven’t followed the guidelines, but I truly have been trying to get this right. I’ve made every effort to include properly formatted inline citations using <ref> tags and a {{Reflist}}, and they appear correctly in the preview on my end when editing in source mode.
For some reason, however, they don’t seem to render properly after submission, and I realize now that some references may not be displaying as intended due to formatting conflicts or missing definitions (e.g., named references not being declared before reuse).
My goal is not to bypass Wikipedia’s standards or frustrate reviewers. I respect the time and energy you all invest as volunteers and deeply appreciate the help. I’ve now gone through the referencing tutorials again and carefully corrected and restructured the draft to ensure every citation is properly formatted and declared.
To help clarify, I’m pasting below the full wikitext version of the draft with all inline <ref> tags properly defined, along with the {{Reflist}}. If you see any remaining formatting issues, I welcome any additional tips to ensure I can correct them properly.
Thank you again for your patience and guidance, and for the important work you do.
Sincerely,
—TVresource

@TVresource: do not post the draft here. We all have access to the draft and can read the code. S0091 (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TVresource You're still using an AI chatbot to try and format your references (and your reply was likely AI generated). This is why nothing is working correctly. Ditch the shit robot, use the tutorial at Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1 to actually format your references. I might consider unrejecting the draft if you actually stop abdicating your responsibility to a chatbot and put in the human effort. qcne (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TVresource I agree with @Qcne. It is clear you are using AI and until you stop doing that, help will not be available because we are not here to cleanup or respond to AI slop. S0091 (talk) 19:03, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Qcne and @S0091,
Thank you for your candid feedback and for pointing me toward the VisualEditor tutorial. I now understand that submitting via manual Wikitext and relying on formatting assistance has caused issues and frustration, that wasn’t my intention. I genuinely want to learn and get this right.
I’ll stop using AI formatting tools and will reformat all citations using the VisualEditor as recommended, following the tutorial you linked. I appreciate your patience, and I’m committed to correcting the markup directly and responsibly going forward.
Thanks again for the clarity and your time,
— TVresource TVresource (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TVresource you need to stop using AI for anything here including discussions. The above was clearly written by AI. S0091 (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi S0091 I am here to get this right and follow your guidelines. I am doing my absolute best to be kind and courteous in response to your frustration as I am figuring this out, while navigating and learning this system. I do really appreciate your time and this is not written by AI. Thank you for finding the patience needed to help guide me through this process. I am not understanding why the <Ref> issues keep happening, in the previews its looks fine, but once I submit it is no longer there or in acceptable format, which is just as frustrating for me as I am sure it is for you and every reviewer so far. Again, thank you for your time, patience and support. TVresource (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
P.S I have now spent probably 8 hours on this in total, so I am not taking this lightly. TVresource (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:54, 26 July 2025 review of submission by Elvar Granheim

[edit]

I would like assistance so the Wikipedia site can get better. So people can learn from it. Elvar Granheim (talk) 01:54, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Elvar Granheim I'm afraid that draft is nowhere near the standards required for Wikipedia articles. Please read Help:Your first article and understand that writing a new article from scratch is one of the most difficult tasks on Wikipedia, and not recommended for brand-new editors like yourself. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 04:51, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's why I need help to edit it. Elvar Granheim (talk) 08:34, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't really get into co-editing here at this Help Desk. We can't edit it for you.
I would suggest that you first gain experience and knowledge before continuing to edit the draft. It will remain as long as it is edited at least once every six months(and can be restored if deleted due to inactivity, via WP:REFUND). Try using the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 08:54, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will note this draft falls into a contentious topic (South Asia). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:13, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:05, 26 July 2025 review of submission by Carolaispuro14

[edit]

Wikipedia Team

I have provide all information valid read from news websites in pakistan. Our purpose explore entrepreneur in Asia and Europe. Please Approve this article Carolaispuro14 (talk) 03:05, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Carolaispuro14 Wikipedia is not a business directory or a provider of free advertising space. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 05:01, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked this user as a likely sock or meat of Bilalnazarseo. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:25, 26 July 2025 review of submission by GodspowerChinemerem

[edit]

Hello! I’m requesting assistance with three related draft articles I’ve submitted:

1. Miss Teen Nigeria – A national teen pageant founded in 2017, recently revived with virtual editions and international representation. 2. Vanessa Edem – Miss Teen Nigeria 2024, who gained national media coverage in ThisDay.

I understand I may have a potential conflict of interest (COI), as I am affiliated with the Miss Teen Nigeria organization. I want to contribute transparently and in line with Wikipedia’s policies. I’ve disclosed my COI here and am open to editing only through Talk pages if needed.

All drafts are written in a neutral tone and supported by reliable sources such as Channels Television, ThisDay Live, and The Nation. I would really appreciate feedback on:

- Whether the current sourcing and content meet notability and style guidelines - Whether I should continue editing directly or only propose changes via Talk - How to best move these drafts forward for approval

Thank you very much for your time and guidance!

— User:GodspowerChinemerem GodspowerChinemerem (talk) 08:25, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GodspowerChinemerem You are welcome to continue to edit and resubmit the draft, that is exactly what you should do.
What is the general nature of your conflict of interest? Are you employed by the pageant organization?
You claim that this picture is your own personal work and that you personally hold the copyright to it, but it appears to be a professionally taken image. Do you personally hold the copyright to the image, or does the pageant organization? 331dot (talk) 08:57, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:44, 26 July 2025 review of submission by Plmoin2514

[edit]

How is this not sufficiently notable for inclusion on Wikipedia when it relates to an immigration requirement by Singapore that millions of travelers must complete every month? Other topics for Thailand and Malaysia and other countries already exist on Wikipedia too. Was this permanent rejection a mistake? Plmoin2514 (talk) 09:44, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it was a mistake; the reviewer felt it was a how-to guide rather than an encyclopedia article that summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a topic and show how it is notable. Not every government document is notable, though some are(United States passport, Form 1040) 331dot (talk) 09:48, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you can probably refactor the draft into a summary of secondary sources of the history, adoption, use of the Singapore Arrival Card. Pinging rejecting reviewer @TheTechie. qcne (talk) 10:35, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. However the article is permanently rejected and cannot be re-submitted even if someone improves the draft, which seems really strange for such an important immigration system? It seems that @TheTechie is not interested in responding here and I'm not sure what else to do to request this article be "unlocked" again. Please note that I also submitted the Malaysia Digital Arrival Card article with a very similar format and sources and it was approved immediately. Plmoin2514 (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you can fundamentally change the draft to address the concerns, you should first appeal to the rejecting reviewer to ask that they consider your changes; if they don't for whatever reason, you ask the community here to override the decision of the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rejection here was not a mistake. The previous reviewer declined the draft for the exact same reason, and no such significant changes were made. Other similar articles existing is not a criterion for having such an article, and in addition, many parts of the text were more like a how-to guide than an article. If, however, significant changes were made, I'd be happy to open it for submission again. thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 18:21, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There were already significant changes made after the first rejection, and now it's locked and new draft submissions cannot be sent anymore. I'm not sure why you are claiming otherwise. At this point I would like to nominate this article for community review and approval since @TheTechie has not re-opened the draft for re-submission. Plmoin2514 (talk) 03:50, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I genuinely do not see any difference. The version you provided and the current version, are in fact, the exact same. But I'm curious what others think. At least from my point of view, it might be worth editing on a different topic until you feel you can improve this one. thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 00:30, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:46, 26 July 2025 review of submission by 41.210.143.189

[edit]

I have tried to make this subject notable for so long now 4 years and i have failed,i request any editor since wikipedia is having volunteer editors to get time and write this article in a way they see that it is notable,i have used reliable sources but it has refused,so i kindly request any person there to help. 41.210.143.189 (talk) 10:46, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid this person simply does not merit an article at this time. You can not create notability out of thing air. qcne (talk) 10:49, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let me provide you all sources talking about him and his media companies here for you to verify 41.210.143.189 (talk) 10:51, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know this person? qcne (talk) 10:54, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He is the Owner Apex Media where i was employed to work on their Nup radio which was to be removed because of accusing NRM people and this was recently talked about by bloggers on Tik Tok even and also red pepper 41.210.143.189 (talk) 11:03, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
he is also a musical artist https://www.boomplay.com/artists/112212467 41.210.143.189 (talk) 11:08, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://dailyexpress.co.ug/2025/07/21/online-publishers-decry-heavy-taxes-harsh-regulation-fees-from-ucc-ura/
https://ugamusic.net/blogs/online-publishers-protest-high-taxes-and-strict-regulations-from-ucc-ura
https://dailyexpress.co.ug/topics/nyanzi-martin-luther/
https://www.tiktok.com/@fricana_boy/video/7513159606722432262
https://pressug.com/2025/03/21/ugandan-teenage-mogul-nyanzi-martin-luther-redefines-entrepreneurship/
https://diasporadigitalmedia.com/teenage-mogul-takes-uganda-by-storm-nyanzi-martin-luthers-rise-to-fame/
https://todayfirstpost.com/nyanzi-martin-luther-the-15-year-old-ugandan-media-mogul/
https://joripress.com/nyanzi-martin-luther-replies-to-the-public-about-his-networth-and-media-ventures
https://www.crunchbase.com/person/nyanzi-martin-luther
https://joripress.com/meet-nyanzi-martin-luther-the-15-year-old-media-mogul-redefining-ugandas-entertainment-industry
https://ground.news/article/ugandan-teenage-mogul-nyanzi-martin-luther-redefines-entrepreneurship 41.210.143.189 (talk) 11:01, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i have others since time is not on my side but i kindly request you to review properly 41.210.143.189 (talk) 11:04, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly,help me i have provided thye sources for you to prove 41.210.143.189 (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All people who have trying to create it,their accounts are banned that they are papets of joan vumilia and i don`t know why. 41.210.143.189 (talk) 10:49, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked as a sock/meat puppet. 331dot (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:56, 26 July 2025 review of submission by BLACKSTONES MEDIA

[edit]

Could you please share the reason for the rejection? I would like to understand it for future improvements. BLACKSTONES MEDIA (talk) 11:56, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BLACKSTONES MEDIA You created a chatbot generated spammy draft with no useful sources. qcne (talk) 12:01, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:03, 26 July 2025 review of submission by MountainWriter42

[edit]

The what should I have done for , publish Chandra Kafle on Wikipedia as a notable. MountainWriter42 (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Justiyaya#Question from MountainWriter42 (11:38, 26 July 2025) qcne (talk) 14:05, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:14, 26 July 2025 review of submission by GJRWhitman

[edit]

i do not know how to delete the last reference regarding visual art. it is irrelevant to Alden Harken. Also, my conflict of interest is that he was my professor and mentor from 1976 through 1990 and taught me how to be a caring physician and adept heart surgeon. Glenn GJRWhitman (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @GJRWhitman in the Career section there are several WP:exceptional claims which require exceptional sources, thus WP:primary sources are not nearly sufficient. What is needed are high-quality independent (no affiliation with him) secondary sources by reputable publications. Also, the Awards section is unsourced. S0091 (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know how to directly respond to Moritoriko but regarding Dr Harken's accomplishments, he has received lifetime awards from the most prestigious societies in the field of surgery and cardiology, which i mention in the body of the document. I find that receiving those awards from his colleagues and disciples as persuasive that his contributions to the field of cardiac and arrhythmia surgery are substantive and worthy of a person cited in Wikipedia. Do the editors have any suggestions for me? Glenn GJRWhitman (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GJRWhitman see my response above. Also, awards are not helpful unless they are major notable awards, such as the Nobel Prize. S0091 (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:12, 26 July 2025 review of submission by Eglass63

[edit]

I'm new here, so I may not fully understand the feedback I received. My draft was rejected for not being sufficeintly noteworthy. My draft was, however, a direct translation of an existing Finnish Wikipedia page, with the same sources (as no English-language equivalents are, to my knowledge, available). The draft was created with Wikipedia's translation tool. I am not sure, under these circumstances, what should be done in order to publish the submission (or if the article simply cannot be translated for English Wikipedia?). Thanks! Eglass63 (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Eglass63: whether an article on this subject exists in the Finnish Wikipedia is neither here nor there, as each language version of Wikipedia is an entirely separate project. That said, an album that has charted can normally be presumed to be notable per WP:NALBUM. I'm pinging the reviewer RangersRus in case they've spotted some reason not to accept this, which I may have missed in my quick scan. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Eglass63: The source for Finland's music chart was misunderstood as it wasn't clear that
Musiikkituottajat is the same. I reviewed the source Musiikkituottajat and see the album is notable. I will re-review again. Thank you @DoubleGrazing:, good catch. Your quick glance is better than mine. RangersRus (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for your kind and quick responses and explanations! Eglass63 (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:28, 26 July 2025 review of submission by IncitatusinFla

[edit]

There are many references for this person, the issue is that they are brief reviews. Not sure what, in the case of a person like her one would provide. IncitatusinFla (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but if brief reviews or other brief coverage (assuming they meet the other three criteria—reliable, secondary and independent) is all that is available, then an article is not possible. S0091 (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That seems unduly harsh. This person was part of an organized entertainment industry that was largely supported by small town people. The references were primary.
Seems that given the criteria that you outlined no early entertainer would be eligible for inclusion. Or, perhaps, very very few. IncitatusinFla (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Our criteria is at Wikipedia:Notability (people) - generally we'd be looking for three sources that provide in-depth coverage about her not based off an interview. qcne (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@IncitatusinFla Are none of your 17 newspaper sources online and accessible on a digital newspaper archive? Even behind a paywall? qcne (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Every one of them is. There are probably 3 times that number. This woman acted for years, all on the road.
What should I do? How to reference in text and then include them?
https://www.newspapers.com/image/1036410567/?match=1&terms=%22miss%20raeburn%22 IncitatusinFla (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are they all brief reviews? There is a way to cite them but if they are all brief mentions about her, then not likely helpful. S0091 (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @IncitatusinFla. It would then be really useful for the reviewers to add these as in-line citations by following the tutorial at Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1. Just paste in the newspapers.com link and it should auto-generate a full reference. qcne (talk) 19:56, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne they have to be clipped in order to use the automatic citation method. I just checked ProQuest which has the historical New York Times but got nothing and that is where one would look for a notable American stage actress. S0091 (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:03, 26 July 2025 review of submission by ASR169

[edit]

please help me out am not getting what exactly mistakes am doing am a new article publisher and need support from your end please let me no what all requirments are needed to improve and post publicly thank and regards akshay 

ASR169 (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ASR169 You have not submitted the draft for review. Please carefully read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and then our criteria for inclusion at Wikipedia:Notability (music). A draft is not possible without reliable references, you have none. qcne (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:12, 26 July 2025 review of submission by Hagtic

[edit]

a lot of rejected Hagtic (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, @Hagtic. You basically wrote Wikipedia:Spam. Did you have a question? qcne (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
am try to create a wiki for my app Hagtic (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please carefully read Wikipedia:Spam. Wikipedia isn't a place to advertise your app. qcne (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
am not advertise my app just am make articale about the app i already read the Wikipedia:Spam Hagtic (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are literally spamming, your account will shortly be blocked. qcne (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Qcne,
I would like to clarify that I am not spamming — I’m genuinely attempting to create a technical and factual article about my app, similar to how other software products are documented on Wikipedia. I understand Wikipedia is not a place for promotion or advertising, and I have read both WP:Spam and WP:Notability (software).
My intent is to write in a neutral, encyclopedic tone, focusing on:
The app’s development history
Its features and privacy practices
Mixed user reception and comparisons with similar apps
Its current limitations, including the lack of third-party media coverage
I recognize now that my first drafts may not have fully met the tone and sourcing expectations. I'm open to constructive guidance and willing to improve the article via the Articles for Creation process.
Please know this was a good-faith contribution, not an attempt to spam or misuse Wikipedia. I kindly ask for reconsideration and the opportunity to revise the content rather than face a block.
Thank you for your time, and I appreciate your work in maintaining Wikipedia’s standards. Hagtic (talk) 21:45, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First draft speedy deleted WP:G11. Second draft at Draft:Moooby APP rejected and up for speedy deletion WP:G11. OP indef'ed as a promotional account. Meters (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 27

[edit]

02:02, 27 July 2025 review of submission by 2407:5200:401:A847:D5FB:65A7:18C6:8AD8

[edit]

manish rai is famous fashion designer of nepal, is popular, and works with most celebs of Nepal, inclduing Miss Nepal. I think he is popular enough to be featured, why am i getting rejected again & again. 2407:5200:401:A847:D5FB:65A7:18C6:8AD8 (talk) 02:02, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been deleted as purely promotional with no evidence of notability. For future reference, being "famous" or "popular" is of zero interest to us, we only care about whether someone or something is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:06, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:23, 27 July 2025 review of submission by Allakas

[edit]

I don’t get why the page keeps getting rejected. I feel like I have included enough sources, there are a lot of news articles about him, and I have tried to stay neutral to the best of my ability. If possible, could someone please go through and check? Allakas (talk) 11:23, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allakas The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
If you feel that you have addressed the concerns of the reviewers(as stated on the draft), you should resubmit the draft for another review. Before you do that, though, you may want to ask the prior reviewers directly if you've done as they asked. 331dot (talk) 11:44, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:29, 27 July 2025 review of submission by Edouglasww

[edit]

I really don't know what else I can do to get this submission approved. There's been a lot more press about the band and its new releases, but I don't even know the best way to add those references and not sure I should bother since this seems to be outright nixed and I'm not allowed to resubmit. Edouglasww (talk) 15:29, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe you can now address the concerns left by reviewers, you should make those changes, then appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly and ask them to reconsider.The coverage needs to be significant- more than just the mere reporting of the band's activities, sources that provide analysis. 331dot (talk) 15:36, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made the changes... this reviewer put STOP on the page and it's no longer available to resubmit. I do not understand this at all. Listen, they're not going to be eligible for a Nobel Peace Prize...they're a rock band from Brooklyn. There are many of them but few with such an output of music over the past 14 years. What more do you want? Edouglasww (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @SafariScribe qcne (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:09, 27 July 2025 review of submission by Edouglasww

[edit]

I keep being told this page is not sufficient or notable for inclusion on Wikipedia even though I've found dozens of citations and references to the band's work and their coverage by other media, including reviews. I no longer am allowed to even submit this page even though it's linked to from other band's pages. Edouglasww (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Edouglasww looking at the sources, many of them are blogs which are not reliable sources (see WP:BLOGS) nor are PR sites like Baby Robot Media. In addition, what the band says about itself (interviews, their website, etc.) are not useful for notability nor are press releases/announcements. I am not seeing a single source that meets the criteria. S0091 (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:33, 27 July 2025 review of submission by B.Hawkins.Cornwall

[edit]

Reason for requesting assistance: I am requesting help to improve this draft on Ben Hawkins, a Cornish-born photographer and filmmaker. The draft includes verifiable recognition from international competitions (Top 100 ILPOTY 2023, London Photography Awards Gold), film collaborations with the Duchy of Cornwall, and features in independent publications including Cornwall Life Magazine, The Bristol Magazine, and CommunityAd. I'm unsure if the current references meet Wikipedia's notability standards or if further citation formatting is required. Guidance on improving sourcing, tone, or structure to meet acceptance criteria would be appreciated. B.Hawkins.Cornwall (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@B.Hawkins.Cornwall you used AI, likely ChatGPT, to create the draft and its output or instructions included the decline so essentially you declined your own draft. You need to remove everything and start over without using AI as their output is unacceptable. See Your first article. S0091 (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thanks I get it B.Hawkins.Cornwall (talk) 17:51, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:48, 27 July 2025 review of submission by Mdsharufmiah24

[edit]

I had made a page but i cannot submitted. I Don't know why i am facing that kind of problem. Really i need you help. I given all right information on the page. Mdsharufmiah24 (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mdsharufmiah24. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn or social media, your draft was just a page telling the world about you. qcne (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am a student and junior researcher. So I have opened a Wikipedia account. This way everyone will know me and I can record all my achievements here. I hope you will help me publish it. If you need any information, please let me know. I will try to provide it immediately. Thank you Mdsharufmiah24 (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mdsharufmiah24 That is not what Wikipedia is for. Please carefully read Wikipedia:Spam. Go to another website if you want to promote yourself. Your draft will stay rejected. qcne (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
how can solve this problem? Please help me Mdsharufmiah24 (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Mdsharufmiah24. As Qcne told you, you can solve this problem by stopping trying to use Wikipedia to promote yourself. That is the whole of the answer.
If you wish to contribute to Wikipedia without promoting anything or anybody - especially yourself - you will be welcome. But promotion is never welcome here. ColinFine (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:51, 27 July 2025 review of submission by İlyas Deli

[edit]

Hello, and thank you for your kind response.

I noticed that my draft article was declined, and I would appreciate some clarification about the specific reasons. I would like to improve it according to Wikipedia's guidelines.

Could you please let me know what exactly needs to be changed, improved, or added for it to be accepted? I’m especially interested in understanding whether the subject meets notability criteria and if the sources I used were appropriate.

I’m new to editing on Wikipedia and eager to learn, so any guidance or feedback would be very helpful. Thank you once again for your time and support.

Best regards, İlyas Deli. 27/07/2025 İlyas Deli (talk) 17:51, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@İlyas Deli Your biggest issue is the lack of in-line citations. Please carefully read the tutorial at Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1. Every biographic statement should have the source that verifies it formatted as an in-line citation directly after the statement. You have 12 in-line citations, but they're all bunched at the bottom of the draft. qcne (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your helpful feedback, qcne. I appreciate your time and guidance. I will carefully go through the tutorial you recommended and make sure to add proper in-line citations directly after each biographic statement, as advised. Your support is much appreciated! İlyas Deli (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@İlyas Deli also see the notability guidelines for academics or an alternative is the guidelines for authors. For authors, generally was is needed are multiple critical reviews of across multiple works. S0091 (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you,S0091 , for pointing that out. I’ll review the notability guidelines for academics as well as the ones for authors, as you suggested. I understand that for authors, multiple critical reviews across different works are usually required, and I’ll work on gathering and integrating such sources where possible. Your guidance is very helpful! İlyas Deli (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:15, 27 July 2025 review of submission by Mdsharufmiah24

[edit]

Sir, How can solve that problem? Mdsharufmiah24 (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot, @Mdsharufmiah24. The draft has been rejected. Please go elsewhere to another website to record your achievements. qcne (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which website? Will i go Mdsharufmiah24 (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know? LinkedIn? Facebook? Twitter? qcne (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:04, 27 July 2025 review of submission by RadiationWonk

[edit]

Hi, I'm one of the people who have worked on this page, and I just saw that it was rejected from AfC for the second time for a lack of notability. The last time this happened, I asked on live help what would be required to demonstrate this, and I ended up adding several news articles from Wired, Scientific American, Science News and Ars Technica, which I believe demonstrates "significant coverage" in "reliable sources" that are "independent" of the subject. Please let me know what further evidence would be required to accept this submission. Thank you! RadiationWonk (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RadiationWonk Looking at the sources you mentioned (Wired, Scientific American, Science News and Ars Technica), they are all reporting on one particular experiment, not the COHERENT Collaboration as a whole. Two of these sources don't even mention the COHERENT collaboration. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:17, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted. 331dot (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @RadiationWonk. Many sections are cited only to primary sources. If nobody independent has written about a project, what is it doing in a Wikipedia article?
There are also external links in several sections. These should almost never be used within the text: either convert them into citations, if appropriate, or remove them. ColinFine (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ColinFine Thanks for your input. I will work on converting external links. With regards to primary sources, almost half the articles cited meet Wikipedia's criteria for scientific articles as secondary sources: "Narrative reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses are considered secondary sources, because they are based on and analyze or interpret (rather than merely citing or describing) these original experimental reports." By this metric, anything using the Collaboration results which is not published by the Collaboration would be a secondary source to the Collaboration's work. This includes annual reviews of particle physics, and analyses by independent groups of COHERENT data. For instance, the first result by the Collaboration, published in Science, has over 800 citations alone. Only the most prominent were included in the draft article. In the scientific community, it is clear that the Collaboration is notable.
Beyond the news and scientific articles mentioning the Collaboration, what more would specifically be required to demonstrate this in the article?
The article also fills in a gap in Wikipedia: several existing Wikipedia articles reference the Collaboration, with or without a red link. For example: List of neutrino experiments, Kate Scholberg (whose work on COHERENT was cited in her induction as a AAAS fellow), CONUS experiment (an experiment searching for the same process whose results were published much later than COHERENT). RadiationWonk (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RadiationWonk Your draft is missing significant coverage of the COHERENT Collaboration. Analysis of one particular result, and mere mentions of the Collaboration, are not the same as significant coverage of the COHERENT Collaboration itself. See also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the existence of other articles which may be of poor quality does not imply that more problematic articles should be published. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:01, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:10, 27 July 2025 review of submission by Dwest2018

[edit]

I was flagged for possible conflict of interest. How do I disclose my interest to people? I am an unpaid - I have not any compensation as a researcher. I am a 40 year resident and help a grassroots group with research. Grassroots according to Wikipedia means volunteers - citizens - and who are not paid. How do I disclose this identity? . Thank you sincerely. Dwest2018 (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just write a statement on your user page(User:Dwest2018). You wrote about your group in the draft, this is a COI. 331dot (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article not accepted because " Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Santa Clara, California instead." How may I add the content as a second page that adds additional facts I have found? Dwest2018 (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dwest2018 Please edit this existing section, don't create additional threads.
Your draft is located at Draft:Downtown Santa Clara CA- you need to use that full title when linking.
You should expand the existing Santa Clara article, and then make a case that the content you add should be spun off into another article. 331dot (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:14, 27 July 2025 review of submission by ArtistsandAfilliates

[edit]

Hi, I'm not quite understanding the reason for the last denial. The subject in question (Jon O'Connor) is a notable, world touring musician, with numerous cited reputable sources. Can you please assist me with this? Maybe there's something I'm not getting here, but it just seems the reviewers are taking a dig at the content for no reason, & looking for issues where there aren't any. They've mentioned A.i or chat Gpt which I'm neither & I think bots. So, please tell me what do I have to do here?! ArtistsandAfilliates (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear on how he meets WP:BAND? His bands may merit articles, but I'm not sure he does. 331dot (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 28

[edit]

07:19, 28 July 2025 review of submission by Peshwa Acharya

[edit]

Can you give me more brief on what was the reason the page was not submitted? Peshwa Acharya (talk) 07:19, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Peshwa Acharya: your draft was deleted as promotional. It was basically a CV/resume, and we don't publish such content. Also, you should not be writing about yourself in the first place, per WP:AUTOBIO. As the rejecting reviewer suggested, you should try LinkedIn instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:36, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide me some reference on how I should write the content for my wiki page? Peshwa Acharya (talk) 06:54, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:29, 28 July 2025 review of submission by RavenFox94

[edit]

Could you please help me with my draft? I tried to include all relevant information in neutral tone and added references to external sources for the information. This man is a founder of a beach soccer team that has been number one in world rankings, currently number two and published a few books. I believe this is notable enough to have a wikipedia page or am I wrong? RavenFox94 (talk) 09:29, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:35, 28 July 2025 review of submission by Jcopperwaite

[edit]

I have two main points that I'm trying to clarify when looking to get my page approved:

1) The draft was criticised for lack of reliable source material

2) The being sections that are unsourced

To both points, the article was based on an in-depth biography by the Victoria Bar, and I was struggling to balance out interesting details, along with trying to avoid outright plagerism of their writing.

As their piece often covered specific time periods or experiences in a paragraph, I tried to replicate some of this, assuming that I could then cite a footnote to that paragraph, to cover all of the proceeding.

Is that incorrect, or can someone point me in a better stylistic approach? (E.g. citing each 'event' that may entice curiosity) Jcopperwaite (talk) 10:35, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Jcopperwaite.
If he was a member of the Victorian Bar, then a biography published by the Bar is not an independent source. This means that it may only be used for uncontroversial factual information, and does not contribute towards establishing that he meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Ditto Arthur's Creek and Abound Community. The ADB piece about Ahkanasy does not mention Hulme, and so does not provide verification for the information where it is cited. The AFR article might meet the criteria (it's paywalled, so I've only looked at the opening) but a single solid source is rarely enough.
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
You therefore have almost no sources which are capable of establishing that he is notable in Wikipedia's sense, and so almost no sources on which to base an article. You need to find several sources which all meet the criteria in WP:42, and then write the article based on those sources - this will probably mean starting again.
Oh. and Wikipedia should almost never be cited, as it is not a reliable source, being user-generated. I would say "cite the relevant source on which the Wikipedia article is based, but Queen's College, Melbourne gives no source for the information in question. (In fact, it is almost devoid of useful sources, and I shall tag it accordingly.)
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @ColinFine
Thank you for the feedback, and I appreciate the depth at which you went into, including linking out to other support articles.
Upon reviewing sources and comparing them to the others linked in my draft, I can see a limited number of independent sources (e.g., books, newspaper articles) about the subject.
Being interviewed by the Victorian Bar, I understand that he was a member.
Abound Commnunities named a building after him, which I thought would be "uncontroversial factual information", but I concede he was also on the board.
Arthur's Creek Wine was a statement from a notable Wine Reviewer, but would also be "uncontroversial factual information"
Do you think that a shorter page would be accepted, or would the better option in this case be the inclusion of Hulme in the various lists of achievement, as those awards appear notable (Order of Australia, Rhodes Scholarship, etc)? Jcopperwaite (talk) 13:57, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again @Jcopperwaite.
If you have enough quality sources to establish notability (usually reckoned as a minimum of three) then an article summarising what those sources say is probably acceptable however short it is; and once it has passed that hurdle, you can add uncontroversial factual data from non-independent sources - but independent ones are preferred.
In my opinion, saying that he bought the estate and made wine is OK, but saying that the wine was award-winning would require an independent source. Others may disagree. ColinFine (talk) 20:32, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:39, 28 July 2025 review of submission by Lad71

[edit]

I would like to ask you for specific editing tips for succesfull publishing a draft. Thank you much Lad71 (talk) 11:39, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lad71. You don't have any sources. Please very carefully read Wikipedia:Verifiability and then read our criteria for businesses at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). qcne (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:48, 28 July 2025 review of submission by TeenX808

[edit]

Can someone help me to improve this article and can anyone elaborate on the reason why this article got declined when I have followed the WP:AFC guidelines and others. Thanks - TeenX808 (talk) 11:48, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TeenX808: I would be incredibly cautious here as this is in a contentious topic (South Asia). What I will tell you is that your book cites all appear to be incomplete:
—Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:32, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So when I used auto cite option to paste a url from internet archive I thought it would give the cited page number and others. Thanks for the help@Jéské Couriano TeenX808 (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TeenX808: I would also find somewhere else to edit; an admin has extended-confirmed-protected the draft as Arbitration enforcement (WP:ARBIMH#Indian military history extended-confirmed restriction). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately yeah so I will countinue to work on a different article TeenX808 (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:07, 28 July 2025 review of submission by Andra Tobosaru

[edit]

Hello,

I have created a draft article titled "Romanian Commodities Exchange" (Draft:Romanian_Commodities_Exchange) and submitted it for review. However, it has not yet been moved to the main Wikipedia space.

I would appreciate guidance on how to improve the draft to meet Wikipedia's notability and sourcing requirements. The draft includes a detailed description of the exchange’s structure, market roles, and regional impact, supported by a self-published article hosted on Zenodo (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.16533704).

Could you please advise on additional reliable and independent sources that would strengthen the article’s chances for approval? Any recommendations for improving the article’s style or content are also welcome.

Thank you very much for your help! 

Andra Tobosaru (talk) 12:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Andra Tobosaru. This draft was rejected as being unsuitable for Wikipedia. There is simply no evidence the organisation meets our criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). As such, the draft won't be considered further and I suggest you write about something else.
The only way forward is for you to substantially change the draft with concrete evidence of notability, and then appeal to the rejecting reviewer. qcne (talk) 12:18, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the new version: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Commodities_Exchange#cite_note-1 Andra Tobosaru (talk) 12:58, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Andra Tobosaru Why did you create a new version in mainspace which is substantially worse than the draft? I will mark it for deletion. qcne (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
New version draft:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Romanian_Commodities_Exchange#Retail_Market Andra Tobosaru (talk) 06:32, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kovcszaln6 since the new version of the draft is substantially different to the one you rejected, would you un-reject the draft to allow a new review? qcne (talk) 15:33, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne: Considering that (1) the AfD is currently an unopposed delete, (2) the sources in the draft are either passing mentions of the organization or unrelated, and (3) the draft seems AI-generated with few sources and unrelated stuff (etymology of the word retail?), I don't see a chance that it would be accepted. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fair to me. @Andra Tobosaru I highly suggest you write about something else and abandon this draft for now. qcne (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:10, 28 July 2025 review of submission by Gkvirtualmedia

[edit]

Kindly check my content and recorrect the content to live my page Gkvirtualmedia (talk) 12:10, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeffed qcne (talk) 12:16, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:59, 28 July 2025 review of submission by Andra Tobosaru

[edit]

This is the new version:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Commodities_Exchange#cite_note-1 Andra Tobosaru (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Andra Tobosaru: Today you learn what "Publish and be damned" means. The draft was rejected and will not be considered further. The mainspace version is being debated at Articles for Deletion. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:26, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:45, 28 July 2025 review of submission by Migupe

[edit]

Hi there,

Thank you for reviewing my draft regarding Nestlé Professional. I read the feedback given by the editors, and I am happy to change the draft accordingly. I'd appreciate if you could share a little bit more on where does the article sound promotional or if there is an issue with the added sources on the second draft so I can change them. Additionally, if there is something that seems to be created by an AI tool I can change it as well. I will definitely change anything that is not compliant with Wikipedia's requirements Migupe (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just blatant advertising WP:TNT is required. Theroadislong (talk) 15:03, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Migupe. Usually "reads like an advertisement" means that it reads as what the subject wants people to know about itself.
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:56, 28 July 2025 review of submission by Courtney Dunne

[edit]

I resubmitted my article with the references tag because it said I was using inline citations incorrectly. Are they now correct? Courtney Dunne (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be, but the reviewer will look at it.
You must cite or remove the information about his family. 331dot (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, @Courtney Dunne. However in a biography every statement requires an in-line citation, and you have quite a few unsourced statements. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. qcne (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
could you give me an example of one that needs citing? Courtney Dunne (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The entire Early Life and Education and Personal Life sections? qcne (talk) 15:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please also address the issue of undisclosed paid editing. Theroadislong (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify this issue? I am not being paid to edit. Courtney Dunne (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are editing using the name of an employee of Olympus, this would make you a paid editor. Theroadislong (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Courtney Dunne: if you're writing about your employer and/or colleagues you are automatically considered a paid editor, even if you're not explicitly paid to edit Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are also editing the company page here Olympus Partners. Theroadislong (talk) 15:23, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:06, 28 July 2025 review of submission by B.Hawkins.Cornwall

[edit]

Will my links be sufficient enough to get my page verified please !!

Regards Ben B.Hawkins.Cornwall (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @B.Hawkins.Cornwall. I removed the ChatGPT malformed decline notice. You can now submit your draft for review properly. However I note all your citations are formatted incorrectly, please follow the tutorial at Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1 and do not use ChatGPT to try and format them for you. qcne (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok thanks B.Hawkins.Cornwall (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:27, 28 July 2025 review of submission by SpainMMAfan123

[edit]

Hello, my draft Mansur abdul malik has been declined, it was by the same person 3 times in a row and they also deleted one of my articles and I think that they have a bias against me and I think it meets WP:GNG and I would like a different person to review it SpainMMAfan123 (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of the declines was because you made no changes to the draft.
That you didn't get the results you want does not mean that the reviewer is "biased against" you. You both have too many references(one line has 15 references) and parts that are unsourced. This isn't due to bias of the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
what part is unsourced also how does he not meet GNG and all of the references are not to verify but to show that many news sources have discussed him SpainMMAfan123 (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "Amateur Mixed Martial Arts" section has no sources.
Instead of putting 15 citations for one line you should be summarizing what those 15 sources say about him. 331dot (talk) 19:01, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.tapology.com/fightcenter/fighters/236993-mansur-abdul-malik#:~:text=add_circle-,AMATEUR%20BOUTS,-W SpainMMAfan123 (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply?SpainMMAfan123 (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to what? You just posted a link. I don't need the link, the draft does. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the draft has the link in the sherdog record SpainMMAfan123 (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. You still need to do as I've suggested, in my opinion at least. 331dot (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it already has the link and how could I get somebody else to review it? SpainMMAfan123 (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the reviewer that's the problem, but if you resubmit it, another one should look at it. 331dot (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SpainMMAfan123 I have resubmitted it on your behalf and marked it under review by me. I will start a discussion on the talk page so look there. I may not be able to get it today though. S0091 (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SpainMMAfan123: Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
Literally half of your sources focus on the Brundage/Abdul-Malik match. This is a massive issue. I strongly suggest finding other sources about him that are somewhat divorced from that particular bout and heavily cutting down the sources around that fight, since right now it looks like the chaff is choking the wheat. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:13, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:01, 28 July 2025 review of submission by Lavaprod

[edit]

i was just knowing why did you do that like its just my draft called missile attacks in syria like can you tell me why? Lavaprod (talk) 21:01, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lavaprod see April 2018 missile strikes against Syria, Southern Syria clashes (July 2025–present), March 2025 Western Syria clashes, etc. S0091 (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
so do i have to delete the references? Lavaprod (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lavaprod: That wouldn't do anything. The draft is being declined because it's redundant to existing articles, as S0091 says above. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:15, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok :( Lavaprod (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lavaprod drafts are deleted automatically if they have not been edited by a human in 6 months. If you would like it be deleted earlier, you can place {{db-author}} at the top and an admin will delete, usually within hours, but it does no harm to leave it so that's up to you. S0091 (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i was actually inspired Lavaprod (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
also it was edited by a human which was me Lavaprod (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
y'know what im adding {{db-author}} now Lavaprod (talk) 01:07, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i mean its beacuse i was inspired by these Lavaprod (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:08, 28 July 2025 review of submission by BeakerTheBee

[edit]

Hello, I received feedback that I need more citations for this drafted page of our new president, but much of the content would be citing the institution, instead of third party sources. Do you have any recommendations about how to go about this? We are trying to get this page launched because the Wikipedia page of our former president continues to be a top search item and we would like to get the current president up there. Thank you for your help. BeakerTheBee (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"? What is the general nature of your conflict of interest?
If you have no independent sources with significant coverage, this person would not merit an article at this time. One president meriting an article, if they do, doesn't necessarily mean others do. We aren't concerned with search results. 331dot (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 29

[edit]

01:16, 29 July 2025 review of submission by Lavaprod

[edit]

i edited this article as a human cant you know that i added {{db-author}} beacuse you hurt my feelings i was inspired to the other articles Lavaprod (talk) 01:16, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lavaprod: None of us have mentioned anything about whether or not the article was written by a human; the issue is (and always has been) the draft is redundant with multiple articles. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 02:47, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:34, 29 July 2025 review of submission by Nelson0628

[edit]

Hello, respected editors,

I am writing to request a review of a draft Wikipedia article about myself, Nelson Agricola Bautista, a Filipino nurse and clinical educator. I am fully disclosing that I am the subject of the article and the person who has written the draft. I understand this represents a conflict of interest (COI), and I am committed to following Wikipedia’s policies by seeking input from neutral editors before proceeding.

The draft is currently in my sandbox: 🔗 User:Nelson0628/sandbox

The article includes: - A summary of my nursing career and advocacy work - A verifiable awards table with references from credible news sources and official award sites - A neutral tone, with no promotional language

I would sincerely appreciate it if a neutral editor could: - Review the draft for notability, tone, and compliance with Wikipedia standards - Provide feedback on citation formatting or other improvements - Advise on whether it is appropriate for article space

Thank you very much for your time and guidance.

Kind regards, Nelson Bautista Nelson0628 (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the information needed to submit it for a review. While not forbidden, writing about yourself is ill-advised and not likely to be successful, see the autobiography policy. Wikipedia wants to know what others say about you in independent reliable sources, not what you want to say about yourself. 331dot (talk) 01:43, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:01, 29 July 2025 review of submission by 2403:5808:F50B:0:6DE6:AA07:7CB2:E069

[edit]

My Wikipedia page submission keeps being declined due to a reported lack of significant coverage of the film. I’m hoping to get more clarity on how I can improve the page and strengthen the references.

In my most recent submission, I included 10 references to reliable, secondary sources. I’ve seen other film articles with fewer citations that have been approved, so I’m unsure what might be missing in my case.

Any further context would be really appreciated. One potential issue I’ve considered is that the film was originally titled Overture during production, and was later changed to The Travellers for release. I wonder if this name change is affecting how the sources are being evaluated or picked up.

Thanks in advance for your guidance. 2403:5808:F50B:0:6DE6:AA07:7CB2:E069 (talk) 05:01, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, usually films meet the criteria with reviews by reputable nationally known critics/publications and given this film will not release until October no such reviews exist and the production itself does not meet WP:NFF. S0091 (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:25, 29 July 2025 review of submission by Ryle Marshall

[edit]

My contribution has been deleted this information was not already listed on Wikipedia and was unreliable sources Ryle Marshall (talk) 05:25, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:50, 29 July 2025 review of submission by Ryle Marshall

[edit]

It has been declined Ryle Marshall (talk) 05:50, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 08:59, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell, Krypto the Runt is a quite blatant hoax. I can't find anything on the show in an online search other than copy-pasted articles across Fandom wikis (string: "krypto the runt"); contrast The Brothers Flub (an obscure late-90's cartoon that ran on Nickelodeon for about half-a-season before being mothballed). I'd expect something other than Fandom for a cartoon that ran on Nick or its sister station MTV. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:59, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:47, 29 July 2025 review of submission by Andra Tobosaru

[edit]

New version draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Romanian_Commodities_Exchange#Central_Counterparty_%28CCP%29 Andra Tobosaru (talk) 06:47, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Andra Tobosaru: that's not a question; did you have something in mind you wanted to ask?
While waiting, let me ask you a question: why have you copypasted the rejected draft into the main article space? This was rejected because there is no evidence that the subject is notable. By creating another copy in the main space, all you've done is generate extra work for AfD, which is perpetually congested anyway.
And for future reference, if you do decide to bypass the AfC process and unilaterally move content into the main encyclopaedia, please do exactly that, move it, don't copypaste it, because the latter loses the draft's edit history.
One other thing: having done all that, why are you still developing the rejected draft further, given that you already have a published version in the main space? DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:02, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Please read and respond to the paid editing query on your talk page. And please be aware that you are not allowed to publish directly articles in the subject of which you have a conflict of interest. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:09, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I add this to my wikipedia page: "Andra Tobosaru, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they have been paid by Bursa Română de Mărfuri on behalf of BRM for their contributions to Wikipedia."
I would like to continue improving the draft based on reliable, independent sources, and I will propose any substantial changes via the Talk page if needed, after adding this. Andra Tobosaru (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Andra Tobosaru: this has created a bit of a mess. There is arguably not much point in developing the draft any further, because of the mainspace article having been already taken to an AfD deletion discussion. If that discussion results in a 'delete' verdict, then that will make it unlikely for the draft to be accepted. And if it results in 'keep' (unlikely as that may be), then again the draft cannot be accepted, since there is already a published article on the same subject.
It would make more sense to develop the published article further, which might also help avoid it being deleted, only you're now unable to do that since it has been published in the main encyclopaedia, given your paid-editing conflict of interest. (That's yet another reason why it would have much better to keep it in the draft space only.)
But thanks for disclosing your paid editing, at any rate. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:03, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing: I Bastard-Helper-From-Hell'd the sources in the draft and put my conclusions on the AfD debate. Whether the sourcing exists is an open question, but what we've been shown ain't it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:18, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and what's also not helping proceedings is that there is the draft and the published article, and there are (at least) two threads on this help desk, so we seem to be all talking past each other. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:06, 29 July 2025 review of submission by 202.134.11.225

[edit]

Subject: Help with Draft:M. Enamul Hossain – Feedback and Suggestions

Hello,

I have created a draft article titled Draft:M. Enamul Hossain and would appreciate feedback from experienced editors to improve it for submission into mainspace.

Professor M. Enamul Hossain is a Canadian academic, researcher, and entrepreneur with over 200 published papers and 10 books (some published by Wiley). He is the founder, CEO, and President of NSRIC Inc., a global educational and research organization headquartered in Canada. He has received several international awards and is known for his contributions to petroleum engineering and sustainable energy research.

Could someone kindly:

Review the current draft and provide suggestions for improvement?

Advise whether it meets the notability criteria for academics?

Recommend specific sources or structural improvements if necessary?

Thank you very much in advance for your time and help. 202.134.11.225 (talk) 07:06, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "current draft" was rejected on 30 May and has not been edited since then. Unless there have been new developments in the last two months to justify Prof. Hossain's inclusion here, the draft will not be considered further. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 09:15, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:47, 29 July 2025 review of submission by LbnSchoolResearcher

[edit]

i want to know why my article isnt being published LbnSchoolResearcher (talk) 08:47, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has not currently been submitted, however the content is blatant advertising so would be declined. Theroadislong (talk) 08:57, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:11, 29 July 2025 review of submission by Hala Aldarwish

[edit]

This draft is intended as a neutral, encyclopedic overview of fleet management systems as a technology category, not a promotion of any specific company, product, or service. It includes references from academic and governmental sources, and does not contain brand names or sales language. I am happy to revise the draft further to ensure compliance with Wikipedia's neutrality standards and to remove any sentences that may appear promotional. Hala Aldarwish (talk) 09:11, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been deleted as promotional. Only administrators can view the deleted content. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 09:21, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've recreated the draft, which is a bit sneaky. If it's the same as the deleted version, it will most likely be deleted for the same reason. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 09:25, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:05, 29 July 2025 review of submission by LiberumVerba

[edit]

Hello everyone, my article draft was declined due to the references. I used the same criteria adopted for the publication of the article on the Italian wiki. In any case, I would like to know if the references must necessarily be in English or if references in other languages (not only Italian) are also acceptable. Thanks for your help. LiberumVerba (talk) 10:05, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LiberumVerba You need the "Draft:" portion of the title when linking. I fixed this.
References do not need to be in English. You do, however, need to make sure that your company meets our notability criteria for companies, which may be different from the Italian Wikipedia's requirements. 331dot (talk) 10:11, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of any notability the draft is just blatant promotion, the company telling us everything they want us to know about them. Theroadislong (talk) 10:12, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:32, 29 July 2025 review of submission by Luv2learn87

[edit]

Hello my article submission was denied because of sources. However the source of the main 2 articles are from an actual publication, The North Dallas Gazette. Please help me understand why this newspaper is not valid. Thanks Luv2learn87 (talk) 10:32, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luv2learn87 You need the "Draft:" portion of the title when linking, I have fixed this for you.
The draft does little more than state that the documentary exists. Nothing is said about why it is a notable film. Independent, professional reviews usually do that. 331dot (talk) 10:39, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Luv2learn87: both the citations are to the same source (which is a hyper-local one), and both cover the film only in passing. For notability per WP:GNG, we need to see significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are both reliable and entirely independent of the subject and of each other. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:39, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being selected in multiple film festivals globally isn't significant coverage? Luv2learn87 (talk) 10:58, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It might, if those festivals themselves have articles about them(I haven't checked). Ideally even if that's the case, there should be more information than "it was in the festival". 331dot (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:57, 29 July 2025 review of submission by Ptothehyphen

[edit]

Hi team! I’ve already responded to my talk page but wanted to ask her also. My article was declined since I used ChatGPT to compose and edit it. I’ve read through the LLM but I’m still unsure what to edit/omit. Should I do a brand new write up? The truth is, ChatGPT was incredibly helpful for formatting and spellcheck. I can only imagine the number of articles created by AI nowadays, so I understand the challenges in verification. Any advice is appreciated, thanks. Ptothehyphen (talk) 11:57, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ptothehyphen I fixed your link for proper display, you need the full title, including the "Draft:" portion.
You should rewrite the draft in your own words, yes. You may do this on the existing draft, you don't need to create a new one. 331dot (talk) 12:01, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, thanks for the help! Ptothehyphen (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Ptothehyphen. I responded on your User Talk Page too. qcne (talk) 15:33, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've made this very difficult for yourself as you've been snagged in a common pitfall when writing an article, writing it WP:BACKWARDS. As you say in your talk page, you started off by feeding all the information known to you into ChatGPT, and are now trying to find sources to support that material. The natural result has been a very poorly sourced article. This is why it's very hard to write articles on subjects one has a conflict with, because there's a natural tendency to write what you know about the subject., not what reliable sources say about the subject.
The best way to approach this article would be to start over, using only reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage of this band. And then write an article based only on that information, not anything you personally know. If there's enough there to support this band being a notable subject, it will become clear quickly. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:44, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:27, 29 July 2025 review of submission by Fedor music

[edit]

Hello! Can you review my page point out potential flaws so that it can be officially published? Thank you in advance! Fedor Vrtacnik Fedor music (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Fedor music we do not do pre-reviews so if you want it reviewed you need to resubmit it (click the blue "Resubmit" button). S0091 (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fedor music ...although one thing I can tell you already now, you need to place the citations next to (immediately after) the information which they support, not all piled together at the end. That way the reviewer can see where each piece of information comes from, and how much of this remains unsupported. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:23, 29 July 2025 review of submission by Elvar Granheim

[edit]

Specificly which sources does not qualifies for a Wikipedia article? Elvar Granheim (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was moved into the encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:04, 29 July 2025 review of submission by Jmaxon3883

[edit]

I am trying to understand why my page was rejected. I've read many artists' pages, and my writing was mostly facts. The feedback was that my writing was more like an essay, which doesn't make sense to me, given it was one paragraph and the majority of it was stated facts about the artist's career. Jmaxon3883 (talk) 21:04, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
The draft is absolutely overloaded with references.
It reads like an essay because it is telling, and not summarizing- summarizing what the sources say about him and how he is a notable creative professional. It just documents his work. 331dot (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply! I appreciate it. How is what I wrote any different than say the opening paragraph on this page: Peter van Agtmael. I planed to add more information to the page once I get the opening paragraph approved. How would you suggest I change it? Should I only have one source per reference? How is what I wrote opinions or original research? The sources are all reputable. How is what I wrote not from a neutral point of view?
This is the feedback the editor wrote: This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner. Jmaxon3883 (talk) 05:06, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmaxon3883: If a draft is reviewed, it is reviewed in the state it is in at the time of the review. Doing drafts piecemeal by submitting every single part individually doesn't work. Beyond that, mu. (Post-1992 politics of the United States) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 05:59, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:24, 29 July 2025 review of submission by Flyhigh223!

[edit]

Hi, what else can I do to improve the draft to ensure it is accepted this time? Do I need to make it shorter by removing any sentences? I really want to ensure my first article is on Wikipedia as I've worked really hard on it after receiving a lot of valuable feedback! Any pointers would be greatly appreciated 😊 Flyhigh223! (talk) 21:24, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have (with the consent of the rejecting reviewer) resubmitted the draft, the reviewer will leave feedback if not accepted. 331dot (talk) 23:04, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Flyhigh223! no Declined with rationale. I think this has reached the end of the road. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 11:22, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @331dot and @Timtrent again for your time and thoughtful feedback. I’d like to offer a more complete clarification that may help strengthen the notability of the subject and demonstrate my commitment to improving the draft.
Mr. Bhattacharjee is the first Approved Driving Instructor from London, and possibly the first in the UK to receive a national honour (British Empire Medal) while actively serving in the role. This recognition is especially significant given the scale of the profession — with over 39,195 registered ADIs nationwide — and the countless road safety educators and organisations operating across Britain. The honour was awarded specifically for his contributions to road safety, community welfare, and public engagement.
His story has received significant coverage in national and international newspapers, and he was invited by the Cabinet Office to attend His Majesty The King’s Honours Press Conference at the Tower of London, where he shared his journey and ongoing commitment to community empowerment through road safety education. This level of recognition and visibility underscores the public interest and noteworthiness of his achievements.
To better understand Wikipedia’s notability criteria, I’ve reviewed several existing entries for individuals from Assam, where Mr. Bhattacharjee originally belongs. These include (and I haven't included them all):
- Pritam Das – Cricketer whose article is based primarily on match statistics and brief mentions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pritam_Das (note the references given, none of which are reliable, including a Facebook post)
- Radheshyam Biswas – Politician with limited national coverage, included based on electoral participation. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radheshyam_Biswas#:~:text=Radheshyam%20Biswas%20is%20a%20Bengali,election%20to%20a%20BJP%20candidate.)
- Kamalakhya Dey Purkayastha – Regional politician retained due to public office, despite sparse sourcing. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamalakhya_Dey_Purkayastha)
- Jugal Kalita – Computer scientist and professor. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jugal_Kalita, the sources are just Google links?)
While I understand that each article is judged on its own merits, these examples suggest that regional impact, public service, and verifiable recognition are considered valid grounds for inclusion, even when sourcing is limited or focused on niche contributions. I’ve also noted that some accepted articles rely on Facebook, LinkedIn, or unnamed sources, which are generally discouraged under Wikipedia’s sourcing guidelines. In contrast, Mr. Bhattacharjee’s recognition is not only unique within his profession, but also documented across multiple independent, reliable sources, and acknowledged by the UK government at the highest level.
I remain committed to revising the draft, particularly the political section, to ensure neutrality and compliance with Wikipedia’s sourcing standards. My goal is not to compare this submission with others, but to ensure it stands on its own merit, supported by independent coverage and a clear demonstration of public impact.
I welcome further guidance and will continue improving the draft in good faith. Flyhigh223! (talk) 09:22, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Purkayastha and Mr. Biswas are members of a legislature, so they meet WP:NPOLITICIAN. Mr. Das seems to be notable as a cricketer. If you feel the sourcing on those articles is inadequate, please address that with those articles, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. I agree that this draft has reached the end of the line, at least for now.
Mr. Bhattacharjee does not meet NPOLITICIAN as he has not won election to, or served in, an elected office. Being given an honor does not get him past WP:BLP1E. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @331dot @Timtrent again for your time and thoughtful feedback on the draft article. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify the subject’s notability and respond constructively to the concerns raised.
The individual in question is the first Approved Driving Instructor (ADI) from London — and possibly the first in the UK — to receive a national honour (British Empire Medal) while actively serving in the role. With nearly 40,000 registered ADIs and thousands of road safety educators and campaigners across the UK, this recognition is very hard to get.
I would also like to respectfully ask: does Wikipedia consider Approved Driving Instructor (ADI) a professional role? According to the Wikipedia article on ADIs, they are certified professionals regulated by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA), and UK law requires instructors to be qualified before they can charge for their services. This suggests that ADIs are part of a regulated profession with legal and public responsibilities, especially in the context of road safety — a matter of national concern. I am asking this because if one can be a notable cricketer - like you mentioned Pritam Das seems to be notable by Wikipedia standards (despite only being a local cricket player) - then why can one not be a notable driving instructor trainer/ADI?
While he has not held elected national office, his repeated candidacies and locally elected party leadership position (Constituency Chairman) support a reasonable interpretation of political activism, which may meet notability criteria under WP:NPOLITICIAN when considered alongside his other public contributions.
To ensure alignment with Wikipedia’s standards, I am happy to revise the draft to describe the subject as a community leader, rather than a local political leader, if that is more appropriate and acceptable to the reviewing editors.
I would also like to mention the example of Leanne Mohamad, who I know,(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leanne_Mohamad), who stood as an independent candidate in the 2024 general election in Ilford North — the same constituency where Mr Bhattacharjee served as Chairman of the local Labour Party. Although she was not elected, her article is accepted. This comparison is not meant to diminish her achievements, but to highlight how notability is sometimes interpreted more broadly in similar cases. Mr Bhattacharjee is also an activist and campaigner who stood in elections.
I understand that this draft may not meet current thresholds for acceptance, but I hope this clarification helps frame the subject’s notability more clearly. I remain committed to improving the article in good faith and contributing constructively to Wikipedia.
Thanks again. Flyhigh223! (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My jurisdiction licenses plumbers; a plumber getting an award for being a really good plumber would not make him notable if that's the only claim to notability. That's what WP:BLP1E is getting at, and why Mr. Bhattacharjee isn't notable at this time. 331dot (talk) 22:49, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Flyhigh223! No amount of editing will conjure notability from nowhere, neither will any amount of argument. A subject, any subject, is either notable or it is not. This subject has not been proven by dint of referencing to be notable. Nor does what is present suggest inherent notability.
Repeated resubmissions with no proven notability are likely to result in rejection in short order. Indeed, it can be considered to be disruptive editing, since you are appearing to seek to ask anyone and everyine until someone might, just, look favourably upon this subject. If so, I predict its appearance at WP:AFD very soon afterwards and that it will not survive.
Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. However, we also say with clarity when the end of the road has been reached. I have said so and others agree. 331dot has said so, using different words.
I really ought to have rejected it again. I was trying to let you down gently. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:30, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 30

[edit]

04:12, 30 July 2025 review of submission by Gemma1212

[edit]

Help on why it was declined Hi I am trying to create a page for Australian roundnet and would like some assistance as to why it has been declined so I can improve it Gemma1212 (talk) 04:12, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gemma1212: One source, regardless of how good it is, is not enough to support an article. The draft is also promotional, and the only source it cites doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 05:40, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:39, 30 July 2025 review of submission by KHAN MOSIN

[edit]

Hello,

My draft article (User:223.184.226.151/Sandbox) has been pending review for over a month. Could someone please take a look when possible? I’m open to feedback and happy to make revisions. Thank you! KHAN MOSIN (talk) 06:39, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have not submitted it for review? Theroadislong (talk) 06:48, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:46, 30 July 2025 review of submission by YAKSH75

[edit]

Which information should i provide to continue this article let me know whats the problem its well known artist in this article well known channel so whats the problem let me know so ill improve the things 

YAKSH75 (talk) 08:46, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@YAKSH75: this draft is completely unreferenced. Wikipedia articles summarise what reliable and independent sources have previously published about a subject, and then those sources are cited as references so that the reader knows where the information came from. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:51, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:50, 30 July 2025 review of submission by JerryKB

[edit]
Dart PDC World Cup Sverige/Darts PDC World Cup Sweden

Om Sverige i World Cup of Darts från 2023 och framåt/ About Sweden in the World Cup of Darts from 2023 onwards Artikeln är inriktad för svenskt och norskt dartintresse Beskrivning av insatserna 2023. 24 och 25 (att fyllas på fortsättningsvis) Samt världsmästarna genom åren.

About Sweden in the World Cup of Darts from 2023 onwards The article is aimed at Swedish and Norwegian darts enthusiasts Description of the events in 2023. 24 and 25 (to be filled in for continuation in future years) As well as the world champions through the years.

Är detta en artikel som platsar på Wiki? Is this an article that fits on Wiki? JerryKB (talk) 09:50, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JerryKB: I assume you mean  Courtesy link: User:JerryKB/sandbox?
As the reviewer noted, this is the English-language Wikipedia, whereas your draft is på svenska. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:35, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:58, 30 July 2025 review of submission by Jimnee

[edit]

Why is my draft rejected? Although the content is self written Jimnee (talk) 09:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimnee: this draft has all the hallmarks of being AI-generated, including hallucinated sources. It could have additionally been declined for inadequate referencing and insufficient evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:31, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:18, 30 July 2025 review of submission by Prathima08

[edit]

my page is declined to submit but im not able to get the reason, where it is mentioned tell me Prathima08 (talk) 12:18, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Prathima08: it hasn't been declined, you created it with a decline template already in it. (Did you use AI to generate the code, by any chance?) I'll go and remove the template.
That said, had you submitted this, it would have beendeclined, since it provides no evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:22, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
no wikipedia was told me to not remove that instruction so i didnt remove that code Prathima08 (talk) 12:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i added all the PR notations about mcube before submitting it Prathima08 (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Prathima08 We only see that decline box when you have asked ChatGPT to create a draft, and it mistakenly adds some broken code that results in that decline box. Please do not use ChatGPT to generate draft articles. qcne (talk) 12:48, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, ChatGPT made up a bunch of sources which you included without even bothering to check if the links work. The sources are fake. Do not use ChatGPT to create drafts. qcne (talk) 12:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:44, 30 July 2025 review of submission by Opige Toxic

[edit]

how to upload my biography Opige Toxic (talk) 12:44, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Opige Toxic. Your draft contained only the words "opige sunday toxic" which hopefully you can see isn't suitable content for a published article. Please carefully read Wikipedia:Autobiography which explains why we strongly discourage autobiographies on Wikipedia.
If you still want to have another go, feel free to edit your sandbox at User:Opige Toxic/sandbox but please read Help:Your first article first. qcne (talk) 12:47, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:03, 30 July 2025 review of submission by RachelCollins25

[edit]

Thank you for taking the time to review my submission. I noticed your comment stating that the submission is "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia." I’d really appreciate it if you could kindly clarify which specific aspects of the submission led to this conclusion.

Could you also recommend the necessary changes or improvements that would help align the article with Wikipedia’s guidelines and purpose? I’m happy to revise the content accordingly. RachelCollins25 (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RachelCollins25: Do you have any connexion to a company offering this sort of service? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was rejected after three declines: you have taken up an amount of your own time and of reviewers' time, and not managed to produce an acceptable draft.
A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to published about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else. ChatGPT and the like are not (currently at least) capable of doing this.
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
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) 20:40, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:05, 30 July 2025 review of submission by BrumWikipedian

[edit]

What references do I need to add and is there anything wrong with the references already there? BrumWikipedian (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BrumWikipedian: the current sources are all primary (government) ones, they do not establish notability per WP:ORG. We would need to see significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are both reliable and entirely independent of the subject and of each other.
I should probably add that very few primary schools are notable, they would need to be something quite exceptional to meet the ORG threshold which is set high for a reason. Even the vast majority of secondary schools are nowadays not considered notable (I say 'nowadays', because there was a time when simply existing was thought enough to make a school notable; alas, no more). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should I keep the primary sources and add secondary, or should I replace them all into secondary BrumWikipedian (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BrumWikipedian: you can keep them, if they serve a purpose such as verifying information. Primary sources, especially when they can be considered reliable like these ones, can be used to support factual, non-contentious information. They just cannot be used to establish notability; for that you need secondary sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:15, 30 July 2025 review of submission by Sarahkillian

[edit]

I respectfully disagree with the decision to decline the draft and would like to appeal. The article has been significantly revised to address earlier concerns:

  • I have corrected tone and neutrality issues by removing promotional language and ensuring the draft adheres to Wikipedia’s encyclopedic standards.
  • David Kent is red-linked on several existing Wikipedia pages, suggesting notability and editorial interest. This draft addresses that gap.
  • Because Kent was most active in the 1980s–1990s, many key sources are from the print era and lack a digital footprint. However, I have cited all available independent, reliable online sources. BMI, which recognizes revenue and songwriting milestones and hosts respected industry awards, is used as a source. If the current reviewer is unfamiliar with this context, I kindly ask for reassignment to someone with relevant music industry knowledge.
  • I’ve used his personal website only for basic, uncontroversial biographical facts in line with WP:SELFSOURCE.
  • I’ve removed unverifiable personal details and focused the article on his professional career and notability.

Why Kent meets notability standards:

  • He performed on Along the Red Ledge by Hall & Oates (certified gold, 15 of 20 credited musicians have pages).
  • He is red-linked on multiple Wikipedia articles.
  • He was part of a notable ensemble (Hall & Oates) and co-wrote “Austin,” Blake Shelton’s breakthrough hit.
  • He has contributed significantly to both rock and country music.

I believe the draft now meets Wikipedia’s notability, sourcing, and neutrality guidelines, and I welcome further suggestions. What additional steps are needed to move this toward publication? 

Sarahkillian (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I should say, he meets the music notability guideline as a member of an ensemble with independently notable musicians (Hall & Oates). Additionally, his contributions span both pop/rock and country music, indicating cross-genre notability. Sarahkillian (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarahkillian: to start with your last point, individual members of an ensemble only warrant individual articles on Wikipedia if they demonstrate individual notability; in other words, they don't 'inherit' notability from the ensemble.
Being redlinked in other articles also in no way makes one notable.
This draft is mostly supported by primary sources, including many citations to Kent's own website, and this is somewhat problematic in terms of basic verifiability.
Sources don't have to be online; offline sources are perfectly acceptable, as long as they otherwise meet our reliability etc. requirements.
All that being said, it seems to me that the strongest claim for notability is as a co-writer of 'Austin', which would seem to satisfy WP:COMPOSER #1. Courtesy ping: MediaKyle, any thoughts on this as the last declining reviewer? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification - I completely understand that ensemble members don’t inherently inherit notability. My intent was not to rely on association alone, but to highlight that he also demonstrates independent notability, particularly as a co-writer of "Austin", which aligns with WP:COMPOSER #1. That song played a key role in launching Blake Shelton’s career and has been recognized within the industry (including through BMI milestones).
I acknowledge the earlier overreliance on primary sources and have since revised the draft to reduce dependence on his website, using it only for uncontroversial facts where third-party verification wasn’t available. Let me know what else is needed. Sarahkillian (talk) 16:34, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the ping. As you correctly noted, notability is not defined by redlinks or associations, but rather by coverage. WP:COMPOSER does state that an individual may be notable if they were credited for co-writing a notable composition, but it appears this is the extent of his notability, and thus this detail is better covered at the article about the song. NBC notes: The song was penned by David Kent and Kirsti Manna, but rapper Post Malone's mother decided to give her first-grader credit for the inspiration. That's all. BMI, similarly, mentions the subject once. The Ithaca Times, again, mentioned only once. In my opinion, we would need more substantial coverage beyond passing mentions to assert notability here. Of course, the author is always welcome to resubmit and see if someone else disagrees. MediaKyle (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I’m just trying to understand the difference between the draft here and the article on, for example, Charlie DeChant, who, as far as I can tell, is primarily known for his association with Hall & Oates, is only briefly mentioned in many of the cited sources, and even cites his own website twice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_DeChant. It seems Kent meets even more of the notability criteria.
Would it help if I removed certain parts of the draft and left it very simple? Sarahkillian (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Charles DeChant is VERY poorly sourced, unless and article is a featured article it should not be used to base another one on. Theroadislong (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You’re right that strong sourcing is important. But that raises the question – how did the Charles DeChant article get approved with such poor sourcing, including YouTube videos on personal channels, while this one was rejected due to "only passing mentions" in multiple reliable sources ranging from NBC to music industry-specific awards lists? There are a few Hall & Oates personnel pages sourced like the Charles DeChant one (see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Sharp or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Maelen for example). It seems inconsistent, so I think it’s fair to ask why one was accepted and the other wasn’t. Sarahkillian (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarahkillian: the DeChant article was almost certainly never "approved"; it is almost 20 years old, and that means it predates pretty much all our current policies and practices. In any case, you cannot use the existence of a non-policy-compliant article to argue for the creation of more like that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:24, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not pointing to that page as a reason to create more like it — I understand that older articles may not reflect current standards. What I'm saying is that there are multiple Hall & Oates personnel with similar levels of accomplishment to David Kent who do have pages. In Kent's case, he not only shares those credentials, but also co-wrote a #1 song that launched a major country artist’s career. That seems to go beyond what some of the existing articles cover, and I'm trying to understand how that level of notability is being weighed. Mark Rivera has a disclaimer at the top that says his page requires additional verification. I'm trying to understand why all of those personnel either have (poorly sourced) pages or sources that say they need more verification when Kent's is simply being declined. Sarahkillian (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because we don't want more poor quality articles? Theroadislong (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why it’s being implied that I don’t care about quality — that’s a given. I wouldn’t have spent the time on this if that weren’t the case. So yes, maintaining standards is something we both want.
What I’m asking is: who can I speak with to better understand how this particular article fails where others — which are less detailed, less sourced, and in some cases more self-promotional — have been accepted? There must be some clearer reasoning behind that distinction. Sarahkillian (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You keep making essentially the same argument, "there are even worse articles out there, so I should be allowed to create one also". I can understand why you would say that, given how you're paid to create this Kent article, but that's not how this works. Kent may yet prove to be notable enough, but it won't be because this draft is better than some existing article(s). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you were saying he wasn't meeting the notability standards when other personnel with the same notability already did. So, I'm not trying to rely on poorly cited articles to support the approval of this one. If there are specific shortcomings in the draft itself, I’m asking for clarity on what those are. We can ignore the other pages going forward - let's focus on this one. Is it being rejected because he is not notable enough, or because there is something wrong with the draft itself? If the new version is still under review, I’m happy to wait and see what comments are made. Sarahkillian (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:16, 30 July 2025 review of submission by Eskanindia

[edit]

Greetings, We are trying to add an article on M. Eshwariah a reputed artist from Hyderabad, India of his time. We tried adding the scanned images of the news paper of that time as a proof of his works and achievements. From the bottm of the heart we feel that the information about him and his works will be a valued asset for art arena. Please guide us. Thank you. Eskanindia (talk) 20:16, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Eskanindia who is "we" and "us"? Also, the reason for the decline is it does not cite any sources not to mention it is written like a fan page rather than an encyclopedia article. S0091 (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Eskanindia. "Proof of his works and achievements" will not help. We require independent reliable sources with significant coverage of him, in order to establish that he meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability - see WP:42 for more about those sources. ColinFine (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:14, 30 July 2025 review of submission by BrumWikipedian

[edit]

Can someone help me fix this and bring it upto Wikipedian Standards. Any advice would great. Thank you BrumWikipedian (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BrumWikipedian We don't do co-editing here at this help desk. I will say that most elementary schools are not notable unless the school is in a historic structure. Even Sandy Hook Elementary School, the site of a mass shooting, redirects to the school district(see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES) while the shooting itself has an article. 331dot (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:49, 30 July 2025 review of submission by Escola Cola

[edit]

I am having difficulty understanding why the article has been declined again, even after I have added reliable secondary sources discussing the subject. The draft article is similar to the page of Stephen E. Sachs, another prominent law professor and Supreme Court scholar. Any help is appreciated, thank you! Escola Cola (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Escola Cola Quotes and interviews from Epps are not independent coverage. To demonstrate notability, you need at least some sources that satisfy all three criteria in WP:42; there needs to be significant coverage about Epps written by someone who is completely unaffiliated with him. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:54, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, you could show that Epps meets one of the criteria in Wikipedia's special notability guidelines for academics. I note that Stephen E. Sachs meets one of these criteria since he holds a named chair as Harvard's Antonin Scalia Professor of Law. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:05, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 31

[edit]

00:54, 31 July 2025 review of submission by Jarel Zoldyck

[edit]

Hi,

Why is my contribution being deleted? What is wrong with the wiki page I am creating? Jarel Zoldyck (talk) 00:54, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jarel Zoldyck, you declined it yourself by asking a chatbot to help you submit it, and pasting in whatever nonsense the bot hallucinated for you. If you had submitted it properly, a reviewer would have declined it with advice to read our guidelines on WP:Notability (people) and Help:Referencing for beginners. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 04:21, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:38, 31 July 2025 review of submission by NateMoster

[edit]

Hi,

I am a new Wikipedia editor, and my first submission Draft:Oded Napchi was recently declined for notability, source quality, and tone concerns. I am seeking guidance from the expert Wikipedia community to help.

There was a previous issue with my first 3 citations, which I have repaired. Additionally, if you could kindly offer input, might you please advise:

1. Are my current sources sufficient for notability, or what types of additional sources should I find? 2. How can I best revise the draft to ensure a neutral, encyclopedic tone? 3. Are there other key issues blocking approval?

Oded already a published Wikipedia page in Hebrew, if this can helps my US/EN version: https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%93%D7%93_%D7%A0%D7%A4%D7%97%D7%99

Thank you! NateMoster (talk) 01:38, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NateMoster Interviews and quotes from Napchi are not independent sources, so they do not help to demonstrate that the subject meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability.
Do you have a connection to Napchi? If you do, this must be disclosed, see WP:Conflict of interest. If you are being paid by Napchi, you are required to make a WP:Paid-contribution disclosure regardless of whether you are specifically paid to edit Wikipedia. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:11, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this helpful feedback; it's appreciated! I will review and use to strengthen my Wiki contributions. NateMoster (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @NateMoster. The Hebrew article he:עודד נפחי will help only if its sources are acceptable to English Wikipedia. I haven't looked closely, but the Globes link does not find a specific article, the Yahoo Finance article is mostly quoted from Napchi, and so is not independent, A list of patents is a primary source, and an article by Napchi also does not contribute to establishing that he meets English Wikipedia's criteria for notability. You need several sources each of which meets all the criteria in WP:42, and the bulk of the article must be based on those sources.
It is possible that some of the Hebrew sources I have not looked at meet those criteria, but none of the English ones appeared to. (If the Hebrew sources do, then you can use them: sources in English are preferred, but sources in other languages are acceptable, as long as they meet the criteria). ColinFine (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate this perspective as I learn the Wikipedia ways...I am looking closer at the notability requirements now, as well as the Hebrew sources...thank you again for this helpful input. NateMoster (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:05, 31 July 2025 review of submission by Hypercyclone 2

[edit]

So I think it finally deserves a article about the storm it was a draft for over 5 days Hypercyclone 2 (talk) 02:05, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hypercyclone 2 you have submitted so it will be reviewed at some point. S0091 (talk) 18:52, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:47, 31 July 2025 review of submission by TuhinSikdar19081992

[edit]

MY NAME IS TUHIN SIKDAR TuhinSikdar19081992 (talk) 07:47, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is pure self-promotion, it has no substantial content, no supporting references, no indication of why the subject of the article (i.e. you) are notable. Wikipedia is not a place to post autobiographies and all that is why your draft has been rejected once already. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:49, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Draft Review and Arabic Title

[edit]

Hello, I would like to request a review of the article draft for Draft:ELsusi.

This is a biography of Mohammed Elsusi, a Palestinian rapper and activist currently based in Norway under the ICORN City of Refuge program. The article contains numerous reliable references including news coverage, festival programs, and official music platforms.

In addition to the review, I kindly request that the Arabic title "سوسي" be included and displayed on the page. This is the name by which the artist is widely known in Arabic-speaking contexts, and it is crucial for search engine visibility and recognition in Arabic Wikipedia and Google results.

Thank you for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elsusi (talk • contribs) 08:03, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Elsusi: Draft:Elsusi has been deleted as promotional.
Also, please note that autobiographies are very strongly discouraged, see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:20, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, @Elsusi, please note taht "Search engine visibility and recognition" is absolutely not part of Wikipedia's purpose. ColinFine (talk) 21:17, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:24, 31 July 2025 review of submission by Harshit.jagtap

[edit]

Why rejected Harshit.jagtap (talk) 09:24, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Harshit.jagtap: because this is just self-promotion, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. If you want to tell the world about yourself, you need to find a different platform for that, like LinkedIn etc. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:28, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i need to be famous or to get killed in gaza to write about me thank you so much am just surviver want to tell the world my story am not number ! 79.161.3.138 (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:41, 31 July 2025 review of submission by Harshit.jagtap

[edit]

How do I write biography? Harshit.jagtap (talk) 09:41, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harshit.jagtap You use social media. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:01, 31 July 2025 review of submission by Yaratul

[edit]

Please help me to publish my clients legal existing company details. Its me who have wrote this and used ai for writing references only 👍 Yaratul (talk) 10:01, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yaratul You need to formally disclose your paid relationship per the Terms of Use, see your user talk page for instructions. You must do this soon.
If the company is your client, why are you claiming that you personally created and personally own the copyright to the company logo?
The draft contains a portions that says the company fails a notability analysis- I agree that the company is not notable according to WP:ORG. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite remarkable, not often you see something like that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:12, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:40, 31 July 2025 review of submission by Chrisotoforos Al Nar

[edit]

understood. Chrisotoforos Al Nar (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:57, 31 July 2025 review of submission by NickCherukuri

[edit]

Please help me for writing and publishing article for Third Eye Gen NickCherukuri (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @NickCherukuri read Your first article. Also press releases, social media, Forbes Technology Council, etc. are not reliable independent sources. In fact, there is not a single source cited that meet all four criteria: reliable, secondary, independent and in-depth coverage directly about the subject. S0091 (talk) 18:49, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:00, 31 July 2025 review of submission by Khachatas

[edit]

The page is still in drafts and keeps getting declined. This is my first page and I would like to know what exactly to improve. Thank you! Khachatas (talk) 15:00, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khachatas You need the full title when linking, including the "Draft:" portion, I fixed this.
You must disclose your connection to this band, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. You took a very professional looking image of the band where they posed for you.
The draft is poorly sourced and shows no indication of how they are notable. 331dot (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your reply, this was really helpful.
I understand the COI policy, but what if I deleted all the parts where inpartiality was infringed, now there are only facts about the band's history, can it still be accepted? Also unfortunately there aren't plenty of sources to attach about the provided facts as the band is quite niche. Khachatas (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there are no or few sources, that means that the band would not merit an article at this time. You will, however, still need to address the photo. If you did not take this photo(as I suspect) you must immediately without delay request its deletion from Commons as every second it is here puts Wikipedia at risk of legal action for copyright infringement. Unless you did indeed take the photo, in which case you must disclose your connection to this band. 331dot (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:00, 31 July 2025 review of submission by 98.97.63.10

[edit]

I have submitted a few drafts but I was rejected every time. I would like assistance to improve the draft and have it published. Thank you. 98.97.63.10 (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the creator of the draft, remember to log in when posting. If you work for this company, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID.
Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about a company, its offerings, and activities. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:24, 31 July 2025 review of submission by Missmolly94

[edit]

My article about Winifred Johnston Randall was rejected by Rahmatula786 because the subject does not have "significant coverage in published, reliable secondary sources." The difficulty in referencing "reliable secondary sources" is that the subject significantly predates the internet, and source material about her were in print, and most are not available on the internet.

While Winifred Randall was not a nationally notable person with a lot of national news coverage, her story deserves to be accessible to people interested in learning about this remarkable person, how and what she achieved. She had several major accomplishments, which were covered at the time or at least within her lifetime. Accomplishments of women dating back to the turn of the 20th century, often get overlooked and forgotten. While a researcher can discover more about her in the Fort Wayne, Indiana archives, without an overview of her accomplishments in the medium of today, the internet, her story will be forgotten. (Even if I were able to go to Fort Wayne and go through their archives, I could provide no link to these print sources.)

I have provided a link to a source, which admittedly is not an independent source, but within the source I provided are newspaper clippings, which validate the reliability of the information provided. None of these newspaper articles are online. They are too old. I do not, however, think an article should be rejected because the secondary sources are too old for the internet. Missmolly94 (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
Offline sources are perfectly acceptable. That's not why the draft was declined. You did an excellent job summarizing her life, but not shown how she is a notable person. What was her particularly influence according to sources? That's what we're interested in. 331dot (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the sources in the archive might demonstrate her notability, you might need, if able, to go there and see what they say. 331dot (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:39, 31 July 2025 review of submission by Kanutufilmodishafilms

[edit]

Premanidhi Majhi is a India Movie director He Born in 27 December 2005 in ,Kalahandi Khasbahal. At the beginning of 2020, he passionately started to learn movie director heavy movie 2012 something something 2023maybe may I come here making. Kanutufilmodishafilms (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:39, 31 July 2025 review of submission by Raphaelmarkus001

[edit]

My reviewer keep declining my article because of it what does it mean Raphaelmarkus001 (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Raphaelmarkus001 you used ChatGPT to create the draft whose output or instructions included the decline so essentially you declined your own draft. What I suggest doing is blanking the draft and starting over without using AI after you have read Your first article. S0091 (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:45, 31 July 2025 review of submission by 2601:803:8080:5770:E5F9:84EA:83F1:BAE2

[edit]

Good afternoon,

I am a little confused as to why this draft was rejected. Dr. Reinholz meets criteria 1, 2, and 4. I have also cited multiple (26!) sources detailing different parts of Dr. Reinholz's academic career, contributions to higher education, and awards in addition to his contributions to co-developing an classroom evaluation tool - EQUIP. To this end, I have satisfied not one, but BOTH of the aforementioned "criteria for resubmitting." Although Dr. Reinholz meets criteria from the eight academic-specific criteria, I still have included several secondary sources written by third parties, including citation numbers 3, 4, 10, and 11.

What am I missing?

Thank you,

Dr. Ridgway 2601:803:8080:5770:E5F9:84EA:83F1:BAE2 (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:13, 31 July 2025 review of submission by Coining

[edit]

Hello,

I've received a message saying that I cannot resubmit this article submission. I've read over the comment that cited WP:NOTTVGUIDE, and other than the fact that the article is largely about TV coverage, I don't quite understand how WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies. The full text of that policy is "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable," but the proposed article does none of those things. Any insights that can be provided would be much appreciated. Thank you. Coining (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Easternsahara please respond. S0091 (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Coining. Which of your sources is an in-depth article about the subject "Sports broadcasting contracts in Israel"? Does even one of them contain the phrase "Sports broadcasting contracts in Israel"? Or even the phrase "Sports broadcasting contracts"? Without such sources, "Sports broadcasting contracts in Israel" is not a notable subject.
It looks to me as if they are mostly, yes, TV guides.
It is possible that an article List of sports broadcasting contracts in Israel might be acceptable, providing the sourcing met the criteria for WP:NLIST. (I am not very familiar with stand-alone lists, so I'm not sure). ColinFine (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the questions. The title of the article is based on parallel articles, such as Sports broadcasting contracts in Canada and Sports broadcasting contracts in the United Kingdom. In any case, the points that you raise all go to general WP:NOTABILITY, rather than WP:NOTTVGUIDE, which was the denial reason cited. To clarify, I'm not saying there couldn't have been a basis to deny the request to publish the article, but I don't think WP:NOTTVGUIDE is such a basis -- the proposed article doesn't "list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc." -- and given that the draft article is being denied the ability to ever be improved and resubmitted, I think it appropriate to seek this clarification, and perhaps if different criteria need to be addressed, the article can be allowed to be revised to meet those concerns. Coining (talk) 21:48, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At WP:NLIST it states the following: "accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". I wrongly cited wp:nottvguide. As for the other lists, there could be sources saying that sports broadcasting contracts in those countries. I will check and if there are not then I will list them for deletion 🇪🇭 Easternsahara U T C 22:38, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given the change in rationale, can the draft, instead of being "rejected" be "declined," allowing for a revised draft in the future to be submitted if it meets the WP:NLIST criteria? Thank you for your consideration of this request. Coining (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:53, 31 July 2025 review of submission by TESENT Games

[edit]

Can I add a line to my infobox that isn't in the template? Can I use photos from events that have happened that I didn't take? Off the internet. Dose it help to have Wikipedia links to my article? TESENT Games (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 1

[edit]

01:00, 1 August 2025 review of submission by Weilandofthefree

[edit]

Has been declined multiple times for LLM language. Have revised and rewritten everything. Looking for advice on why and how to correct. Weilandofthefree (talk) 01:00, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:22, 1 August 2025 review of submission by Jilletegreas

[edit]

Draft:Serenade (company) – multiple incorrect declines

[edit]

Hi, I’ve submitted Draft:Serenade (company) three times and it continues to be declined with the vague statement that it "does not show notability". However, the article cites several high-quality, reliable, independent sources, including:

All are secondary, independent, reliable, and provide in-depth coverage (not press releases or brief mentions). I've also posted detailed justifications on the draft talk page and my user talk page.

Could an experienced editor review this for notability or possibly move it to mainspace if appropriate?

Thank you! Jilletegreas (talk) 02:22, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've already had three experienced editors review it for notability and decline.
I agree with those declines. Almost all the sources focus on acquisitions and funding rounds. Under WP:NCORP these fall under the category of trivial coverage (see WP:CORPTRIV). Arguably the only one that doesn't is a pseudo-interview largely sourced from discussions with the creator of the app and one of the artists affilliated with the app. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:29, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:24, 1 August 2025 review of submission by 95.82.155.121

[edit]

Hello, I would like to publish an article about an extraordinary Czech-American architect. I work at an institution whose library has acquired a large number of documents from the estate of architect Dvorak. Czech libraries have a number of articles and references to his life. A significant portion of the documents have been digitized, but they are only accessible to registered readers of libraries and archives. From the comments of reviewers of articles on Wiki, it appears that it is necessary to cite only those sources that can be easily and immediately verified on the internet. Essentially, reviewer Hoary argues that articles on Wiki can only repeat other easily accessible internet sources. I don't know how to deal with sourcing an article in such a case. Can you advise me please? 95.82.155.121 (talk) 06:24, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have to be published, meaning they cannot be private archives or correspondence or solely oral accounts, etc. They do not have to be online, however; for example an old book which only exists in hardcopy format but which is found in a number of libraries would be perfectly acceptable (in the case of offline sources, sufficient bibliographic detail must be provided to enable the source to be reliably identified for verification purposes, see WP:OFFLINE). Sources also don't have to be in English, and paywalled sources are acceptable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:37, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:33, 1 August 2025 review of submission by 2604:3D09:B977:1800:2F48:3957:FE1C:611

[edit]

I want be reason for a make biography page Nathan Delmo he very famous world on tiktok called adinclip on over 13 million views that why from tiktok video 2604:3D09:B977:1800:2F48:3957:FE1C:611 (talk) 06:33, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, but Draft:Nathan Delmo has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:38, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1303645842"