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
June 2025
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

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


June 25

[edit]

00:41, 25 June 2025 review of submission by BioneerAssistant

[edit]

Hello, my draft Draft:Han-Oh Park was rejected. Could you please review it and advise what specific issues I need to address to meet Wikipedia's notability and sourcing standards? Thank you! BioneerAssistant (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:54, 25 June 2025 review of submission by Ranjeetsharmajournalist

[edit]

Why this article nominated for deletation. 

Ranjeetsharmajournalist (talk) 02:54, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ranjeetsharmajournalist As a journalist you do need to follow threads. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Real Khabar where the reason is stated with precision 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 06:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:50, 25 June 2025 review of submission by Shubham Bhakta Shrestha

[edit]

Subject: Help with Callbreak article: sourcing challenge

Hi, I'm working on a draft article for Callbreak, a popular South Asian trick-taking card game widely played in Nepal, India, and Bangladesh, both offline and digitally. While the game has major cultural significance, it's been difficult to find in-depth secondary sources beyond how-to guides or app listings. I've found brief mentions in books like Gaming Culture(s), but not many detailed academic or news articles. Given that Callbreak is passed down informally and has grown mainly through oral tradition and mobile platforms, how can I best establish notability under these circumstances? Would regional publications or ethnographic sources be acceptable? I believe documenting Callbreak would add value to Wikipedia’s coverage of traditional games.

Thanks in advance for any advice! Shubham. 2400:1A00:4B4C:C88B:31A5:E6EC:48D:9464 (talk) 04:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Non English language sources are acceptable. We cannot use oral traditions as references. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 06:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:01, 25 June 2025 review of submission by Jodysetiawan23

[edit]

"Could you please review this article and provide your valuable feedback? Additionally, any guidance on the process of creating such an article would be greatly appreciated. Jodysetiawan23 (talk) 05:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jodysetiawan23 Thsi draft has been rejected and will not proceed further. General advice is available in this essay, one of many on article creation. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 06:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:57, 25 June 2025 review of submission by Articlesmukesh

[edit]

Hello, 

       We need a person for us who ca create articles of our movies

Thanks Articlesmukesh (talk) 06:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the appropiate place to request the creation of articles, specially if it involves movies with which you have a conflict of interest. NeoGaze (talk) 11:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:32, 25 June 2025 review of submission by Jjamtshokkarma

[edit]

Reason for requesting assistance: Hello! I’m seeking guidance on how to proceed with a draft biography for Ms. Kanni Wignaraja, a senior UN official. The article has been declined multiple times due to concerns about notability and reliable sourcing. However, the current version now includes: • Significant coverage from independent, secondary sources including Project Syndicate, Nikkei Asia, Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation, and CNBC • References to authored publications and global media interviews • A new section on Ms. Wignaraja’s 2025 briefing to the UN Security Council, cited using UN Press and WebTV • Cleaned and properly formatted citations with reduced reliance on primary sources

I’ve tried to retain factual integrity while aligning with Wikipedia’s policies. I’d deeply appreciate feedback from experienced editors on whether the draft now meets notability and verifiability standards under WP:BIO and WP:GNG — and what final adjustments might help it move forward without changing the core content.

Thank you in advance for your time and support!

Best, Karma Jjamtshokkarma (talk) 09:32, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look at the draft myself. NeoGaze (talk) 12:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:13, 25 June 2025 review of submission by Joshua Hart Author

[edit]

Hello,

I am trying to create a Wikipedia page for myself as an author, but my draft keeps getting declined. I have attempted to follow the notability and sourcing guidelines as best I can, but I may still be missing something important.

Could someone please advise me on how to improve my draft so that it meets the necessary standards? I would really appreciate any guidance or specific suggestions on what needs to be changed or added.

Thank you again for your help.

— Joshua Hart 

Joshua Hart Author (talk) 10:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Joshua Hart Author. A few issues here;
1) You created this draft with the help of an AI chatbot, which added a malformed decline notice. Do not use AI chatbots to create draft articles or content on Wikipedia.
2) Your original draft was deleted as unambiguous advertising but you re-created it mostly the same as the draft above. You also have a sandbox version of the draft which is much the same as the other two drafts.
3) You have simply not provided enough evidence you meet our Wikipedia:Notability (people) criteria.
4) We also highly discourage you from writing an article about yourself. qcne (talk) 10:40, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:59, 25 June 2025 review of submission by Joshua Hart Author

[edit]

Hello,

I have resubmitted my draft article about author Joshua Hart at User:Joshua Hart Author/sandbox. I have rewritten the draft to address the previous concerns.

I appreciate any further guidance or feedback on the resubmission. Thank you for your time and support.

Many thanks Joshua Hart Author 

Joshua Hart Author (talk) 10:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Hart Author: I posted yesterday a message on your talk page about autobiographies, did you read it? TL;DNR = they are very strongly discouraged.
Also, I must say you're getting dangerously close to a promotion-only account, and may find yourself blocked. Promotion of any kind is not allowed on Wikipedia. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You still used an AI chatbot to write the draft, and there is still no indication you meet our notability criteria. qcne (talk) 11:30, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You also asked for, and were given advice at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Please move User:Joshua Hart Author/sandbox to Draft:Joshua Hart. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:23, 25 June 2025 review of submission by Shahrihana776

[edit]

My draft was not accepted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nepa_AB#cite_note-ResearchLive2016-2

I’d appreciate guidance on what kinds of references are considered acceptable for approval. Additionally, if it's possible to get clarity on which of the currently submitted references are not considered strong or reliable, that would be really helpful for improving the draft. Shahrihana776 (talk) 11:23, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Shahrihana776: the sources cited in your draft as just routine business reporting such as finances, appointments, new markets, etc. Those are invariably based on press releases or otherwise information supplied by the company in question, and therefore do not contribute towards notability. Per the WP:NCORP guideline, we want to see significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:35, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Shahrihana776. A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else.
Start by finding several sources which meet all the criteria in WP:42: if you can find several, then write a neutral summary of what those sources say - ignore anything which the subject or their associates say. ColinFine (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:26, 25 June 2025 review of submission by PhoebeDeans

[edit]

My page got rejected and I do not know why. I would like to resubmit but need to know what I need to edit if someone can please let me know?

Thank you. PhoebeDeans (talk) 11:26, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on your talk page. You basically wrote a bunch of promotional AI-generated slop, this isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. qcne (talk) 11:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:53, 25 June 2025 review of submission by Renuka JPR

[edit]

We need help to Move Kiara Jian's Page to move to Wikipedia main page Renuka JPR (talk) 11:53, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"? I see that you took a picture of her where she posed for you. If you are associated with her, that must be formally disclosed, please see conflict of interest and paid editing("paid editing" includes employment in any capacity). Disclosing paid editing is a Terms of Use requirement.
Please see the messages left on the draft by reviewers, which describe what needs to be done for the draft to be accepted. Note that if accepted, it would not be "her page", but an article about her. 331dot (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:10, 25 June 2025 review of submission by Satishsahu123456

[edit]

Please Told me reason for rejection. Satishsahu123456 (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Satishsahu123456, it looks like you generated an incomplete draft with a lot of template fields using an AI chatbot? qcne (talk) 12:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Satishsahu123456.
Trying to write an article without first finding suitable sources (which meet all the criteria in WP:42) is like trying to build a house without first surveying the site to make sure it is fit to build on: it will probably fall down, and your work will be wasted. Please see WP:YFA and WP:N. ColinFine (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:12, 25 June 2025 review of submission by Lascuraluca

[edit]

I recently submitted an article about Flashnet, a company specializing in smart street lighting and IoT infrastructure. However, the submission was not accepted, with the feedback indicating that the references provided were not considered sufficiently in-depth, reliable, secondary, or independent.

I have carefully reviewed the references used in the draft and believe they comply with Wikipedia’s notability and sourcing guidelines. Specifically:

The sources are independent of the company (e.g., press coverage, third-party industry publications).

They are secondary sources, offering analysis or reporting, not primary announcements.

They come from reliable outlets with editorial oversight.

Several articles provide in-depth information about Flashnet’s technology, partnerships, and role in international smart city projects.

I am reaching out to request assistance in better understanding which specific references may not meet the requirements, or whether there are particular aspects of the article that need improvement to align with Wikipedia’s standards. I would greatly appreciate your guidance on how to strengthen the submission and ensure it is appropriate for inclusion.

Thank you in advance for your time and support. Lascuraluca (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The actual reason of the decline is that it appears this company is not notable enough for a wikipedia article. You need to add more context and sources to clearly prove it is indeed notable. Otherwise every company under the sun would have its own article, no matter how rutine their activity would be. If you want more details on organizations and notability, check this page. Hope my reply answers your doubts. NeoGaze (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Lascuraluca. None of the sources cited is independent of Flashnet. 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 need several sources which meet the criteria in WP:42: without those, you cannot meet the criteria for notability.
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.
Do you have a connection with Flashnet? ColinFine (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:18, 25 June 2025 review of submission by Ayiritoronto

[edit]

The subject has multiple press articles from the National newspaper in Nigeria. How to proceed Ayiritoronto (talk) 13:18, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, and the reason given checks out: "After many declines and quick resubmissions (hiding the declines in one case) on a non-notable subject with concerns regarding AI-generated text, I'm rejecting this draft". I recommend you focus on something else. If you still want to create an article on the subject, wait some more so it gains more coverage, and thus gains more notoriety. NeoGaze (talk) 13:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:25, 25 June 2025 review of submission by Pdanese

[edit]

I'm at a loss of how to "rectify" the rejection, so any suggestions are appreciated.

As far as using LLMs, I asked ChatGPT for variations on two idioms (state border => state line and state-controlled hunting => regulated hunting), but that doesn't seem egregious and it's tantamount to consulting a thesaurus (or other people).

The only thing that I can think of as being a legitimate criticism is the "close paraphrasing" issue because I used prose hews closely to some of the original source material. But from my perspective, there are only so many ways to describe this information in a coherent fashion.

Thanks for any suggestions! Pdanese (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pdanese I will make a note on the draft for you so other reviewers know you state did not use an LLM to construct the draft. The other issue is meeting notability as almost all the sources are a government which is considered a primary source so cannot be used to establish notability. See Your first article for some guidance. S0091 (talk) 16:04, 25 June 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.
I ran the first paragraph through zeroGPT and it came back 100% certain AI generated. If you say you didn't, okay, the tools aren't perfect. 331dot (talk) 16:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. And apologies for misusing declined vs. rejected. Pdanese (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the additional question.
I'm not sure if there is anything that I can do with respect to using primary sources--instead of secondary sources.
Aside from my references from the State of Connecticut (admittedly primary references), there really are not many other sources (aside from the few that I used in my draft).
Do you have any suggestions? Or is this just a situation where my proposed article isn't appropriate due to the lack of secondary sources?
Thanks again.
Pdanese (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Pdanese. A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and little else. (See WP:42). If there are few or no such sources, then there cannot be an article. ColinFine (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Thanks. Pdanese (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pdanese it should at least be covered in the Suffield, Connecticut article in the Geography section, similar to Metacomet Ridge and you can use primary sources there. Also, try Google Books and Google Scholar. S0091 (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestions. Pdanese (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:56, 25 June 2025 review of submission by Profberger

[edit]

I am attempting to submit a page Draft:David Evans Shaw as a biography. I have made two attempts. The first editors critique I understood and I removed issues related to "puffery". On the second submission, I have received a rejection based on the comment that it needs to be written in a more neutral voice eg "encyclopaedic" there is also a mention of more varied references. I believe I have cited significant verifiable references and I have gone through and further tried to make the tone neutral but am struggling to understand what about the article is problematic. Could someone take a look and give me some assistance to get this over the "neutral" hurdle? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:David_Evans_Shaw Thanks in advance Profberger (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:44, 25 June 2025 review of submission by 2603:3026:2C0:100:3836:2729:F051:CAD5

[edit]

My apologies, I thought it was asking for my name, the title should be Positional Release Therapy, This is a therapy that started in 1955 and is taking on traction around the world. I have never done this before, but was really interested and wanted others to be able to look it up. Can you help me change the title and guide me on what details you'd like for the article. 2603:3026:2C0:100:3836:2729:F051:CAD5 (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will rename it shortly(even though the specific title of a draft is not particularly relevant). Writing about medical topics has stricter standards of sourcing, see WP:MEDRS. You need to show that the topic is notable- Wikipedia is not a mere database of things that exist. 331dot (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:49, 25 June 2025 review of submission by Drlmshillito

[edit]

I appreciated the comments on the first draft by user Gheus, and I went through and added new and better citations as they suggested. However, when I resubmitted the draft today it has now been deleted with the reason 'G11 Unambiguous advertising or promotion: self-written vanity page' - this is not true, you can see from my history my identity is public and I am not Chris Fowler! I write Wikipedia articles every now and then on archaeology and notable archaeologists and this article follows the same template (you can see in my page creation history). Prof. Chris Fowler definitely meets the criteria for notability for academics (Full Professor, several books published, editorship of a major academic journal etc). Is there any way to get this draft back? I spent a lot of time on it, and he is actually one of the most high profile British prehistorians in the UK. The reason for deletion is not true, and this is easily checked by looking at my profile and my Wikipedia history. Shouldn't this have been raised on the talk page if there was any query? Drlmshillito 19:49, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not Chris Fowler, that only means that the self-written part is incorrect. Quite frankly I might have thought the same. I agree that the draft met the speedy deletion criteria; that means it can be deleted without delay or discussion if an admin feels the criteria are met. It can be restored but you will need to change your approach and summarize what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about him, showing how he is a notable academic. Please read that carefully. 331dot (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the quick response, much appreciated. I followed the Wikipedia:Notability (academics) guidelines and particularly criteria 1 (significant impact in their scholarly discipline), using the suggested evidence 1a "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work", I did link to 2 independent book reviews of the most notable work, and also the google scholar page that shows the citations. This is exactly what is suggested so I would appreciate clarity on why it wasn't acceptable? They also meet criteria 5, which was demonstrated by linking to the university staff page (which is standard on many other academic biographies). [[User:Drlmshillito|Drlmshillito]] (talk) 11:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:18, 25 June 2025 review of submission by Binsen2323

[edit]

If possible, I'd like someone to take a look at my draft again before I resubmit. Any feedback would be appreciated! Draft:AuditBoard Binsen2323 (talk) 20:18, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Binsen2323 The whole url is not needed when linking to another page or article on Wikipedia, I fixed this. The header also provides a link.
We don't do pre-review reviews here; the best way to get feedback is to resubmit the draft. If you have specific questions, we can help with that. 331dot (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Binsen2323. I notice that the "Products" section is cited only to Auditboard's own website.
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.
Unless an independent source has discussed a product (not just mentioned or listed it) why would an encyclopaedia take note of it.
More generally, almost all your cited sources should meet the triple criteria in WP:42. (I haven't looked to see whether the others do, or whether there are other problems with the draft). ColinFine (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:07, 25 June 2025 review of submission by AlterixWiki

[edit]

Im just posting about a random asteroid with not much information AlterixWiki (talk) 22:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @AlterixWiki. If there is "not much information" about a subject, then the subject is not notable in Wikipedia's sense. ColinFine (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then it wouldn't make sense if its called “wikipedia” but it dosent include some lesser known things AlterixWiki (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Second of all how come theres this many things that nobody even knows but they have wiki pages bug other things with the same conditions dont? AlterixWiki (talk) 22:21, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I meant but AlterixWiki (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:50, 25 June 2025 review of submission by Winterspier

[edit]

I would like my revised submission to be reviewed. I have made changes to reflect the input. advice and requirements from the first review.

I think that it wil now integrate well with existing material in Wikipedia. Can it be reviewed in that perspectiv and not just as a stand-alone article? 

Winterspier (talk) 23:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Winterspier. If you think you have addressed the problems, you are welcome to resubmit (though you only seem to have added one citation, so I'm dubious that you have changed the evidence for notability significantly.)
There is no concept of reviewing articles in integration with existing material. Every article must stand on its own. ColinFine (talk) 09:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am resubmitting the entire content by inserting it into the stub for Edward Wyndham as a member of the Virginia House of Burgesses. I have made links to existing material. I have added a further citation. There are more (for biographical depth) in the Wikitree entry for Edward Wyndham. There are more (for historical and political depth) in Wikipedia and elsewhere. I am trying to avoid writing "original research" in this entry and also overloading an entry on a member of the Virginia House of Burgesses. I have not cited Wikitree as a source. I am making this assessment on what I can see to be current Wikipedia practice. See Adam Thoroughgood entries and references in Wikipedia and Wikitree as an example. Winterspier (talk) 21:42, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 26

[edit]

01:12, 26 June 2025 review of submission by Based5290

[edit]

I'm seeing three solid sources which should be enough to satisfy WP:GNG, so could I get more clarification on the decline? Based5290 :3 (talk) 01:12, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Three sources is not enough except perhaps for the barests of stubs, which is not the case of this draft. Please add more. NeoGaze (talk) 08:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:30, 26 June 2025 review of submission by ClBlanche

[edit]

Hello! I added links, that I found, with the proofs. Please tell me if they are enough to try publishing the article again? Could someone review my draft? Thanks for the feedback! ClBlanche (talk) 01:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ClBlanche: we don't do on-demand reviews here at the help desk, you will have to resubmit the draft in order to get a review. But based on a quick glance, the sources look very flaky to me, I doubt they will be enough to satisfy the WP:NCORP notability guideline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:42, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:27, 26 June 2025 review of submission by EditorCreator5

[edit]

Hello, I need help getting my page published, do you have any advice or know who I can go to to help me? I would really appreciate it. Heidi 

EditorCreator5 (talk) 02:27, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EditorCreator5: what I can tell you is that there is far too much unreferenced information in your draft. Pretty much every statement you make must be clearly backed up by an inline citation to a reliable published source. Even if you know something to be true, it cannot go into the draft unless it can be verified form a reliable source. From this it follows that you should only really be summarising what published sources have said about this person, not writing what you know about him. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:38, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your response! Ok, I will work on that. I was using other peoples pages as a guide, and it seemed the information I was saying was similar to that of others. Now I cannot find my page, do they delete it completely if it isn't approved within a certain amount of time? EditorCreator5 (talk) 12:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops I found it. I will make changes. EditorCreator5 (talk) 12:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:06, 26 June 2025 review of submission by 2409:40F2:1B:9D30:8000:0:0:0

[edit]

Article creation 2409:40F2:1B:9D30:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 06:06, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:32, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:25, 26 June 2025 review of submission by Letmeknowanand

[edit]

please help me to approve the page - what should I include Letmeknowanand (talk) 07:25, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Letmeknowanand: nothing, I have rejected this draft, since it provides no evidence that the person is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:31, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:34, 26 June 2025 review of submission by AnuttarJain

[edit]

I provide full sources but my draft not published, AnuttarJain (talk) 09:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please disclose your relationship with the monk; you took a picture of him.
Your references are not in line next to the text they are supporting, an absolute necessity when editing about living people(see WP:BLP). Please see referencing for beginners. Your sources don't seem to be reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:40, 26 June 2025 review of submission by 49.146.134.218

[edit]

The draft keeps getting rejected because of references concerns despite it already being well-referenced enough from various verified sources. It also gets rejected because of notability when in fact the institution is very notable in the province for its standards of academics and its students. 49.146.134.218 (talk) 10:40, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the creator of the draft, remember to log in when posting.
The draft was only rejected the final time- it was declined before that(declined means it may be resubmitted, rejected means it can't be). You kept resubmitting without making any substantive improvements. It is not sufficiently referenced to demonstrate that the school is a notable organization. If it is notable for its academics, you have not provided independent sources that discuss that. Having notable students(which isn't indicated in the draft either) would not help as notability is not inherited by association. 331dot (talk) 10:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, this draft was declined multiple times for lack of evidence of notability, and other reasons. It was eventually rejected because of repeated resubmissions without any attempt at improving it. That tells the reviewers that you are either unable or unwilling to address the decline reasons, which makes it pointless to keep reviewing the draft; this is why I finally rejected it.
As for notability, we can only assess this based on the sources cited in the draft, and they are insufficient for satisfying the WP:ORG notability guideline. There is no such thing as "very notable ... for its standards of academics and its students", this is not part of the notability criteria. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:59, 26 June 2025 review of submission by Razmi Azmi

[edit]

I need this page published for my grandfather who is currently on very hard jobs and this would make him very happy Razmi Azmi (talk) 10:59, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Razmi Azmi I fixed your header to link to your draft as intended.
Unfortunately, your draft cannot be accepted because it is completely unsourced. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about a person. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they are a notable person. If you just want to tell the world about your grandfather, you should do that on social media or other website with less strict requirements. 331dot (talk) 11:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:39, 26 June 2025 review of submission by Marces1972

[edit]

Hello I am so disappointed to have my submission rejected as been a donaer for several years through business I have worked ofor, I did extensive research to make sure it followed the exact same tone and path as my peers - no advertising or promotion just a little paragraph about me and my accomplishments. Please advise what I have done wrong? Marces1972 (talk) 11:39, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marces1972 Whether you donate or not has no impact on a draft being accepted or not; donations are collected by the Wikimedia Foundation to operate the computers Wikipedia is on, as well as other Foundation activities; we editors don't see the money.
Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about their own accomplishments. That is promotional. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves, please see the autobiography policy. Our articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the subject.
The draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. It was completely unsourced(I assume because it is you telling about yourself). If you want to tell about yourself, you should use social media. If you patterned what you did on other articles(a poor, if understandable, idea, see other stuff exists) please tell us what those articles are so we can take action. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 11:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:51, 26 June 2025 review of submission by 2601:240:D200:AEB0:B50E:6309:35C8:41DD

[edit]

Hello,

I am hoping to understand why my draft is being declined. After my initial submission, I was told I violated WP:SOLUTIONS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOLUTIONS

I have since removed all use of the word 'Solutions' in my draft. Additionally, I have changed wording so it doesn't mention benefits of this technology, but it focus on features and intended uses.

Any help would be great! Thank you so much.

Joe 2601:240:D200:AEB0:B50E:6309:35C8:41DD (talk) 13:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(If you're Jberenz, please log into your account.)
This draft was declined because the sources do not show that the subject is notable enough to justify an article. It is also inherently promotional, because it is you telling the world about your business, its history and what it does. We want instead to see what independent and reliable secondary sources have on their own initiative said about what makes the business worthy of note; however, your draft cites no such sources. (The solutions comment was an additional observation to the promotionality reason.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:28, 26 June 2025 review of submission by Sama.hf123

[edit]

Hi all,

I’ve significantly revised the draft article for Yazan Haifawi, a Jordanian musician, and would appreciate any feedback or assistance in assessing its notability and sourcing. Based on previous feedback, I have: • Removed non-reliable or self-published sources (e.g., social media, personal websites) • Eliminated the Wikipedia citation to Aziz Maraka’s page • Rewritten content to maintain a neutral, encyclopedic tone • Added reliable, third-party sources including Jordan News and Scene Now • Ensured all citations are properly formatted and independently verifiable

If any additional improvements are needed before resubmission, I’d be very grateful for guidance. Thank you in advance! Sama.hf123 (talk) 15:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sama.hf123 you have submitted the draft so a reviewer will take a look. S0091 (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:29, 26 June 2025 review of submission by Aswinidoreswamy

[edit]

This submission was rejected with the reason: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. This is the first time I ever created an article and I am unclear about the actual reason. Can you guide me? Ashwini Doreswamy (talk) 15:29, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aswinidoreswamy Wikipedia is not a place to post a resume. Please see Your First Article and the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 15:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:59, 26 June 2025 review of submission by 207.60.81.46

[edit]

Hi! I just started my wikipedia journey, so I would love any guidance you can provide. This was my first page, and I'm confused why it was declined. I want to start making pages for Canadian startups, because I find it so hard to distinguish between real vs fake companies on Instagram, and thought this would be a good way of helping others.

Could you tell me what I've done wrong in this article so I can avoid it in the future? Thanks for your help! 207.60.81.46 (talk) 15:59, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Startups" almost never merit articles; a company must become established and recognized in its field in order to draw the necessary coverage by independent reliable sources to show that the company is a notable company.
Wikipedia does not exist to merely verify that a company is legitimate or exists. 331dot (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft in particular just summarizes the routine business activities of the company; raising funds is a normal part of doing business and does not establish notability(see WP:ORGDEPTH). 331dot (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your response, I really appreciate it! I said startups, but I meant more scaleup companies that are in the news/media. I know my article was rejected, so I will likely shift focus to a new company, but will I ever be able to revisit the draft I was playing with? Or should I just move to another one since it doesn't appear I can resubmit.
Again, thanks for your help, I'm new and want to make sure I'm following the guidelines. 207.60.81.46 (talk) 17:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The draft will remain as long as it is edited at least once every six months. Even if deleted due to inactivity, it can be restored via WP:REFUND. If you can fundamentally change the draft to address the concerns of reviewers, you can appeal to the rejecting reviewer to ask them to reconsider. 331dot (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ohhh okay, that's very helpful, thank you! I'll probably work on something else for a bit. I appreciate your help. Have a lovely day! 207.60.81.46 (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:08, 26 June 2025 review of submission by Hopeisadiscipline

[edit]

Would like a second opinion about notability Hopeisadiscipline (talk) 16:08, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have resubmitted the draft, the next reviewer will leave you feedback. 331dot (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hopeisadiscipline: You shall have it.
You have two borderline sources and not much else. The decline looks appropriate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:41, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:35, 26 June 2025 review of submission by Ben Ten004

[edit]

Hi, I previously created a draft article titled "Imbarex S.A" which got rejected. Now I am trying to resubmit it after making the necessary improvements, but I am getting an error that says "Please check draft title. No such draft exists." I believe the draft might have been deleted or moved. Can you please help me recover the draft or guide me on how I can resubmit it properly? Thank you! 

Ben Ten004 (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ben Ten004 it looks like this was resolved? S0091 (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:24, 26 June 2025 review of submission by Ritzy 66

[edit]

Hi. I am looking for help on some sources that might not be valid on the Draft page of Val Stanton.Thamk you! Ritzy 66 (talk) 19:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ritzy 66 sources are used for two purposes, verifiability and notability. Looking at the draft, the ones that jump out at me as unreliable so should not used are Findagrave, Ancestry, census data and most genealogical sites/publications. Sources like "Collingswood to play N.V.A. Team" are fine for verifiability but not notability because is just a mention about Val. In order for a source to contribute to notability, it needs to meet all four criteria outlined in the last decline: reliable, secondary, independent and provided in-depth coverage about the subject. Also, be careful about WP:editorializing (ex. "Sadly") and WP:Original research. For example, you are using census data to make your own conclusions which is not allowed here. Only summarize what reliable sources explicitly state and also use you own words. There's some WP:close paraphrasing. S0091 (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:27, 26 June 2025 review of submission by Ionnn122

[edit]

An article for "MAXIMUS AND THE CORRUPTION OF TIME" could theoretically be suitable if and only if it has achieved significant, independent, and sustained attention from multiple reliable sources. This means the screenplay itself, prior to any production, would need to have been the subject of substantial coverage in major, reputable media outlets, film industry publications, or academic journals. Ionnn122 (talk) 19:27, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear on what your question is. 331dot (talk) 19:40, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ionnn122 Your film project is not notable, sorry. qcne (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:42, 26 June 2025 review of submission by Matthew John Drummond

[edit]

Has my draft of Rocky Hollow in a position where I can resubmit it. Matthew John Drummond (talk) 19:42, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since the draft was rejected, you will first need to appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of your sources are no good, @Matthew John Drummond. But did you know that you can use offline sources - like archive newspapers and magazines? This might help if you can get a second chance from @Drimes. qcne (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added more newspapers articles about the series as well as an magazine about the series from flickr.com and a link from dbpedia.org that deals early everything about the series. Matthew John Drummond (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Matthew John Drummond You'll have to approach @Drmies directly and ask for an appeal. qcne (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How do I do that Matthew John Drummond (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Go to their User Talk page and leave a message. qcne (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
amazon.co.uk, Wikipedia, avid.wiki., flickr.com, Dbpedia, wordpress.com, youtube.com, doesthedogdie.com and postertrail are not reliable independent sources please replace. Theroadislong (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well then can you find some websites that detail information about the series through reliable sources because I've so hard. Matthew John Drummond (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried searching through more offline sources like Qcne suggested? Harryhenry1 (talk) 08:02, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have found one bbc article that I've added to the page. Matthew John Drummond (talk) 10:22, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What offline sources detail Rocky Hollow or anything related to it because I've looked so hard. Matthew John Drummond (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't find any, then this subject does not meet our criteria for an article and you should abandon the draft(s) and start writing about something else. qcne (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut out a large chunk of the stuff and made it smaller. Matthew John Drummond (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've also been able to revive the toonhound link thanks to the way back machine. Matthew John Drummond (talk) 17:02, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 27

[edit]

00:37, 27 June 2025 review of submission by Jaxonneid

[edit]

Why can't I make this page??? I dont think it should redirect to Karin Kirkpatrick Jaxonneid (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaxonneid You can create a draft, it is not protected. Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 10:32, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:32, 27 June 2025 review of submission by TollVic

[edit]

Thanks for the feedback on the article. I wrote the article myself and then consulted an LLM to ensure I wasn't using promotional language. I made some minor edits based on that feedback and removed portions that probably weren't going to be acceptable, based on that feedback.

But the writing that I submitted is almost all mine. One piece of feedback I received, however, was "Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT," so I don't know how to respond to that. For example, I don't think there's anything speculative in the article, and there are no hallucinations in it.

A related piece of feedback that I received was: "Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed."

I thought I had accomplished that. Could you give me an example of two where this article falls short from your perspective? I'm happy to modify the article until it's considered acceptable.

Thanks again! TollVic (talk) 02:32, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's best to not use a LLM at all, then you can completely avoid your text looking like it was written by one. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of your sources are written or otherwise by the same individual(Jessica Naziri) even though they are different outlets. A variety of authors would be better. 331dot (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:55, 27 June 2025 review of submission by Toxicjay

[edit]

what should i add Toxicjay (talk) 03:55, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Toxicjay: no need to add anything, this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:36, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:58, 27 June 2025 review of submission by CHANMUNKIAT

[edit]

Because it has been declined a couple of times and it is very difficult to write in an encyclopedic manner, given the nature of the topic.

Would need some help from experienced editors to assist me. CHANMUNKIAT (talk) 04:58, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CHANMUNKIAT: we don't get involved in co-editing, and you're unlikely to find a collaborator here at the help desk; your best bet is probably one of the Wikiprojects, such as WikiProject Tibet. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:35, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. How do I submit my article then? CHANMUNKIAT (talk) 15:08, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:58, 27 June 2025 review of submission by Jean Khalife

[edit]

I don't know how to transforming my late father's info into an accepted form by Wikipedia, can anyone help me in doing that? Thanks PS: important references quantity is available Jean Khalife (talk) 06:58, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jean Khalife: firstly, you should disclose your conflict of interest (COI); I will post instructions on your talk page.
Secondly, and most importantly, you should find some reliable and independent sources, and summarise what they have said about your father. We're only interested in what has been previously published about him, not what you might know about him, because everything you say in this draft must be verifiable from a reliable source. See WP:GOLDENRULE.
You also shouldn't provide that long year-by-year chronology of everything he has done. Summarise his career in a couple of paragraphs (in prose), discuss his work (summarising published sources), etc. That makes for a much more readable and accessible format. See a few artist biographies as examples, ones that have been rated as 'good articles'; you can find these at WP:Good_articles/Art_and_architecture#Art. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:09, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:43, 27 June 2025 review of submission by Johnny Prey

[edit]

Good Day! I would like to as for a help on my draft. I already resubmitted a revised one removing possible advertising and promotional tone, however it was still not accepted. If you could guys help me which areas I can add on my article in order for it to be accepted will be much appreciated. Thank You! Johnny Prey (talk) 07:43, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the draft and it seems the main issue is notability. A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. So you need to add more sources in order to prove this organization is notable enough. Also if you have a conflict of interest or are related in some way to this company, you should disclose it in your profile or the draft's talk page. I hope my reply is helpful NeoGaze (talk) 14:33, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:52, 27 June 2025 review of submission by हर्ष कुमार झा

[edit]

Hello! My draft article on _Harsh Kumar Jha_ was recently declined. I want to improve it and need your guidance. Could you please let me know what specific issues need to be fixed (e.g. sources, tone, structure)? I'm ready to rewrite or restructure the draft as needed. Thanks in advance for your help! हर्ष कुमार झा (talk) 07:52, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @हर्ष कुमार झा. It was rejected - which means you can not re-submit. This person does not meet our criteria for an article on Wikipedia. qcne (talk) 07:53, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that autobiography in Wikipedia is very strongly discouraged, as it is almost impossible to do it successfully. Having found the necessary several sources where people wholly unconnected with you have chosen to publish material about you in reliable publications, you would then need to forget everything you know about yourself, and write a neutral summary of what those sources said. ColinFine (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:09, 27 June 2025 review of submission by 2A04:4A43:95DF:F744:FD29:F80F:A300:C0BD

[edit]

why was it rejected 2A04:4A43:95DF:F744:FD29:F80F:A300:C0BD (talk) 10:09, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were given a clear reason for rejection by the reviewer. Additionally, Wikipedia is not for posting what I assume is your resume. See the autobiography policy. If you want to post your resume somewhere, use social media. 331dot (talk) 10:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:06, 27 June 2025 review of submission by Pankajasthaana

[edit]

I had added live references quoting independent media websites, linkedin posts and published webpage sources but the article was declined saying there are no sources mentioned. What did I miss? Pankajasthaana (talk) 11:06, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pankajasthaana You included a few external links but no actual references. Please very carefully read Help:Referencing for beginners and note that LinkedIn is not a reliable source so should not be used.
You also share a username with the CEO, so you must declare this conflict of interest immediately by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Failure to do this will result in your account being blocked. qcne (talk) 11:16, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:23, 27 June 2025 review of submission by Squareys

[edit]

Hi,

The draft was rejected with the following comment: > Needs independent sources about the engine itself, not games based on it.

However, as noted also in a reply, the article references many secondary independent reliable sources that are not about a game, but the engine itself.

So I am unclear on how I can sufficiently adjust the article to satisfy the request.

I appreciate any support on the matter.

Best Squareys (talk) 11:23, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Squareys What is the general nature of your conflict of interest?
Please point out the sources you feel do as the reviewer asks. 331dot (talk) 15:42, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:44, 27 June 2025 review of submission by Gicos74

[edit]

Help moving sandbox article to mainspace – Evelyn Famà Hi! I’ve written a new article in my sandbox about an Italian actress and stage performer, Evelyn Famà. The page includes biography, filmography, awards, references, and images I uploaded to Commons under CC BY-SA 4.0.

Here is the link to the draft: 🔗 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gicos74/Evelyn_Fam%C3%A0

I'm not yet autoconfirmed, so I’d appreciate if someone could review and help move it to the mainspace under the title: Evelyn Famà.

Thanks in advance for your support!

– User:Gicos74 Gicos74 (talk) 12:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gicos74: you need to submit the draft for review, by clicking that blue 'submit' button. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:48, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You say you've uploaded the photos and made them available under CC 4.0 – are you the photographer who took these photos, then? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DoubleGrazing,
thank you for your question. The photos were provided directly to me by the actress herself, who owns the rights to them and explicitly authorized their upload to Wikimedia Commons under the CC BY 4.0 license. While I am not the photographer, I acted with the permission of the rights holder.
If needed, I can request a formal permission statement via OTRS (now VRT) to clarify this further.
Best regards,
User:Gicos74 Gicos74 (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the header to place the link within as intended, the whole url is not needed.
Yes, you will need to send that in. It is unusual for the subject of a photo to own the rights to it, typically the rights rest with the photographer, unless a contract assigned the rights to someone else. The permission may not be Fama's to give.
Do you have an association with her other than asking her for photos? 331dot (talk) 15:47, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will add that photos are not relevant to the draft process, which only considers the text and sources. Photos are an enhancement, not a requirement. 331dot (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:47, 27 June 2025 review of submission by Parmanand.jha.mh

[edit]

Hi! I recently created an article about Parmanand Jha. I tried to write it in a neutral tone and included a citation from a regional tech article. I’m not sure why it was marked for speedy deletion.

I would appreciate any guidance on how I can improve it so it meets Wikipedia’s guidelines. Parmanand.jha.mh (talk) 13:47, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Parmanand.jha.mh. I am afraid that this person (you?) does not meet our criteria for inclusion and therefore cannot have an article. It will be deleted as all it does is promote the person, which is contrary to our purpose. Please have a read of Wikipedia:Spam. qcne (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:03, 27 June 2025 review of submission by Ceeyemm

[edit]

hello, can someone please edit the page title (move) to make the "I" lowercase, I am not able to do so myself with my account yet. Thank you Ceeyemm (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceeyemm: Draft names are at best provisional. When approved, the reviewer will almost certainly correct the name. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:07, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:20, 27 June 2025 review of submission by HVACScienceGuy

[edit]

My submission was just declined I appreciate your prompt review and feedback, but honestly, I can't imagine Positive Air Duct Cleaning having sources that are more in-depth, reliable, and there are plenty that are secondary and independent of the issue, from international associations and academies adopting the methodology, to it being the only method even allowed in Forensic Restoration, to it having been the topic of dozens of articles, podcasts and interviews in all 4 of the industry's top publications, to the founder having been opening keynote speaker at a global summit on crime scene remediation in Queensland, Australia, on the topic of the utilization of Positive Air Duct Cleaning in the event of fentanyl decontamination. HVACScienceGuy HVACScienceGuy (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HVACScienceGuy I fixed your header to provide a link to your draft as intended. You have three sources, none of which seem to be as you describe. Much of the draft is unsourced. 331dot (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's of what I was afraid. I accidentally submitted two versions, one incomplete followed by one complete one. I immediately got notice that one of them was deleted so the other could be reviewed. I suspected at the time that the complete one was deleted and the incomplete one retained and thus reviewed.
Positive Air Duct Cleaning is such an extremely supported methodology, it would be a shoe-in for a Wikipedia page. It's completely changed the way HVAC is cleaned and decontaminated worldwide. It's the only method allowed at this point for Forensic Restoration.
I'll reformat and resubmit. HVACScienceGuy (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HVACScienceGuy You submitted two identical drafts, Draft:Positive Air Duct Cleaning and Draft:Postive Air Duct Cleaning. One was declined as a duplicate and the other was declined for failure to show Wikipedia's definition of notability; neither was deleted. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:23, 27 June 2025 review of submission by Shivam4apr

[edit]

Hello, I need help moving my sandbox article (User:Shivam4apr/sandbox) to the Draft namespace as Draft:DOME Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. for review under Articles for Creation. Thank you! Shivam4apr (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Shivam4apr this appears to have been done, see Draft:DOME Entertainment Pvt. Ltd which was just declined. S0091 (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:50, 27 June 2025 review of submission by 2001:B07:5D37:FC3F:D011:BF9E:8154:EA7C

[edit]

May I ask you why the draft is against the purpose of Wikipedia? 2001:B07:5D37:FC3F:D011:BF9E:8154:EA7C (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I left a comment explaining why I rejected it: its a purely promotional draft about a company, and promotional content is not acceptable in Wikipedia. If you prove this company is notable beyond a shadow of a doubt by adding substantial, independent and reliable sources (as well as extensive rewritting) I will reconsider undoing the rejection. Hope my reply helps. NeoGaze (talk) 22:18, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:52, 27 June 2025 review of submission by Emersonjd3199

[edit]

I was told this person is not considered notable enough to have a wikipedia page. However, I would like to note that his business partnership with Stan Kroenke (who has a wikipedia page), involvement in billions of dollars of real estate development, and impact on the jewish community nationally seems very noteworthy. Several of my references were used as references for THF Realty and Stan Kroenke's page, but are being considered unreliable? Emersonjd3199 (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited by association with notable people. You need sources that show that Mr. Staenberg is notable via his own actions, not merely because he associated with others. 331dot (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 28

[edit]

02:35, 28 June 2025 review of submission by SkyLight62

[edit]

Hello,

I've attempted to source the article correctly and provide details. Other members of the Canadian Cricket Team of similar notably have approved pages.

Is there something I'm not doing correctly? 

SkyLight62 (talk) 02:35, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @SkyLight62. What you're not doing correctly (like nearly all editors who try to create an article before they have spent time learning how Wikipedia does things) is that you have written a draft without first finding several sources where people wholly unconnected with Samra or his associates have chosen to published significant coverage of Samra in reliable places. (I haven't watched the YouTube piece, but none of the others have more than a passing mention of him).
This is like trying to build a house without first surveying the plot, or building any foundations. Either the project will have to be abandoned, or it will need to be redone almost from the beginning.
You need several sources which meet all the criteria in WP:42: at present you have none.
Then you will need to write the bulk of the draft entirely from those sources. You may then be able to include a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information from non-independent or primary sources; but the bulk of any article should be a summary of what the independent secondary sources say about the subject.
As for other cricketers: Wikipedia has many thousands of seriously deficient articles, which would ideally be improved or deleted; but not many editors are keen to spend a lot of time on that task. We evaluate new articles on their own merits, not by comparison. See Other stuff exists. ColinFine (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:18, 28 June 2025 review of submission by NeilJeyaharan

[edit]

CSI Wesley Tamil Church, St. Thomas Mount history is created as wiki page. Since church historical information are spread across various primary sources of 19th and 20th centuries, initially, primary sources are added as citation. We have added News and Books information now, since page approval was declined for various reasons like in-depth, Independent and secondary reliable sources are missing.

Please help me to correct this page to get ready for approval. Thanks in advance. NeilJeyaharan (talk) 07:18, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited for neutral tone, do you have a connection to the church? Please disclose. 07:25, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

07:56, 28 June 2025 review of submission by 82.79.226.27

[edit]

hi!

it seems I am not familiar with the Wikipedia publishing policy in order to publish this page. can someone assist me closer and indicate me what I miss? thank you!

Cristian 82.79.226.27 (talk) 07:56, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, if you are the creator of the draft, remember to log in when posting, so your posts are properly attributed to you.
You have not shown that this team is a notable organization as Wikipedia defines one. 331dot (talk) 08:53, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:20, 28 June 2025 review of submission by Avocadopiu

[edit]

Please help me point out what words/phrases are giving my article an essay-like tone. Avocadopiu (talk) 10:20, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Carolina2k22 can you please provide @Avocadopiu some guidance? S0091 (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a hugely badly written draft, @Avocadopiu. But you have included WIP tags, which would mean I'd have declined it on the basis of clearly not being finished. qcne (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did agree with qcne, I didn’t think it was a poorly written draft either. The main issue was the WIP tags meaning it clearly was not finished. The essay point was in part a recommendation to improve the language of the article.
I would’ve likely accepted it if it wasn’t the WIP tags. Carolina2k22 • (talk) 03:23, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What language did I use which didn't suit an encyclopedic tone? Avocadopiu (talk) 03:38, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:12, 28 June 2025 review of submission by Clara Emigrand

[edit]

WHy is this page declined?? You can see multiple references online, such as TATE MODERN, LUX, BRITISH SCHOOL AT ROME. Its very easy to check this entry, just google please. thank you. Clara Emigrand (talk) 13:12, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Clara Emigrand. Most of your sources do not work? It is your responsibility as the draft editor to ensure your sources are valid and work. qcne (talk) 13:22, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm correcting the URL s it was suggested automatically when i created the page. thanks Clara Emigrand (talk) 13:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you use an AI chatbot like Claude, Copilot, ChatGPT to create the page? Wikipedia does not suggest invalid sources in any step of the article creation process. An AI chatbot would, however. qcne (talk) 13:27, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, yes I'll manually enter the links, thanks for advice. Clara Emigrand (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. In future do not use AI. qcne (talk) 13:39, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Clara Emigrand. You don't appear to have a single source which is reliable, independent of Medoidze, and contains significant coverage of her. Without any such sources, the article cannot establish that she meets WIkipedia's criteria for notability, and will not be accepted.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 14:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I Guess Tate Modern, LUX, and Globally Distributed Publication, and a page on Google books (BY DISTANZ) is not reliable enough, sigh Clara Emigrand (talk) 14:32, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Clara Emigrand It's worth noting that reliability is just one of the three criteria a source needs to be: those sources are all reliable but they do not meet the other two criteria of independence and significant coverage. Please have a quick read of Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything which outlines this briefly. qcne (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:43, 28 June 2025 review of submission by RileyRoseKennedy

[edit]

Hi there,

I hope it’s okay to kindly flag this draft for review: Draft:Isabelle Noack.

I don’t personally know the subject, but I truly believe this page deserves consideration for article status. Isabelle Noack is a Black African-European-American journalist, YouTube creator, and founder of a cross-continental media agency. She has reported for major outlets such as Euronews and ARD, and now leads global content strategy for tech companies, all while producing viral digital journalism that showcases underrepresented narratives across Africa and the diaspora.

The current version addresses previous comments with reliable secondary references (from Euronews, DW, etc.), proper formatting, and improved citations. I understand reviews are backlogged, but wanted to respectfully request this be re-considered when possible — especially as her work sits at the intersection of media, representation, and global public interest.

Many thanks for your time and for all you do to keep this space thriving.

Warmly, A hopeful editor in support of wider representation RileyRoseKennedy (talk) 13:43, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @RileyRoseKennedy. It has zero sources and is written in a completely inappropriate tone for Wikipedia? Please carefully follow the referencing tutorial at WP:INTREFVE. This draft will not be considered without a properly formatted reference list. qcne (talk) 13:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there,
Thank you for taking the time to respond. I wanted to kindly share that I found the tone of the response quite disheartening - especially in a space that is meant to foster collaboration, knowledge-sharing, and inclusivity.
My message was posted on the Talk page, not within the article itself. It was intended to respectfully flag that I had taken time to revise the draft in good faith. I fully understand and respect that encyclopedic content must meet tone and referencing standards - but I do believe that confusing a good-faith message between editors with article tone is, respectfully, a blurring of boundaries that shuts down sincere participation.
As someone who lives with dyslexia and is deeply committed to improving representation on this platform, I had hoped for a more supportive tone - particularly because this work is often exhausting and unpaid, and because people from underrepresented communities already face disproportionate scrutiny when contributing to public knowledge spaces.
I'm doing my absolute best to meet the standards, and I welcome constructive feedback -but I would also ask that it be delivered in the spirit of collaboration and mutual respect. A dismissive tone, especially when no actual discussion of the article’s sources or merits follows, doesn’t serve anyone - and sadly discourages exactly the kind of editors Wikimedia claims to want to empower.
Thank you again for your time,
Riley RileyRoseKennedy (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RileyRoseKennedy I do not respond kindly to AI-generated text. Please use your own words. Plenty of editors have dyslexia but we really do not want to speak to you via long AI-generated responses. Do not abdicate your humanity to a shitty robot.
As for the draft: you still have not converted all your links into proper in-line citations by following the tutorial at WP:INTREFVE. Please do so, or the draft won't be considered. This is just our policy. qcne (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure why you feel the need to use terms like "shitty" after I just kindly said how your language is triggering. Maybe AI would help in this case by taking out cuss words, that do not create clarity and clearness but rather more confusion and unnecessary negativty ;) I also find it bold of you to assume that I did us AI.
I actually type my own texts and then ask AI to proofread them so I do not embarrass myself with typos. I will update the links now, again my dyslexia is sometimes interfering with the way I process information or write, work etc. I also did NOT mean to say that I know Isabelle Noack personally, but rather that I know OF her and have been following her work - particularly on Africa and in journalism - for a while now. I also saw her speak at a Google event in London once.
Thank you and have a lovely day. Not here to lecture, but again, I always heard that this is a platform of likeminded, positive and respectful creators and people trying to do good and I truly believe we should use the abilities we have into creating POSITIVE impact whenever we can. I was NOT trying to attack you, but rather show up as my best self in a space I was excited to contribute to. If you are annoyed by long texts, please feel free to say that directly instead of further insulting me or making assumptions about who I write.
Thank you,
R. RileyRoseKennedy (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Shitty" seems to be an extremely apt adjective to describe AI. It was clearly not directed at you, and "cuss words" are not censored. Profanity should never be used against fellow editors, but it's definitely fine to swear at AI robots.
You stated that you took the very professional-looking photo of Noack, the one she also uses as her Linkedin profile photo. At Commons you asserted that she sent an email, today, to the Commons permissions team. That does not tally with your claims in this thread. Could you explain your connection to Noack, please? --bonadea contributions talk 18:22, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you and thank you for clarifying. It was not clear to me that it was not directed at me - again, maybe that's my dyslexia or whatever it may be.
Thank you for getting back to me on that and happy to elaborate. I met her during an event at Google where she did a collaboration with AiDiA, which is a Afro-German organization to support Black businesses in the DACH region. Before the event I took the picture of her in one of the meeting rooms at Google Berlin. That's the only time I met her in person and I first heard of the work she does when she helped free Wilfried Siewe, a Black German who was wrongfully put in prison while on vacation in Cameroun with his family. Please let me know if there is anything else I can help clarify. I also wanted to let you know that I updated the links and sources as you asked me to. I hope it's all in line now. RileyRoseKennedy (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just put this here. --bonadea contributions talk 20:07, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That image asserts that Noack took the photo, but she clearly didn't as she's at the lectern holding a microphone, not even looking at the camera. 331dot (talk) 09:06, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She had a tripod and camera set up and this is a screenshot from the video. I was at the event and can confirm this. RileyRoseKennedy (talk) 09:08, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So she had her iPhone mounted on a tripod to record her event? 331dot (talk) 09:19, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. RileyRoseKennedy (talk) 12:36, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RileyRoseKennedy: the image Isabelle Noack speaking in 2024.jpg was uploaded by you as your own work. Its description states that "This photo was taken by me, Isabelle Noack, using my own device during a public speaking engagement at Google in 2024. I confirm that I own the full rights to this image, including all visible elements, and that it does not include any copyrighted third-party content. I am releasing it under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license for use on Wikimedia Commons." This implies that either you are Isabelle Noack, in which case why are you talking about her as a third party; or this photo was not your own work, and you should not have uploaded it as such. And in either case, why are insisting that you don't know Noack? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, as said before I am neurodivergent (including dyslexia), and I realize so sorry that the way I descripted the picture was confusion. I meant the picture was taken BY me and is OF IN. Like I would say taken by me, Chicago. That's how I would say that it was taken by me but OF the city of Chi-town. However, I do get how this can be confusing and apologize,
Happy to clarify the following again.
I am not Isabelle Noack, and
I am NOT being paid to submit this article, I’m doing it voluntarily because I believe Isabelle is notable and deserves representation on Wikipedia based on extensive third-party coverage and her work in a field that is being underrepresented, which is the African continent. Despite my dyslexia I read through a lot of your guidelines and mission statements which often highlight your commitment to inclusion and a wide range of coverage. I also noticed that a lot of Articles about African issues and people on here include false information - I have already edited some of them. All this to say is that despite this causing me some pain due to my disability, I am genuinly doing this with the best of intentions to not only highlight Isabelle but also the work that you do by making it as inclusive and diverse as the people you serve. RileyRoseKennedy (talk) 13:20, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The picture was taken by Noack and I am not "insiting" I am stating facts. Not sure why such violent language needs to be used in a space where we are all trying to do good. She took the pictures and said anyone attending the event can use them. Before the event every guest agreed that their pictures can also be taken and used. They all gave their verbal agreement. So not sure how having the rights to pictures makes you imply that I am lying. I have rights to lots of pictures - i.e. copyright free ones online - where I dont know the subject. Happy Sunday and said with kindness and positivity. RileyRoseKennedy (talk) 13:35, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You just said a moment ago, two paragraphs up, that "I meant the picture was taken BY me and is OF IN.". Now you're saying "The picture was taken by Noack". Which is it? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:43, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as "copyright free images online". The copyright is either explicitly given, given and released, or not given, and if it is not given, you must assume that it is copyrighted and unusable.
I think you are trying to say that you took a screen capture from the video; but this is like taking a picture of the Mona Lisa and saying that image of the Mona Lisa is your own personal work. That you took the image from the video does not remove the original copyright. If you did not film the video as you are saying, you must immediately without delay request deletion of the image from Commons. 331dot (talk) 14:47, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am so sorry, but I am confused as to which picture you are referring to because there are several pictures. And again if you would keep my neurodivergency in mind or would like me to have my friend write on my behalf let me know - though I would obviosuly hate to have that be the reason I cannot do the article.
What I mean and meant is that from the current pictures.
1. Professional headshot taken BY me and have the right. (I believe an email was sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and they said they would update it here (at least that's what Isabelle's bf told me)
2. The picture of her on stage at Google was taken with her tripod and is a screenshot from the video she was recording. She gave everyone rights to the content created during that even and everyone in attendance did the same by giving their verbal consent. RileyRoseKennedy (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the second image, verbal consent is unacceptable. There must be something printed that can be verified that clearly releases an image. See donating copyrighted materials. 331dot (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I will write the organization to send me a confirmation. Should I write send it here or via email and until when do you need it by? Thank you. RileyRoseKennedy (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RileyRoseKennedy Honestly, I think all this is a waste of time because Isabelle Noack is not notable so an article about her is not possible. S0091 (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Images are not relevant to the draft process anyway, I would just remove them for now. 331dot (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright images is a real term. Please just look it up. I do not know why it seems like gaslighting and being rude is something you feel so urgently compelled to do. However, I reached out to the wider team and thankfully there are kind people in your org - a I knew and hoped for - like Jonathan, who is now helping me and escalating the treatment I have received here.
So given that you once again said something untrue while accusing me of being wrong - which again I wasn't COPYRIGHT FREE IMAGES IS A REAL THING. Hate that I have to justify myself but here is a direct quote from Jupiter Ai "AI Overview
Yes, copyright-free images are a real thing. They refer to images where the copyright has expired, been forfeited, or the creator has explicitly released them into the public domain, allowing anyone to use them without restrictions".
On the basis of this not sure if your rude demand still stands or if I continue everything with Jonathan now. Thanks and have the day you deserve. RileyRoseKennedy (talk) 10:46, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jupiter Ai is an AI, thus in a very literal sense worse than useless for finding information you can trust. Anyway, it's really an academic question – the draft won't be an article, so I'm concerned that you will be wasting your own time if you continue working on it. Nobody has tried to gaslight you. --bonadea contributions talk 13:43, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your Ref List is all plain-text. It would be useful to have URLs within them if applicable. qcne (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The draft has been reviewed and declined. Submitting it for review is the way to request a review (and you have received extremely early reviews both times you submitted), but you should not do that without first addressing the reasons it was declined. --bonadea contributions talk 13:53, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You do not get to decide how I feel. If I felt gaslight, then those are my valid feelings. Jonatan said something else regarding my draft, so I would like to further pursue it and add what needs to be added. And also wait until the results of the escalation.
There are other articles that also mention copyright free images being a real thing - even if you just type it into Google. RileyRoseKennedy (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again,

I just wanted to respectfully clarify that I'm not being paid to submit this article. I submitted independently and wasn’t aware I needed to disclose anything, I apologize. I also want to share that I’m neurodivergent and may have misunderstood some things. The person I’m writing about has been featured prominently in Deutsche Welle, Face2Face Africa, and other global and African outlets. I hope those sources weren’t dismissed simply because they’re African. That would be deeply disappointing especially as I read about Wikipedias global inclusivity goals. I also added many news articles of her that were voiced and written by the subject herself. I would really appreciate help strengthening the article in a fair, inclusive way and for you to reconsider your decision please. Again I'm not affiliated with the subject and I am contributing completely voluntarily because I think she would be a great member of your encylopedia. I also experience dyslexia and appreciate clear guidance.

Thank you again for everything and sorry for any inconvience I may have caused and have a lovely day R. RileyRoseKennedy (talk) 20:06, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews with her do not establish notability, as by definition an interview is the person speaking about themselves, which is not an independent source. Things she wrote herself also are not independent. Much of the draft has no sources at all; every substantive fact about a living person needs a source per the Biographies of Living Persons policy. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RileyRoseKennedy Please stop using AI in the draft and here, it is not remotely helpful, we want to hear from you NOT a robot. Theroadislong (talk) 09:34, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not using AI, I am literally typing directly in the box. RileyRoseKennedy (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:46, 28 June 2025 review of submission by TheBlessed1

[edit]

I've refined the article tone and added inline citations for all major claims using feature articles from Pulse, Guardian Nigeria, Punch, Bellanaija and other news outlets. Would appreciate review and guidance on notability. Thanks you! TheBlessed1 (talk) 13:46, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TheBlessed1. You used an AI chatbot to create this draft. How do I know this? Because the AI chatbot included a broken code at the top of the draft which we have been seeing in AI-generated drafts for months.
Do not use AI to create your draft. You will have to completely re-write it and verify everything you have written is accurate. qcne (talk) 13:49, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is true. Thank you very much. I will do just that, I apologize 102.89.34.99 (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:53, 28 June 2025 review of submission by RileyRoseKennedy

[edit]

Thank you for your help - Quick question re: draft Hi there,

I'm a newer contributor and learning as I go - thank you for the time and care you put into reviewing drafts, especially from people like me who are still figuring it all out. I really respect the work that goes into maintaining Wikipedia’s standards.

This is a topic close to my heart, not only because I’m personally connected, but because I believe this article can be meaningful for others - especially younger, underrepresented voices in journalism and media. I’ve done my best to carefully follow the referencing guidelines, incorporate reliable sources, and format things correctly, but I absolutely welcome further feedback.

If there’s anything else I should fix before it’s considered again, I’d really appreciate your thoughts. Thanks again for your time and for all that you do to keep Wikipedia strong and fair.

Warmly, Riley Rose Kennedy (the user, not the subject 😊) RileyRoseKennedy (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RileyRoseKennedy I answered your question above, please do not create duplicate questions. You say here you are "Personally connected". You therefore have a conflict of interest. It is mandatory you declare this by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. qcne (talk) 13:56, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RileyRoseKennedy: please don't remove earlier decline templates and messages from the draft, they need to remain there until the draft is accepted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:12, 28 June 2025 review of submission by Rabinarayan Sarang Panigrahi

[edit]

what is the issue Rabinarayan Sarang Panigrahi (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rabinarayan Sarang Panigrahi Wikipedia is not a social media platform. Please go to LinkedIn or Facebook if you want to tell the world about yourself. qcne (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i want to Tell the things about veer savarkar what tell to people 103.147.175.72 (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can not do this on Wikipedia. Go to a social media site instead. qcne (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Veer Savarkar

[edit]

Header inserted by ColinFine (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i want to write on Veer Savarkar 103.147.175.72 (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have an article Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. You are welcome to make improvements to that. ColinFine (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:27, 28 June 2025 review of submission by IreneNesser101

[edit]

Hello, Would you be able to tell me where exactly the submission does not work? I used AI to search for references but most of the text was corrected by me. Thank you in advance 

IreneNesser101 (talk) 14:27, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@IreneNesser101 Do not use AI for references. It hallucinates fake references. We see this daily. It looks like we already have an article on this person at Lutz_Huelle. Therefore a draft is not required. Feel free to edit the existing article but do not use an AI for any of the research. Do not abdicate your skills to a bad robot please. qcne (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your quick reply. I checked every reference one by one and they are all from official/ known sources, and most of them I had seen in the past while looking at Lutz' work. I didn't realize there was already a page, I've been looking on and off for years to see if there was one. This page doesn't seem to be accepted on Wiki either. Maybe the guy is not notable enough for Wiki, in this case I won't waste my time. I've never dared to, edit anything on wiki as it has always seemed very complicated to me.. I don't really know what other refernces to use. Thanks for your help anyway. IreneNesser101 (talk) 15:02, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@IreneNesser101 The Lutz Huelle article exists and is published on Wikipedia. I'm not sure why you think it hasn't been accepted. Please do edit it if you have improvements. qcne (talk) 15:19, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok thanks, last time I checked there was nothing. i'll add to this one. Thanks for your help. IreneNesser101 (talk) 15:23, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Happy editing :) qcne (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thank you :) IreneNesser101 (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:49, 28 June 2025 review of submission by Dogauzumcuoglu

[edit]

My article is rejected and cannot be resubmitted. Can I learn the reason? Dogauzumcuoglu (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dogauzumcuoglu: the reason is given in the rejection notice, namely that there is insufficient evidence the subject is notable enough to justify an article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:19, 28 June 2025 review of submission by Auth45Now

[edit]

Can the reviewer or another one substantiate the review's claim with concrete points beyond "This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia."?

This page can be substantiated by the following:

- This individual meets Wikipedia's "Notability" standards located here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability

- There is an extensive list of sources for the article supporting the aforementioned notability including a major newspaper (mainstream news media) "The Toronto Star", York University (Canada's Third Largest University) recognizing this individual's contributions to Canadian academia, non-profits & education as well as a Vice Chancellor award from the University of the West Indies.

- This individual was also recognized by the city of Toronto with the Bob Marley Humanitarian Award supporting their philanthropic work, the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal by the government of Canada, the King Charles III Coronation Medal and many additional awards and honours listed and referenced in the article.

Here is a link to a page of another Canadian financial services executive for reference where one can argue that this page has less sources then this one submitted above and less notability as well as no scrutiny. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_I._McKay Auth45Now (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is blatantly promotional so fails WP:PROMO and as such is appropriately rejected so will not be considered further. S0091 (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the broad reference by linking WP:Promo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion)
What are you specifically referencing within this link? Auth45Now (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I was reviewing this article for comparison:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_I._McKay
There are no objections presently to this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_I._McKay, for this Canadian Executive who has arguably less notability, less references in the article and less national, provincial and municipal recognition for their achievements. Auth45Now (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Auth45Now Please don't compare to existing articles - we have many millions of articles and tens of thousands of them are terrible but no volunteer has gotten around to deleting/improving them yet. We judge each draft on it's own merits.
Your draft has now been deleted, but I agree it was broadly promotional in tone, little more than Wikipedia:Spam. qcne (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So @Qcne... are you saying that I need to change the language of what was written (the language used is the issue you have) or are you saying that this individual does not meet the criteria for Notability? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notability.
In short, are you asserting an issue with my writing or with the subject of the article? Auth45Now (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I unfortunately didn't look at the sources before it was deleted, so was unable to assess if the person meets our notability criteria. But the general prose and tone throughout was overly puffy, promotional. It might be useful to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. qcne (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Auth45Now.
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.
I can't see your deleted draft, buty in general, if a draft is described as "too promotional", it usually means that the writer has made the mistake of writing what the subject says or wants to say, or what their associates say about them. Often this is also exacerbated by a lack of wholly independent reliable sources with significant coverage about the subject, which in turn will fail to establish notability
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 22:01, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the feedback @ColinFine. The details you shared are quite helpful and I appreciate you taking the time to share them with me.
I'm looking forward to being more active in this community and contributing more ... just get climatized here to how it all works :) Auth45Now (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:31, 28 June 2025 review of submission by Auth45Now

[edit]

The article "Mark Beckles" was declined with the following comment: This is a highly promotional and highly unencyclopedic puff piece. Drmies (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

This comment and the corresponding decision connected with it is not supported with any facts.

The article is on a living person who meets the criteria for notability listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notability_in_the_English_Wikipedia

It contains verifiable facts supporting the individual's Notability including recognitions from the federal government of Canada (Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal), the city of Toronto (Bob Marley Humanitarian Award), King Charles III Coronation Medal, York University (Canada's 3rd largest university), leading the Royal Bank of Canada's largest ever commitment of $500 million (the largest ever in over 150 years) to support Youth in Canada.

He has also been featured in major news publication including the Toronto Star newspaper. Auth45Now (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Auth45Now You have already asked this above - do not create duplicate questions. qcne (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies @Qcne ... I am still getting used to this chat feed Auth45Now (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:00, 28 June 2025 review of submission by Shah198

[edit]

Hi, I saw your review on my draft of Manya Singh’s article. I’ve added more sources from Hindustan Times, TOI, and others. Could you help me understand what still needs to be fixed? Shah198 (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Shah198 stop using ChatGPT or some other chatbot as it is clear you are doing so. Also see WP:CITEKILL. Only one or may two sources are needed to support a fact so use the best one and tabloid gossip are poor sources. S0091 (talk) 21:08, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you I understand now that I used too many sources and some weren’t strong enough. I will keep only the best ones and make sure everything is clearly written in a neutral way. I will also avoid using any ChatGPT and I will rewrite it properly, following Wikipedia rules. Thank You, Sir.. Shah198 (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 29

[edit]

05:15, 29 June 2025 review of submission by 220.72.67.173

[edit]

information file 220.72.67.173 (talk) 05:15, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a question.
This draft has been rejected, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:12, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:58, 29 June 2025 review of submission by Ankitsahay27

[edit]

Dear Team, I am new user in Wiki pedia as an contributor and find this tool wonderful to add the information about any topic or person. Recently i have drafted the article for my friend - shashi ranjan singh who has written lots of songs and all are available in youtube by different channel media. Please advise me what need to be added more. please help me with one reference as i am new user and wanted to contribute. Ankitsahay27 (talk) 07:58, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ankitsahay27: your draft is completely unreferenced. Wikipedia articles should be written by summarising what reliable and independent sources have previously published, then citing those sources against the information they have provided. This is a core requirement for all articles, and especially important in the case of an article on a living person.
Another core requirement is that the subject must be notable enough to warrant an article in the first place. Notability is evidenced through sources, therefore your draft fails on that basis also.
You should take a look at WP:GOLDENRULE which explains succinctly the process of source-based article creation. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:10, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Ankitsahay27.
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) 22:02, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article Help! Oliver Hughes

[edit]

Hi friends, I have created the article for Oliver Hughes: Draft:Oliver Charles Hughes

It was initially declined for lack of notability, which I fully understand - however, Oliver Hughes was recently appointed chairman of the board for TBC Digital, which was followed by media coverage including on Bloomberg [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-06-25/tinkoff-alumnus-hughes-to-chair-tbc-s-uzbek-unit-amid-expansion] and BNE Intellinews [https://www.intellinews.com/tbc-uzbekistan-boss-hughes-building-a-central-asian-digital-only-banking-giant-with-retail-sme-lending-and-ai-services-386465/]. TBC Bank Group has a Wikipedia article dedicated to it, as it is a large baking ecosystem in Georgia and Uzbekistan, and Oliver Hughes is an executive for the company, often mentioned and quoted in media. The most recent coverage proves he is of note - I have read the guides and would not have submitted the article had I thought he wasn't. I acknowledge that I am employed by TBC and understand that other editors are reluctant to approve articles by COI editors, however, I believe this request is just and should at least be fairly considered. I appreciate your help! RitaTBC (talk) 09:31, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RitaTBC: Your argument boils down to notability-by-osmosis, which we do not consider a valid argument for eligibility. Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
You have very little that's actually about Hughes; most of it is either from his own lips or passing mentions. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:35, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, this is very helpful. If I am able to provide archived versions of the paywalled articles, would that be helpful in determining the pieces' "worth" in terms of notability? Thanks again! RitaTBC (talk) 06:56, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"I can't assess this" means no more and no less that I can't assess the source. Nothing stops someone else who does have access to, and can comprehend, the source from assessing it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:54, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Archived versions of paywalled pieces, for anyone's reference: https://archive.is/9jRbm (Bloomberg), https://archive.is/oRCvy (FT). Would appreciate more feedback from other editors - thank you in advance. RitaTBC (talk) 08:26, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for the record, the sources that don't have a byline are newswires - those do not have a byline as they are distributed by news agencies. News agencies have different styles. Bloomberg is a news agency as is Reuters. They have bylines on longer stories. But lots of news agencies don't use bylines - it's their style. Interfax and AFP don't use bylines. Some other media don't use bylines either - for examples The Economist, even though it's not a news wire. RitaTBC (talk) 08:43, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Bloomberg or FT help for eligibility (too sparse). Bloomberg barely discusses him, and his entire presence in the FT article is direct quotes. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:39, 29 June 2025 review of submission by Seth.Almonte

[edit]

i need to learn to post and contribute Seth.Almonte (talk) 09:39, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for people to write about themselves, please see WP:AUTO. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:41, 29 June 2025 review of submission by Rasel26

[edit]

Hello, I have create a articles for clothing brand but it not active yet, but here not shoiwng any issue,could you please describe what is the issue ,and where we need to fix it

Thank you Rasel26 (talk) 09:41, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See below thread; please post further comments there, do not create a new thread. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for review: Draft:World Traditional Taekwondo Federation (GTTF)

[edit]

Hello, I have created a draft article about the Global Traditional Taekwondo Federation. I would appreciate it if someone could take a look and review it for potential publication. Link: Draft:World Traditional Taekwondo Federation (GTTF) Thank you! Fahd Marei (talk) 09:43, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft lacked the information needed to submit it- I have added it, but if you were to submit it now, it would be quickly declined and possibly rejected, it is pure advertising. If you work for this company, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID and WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:45, 29 June 2025 review of submission by Rasel26

[edit]

Published content why showing this issue on "Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time"

please let us know how we can fix it

Thank yo u Rasel26 (talk) 09:45, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rasel26 You linked to a nonexistent page called "published content"; that's where the title of the draft should go, I fixed this.
I see that you declared you are a paid editor; the company logo indicates that you personally created it and personally own the copyright to it, is that the case?
Wikipedia is not a place for a company to tell about itself, its offerings, and what it considers to be its own history. 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 is a notable company as Wikipedia defines one. We want to know what others say about the company, not what it says about itself. Coverage must be in depth, going beyond the mere reporting of its activities. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Rasel26.
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.
This applies even more strongly to people with a conflict of interest, including paid editors. Having first found reliable independent sources (see WP:42), you will then need to effectively forget everything you know about the subject, and summarise what these independent sources say - even if they say things that your employer would not like at all. ColinFine (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:59, 29 June 2025 review of submission by Hyggemule

[edit]

Could someone please help with the editing of this draft of artist and photographer Matthew Swarts (USA).

Why is this draft stalled? Within the photography and visual arts subject areas, this subject clearly meets notoriety requirements (from the Museum of Fine Arts to the Library of Congress to the George Eastman Museum, etcetera etcetera). Also, all citations are up to date and from primary sources where the subject matter is the main point of discussion. This closure seems incorrect and when seen alongside other articles that have already been created, it seems biased and wrong.

I write to reinstate the draft.

Please reinstate the draft for editing and submission. Thank you. Hyggemule (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hyggemule. The majority of your sources do not work? We cannot accept drafts where the sources are all broken. Did you use AI to write this draft? AI may have hallucinated plausible but fake sources. qcne (talk) 12:06, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many kind thanks! The citation bot did that somehow. All links should be correct now. Many kind thanks! Hyggemule (talk) 12:29, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can re-submit it for review. qcne (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So many thanks! :) 130.44.160.143 (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Hyggemule. Note that interviews with Swarts, and materials published by galleries and foundations he has worked with, are not independent, and will not contribute to establishing notability. 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) 22:10, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:02, 29 June 2025 review of submission by Brassyg

[edit]

it is a valid one Brassyg (talk) 13:02, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Brassyg See Wikipedia:Notability (music). qcne (talk) 13:03, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:42, 29 June 2025 review of submission by Aliu Salau

[edit]

I am requesting for an assistance for anyone out there to kindly look into this article. I did all I could, and I could improve the article even more, but the reviewer stopped the article from going through. Despite the fact that i included several notable references, I am passionate about my country, and I want to try my best to make sure I contribute to putting every notable Nigerian on Wikipedia. Aliu Salau (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Aliu Salau, as it has been rejected you'll need to reach out to @SafariScribe directly to ask for a re-review if the draft has substantially changed since the rejection or if you think they have made an error. qcne (talk) 14:47, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:39, 29 June 2025 review of submission by Quantumcreeper

[edit]

I've provided some sources for its existence, but i aknowledge its TOO SOON to be published in wikipedia. just asking what's my mistake sir. Quantumcreeper (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Quantumcreeper. If it's too soon, then it can't have an article yet. I would recommend trying again in a few months when there are a few more stronger sources? qcne (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:00, 29 June 2025 review of submission by Faysolnihal18

[edit]

Articles related to my complete biography. Faysolnihal18 (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Faysolnihal18. Please very carefully read Wikipedia:Autobiography. qcne (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Faysolnihal18. We always want new editors here on Wikipedia, but the encyclopaedia isn't a place to promote yourself or your project. If there's enough independent coverage about what you're doing, it might indeed be appropriate for there to be an article about you, but it would need to be written neutrally rather than promotionally, not include external links to your work, and be written by someone with no connection to you. That last point is crucial; no one should be making an article about themselves. Please read WP:COI, WP:AUTOBIO. Annh07 (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:59, 29 June 2025 review of submission by Xurshidjon Olimov

[edit]

Komil Jabborov 1960 yil 23 oktabrda Qashqadaryo viloyati Yakkabog' tumani hozirgi Yuqori yakkabog' qishlog'ida dunyoga kelgan va shu qishloqdagi o'rta ta'lim maktabini tamomlagan . Maktabni tamomlab harbiy hizmatga otlangan va undan so'ng Ukrainaning ,,Luvov"shaxridagi harbiy jurnlistlarni tayyorlovchi univerga o'qishga kiradi .O'qishda boshqalarga o'rnak bo'la oladigan Komil Jabborov har sohada kursdoshlaridan o'tib ketadi va hozirgacha aynan shu universitetni tamomlagan uzbekistondagi yagona harbiy jurnalist hisoblanadi .O'qishdan so'ng bir nechta mamlakatlarda harbiy jurnalist bo'lib ishladi .Bularga 19982-1988 yilgacha Azarbayjonning Naxichevan shaxridagi ,, deviza gazetasi muhbir lavozimida ,1988-1991 yillarda Gruziya Respublikasi Tbilisi shaxrining "Kavkaz orti" gazeta muhbiri , 1991-1992 yillarda "Turkiston harbiy okrugi " muhbiri lavozimida ishlagan va " Vatanparvar " gazetasi bosh muharriri o'rinbosari , bo'lim boshlig'i lavozimida ishlagan hozirda esa "Turon" MFY raisi lovozimida ishlamoqda . Komil Jabborov o'z faolyatida 150 dan ortiq maqola chiqarib ularni asosan ikki tilda uzbek va rus tillarida chiqargan Komil Jabborov ikki tilda mahorat bilan maqola yoza oladigan kam sonli jurnlaistlardan hisoblanadi . K. Jabborov faoliyati 5 dan ziyod tahlikali joylarda bo'lgan uzbekning qahramon harbiy jurnalisti Xurshidjon Olimov (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Xurshidjon Olimov This is the English Wikipedia. Please communicate in English. qcne (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:31, 29 June 2025 review of submission by Esinconis

[edit]

Hello there! I am a participant of Wikipedia's typography group, and as such for the past couple months I have been writing an article about a little known script face called Ondine. Unfortunately there just aren't that many sources going into depth into this font at all, and I'm trying to retrieve all the sources I can possibly find. I'd love to see this article finally get published, could someone please give advice or possibly help out? Thanks so much! Esinconis (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Esinconis, I reviewed this a few days ago. If those are the only sources you can find then this simply doesn't merit an article - most of your sources confer no notability. Did you check for offline sources in newspaper archives, or physical books? As an alternative, you could incorporate the draft text into Adrian_Frutiger as a section under Career. qcne (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Esinconis Also, don't get hung up on topics having their own article. It is quite possible the script could be at least briefly covered in another article and a WP:redirect created so anyone searching for it would be directed there. S0091 (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:33, 29 June 2025 review of submission by Daakh

[edit]

I've created an article for the band Artio which has now been rejected twice.

My first draft was admittedly poor. My second I felt was better and thought it should meet the notability requirements of item 1 in WP:NMUSICIAN as Artio "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works ..." Such as Rocksound Magazine, Kerrang! but again it was rejected.

Following this second rejection I have added Artio's radio appearances on BBC as well details of the live broadcast session on BBC introducing. Hopefully this reinforces point 1 of the notability requirements and also contributes towards items 11 and 12 which talk about radio play and broadcast segments

I think that the article is now ready for resubmission but would welcome feedback as I don't want to waste everyone's time - Many thanks Dave Daakh (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Daakh. Resubmitting is the way to get feedback. ColinFine (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daakh Note that 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, and doing so is the way to get feedback. We don't do pre-review reviews. 331dot (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot. @ColinFine many thanks for your replies - I'll resubmit Daakh (talk) 06:39, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:42, 29 June 2025 review of submission by Ashleyashville

[edit]

Greetings,

I acknowledge the reasoning behind the rejection of the Matthew Lani draft specifically that, without the one major event he is associated with, he would be considered a low-profile figure. While I understand this perspective, I believe the rejection may be somewhat harsh given the nature and scale of that singular event.

The key point is that Matthew Lani is notable precisely because of that widely publicized incident, which received extensive national and international media coverage, sparking ongoing discussions within South African society about identity, public trust, and institutional accountability. The case remains culturally and socially relevant.

There are existing articles in mainspace such as Thabo Bester that are also rooted in a single, high-profile event, yet their notability has not been questioned solely on that basis. I believe the same standard should be fairly applied in this case.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Ashleyashville (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashleyashville WIkipedia have many tens of thousands of bad articles, and relatively few people patrolling them. we will run it if them eventually. No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:14, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thank you 197.185.151.33 (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 30

[edit]

06:26, 30 June 2025 review of submission by Soho501

[edit]

Hi, I would like to get some guidance of why the article was rejected. In particular it would be great if you could let me know what references don't fulfill with the criteria stated. I have used some self-referneces to elaborate in the projects from the Lab but other references, in particular the main references describing the project in my view fulfill the criteria. Many thx. Soho501 (talk) 06:26, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
You have described the project, but not said what sources claim make it a notable organization. You've just described its purpose. We don't usually include "mission" statements in an article as those are just what the organization sees as its own purpose, and that can change at any time. 331dot (talk) 08:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:32, 30 June 2025 review of submission by CarstenBoehme

[edit]

Hi, I wonder what is missing for this contribution? Maybe someone can help. You can find the references for the academic research publish from als well as the media coverage about Pawel Skrzypek. Pawel is leading the AI space in regard to "investing". There is no other platform in Europe (and maybe the US) as advanced as the one built by Pawel. Best, Carsten CarstenBoehme (talk) 08:32, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You disclosed a conflict of interest on the draft itself(you should on your user page as well), and on your user page you say you are a consultant. If Skrzypek is your client, the Terms of Use require that to be disclosed, see WP:PAID. This does not require specific instructions to edit.
Awards are meaningless towards establishing notability unless the award itself merits an article(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). You have essentially posted his resume, not a summary of what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about Skrzypek and what makes him a notable person as they see it. 331dot (talk) 08:49, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Skrzypek is not my client. I'm Senior Advisor (for strategy development) to the Omphalos Fund - which I disclosed because I care about this kind of conflict of interest and transparency. The Hedge Fund Journal as a reliable source has chosen him as 1 of the 50 rising stars in the Hedge Fund business in 2024. This seems for me a strong say/ statement to find a contribution about him on Wiki - especially in combination with his academic work. Where am I wrong? Really don't get it and need some help. CarstenBoehme (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @CarstenBoehme.
Your drafts reads as what he wants people to know about him.
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I See the point and will review it later. On a personal note: if I just read contributions on Wiki from people not familiar with a topic or a person, I wonder how I can count on the knowledge? This is tricky, especially for more recent stories in the area of innovation, technology and research. CarstenBoehme (talk) 14:16, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Editing about a topic does not require familiarity with the topic, as the main purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize what published independent reliable sources choose to say about a topic. If you see information that is not sourced, or is poorly sourced, that should be discussed on the article talk page. You may also remove it yourself. This is especially the case if the article is about a living person. 331dot (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:03, 30 June 2025 review of submission by 93.176.178.217

[edit]

Can someone help me get the approval? 93.176.178.217 (talk) 09:03, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. If you can fundamentally change the draft to address the concerns given by previous reviewers, the first step is to appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 09:08, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:55, 30 June 2025 review of submission by MMEscuredo

[edit]

Submission declined on 1 June 2025 by SafariScribe with the following reason: This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs to meet any of the eight academic-specific criteria or cite multiple reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject, which cover the subject in some depth. However, Alicia Troncoso meets two of the eight academic-specific criteria: Alicia Troncoso received National Award of Computer Science in 2024 (criterion 2), She is President of Spanish Association of Artificial Intelligence (criterion 6), she was vicerrector for IT at the Pablo de Olavide University from 2009 to 2020 (criterion 6) MMEscuredo (talk) 09:55, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MMEscuredo The whole url is not needed when linking, and when used in the header on this page it breaks the formatting that provides a link, I fixed this for you.
Awards only contribute to notability if the award itself merits an article(like Nobel Peace Prize or Grammy Award). I can find no article about "National Award of Computer Science". She may meet the other criteria, but you need to do more than just describe her work; you need to summarize what others say is important about her or her work.
If you are associated with her, that must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 10:01, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:09, 30 June 2025 review of submission by Johnny Prey

[edit]

Request edit Select VoiceCom Hello! I would like to ask for some help or feel free to edit my draft article for it to be accepted to the main space. Thank you so much! Johnny Prey (talk) 10:09, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Prey You provided as the title of your draft "request edit". I fixed this for you. The whole url is not needed when linking.
Your draft was in the article space, but I have moved it to draft space so you can submit it for a review when ready. We don't do co-editing here at this Help Desk. You need to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about Select VoiceCom, showing how it is a notable company- not describe the offerings of the company and its activities.
If you are associated with this company, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID and WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 10:13, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:58, 30 June 2025 review of submission by Iotorrent

[edit]

Please help make the article more neutral and formal. I don't have much experience in creating articles. YouHaveDownloaded was widely covered on the Internet in 2011 and was very interesting. Iotorrent (talk) 10:58, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't really do co-editing here at this help desk. The main issue with the draft is that it seems like.an AI/LLM was used to write it. Please see the message left by the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 11:07, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Iotorrent.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. However, I have been using Wikipedia as a reader for over 10 years. Iotorrent (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:02, 30 June 2025 review of submission by Kalingad

[edit]

I understand that the submission was declined due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. I would like to clarify that the person in question is a highly experienced and long-active voice artist in India, with notable work across many Indian-language Disney dubs and many major productions like BMW, Starr Sports, Lenovo, he has been voicing projects since early 2000s. However, voice artists in India often receive little to no media attention, which creates a structural challenge in demonstrating notability through traditional media coverage.

There is a broader gap in Indian media when it comes to documenting voice artists (as opposed to on-screen actors), despite their essential contribution to the entertainment industry. This is exactly why I am attempting to create a Wikipedia article not to promote the individual, but to ensure such contributions are preserved and accessible in public knowledge archives.

I am also referring to other Voice Actors in India and how their pages were made

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chetan_Shashital

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinod_Kulkarni

These and many others have worked with the person I am making page of

If additional specific types of sources or coverage are required (e.g., trade magazine interviews, festival panel appearances, awards covered in press), I am actively trying to track those down and will include them in future updates.

I appreciate your time and guidance and am open to any further suggestions on improving the draft to align with Wikipedia’s content standards. Kalingad (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of people who are essential to parts of society, many in far more crucial areas than entertainment, that are not notable by Wikipedia's definition. We follow the sources, and if the independent sources aren't there, then neither are we. If you wish to preserve information about people in the industry who are not yet notable, that is certainly a laudable goal, but it's not necessarily Wikipedia's purpose, and you and like-minded individuals should start your own online resource with this information. It can even be designed similarly to Wikipedia; see Fandom or a host of other independent sites using wiki or wiki-similar software. (I have no opinion on whether this particular person is notable or not, but I'm responding to the general thrust of your argument). CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kalingad: The articles on Shashital and Kulkarni both predate 2018, when WP:ACPERM was enacted. Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
You have pretty much nothing to work with beyond the award. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:39, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:26, 30 June 2025 review of submission by Smoreau12345

[edit]

Hello. I recently sent this article for review, and it was rejected partially due to it "reading like an advertisement." I was wondering how I can make this page sound less like an advertisement, as there is no true promotional material inside. The FTA is a non-profit organization, and all of the information in the article is factual. There is no product listed on the page either. What advice would you give to make it sound less promotional, since it is a non-profit, and promotion of the organization was not the goal of the article. Smoreau12345 (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It just tells what the organization wants people to know about it- not what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it is a notable organization. It reads like content on its own website, not a neutral encyclopedia article. 331dot (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Promotion doesn't necessarily have to involve profit. Promotion for a cause can be just as against Wikipedia's purpose as promotion for money. There's a lot of non-neutral language here, scattered throughout the entire article, and most of the content appears to be what the Flexographic Technical Association wishes to say about itself rather than what third-party, reliable, independent observers have said about this organization. Phrases like This conference/exhibition is for flexographers who are interested in enhancing professional skills and connecting with industry leaders and similar come off as what the FTA wants to say, not what independent parties say. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to pursue this article, I'd start from scratch. Start with only independent sources, and then write an article based solely on those sources. As it is, I think there's far too much WP:PRIMARY involved to make the current version of this article salvageable. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:38, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:33, 30 June 2025 review of submission by Hyggemule

[edit]

The commentator for the above draft (who declined this version) does not appear to have read the draft and followed its references. "Nearly all citations are about one specific work (the subject artistically photoshopping their ex out of images), which would likely make this bio fail WP:BLP1E. Other sources, such as the archived New York Times article that included a photo he took, succeed at verifying the claim that his work has been included in this outlet or that outlet, but that's not the same as coverage of him by those outlets and so it doesn't help further the subject's notability. Vanilla Wizard 💙 18:57, 29 June 2025 (UTC)" This is untrue and an incomplete reading of the both the draft and the subject.

The citations range from early graduate work published in the New York Times Magazine and included in the permanent collections of the Library of Congress and the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, to more contemporary references including a major survey of digital photographic object makers at the George Eastman Museum. Further: the references are actually discussing work from a variety of projects reviewed and commented about over a period of thirty years from reliable, secondary sources, including recent survey articles that are explicitly about the subject of the article and not just one of his creations.

The subject of this article is prolific and the article understated. There are over one hundred and forty projects on his website, which includes links to his international exhibition record and other notable achievements (his academic career, his inclusion in many permanent collections of fine art photography, and his publication across a wide variety of social documentary and purely visual arts media sources).

I disagree strongly that this bio fails WP:BLP1E and seek help on how to get this draft a fair reading. There are many other references within his official website (see information, CV, about) that make notoriety across a range of sources. Please help. Hyggemule (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Hyggemule. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else.
Sources from galleries and museums that he has worked with are not independent, and do not contribute.
Sources that discuss his works, even in depth, but say little about him, do not contribute. (It is even possible that some of his individual works are notable in Wikipedia's sense, without him being).
Which three sources meet all the criteria in WP:42? ColinFine (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many kind thanks for this thoughtful reply. All of the sources (and several not cited) are features about this artist in particular and not just passing mentions. The citation of the gallery information is to certify that what is stated in the text is in fact true. As for the sources cited, they are independent and reliable. Please tell me how they are not. They are in publications noted in this artist's area of expertise (fine art photography). Why is the Library of Congress not considered an independent and reliable source? Hyggemule (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:47, 30 June 2025 review of submission by JimmyHartill

[edit]

Hi,

I'm not certain which sources aren't considered acceptable - I know the initial two are the businesses website so not secondary and the BBC point is contained within the video which may disqualify it, but the others are all coverage about the businesses activity from secondary news sites? I'll try and find some more prominent news sites if that's a step in the right direction but I'd just want to be clear which failed the bar where so I can steer my efforts better :)

Also thanks for the rapid feedback! JimmyHartill (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @JimmyHartill.
"A wide range of products in the garden structure space" is marketing speak for "garden buildings", which is already there in the previous sentence. "Maintaining vertical integration across design, production and delivery" is marketing speak meaning almost nothing (after all, no other company does that, do they?). "Remains a family-run business", with that positive-vibe "remains", is highly promotional.
Basically, you have made the common mistake that most new editors make when they try the challenging task of creating an article about a company before spending time learning how Wikipedia works - and particularly editors with a WP:COI - they write what the company wants people to know.
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.
What makes writing with a COI so difficult (and thank you for declaring your status, by the way), is that, having found the requisite independent reliable sources, you need to effectively forget everything you know about the company, and write a summary of what those independent sources say - even if you dislike what they say, or think they're wrong.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Colin, I take the advice and will have a think about how to approach this.
I DID probably fall into the marketing speak trap given I work in marketing. I'll see if I can work on my neutrality with some more practice, as an additional would getting somebody unrelated to the business try and create a draft solely from outside sources be a reasonable measure as well? It seems like a good way to ensure I keep it unmarketing and I can still submit as an edit.
Also, if possible, am I missing anything obviously incorrect with the sources? JimmyHartill (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:27, 30 June 2025 review of submission by 2600:4040:A8BF:1C00:1409:1431:B58E:D31F

[edit]

Hi, I just want to make sure the issue is needing better secondary sources for this article. Or does it also need to be more in depth? 2600:4040:A8BF:1C00:1409:1431:B58E:D31F (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user. Please read my reply to Jimmy Hartill in the section immediately above: most of my comments apply equally to you and your draft. ColinFine (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:10, 30 June 2025 review of submission by Smoreau12345

[edit]

I recently resubmitted this article for review. I utilized the information that two editors provided me on this Help Desk page to remove the "promotional" material and non-neutral language from my draft. The language in this draft is entirely neutral. All of the sources in this version of the draft are from independent, and reliable sources (well-established industry magazines). I have been told that this draft reads like an "advertisement," and I do not understand how that is true given all the changes that have been made. Smoreau12345 (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I submitted the article at 16:00. The editor declined it at 16:01, which seems like a very small amount of time (1 minute) to read the entire article thoroughly. Smoreau12345 (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Smoreau12345. Your draft immediately reads like an advertisement, because it appears to be saying what the association wishes 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. ColinFine (talk) 16:27, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I am not an associate of the organization. All of the sources used in the article are independent third-party sources, with no information coming from the organization itself. All of the magazine articles are reliable industry magazines. Smoreau12345 (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Smoreau12345: even if there isn't promotional wording in the draft, it can still be promotional. This draft is basically a corporate presentation, which tells the world about the association and what it does. That is pretty much the definition of promotion; see WP:YESPROMO. Instead, what we want to see is what independent third parties, especially secondary sources, have said about this association and what in their view makes it worthy of note. That would also go a long way towards establishing this subject's notability, which is a core requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia (and would have been my preferred reason for declining this). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Does your paid editing COI on behalf of Techkon USA relate to this subject? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My COI with Techkon has no relation to this subject. Smoreau12345 (talk) 16:40, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:41, 30 June 2025 review of submission by FurretSuperFan

[edit]

Hi, I'm a little confused right now. The last time I submitted the article they said sourcing was a problem but that Mitchie M was notable enough to have an article but now they said he isn't? He has two albums released under a major album and both albums placed in the top 20 in Billboard Japan and the Oricon charts. I also need a little help identifying which sources are deemed unreliable because I thought I had removed all of them. FurretSuperFan (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FurretSuperFan not exactly. A reviewer stated "arguably notable enough" which is not the same is stating they are notable and they requested "substantial, independent and reliable sources" to demonstrate notability because the sources were "poor". You made updates but it appears the updates did not fix those issues thus the subsequent decline which also pointed out is has a promotional tone. Please note what someone says about themselves or what those associated with them say are not useful. S0091 (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made sure to remove the sources from his blogs and stuff, does that also mean I should remove the informatiom he stated in the interviews? I feel like some of that stuff should stay (unless it's deemed unnecessary information), as he talks about how he got introduced into vocaloid, how he uses the vocaloids, and majority of his past. FurretSuperFan (talk) 22:38, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the sources stating which labels the albums were released on and where they charted were taken from the Warner Japan, Sony Japan, Oricon, and Billboard sites. Do I need a different site to cite them from? FurretSuperFan (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:19, 30 June 2025 review of submission by Googlealt

[edit]

bruh Googlealt (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Googlealt
You appear to have a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is.
A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish in reliable publications, and very little else.
Unlessx you start by looking for and finding several published sources about your chosen subject, each of which meets all the criteria in WP:42, you are probably wasting your time trying to write about it.
Please read WP:YFA. ColinFine (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:22, 30 June 2025 review of submission by Googlealt

[edit]

Bruh Again Googlealt (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Googlealt: We're not interested in your novel ideas. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:46, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:56, 30 June 2025 review of submission by Cheyhart

[edit]

Thank you for working with me to improve this article. Could you point me to the section that requires further improvement? I'll do my best to meet the requirements for a significant contribution. Cheyhart (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cheyhart: This reads like a hagiography. Unless it's part of their most commonly recognised name (for example, Mother Teresa) we don't use first names to refer to article subjects, nor do we use titles or honourifics. Portions of the article show up on the copyvio checker still; considering the prior decline was for copyright violations I'd strongly suggest rewriting the article from scratch, in your own words. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:50, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:37, 30 June 2025 review of submission by Lumenb

[edit]

Hey guys! Just got declined for this article again, but I've included References at the bottom and the project is notable as there is already a distributor and spin-offs attached. Unsure what to do at this point. Would appreciate the help, thanks. Lumenb (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lumenb: An OTT series having a distributor and spinoffs is just an average Tuesday. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:57, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Spin-offs meaning a feature film and TV series developed by Viral Nation Lumenb (talk) 23:59, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lumenb: Again, just an average Tuesday. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 00:02, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are shows that used to be digital-first on youtube that were turned into features / TV / streaming services like Netflix. Is there a certain threshold for views? Can you articulate what makes something notable vs. "just an average Tuesday", given that most everything is digital and traditional broadcast content isn't performing the way it used to. The vague responses isn't very heplful. Lumenb (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Lumenb. Please read again Wikipedia's definition of notability.
It is nothing (directly) about what the subject is, or does, or how popular, famous, important, or influential it may be.
Basically it comes down to, "Has there been enough material reliably published about the subject to base an article on?", remembering that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. . ColinFine (talk) 08:36, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 1

[edit]

00:31, 1 July 2025 review of submission by Edito35

[edit]

it is the most notable thing i know why is it declined Edito35 (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Edito35: Why are you citing random, irrelevant sources? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 01:47, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:21, 1 July 2025 review of submission by 末吉将孝

[edit]

Hello,

My draft at User:末吉将孝/sandbox was declined for a lack of reliable sources. I am trying to understand the reason, and I would appreciate your guidance.

This draft is based on an article that is already an approved article on the Japanese Wikipedia, and I used a similar number of references. This has left me confused about the standards here.

My main question is: **Why was this not sufficient for the English Wikipedia?**

  • Is the primary issue that my sources are in Japanese, and I must find **English-language sources**?
  • Or, is it about the **quality** of the Japanese sources themselves? For example, are official websites, press releases, or interviews not considered reliable or independent enough on English Wikipedia, even if they are acceptable on the Japanese Wikipedia?

I truly want to understand the difference in standards so I can improve my draft correctly. Any explanation you could provide would be very helpful.

Thank you. 末吉将孝 (talk) 01:21, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you are presumably a human and not a robot, I would first ask that you rewrite this in your own words instead of AI. As for the Japanese Wikipedia article, different language Wikipedias have different guidelines on notability, and therefore what might be notable there is not here. Sophisticatedevening🍷(talk) 01:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources do not need to be in English, as long as they are reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 08:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:07, 1 July 2025 review of submission by Anmarodi

[edit]

Can you tell me more about your reject, please? Anmarodi (talk) 04:07, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is not clearly "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia". It needs to be translated to English before it can be an English Wikipedia article, but that is a reason to decline it for further improvement, not to reject it. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:19, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Anmarodi: This is the English-language Wikipedia. All articles here must be written in English. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 04:20, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:10, 1 July 2025 review of submission by Peter.Kuntner

[edit]

This article summarizes information on the topic of academic risk-taking. Academic risk-taking is a subject that has been discussed and researched in educational science. The article cites reliable sources and is written from a neutral perspective. Further concrete feedback for a revision of this article would be desirable. Peter.Kuntner (talk) 08:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It reads as an essay that tells about the topic, not an encyclopedia article that summarizes what is said about the topic- this is why the reviewer declined it. 331dot (talk) 08:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikipedia article should not advance any argument or conclusion, except when it is summnarising an argument or conclusion presented in a single cited source. It may not even combine arguments from different sources. See WP:OR. ColinFine (talk) 08:39, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:19, 1 July 2025 review of submission by Baybrens

[edit]

Hello I want to create a draft about Yükseliş Elevator. I request support so that it can be prepared completely independently. Baybrens (talk) 08:19, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are associated with this topic, that must be disclosed on your user page, please see WP:COI. If you are employed by the company in any capacity, the Terms of Use require that to be disclosed, see WP:PAID.
We don't really do co-editing here at this help desk; you are welcome to continue editing the draft and submit it for another review. The good news is that a few more sources and slight expansion of the article may help get it to pass. 331dot (talk) 08:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:54, 1 July 2025 review of submission by MaxPower2017

[edit]

Hello - one of your editors (Timtrent) directed me to this page to seek your input regarding an approval request. The page is a community rugby union league in England. The English Rugby Union system page (English_rugby_union_system#The_system) contains over 105 community rugby leagues each containing c.10 sides. I have worked tirelessly to populate these pages over many years to ensure they accurately reflect the leagues and the teams participating in them. Only one league remains outstanding - the Dorset & Wilts 2 Central league which is the subject of this request. I am told it lacks notability but I am struggling to see how it is any more or less notable than the 100+ other identical leagues already in the page or the hundreds of English community (association) football pages on Wikipedia. Ultimately I accept it does not have 'notability' in the sense of press coverage or national interest but it is significant to those clubs who are participating and the communities around them. It has been referenced and populated with several years worth of data. I hope a Wikipedia editor may be able to show some discretion and approve the submission which will mean the system page will be complete. Thank you in advance for your help and understanding. MaxPower2017 (talk) 08:54, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MaxPower2017 Using the whole url in the header breaks the header formatting that provides a link; I fixed this. The whole url is not necessary at all when linking to another Wikipedia article or page; outside of this header, [[English rugby union system]] renders as English rugby union system.
You have already resubmitted the draft, the next reviewer will leave you feedback is not accepted. Note that each article or draft is judged on its own merits, see other stuff exists. It could be that these other articles you have seen are also not appropriate and just not yet addressed by a volunteer. We have millions of articles- many that are not appropriate- but only thousands of regular editors.
If a subject does not receive coverage in independent reliable sources, it cannot have an article on Wikipedia, even if other subjects in the same field merit articles. It depends on the coverage. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:08, 1 July 2025 review of submission by 46.136.31.163

[edit]

Hello, please help me in saying how can i get approved this draft? I believe I got all the reliable sources for the claims, and I really do not know what else I can do, is rejected and I want it to be accepted as is for information about a very good multinational company.

Thank you. 46.136.31.163 (talk) 09:08, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What a shame you used AI to create this. You get it approved by using your own words, not those of an AI Chatbot, and having references which pass the criteria explained to you when it was declined. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:22, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was declined, not rejected. Rejected would mean it could not be resubmitted.
Wikipedia is not for merely providing information. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company, showing how it is a notable company as Wikipedia defines one. This is not a place to just tell about a company and describe its offerings.
If you work for this company, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID and WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 09:28, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User helped on #wikipedia-en-help qcne (talk) 09:32, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:26, 1 July 2025 review of submission by Sellotapemaskingtape

[edit]

Hi! I'd love help in getting this page looked at please, I think it's strong now. Thanks Sellotapemaskingtape (talk) 09:26, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sellotapemaskingtape Using the whole url in the header breaks the formatting that provides a link, I have fixed this.
First, be aware that if you get this draft accepted, you could no longer edit about this topic, as you are not yet extended confirmed- that is a requirement when making edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. (while you have had your account for around 20 years, you are far from 500 edits). Please see your user talk page for more information about these restrictions.
The main issue with your draft is that it seems to have been generated by AI. 331dot (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:24, 1 July 2025 review of submission by Jeffforex

[edit]

WHAT DO I NEED TO DO FOR MY ARTICLE TO BE PUBLISHED Jeffforex (talk) 10:24, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Jeffforex
First, please note that writing about yourself on Wikipedia is very strongly discouraged. Almost nobody who tries it ever succeeds, and they tend to waste a good deal of their own and other people's time in trying.
Secondly, an article about you in Wikipedia should consist of a summary of what people wholly unconnected with you have published about you, in reliable publications. 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.
This means that in order to successfully write an article about yourself, you would need to
  1. Find several sources that are reliable (eg not social media), wholly independent of you (not based on an interview or press release from you or your associates) and contain significant coverage of you - see WP:42 for more information.
  2. Assuming that you can find several such sources, you would then need to effectively forget everything you know about yourself, and write a summary of what those sources said - even if you disagreed with them.
Do you see why writing about yourself is difficult?
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia.
A final warning: now that you have posted here, it is quite likely that somebody will contact you offering to create an article for a fee. If they do so, this is almost certainly a scam: see WP:SCAM. Don't give them your money. ColinFine (talk) 10:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1298252820"