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


May 25

[edit]

05:53, 25 May 2025 review of submission by Farah244

[edit]

Hello, Please I need someone to accept my draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Fatima_Al_Safi Farah244 (talk) 05:53, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Farah244: you have submitted your draft successfully, and it will be reviewed once a reviewer gets around to it. This may take a while, since we have c. 2,900 pending drafts in the system. Please be patient. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. Farah244 (talk) 06:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:14, 25 May 2025 review of submission by Unique2025

[edit]

Good morning, could an experienced editor help me publish the article? I feel frustrated as it is my first contribution to this project. I'm willing to contribute more, but even though I included the necessary references and format, it is being tagged as a draft and I am unable to publish it. I would appreciate your help. Unique2025 (talk) 06:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Unique2025: it is a draft, by virtue of the fact that you have created it in the draft name space. You have submitted it for review, which will be done once a reviewer gets around to it.
What is your relationship with the subject? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:41, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for reconsideration of David Allen Hough (Linguist) draft

[edit]

Hello, I’m seeking a second opinion on a declined draft for Dr. David Allen Hough.

I’ve significantly improved the draft with **multiple independent and reliable sources**: - Citations in multilingual education books and journals - Mentions in Nepalese and Micronesian language preservation projects - Academic references and secondary coverage (not just authored works)

Here is the draft: User:JRHoughContributor/sandbox

I’d appreciate any advice or input on whether the current version meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. Thank you! JRHoughContributor (talk) 08:52, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JRHoughContributor: if you have improved the draft since it was declined, you will get a 'second opinion' when you resubmit it for another review. Or if you're wanting to challenge the decline, please provide your rationale for this?
I note that the draft has no citations. You have included inline external links in the body text (which isn't actually even allowed), but not cited your sources (which is a hard requirement in articles on living people). Please see WP:REFB for advice on referencing generally, and WP:ILC on inline citations specifically.
What is your relationship with the subject? I've posted a conflict of interest (COI) query on your talk page, please read and respond to it. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:00, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, DoubleGrazing. I appreciate the guidance.
To clarify: I am the subject’s son, and I’ve disclosed this in earlier requests and the sandbox. My goal is to honor his contributions in a neutral, verifiable way.
I’ve since revised the sandbox draft using proper <ref> tags and removed the inline links in the body. I’m happy to continue improving formatting if needed.
Thank you again for helping me navigate this the right way. JRHoughContributor (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JRHoughContributor: I can't find your disclosure, where is it? You should disclose either by placing the {{User COI}} template on your userpage User:JRHoughContributor, and/or the {{Connected contributor}} template (in both cases, appropriately filled in) on the draft talk page User talk:JRHoughContributor/sandbox. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:49, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:54, 25 May 2025 review of submission by Bluishebrye

[edit]

need to published. Bluishebrye (talk) 10:54, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluishebrye: that's not a question, did you have one in mind you wanted to ask?
This draft will not be published until it is properly referenced with sources that also establish notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:57, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
helped add more reliable sources. :) Bluishebrye (talk) 10:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a question, either.
If you're asking us to help add sources, then that's not our job, the onus for referencing is squarely with the author. In fact, you should be basing this draft on (summary of) reliable sources in the first place, not trying to add sources as an afterthought. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:05, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:35, 25 May 2025 review of submission by The Great Editor Hath Come

[edit]

My page is being maliciously targeted and I do not know why. The Great Editor Hath Come (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place to do what it is you are doing. 331dot (talk) 22:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:42, 25 May 2025 review of submission by Matthew John Drummond

[edit]

How many other references should I add or can someone else add some additional information about the series I can't find elsewhere. Matthew John Drummond (talk) 21:42, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning it won't be considered further. Fandom and Amazon are not valid sources. It's not necessarily more references you need, but better references. 331dot (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:32, 25 May 2025 Question about backlog drive by Noleander

[edit]

I'm thinking of participating in the AfC backlog drive in June. I read the instructions at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Reviewing_instructions and want to clarify the situation where I am reviewing a draft article that is on a clearly notable subject, but has poor or no sourcing. The instructions say to mark the article as "Declined", which is understandable.

But the instructions also say that "Declined" is sort of equivalent to AfD process deleting an article; yet in my experience, during AfD, often if an article is on a notable subject, but has poor or no sourcing, it is often kept (not deleted) and the creator is instructed to obtain more sources.

For the June backlog drive, I'm happy to follow the AfC review instructions and mark such articles as "Declined" ... but if an AfC veteran could clarify how that relates to AfD keeping poorly sourced articles, that would be wonderful. Thanks! Noleander (talk) 23:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Noleander, I am not a veteran, but in my experience 'Declined' means 'try again, here's what to fix' and 'Rejected' means 'this subject isn't notable' - so I would think Rejected = Delete, and Declined = get more sources. A Declined draft can be approved later on, but Rejected is the end of the road. Does that make more sense? Meadowlark (talk) 01:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Meadowlark: Thanks for the insight, but I'm still confused.
The instructions at WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions focus primarily on Decline and Accept.
The table in the Core purpose section says "[if the article would be deleted at AfD] Then DECLINE it."
The important WP:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Reviewing_instructions#Reviewing_workflow flow diagram says that articles that are not encyclopedic should be Declined; and also those that are notable but simply have lame sources should be Declined.
The third option Reject is barely mentioned at all: it is not in the Core purpose section; and not in the flow diagram.
The one place that Rejection is mentioned says "Rejection is appropriate when you genuinely believe the page would be uncontroversially deleted if it were an article (i.e., the page would be an overwhelming "delete" at AFD..."
So, unless I'm blind, that instruction page contains rather significant contradictions about Reject vs Decline.
In addition, I'm pretty sure the instruction "[if the article would be deleted at AfD] Then DECLINE it." is misleading because AfD may "keep" articles that are notable (but more sources are required); but AfC will Decline (or Reject?) notable articles that do not yet have adequate sources. Noleander (talk) 02:19, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Noleander, I think maybe one of the things that's unclear (that I've seen veteran reviewers explain) is that you're trying to decide whether a newly-approved article would survive AfD. If you think it has a better than 50% chance of survival, you accept; if you don't, you decline. It seems to me like that might be what the instructions are referring to. Here's a relevant discussion: [1] Meadowlark (talk) 02:36, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I may be looking in the wrong place but I don't see any mention of that 50% rule.
If the 50% rule is valid perhaps the instructions should be updated to mention that? I'd be happy to update the instructions to mention 50% ... if that's what the rule is. Noleander (talk) 03:11, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've posted this question in the wrong place. It is supposed to be in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation.
So, I hereby close this discussion. I'll open a new discussion (with same question) at that Talk page. Please do not reply to this thread, thanks. Noleander (talk) 03:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I initiated a new discussion (posing the same questions) at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#Question_about_Accept/Reject/Decline_options_in_the_AfC_instructions. Sorry for any confusion. Noleander (talk) 03:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 26

[edit]

05:18, 26 May 2025 review of submission by 102.223.57.42

[edit]

My draft was declined due to "undeclared WP:COI. The image in the article, which was verified via email, indicates some level of COI that is not declared. Please declare that first." How do I rectify this? I have a COI on my user page and image has been accepted previously. 102.223.57.42 (talk) 05:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are Substantiator, please remember to log into your account whenever editing.
You say you "have a COI on my user page" - what does that mean? I can see that COI has been queried on your user talk page, but you have not responded to it. Please do so now.
If, on the other hand, you are Colette2204, then yes, I can see that you have disclosed your COI both on the draft talk page and on your userpage. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:59, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you I am Colette2204, appreciate your feedback. Colette2204 (talk) 10:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How do I remove Substantiator from this draft so all messages come to me? I am working on getting this draft compliant so it gets published. Thank you. Colette2204 (talk) 10:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:48, 26 May 2025 review of submission by New7Blue

[edit]

Hello, just looking for further clarification. My article was denied for not having multiple sources, I think. Do I need more evidence of my topic's existence or of it's relevancy? I suppose I just need to know more specifically what is needed. Thank you! New7Blue (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@New7Blue: I declined your draft (not yet 'article') because it provides no evidence that the subject is notable. Notability per WP:GNG requires significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject. None of the sources cited in this draft meets that standard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing: I updated the draft with several more resources and information that I believe shows notability! Looking forward to hearing back from you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by New7Blue (talk • contribs) 18:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:10, 26 May 2025 review of submission by Тимерхан

[edit]

Hi! I would be glad to get feedback about the article draft written by me. Тимерхан (talk) 09:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Тимерхан: you received feedback when this draft was reviewed last month, namely that there is insufficient evidence of notability. If you have made changes to it, and would like it to be reviewed again, you need to resubmit it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:36, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but I want to sum up may mistakes before resubmission not to receive negative template again Тимерхан (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for human review of Draft:Ali Datoussaid

[edit]

Hello,

I would like to request a human review of my draft at Draft:Ali Datoussaid. The draft was declined automatically due to a potential conflict of interest flag, but no human reviewer has looked at it yet.

I am the subject of the article and fully aware of Wikipedia’s conflict of interest and notability guidelines. The draft was written to be neutral, minimal, and strictly sourced from reliable independent references (Petit Futé, Fokus 50+, L’Avenir). No promotional tone or primary links are used.

I would appreciate a human editor reviewing the draft and advising if notability is established, or what improvements are needed.

Thank you for your time and help. — User:Alidatoussaid Alidatoussaid (talk) 09:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alidatoussaid: believe it or not, I am a human reviewer.
The drafts I deleted, one in English, the other in French, were 100% unadulterated self-promotion. Wikipedia is not a marketing channel for you to promote yourself, your books, etc. or in fact anything. If you continue in this vein, you are likely to get yourself blocked pretty soon.
Yours Humanly, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Okay, I think I see what you mean with your comment about "declined automatically". In your new drafts Draft:Ali Datoussaid and User:Alidatoussaid/sandbox2, created after I deleted the earlier ones, you've placed the declined template onto the draft yourself. (Were you using AI to generate these, by any chance?) So in that sense you are right, these versions have indeed not been reviewed by anyone (human or bot), although they've also not been "automatically" declined, unless 'automatically' means you yourself. Hope this helps to explain the mystery. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of the three links are independent, reliable, and providing significant coverage. The first one is a directory listing in a travel guide's directory, which does nothing but show existence, not notability. The second is mostly quoting you, which is certainly not independent. The third is just a name on a massive list of names.
Wikipedia articles start with the independent articles, and are then written using the information in the independent articles, with facts within the article cited to a source for that information. None of the facts in the short article are cited to reliable sources supporting their inclusion; the insufficient references are just thrown in at the end like a pile of clothes in a laundry hamper. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:46, 26 May 2025 review of submission by Hajabs

[edit]

I've been make the big changes to my article onto completely neutral POV, also, I've been provide the technical specifications. Please review my article. Hajabs (talk) 09:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that you have addressed the concerns of the reviewers, the first step is to appeal to the reviewer that rejected the draft directly, on their user talk page(which is linked to from your draft). 331dot (talk) 09:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You will need to find indpendent, reliable sources at present you have none. Theroadislong (talk) 10:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:09, 26 May 2025 review of submission by Felis Creations

[edit]

Hello I am reaching out to ask what I need to do for the references to fix the "Cite uses generic name" issue on two of my links. The news outlets do not provide author names so I was wondering if I am better off to remove the author First and Last Name option? Felis Creations (talk) 12:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Felis Creations: you don't necessarily need to do anything, as this isn't a dealbreaker-level issue, but basically the errors flag up that 'editor' and 'bureau' are highly unlikely to be authors' surnames; they rather suggest that the articles don't have bylines and are just regurgitated press releases or similar. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:16, 26 May 2025 review of submission by JRHoughContributor

[edit]

I thought the last one i submitted was good. Please advise me what I need to do to be approved. JRHoughContributor (talk) 12:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JRHoughContributor: the last submission was made without any improvement, which is completely pointless and only serves to nudge your draft one step closer to an outright rejection.
In the one before that, none of the sources work, meaning that the information cannot be verified. Which is what I already said in my comment accompanying the decline notice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:21, 26 May 2025 review of submission by Kárpáthy Kamlo

[edit]

the person who reviewed my page did not tell me what i did wrong Kárpáthy Kamlo (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kárpáthy Kamlo, Please see WP:RS, WP:LLM and WP:PROMOTION. — 🦅White-tailed eagleTalk to the eagleStalking eagle 14:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a platform for publishing fiction, or whatever this is. Besides which, we summarise what reliable and independent sources have previously said about a subject; your draft cites no such source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:00, 26 May 2025 review of submission by Fmarsha

[edit]

Trying to understand the reasons for article denial and what needs to be done to improve its chances of acceptance. There are already existing similar articles about Theravada Buddhist monks which are referencing similar resources. Thank you! Fmarsha (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fmarsha Other articles existing has no bearing on your draft, as those too could be inappropriate and just not yet addressed by volunteers, which you would be unaware of. See other stuff exists. Each article or draft is considered on its own merits.
You will need to tell your relationship with the monk, see conflict of interest. I see that you took a picture of him.
The reason for the decline was that the sources used do not seem to be reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answer and clarifications. I see that for a living person, a self-published biography is considered a reliable source. Will referencing a self-published auto-biography improve the chances of article acceptance? I don't have any relationships with this person other than visiting the monastery where he is the abbot, and trying to help with writing this article. Fmarsha (talk) 16:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Autobiographies can't establish notability, as by definition an autobiography is the person speaking about themselves. Autobiographies can be used for other purposes, but not establishing notability. A "self-published" autobiography might be more problematic; autobiographies are typically reviewed by an editor or other author before publishing- a self-published work isn't, necessarily. 331dot (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the article on reliable sources and I genuinely wasn't able to understand how are the sources I used not reliable, they seem to tick all the marks. There is no controversy or differences of opinions involved. Any guidance would be appreciated Fmarsha (talk) 08:40, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your sources are
  1. a page from the website of his monastery which simply names him as the abbot, not independent, not significant coverage
  2. wouldn't load for me so I can't examine it
  3. another page from a monastery website associated with him, which does provide some biographical information but not a great deal of significant coverage; not independent of him
  4. a very brief mention of him, not significant coverage
  5. a brief biography of him(not as brief as the above one), not significant coverage, unsure if the website would be a reliable source
  6. another brief biography of him that also lists and makes available talks he conducted, no significant coverage
  7. another brief biography of him
  8. a website that makes available and documents talks he conducted, not independent, not significant coverage
  9. a copy of a talk he conducted
  10. a copy of a book
  11. anoother volume of the same book
None of these sources contribute to notability; and only a few of them are useful at all(those with biographical information). 331dot (talk) 09:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:19, 26 May 2025 review of submission by Sarah Lexis

[edit]

Tell me the reason of rejection Sarah Lexis (talk) 16:19, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is not an article, it is a blatant advert. WP:NOTADVERT CoconutOctopus talk 16:21, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see your user talk page for important information requiring a response, regarding paid editing. 331dot (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:25, 26 May 2025 review of submission by Manthanvashistha009

[edit]

Can u please give me some advice regarding to this articles. Manthanvashistha009 (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Manthanvashistha009 It is nominated for speedy deletion after rejection 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:43, 26 May 2025 review of submission by Liveuserqwe

[edit]

I am the creator of this page. I believe it does not qualify for speedy deletion under the criteria because [brief reason, e.g., "the subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for people due to coverage in independent, reliable sources such as X and Y"].

Please consider reviewing the page with this context. Liveuserqwe (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link Draft:Lasitha rajapaksha - founder and ceo, which has been deleted. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:51, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And OP blocked as a sockpuppet. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:24, 26 May 2025 review of submission by Divnanoc

[edit]

Submission declined, because "Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines and ilc - Submission is a BLP that does not meet minimum inline citation requirements". (1) The Article is about one of the notable English painters from 1930-60s, a member of Royal Institute of Oil Painters (ROI). Exhibited at the Royal Academy, Royal Institute of Oil Painters, Royal Society of British Artists[8], Royal Glasgow Institute of the Fine Arts etc. He also was a Head of Epsom School of Art, one of the significant art college in the UK. Currently in collection of some British Museums, like National Museum Cardiff etc. Very surprising that the person doesn`t match Wiki criteria. (2) All of the sources are reliable, independent and unconnected to any conflict of interests, included two two British art encyclopaedic books containing the biography`s details of subject. (3) Purpose of article: to return almost publicly forgotten name; to eliminate confusion between the two artists of the same name. Divnanoc (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Divnanoc That he may well be notable is a different thing from your demonstrating that he is notable. I have not yet done a deep dive into your references, but please check them against WP:42.
The purpose of the article is not what you think. If he is notabke and passes WP:NARTIST the purpose is the pure purpose of having an article n him. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Divnanoc I am not persuaded that the references are up to the standard required. You will probably disagree. To assist, please look at WP:GA and find an artist of his era, where you ought to be able to discern the difference in referencing. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sorry, but not very convincing. According to this point Taylor Swift is the greatest musician within all the mankind`s history. Or at least certainly better than, umm, like Zbigniew Preisner (he has weaker referencing) or Léon Boëllmann, for example. But she is not, despite the tonnes of wasted papers and online critics that could make couple of hundreds referencing details to her bio. Birch lived and worked like 80% of his colleagues ascribed in encyclopaedias of first part of XX century and I really doubt that more information could be squeezed . Divnanoc (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Divnanoc You are very welcome to seek to engage in debate. However, you came here to ask for advice, or, truly, you gave a statement about why you feel you are correct. I gave you an answer which you believe insufficient. Two other reviewers have given you opinions on your draft, and, so far, you are the only one of us marching in step. Most people take the advice they are given. I have no concerns whether you take the advice or not. The review process is iterative, intended to guide you towards success, if success be possible. I suggest you avail yourself of iterations of review. Others may differ from the opinions given thus far and accept it at once - who can say?
The first reference in your draft, by the way, is a spam link to a selling site, and needs to be removed. As for references from his era, internet archivists are digitising more, but nothing prevents your use of print media as a reference. Find material about Birch, with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of him and you will succeed. Indeed, you should have found that first. There is a strong probability that this draft has been created WP:BACKWARDS, and that you are seeking references for what you wish to say.
Oh, I'm very sorry, but... means that you are using the words of apology but not meaning them. That is nether civil nor collegial. We seek to be both. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:32, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but TimTrent's right on the money here. Notability in Wikipedia has nothing to do with "worth" but by coverage in reliable sources. And I say that as someone who has a couple albums of Preisner's work, once filled in as the piano for a group playing Boëllmann's quartet in college, played the Suite Gothique poorly on another occasion (my pedal work is atrocious), and own nothing of Swift's works. We follow the sources on Wikipedia, we don't decide on worth ourselves, and we live in a world in which there's a lot more reliably sourced coverage of Nickelback than Allan Pettersson. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 27

[edit]

00:07, 27 May 2025 review of submission by Mayor Orangutan

[edit]

How many reliable secondary sources do I need to have in an article? I'll get rid of any unreliable primary sources. Mayor Orangutan (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mayor Orangutan Start by reading WP:YOUTUBE and you will begin to see why it is unlikely to be useful as a reference.
Your draft needs summaries what is said about the subject in significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. It's not about quantity, it's about quality 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 00:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:50, 27 May 2025 review of submission by HeiLouSimp

[edit]

I would like to publish the lyrics for songs by singer-songwriter Loulou Lailani. How do I do it? HeiLouSimp (talk) 05:50, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't, unless they are willing to donate their lyrics to WMF or provide them under a Wiki-compliant license. Otherwise, it's WP:COPYRIGHT infringment. Nor can they even be housed here on a user page or in your sandbox, which is public. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:51, 27 May 2025 review of submission by Work97111

[edit]

The draft cites multiple articles from mainstream news outlets, showing widespread media coverage. Need help to understand what additional criteria need to be met to establish notability. Work97111 (talk) 05:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Work97111 in order for a source to meet the notability criteria it needs to meet all four criteria listed in the decline: reliable, secondary, independent and have in-depth coverage directly about the subject. Common issues are they are press releases/announcements, interviews/based on what the subject or those affiliated say or not in-depth. I have not gone through the sources but that might be the issue. S0091 (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:28, 27 May 2025 review of submission by Sadiowiki

[edit]

I recently submitted a draft article on Jeff Campbell (Apostle), and it was declined by ToadetteEdit due to concerns about notability and the lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. I really appreciate the review, and I’m hoping to get clarification on how to improve the draft for resubmission.

The draft is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sadiowiki/sandbox

I’ve cited sources including La Voz, The Denver Post, Longmont Daily Times-Call, HuffPost, Westword, and award acknowledgments from the Bonfils-Stanton Foundation and Denver Arts & Venues. Some are in-depth features, while others cover public events or cultural contributions.

Could someone advise whether any of these sources already meet notability criteria if formatted correctly with inline <ref> tags? And if not, what types of additional coverage should I be looking to include?

Any guidance on strengthening the article for acceptance would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you! Sadiowiki (talk) 07:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toadette was absolutely correct. Most of these sources aren't really good for an article about Jeff Campbell. Most of these are just barely mentions of Campbell; more than half of the cites are to material that, if we accept as establishing notability, would establish notability for the breakdancing crew, not him. Some of the cites don't even mention him at all.
Wide swathes of the article include factual information with no source provided whatsoever. Do you have a link to the article you cited that was published sometime during the year 1984? The entire legacy section is especially problematic here, full of WP:PEACOCK terminology and absolutely nothing is supported with a cite. Note that awards themselves don't provide notability unless those awards are Wiki-notable by themselves.
There are also some copyright violations involved here; this a very serious issue. The newspaper one is already being taken care of, but you uploaded photos by David Stevens and a photographer named Dakiri with no evidence that these photos were released with a Wiki-compliant license, and in fact, characterized as these photographs as your own work. If these were photographs made at your request for pay and you are the copyright holder, you must substantiate these. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:33, 27 May 2025 review of submission by JacA12

[edit]

Dear All,

it has now been nearly two months since my proposal for an article on Guido Ascari has been rejected, referencing the guideline WP:BLP. Since then, I have removed the unreferenced and unsourced information as I could not find any reliable source for them, and I have include some other additional sources here and there. I believe now the article satisisfies the standards and the guidelines. Thank you for your help. User:JacA12 (User talk:JacA12). JacA12 (talk) 10:33, 27 May 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 it may be resubmitted. You have resubmitted it and it is pending. Please be patient, asking for a review will not speed the process. 331dot (talk) 10:53, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:02, 27 May 2025 review of submission by Cpeedexpert

[edit]

I’ve recently created and submitted a draft article about a person, but unfortunately, it was not approved. I would really appreciate it if someone could take a look and help me understand which areas need improvement or correction to meet Wikipedia’s notability and content guidelines.

I've tried to include reliable sources and factual information, but I may have missed some key points or formatting standards. Could someone please review the draft and provide feedback on what specifically needs to be fixed — whether it's notability, references, tone, or structure?

Any guidance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance for your time and support! Cpeedexpert (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do you think they pass the criteria at WP:GNG, it's not at all clear that they do? Theroadislong (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:44, 27 May 2025 review of submission by Queenbird

[edit]

I'm really frustrated as I have had others as well as ChatGPT check that it's worded in a neutral way and we have a number of independent sources. I'm directly involved in the project but I have the declared on my user page. What is the number one reason and an example of why it's been rejected so I can productively do something. Otherwise I am not very happy with wikipedia contribution Queenbird (talk) 14:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queenbird You need the "Draft:" portion of the title when linking, I fixed this for you.
Mission statements are wholly unencyclopedic, as all it is is the organization telling what it sees as its own purpose. I would just remove this.
Mostly the draft just describes the activities of the organization, which does not establish that the definition of a notable organization is met. See WP:ORGDEPTH specifically.
The main purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about the topic(an organization, in this case) showing how it is notable. One portion of the draft tells of the influence of the organization but doesn't say much about what that actually is. I would focus on that as independent sources see it, not as the organization itself sees it. 331dot (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that's much more helpful. is there a way to have you review this before submitting again? Queenbird (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Submitting is the way to obtain a new review; we don't do pre-review reviews here. 331dot (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and please don't add unsourced promotion to Maskless lithography relating to your draft topic. Theroadislong (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Queenbird Not the most relevant but I would not suggest using chatgpt to check your wording. It in itself is biased after all. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:03, 27 May 2025 review of submission by CR98gs

[edit]

Hello, I'd like to undestand why the page has been delcined as I tried to keep the content factual referring to existing articles and sources. CR98gs (talk) 15:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CR98gs I mean just read it. It sounds like an ad(let's be real here, it probably is one.) Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not; it is meant to explain what DigiPHY technology is, how it is used, and how it is adopted. If you read the iPhone page, you will see that the content is even more specific and developed, and it is not an advertisement for this reason. CR98gs (talk) 07:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOMISSION Thehistorianisaac (talk) 07:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:12, 27 May 2025 review of submission by Monitoramento artista 2.0

[edit]

Nao foram elencados os motivos da rejeicao, preciso de mais informacoes para adequar o artigo. Monitoramento artista 2.0 (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Cia José Francisco Lippi
@Monitoramento artista 2.0: this is the English-language Wikipedia, please communicate in English.
And for the same reason, your draft(s) have been declined as they are not in English (by in Portuguese?). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok. compreendido. Monitoramento artista 2.0 (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:27, 27 May 2025 review of submission by StevenTiger

[edit]

Submitted page was rejected for lack of referencing, but every statement that requires referencing (by Wikipedia criteria) WAS referenced, almost all citing published articles from the professional medical literature. I used the Cite function in edit mode, filled in the fields, and the "publish" version shows all the references listed at the end, by numbers corresponding to the superscript bracketed numbers in the text. So I genuinely do not understand what is wrong. StevenTiger (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined not rejected, the sourcing is VERY poor with vast swathes having zero references. Theroadislong (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:20, 27 May 2025 review of submission by BRICKWALLBEAR5

[edit]

This isn't a self submission, i started doing random young hockey players careers. BRICKWALLBEAR5 (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Random young hockey players are almost certainly not notable as Wikipedia uses the word. 331dot (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not make hoaxes. 331dot (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 28

[edit]

01:17, 28 May 2025 review of submission by Darrin.davis

[edit]

Wondering what more can I add to my wiki page to have it become active? Darrin.davis (talk) 01:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the most active in terms of music related articles, however please don't spam random links onto the external links section Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:08, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is just blatant self-promotion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:00, 28 May 2025 review of submission by Ryanh272025

[edit]

Hi,

Requesting assistance on this page which was live but then was flagged for notability issues/conflict of interest. The subject is notable in the international automotive space as CEO of Formula E and there are no conflicts of interest from my side on the subject. It's been resubmitted for review but wanted to get any guidance please. Thanks. Ryanh272025 (talk) 09:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ryanh272025: yes, this was briefly in the main article space, because you moved it there, presumably because you believe(d) the subject is notable. It was moved back to drafts by a new page patroller, whose assessment was that notability had not been shown.
I've not reviewed this draft so cannot comment on whether notability is there or not, but just to say that being the CEO of anything does not make a person notable (otherwise I would be notable, and I'm most assuredly not!).
Your draft has been submitted and will be reviewed once a reviewer gets around to it. It's not clear what assistance or guidance you require; if you have specific questions, you may ask those, otherwise I suggest you wait for the review to take place. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the message. Fully understood on the reasoning that not everyone is worthy of a Wiki page of course, but I am pretty certain that the person in question does meet the requirements though. He's heavily featured in international sports media and his positioning is essentially head of Formula E. If there's actually any guidance I can get from anyone - even if it's guidance on just that it needs to be waited out now - that would be really appreciated. Thank you. Ryanh272025 (talk) 09:22, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You could improve the referencing and edit for neutral tone, puffery like this has no place in an encyclopaedia “As the company continued to thrive” “Under Dodds' leadership, Formula E has achieved record revenues’ “to work closely with elite golf professionals “ “elevating into chief marketing officer” “high-profile talent” “helped deliver major companies’ “continued to excel when it comes to sustainability”. Theroadislong (talk) 09:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you and noted. It's been resubmitted and should have eliminated the puffery for this now. I don't believe I'm able to check and amend after submitting for review but hopefully it's more or less there now. Thank you again for the feedback, it's appreciated. Ryanh272025 (talk) 09:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can continue editing you have NOT eliminated any of the puffery yet? Theroadislong (talk) 09:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies the version which went through must have been an earlier and unsaved. This has been resubmitted again now with amends throughout. Thanks again for the feedback and hopefully this is there now. Ryanh272025 (talk) 10:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:42, 28 May 2025 review of submission by عبدالله أحمد علي سالم

[edit]


> Subject: Request for manual review of draft article – Whom Shall I Blame, Father?

Hello,

I kindly request a manual review of my submitted draft article titled Whom Shall I Blame, Father?, which covers a socio-political novel by Algerian author Abdallah Madjidi.

The draft complies with Wikipedia’s notability, neutrality, and sourcing guidelines. It includes references from independent sources, a structured summary of the novel’s themes, style, and reception, as well as a properly formatted infobox.

Disclosure: I have a conflict of interest regarding the subject and have declared it on the draft’s talk page in accordance with the Conflict of interest policy.

You can find the draft here: Draft:Whom Shall I Blame, Father?

I appreciate your time and any feedback you may offer.

Best regards, User:عبدالله أحمد علي سال عبدالله أحمد علي سالم (talk) 11:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@عبدالله أحمد علي سالم: there is no draft titled Draft:Whom Shall I Blame, Father?. There is Draft:Who blame, Dad?, which has been reviewed twice, and is currently awaiting its third review.
When you say you're requesting a "manual review", manual as opposed to what? All our reviews are done manually, if by that you mean actual live reviewers. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:56, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
نعم عبدالله أحمد علي سالم (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:47, 28 May 2025 review of submission by Strongmann

[edit]

Hello, I've created this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Michel_Roccati Related to Michel Roccati, the first person in the World that walked again after a complete spinal cord injury. The submission has been declined because there aren't enough resources. But I have uploaded many official sources, from a Nature paper, Guiness world record and documentaries of BBC and Cnn... Could you help me to edit the page in order that comply to Wikipedia rules? Strongmann (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Strongmann: The reviewers are pointing at WP:BIO1E (though I would instead point to WP:BLP1E). To summarise, if a person is known solely for one incident or event and it isn't likely they'll become any higher-profile because of it, we err towards not having an article on them for the sake of their privacy. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:23, 28 May 2025 review of submission by Sabawaragarado

[edit]

Why? Sabawaragarado (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sabawaragarado: at what point did this look to you like a viable encyclopaedia article? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:48, 28 May 2025 review of submission by Sam.S.Welch

[edit]

Hi, I'm creating my first Wikipedia web page. Have tried to figure out what I'm doing wrong and also read through the WP:BAND and Golden Rules web sites and looked through how to create references. Not sure what I'm doing wrong. Very eager to make things right, but not sure how to. :) Cheers/Sam Sam.S.Welch (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sam.S.Welch: your draft cites only two sources, both primary, which cannot establish notability per WP:GNG. And as the draft is almost entirely unreferenced, even if there is a credible claim of notability per WP:BAND, there is no evidence of this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Sam.S.Welch. 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) 22:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:53, 28 May 2025 review of submission by 213.60.224.174

[edit]

Just a very quick question about this submission: examples and references of significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject have been added. There are many more such references and examples that can be further added. How many more should be added and what is missing from this submission (reliable sources or sources independent of the subject or something else)? 213.60.224.174 (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, the general rule is three (see WP:THREE). Also, I suggest adding a note on the draft's talk page listing three to make it easier for reviewers. S0091 (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:26, 28 May 2025 review of submission by 41.210.146.106

[edit]

Have failed to create a wikipedia article for my boss yet independent news websites mentioned or talked about him, now what can i do? 41.210.146.106 (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No you (Nyanzi Luther Martin) are a school child who is continuing to waste lots of peoples time. KylieTastic (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For others see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joanvumilia/Archive + several global blocks for cross wiki spam KylieTastic (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:33, 28 May 2025 review of submission by HarvResearch

[edit]

According to SafariScribe, "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified." In my opinion, the article has more than enough primary and secondary sources reliable sources so I don't understand SafariScribe's reasoning for declining the article. Can someone clarify for me? HarvResearch (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HarvResearch off the bat, my.comics.org/comics.org is not a reliable source as it is user-generated and according to them contains a backlog of errors and it appears some of the sources are about Joe Simon, not his son Jim. For example, this NYT pieces makes no mention of Jim nor does it mention The Comic Book Makers yet is being used to support "Simon co-authored The Comic Book Makers, about the the Golden Age of the comic book industry". The Reception section appears to be solely about The Comic Book Makers, which is only one work and he co-authored with his father. Other sources also are about his father, not him, such as this popmatters article, where Jim is mentioned once and is his statement about his father. There's a lot work to do to clean it up as it not clear how Jim meets the notability criteria. S0091 (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Grand Comics Database (https://www.comics.org/) is recommended by Wikipedia as a reliable source. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/United States comics work group. I've seen the site referenced in other Wikipedia articles. So I am a bit confused here. Are you saying I should not use this database?
While the subject of the article is the son of Joe Simon, the subject is the known as the co-author of The Comic Book Makers and is credited as such. So I don't know why he is penalized if a source article credits his work on properties in which perhaps the referenced main figure is his father. Are you saying I should delete such sources?
As for notability, the subject appears to have make a number of accomplishments on his own in the area of comics--writing, editing, publishing, appearing on panels and in a documentary. Can you please let me know why the subject fails criteria for notability on his own?
Thank you. HarvResearch (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @HarvResearch. His accomplishments, whatever they are, do not contribute to establishing that he meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability: they may well increase the likelihood that independent people have chosen to write about him, but you need to find those sources.
A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what several people who are completely unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else: the notability criteria are mostly about ensuring that this is possible.
Most sources that contain enough about him to contribute to notability will be primarily about him: sources that are primarily about his father but say a little about him may be useful for verifying additional information about him, but probably won't help with notability.
Your use of the word "penalize" suggests that you have the idea that a Wikipedia article about Simon would in some way be for Simon's benefit. If you have this misapprehension, I suggest you read WP:PROUD. ColinFine (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You also need to address your possible conflict of interest as thus far all of your contributions are regarding Jim Simon. S0091 (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:47, 28 May 2025 review of submission by 2600:1011:A122:42EF:24F8:93C3:D341:A920

[edit]

Hello, I would appreciate any guidance on how to improve this draft to meet submission standards. If possible, could you please point out any specific areas that may need revision? Thank you for your time and feedback. 2600:1011:A122:42EF:24F8:93C3:D341:A920 (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting. If you are the creator, please disclose your connection with her(you took a very professional looking image of her) per WP:COI and WP:PAID.
The draft was rejected, typically meaning it won't be considered further. There is no indication she meets the definition of a notable musician or a notable creative professional. 331dot (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 29

[edit]

00:44, 29 May 2025 review of submission by Rustyrortise

[edit]

yeah I changed it Rustyrortise (talk) 00:44, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been rejected and will not be considered further. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:27, 29 May 2025 review of submission by CopperBeechRising

[edit]

Hello, I’ve created a biographical article draft in my user sandbox that I’d like to submit for review, but I don’t have the ability to move it to the Draft namespace. Could an experienced editor please move it for me and submit it for review?

Here's the page: User:CopperBeechRising/sandbox

Thank you! 

CopperBeechRising (talk) 03:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CopperBeechRising I've moved it to Draft:Nela Wagman. It is currently awaiting review. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:35, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:34, 29 May 2025 review of submission by 102.216.77.46

[edit]

Good morning!

I received this message on 20 March 2025: "Your submission at Articles for creation: Branko Brkic has been accepted Branko Brkic, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!"

But when I Google Branko Brkic, the Wikipedia doesn't appear, no matter where in the world I am. Would you be able to help?

Thank you! 102.216.77.46 (talk) 06:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@102.216.77.46 new articles are indexed by search engines when reviewed by a new page patroller, or after 90 days have passed since its creation, whichever happen first. There are currently over 10 thousand unreviewed articles, so please be patient. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:09, 29 May 2025 review of submission by Trigiant

[edit]

Good morning, Yesterday I submitted an article with the biography of Prof. R. D'Auria. I would like to inquire if the submission was successful. I submitted it from the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Trigiant?action=edit&veswitched=1 Thank you very much. With best regards, Mario Trigiante Trigiant (talk) 07:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Trigiant you have created the same draft twice, once on your user page and another at Draft:Riccardo D'Auria (theoretical physicist), neither of which have you submitted. I've submitted the latter for you, and it is now awaiting review. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. I wait then for a response. Trigiant (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:40, 29 May 2025 review of submission by Tharunmakes

[edit]

Why Tharunmakes (talk) 07:40, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tharunmakes This was rejected as an essay 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:05, 29 May 2025 review of submission by IamCashifSyleem

[edit]

Hi Concern,

Please advice me the concern for declining. IamCashifSyleem (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IamCashifSyleem: the decline reasons are given in the decline notice, namely 1) the draft is completely unreferenced, and 2) it provides no evidence that the subject is notable. Besides which, this is basically just a CV/resume, and we don't publish those. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:14, 29 May 2025 review of submission by 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:D4D3:A345:DFAD:4042

[edit]

I made this page in April under my main, @Shaneapickle and I submitted it recently, I just want to know what I can do to make this page ready enough for mainspace. I also want to know if it passes notabillity due to the amount of reviews and the amount of news reports on it, from independent and small sources. Thank you, 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:D4D3:A345:DFAD:4042 (talk) 13:14, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(I was not paid for this page to be made) 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:D4D3:A345:DFAD:4042 (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You submitted it for review, the reviewer will leave you feedback if not accepted.
You specify that you were not paid, if you have a connection to this establishment, it could still be a conflict of interest that you need to declare. Also note that "paid editing" includes employment in any capacity, and does not require specific payment for editing. 331dot (talk) 14:40, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know I asked this on the libera chat when i created this page but, does COI count if I have eaten there? 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:D4D3:A345:DFAD:4042 (talk) 16:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, being a customer of an establishment is not a conflict of interest. Only if you are editing at their direction or otherwise coordinating your editing with the establishment. 331dot (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:D4D3:A345:DFAD:4042 (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any info I can add to my draft to make sure it passes WP:N, the Manual of Style, the whole shabang 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:D4D3:A345:DFAD:4042 (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any info I can add to my draft to make sure it passes WP:N, the Manual of Style, the whole shabang 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:D4D3:A345:DFAD:4042 (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:52, 29 May 2025 review of submission by Eliveentertainment

[edit]

I am not understanding why this page was declined. I have provided 8 sources. I can add more, but I'm unsure if that was the problem, or there was a different one. Please provide some direction.

Additionally, another fan added some pages in other languages, so maybe this page just needs to be merged with those pages, but this being the English version.

I appreciate any direction that you may provide to me so I can best move forward.

Thank you! Eliveentertainment (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Eliveentertainment: the sources are many (although not as many as they seem, given that half of them are by the same author and therefore count as only one source), but they are of poor quality, and thus not enough to establish notability per WP:GNG. The other option would be to show that this meets WP:BAND, but there is no obvious evidence of that, either.
The reviewer could have added that the referencing is inadequate, on account of the flaky sources, as well as the fact that much of the information is not supported at all.
The draft is also promotional, with peacocky expressions like "Their energetic live shows and unique sound have earned them a reputation as a compelling live act." Your job is not to sell this band, but merely to describe it. If phrases like that are direct quotations from a reliable and independent secondary sources, then they may be accepted, but you would need to cite the source so that the reader can see whose opinion is being expressed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Eliveentertainment. I'm afraid that, like many new editors, you have plunged into the difficult task of creating a new article without first spending time learning what Wikipedia is. 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 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 connected with the subject, and sources based on press releases (such as announcements of forthcoming appearances or publications) do not contribute to this.
Note also that the existence of articles in other languages is not relevant: each language version of Wikipedia is a separate project, with its own policies and procedures, and English Wikipedia is one of the strictest in terms of sourcing. ColinFine (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:12, 29 May 2025 review of submission by Bmorewine

[edit]

Hi, I’d like to improve the article and would appreciate your input. Are there specific types of sources or references I could add to help demonstrate notability for Wine Village in Baltimore, an annual public event with thousands of attendees and local media presence? Bmorewine (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is the general nature of your conflict of interest with this topic?
The only sources you provided are announcements of the event. You need to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about this event, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable event. If you can do that, go ahead then appeal to the rejecting reviewer to ask them to reconsider. 331dot (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Bmorewine. 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) 17:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:25, 29 May 2025 review of submission by Artistsecond

[edit]

why is he getting declined for reference when there are articles linked from reputable big sources? Artistsecond (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Answered below. S0091 (talk) 19:11, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:27, 29 May 2025 review of submission by Artistsecond

[edit]

why is he getting declined for reference when there are articles linked from reputable big sources? the articles name David Murphy specifically as the head writer for the season of a network tv show. (along with Lebron James and production company) and other references. please help. thank you for your attention. Artistsecond (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Artistsecond did you read through all the linked information in the decline? Those should explain but you might also find Your first article and WP:42 helpful. If after you read those, you still have questions please come back here but be specific. S0091 (talk) 19:10, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:29, 29 May 2025 review of submission by Lindymae

[edit]

After much careful editing and a lot of guidance, my page was rejected. I'd like to improve it so it will be accepted. I used this wikipedia page as a model since it represents something similar to my topic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Basement_Ladies.

I'd like more specific guidance on what specifically I need to change/add. I feel like I did a pretty good job and don't want to break things are working, only fix things that aren't.

Any help would be appreciated.

Here is the feedback I received: This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources. This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are: 

   in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
   reliable
   secondary
   independent of the subject

Lindymae (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Lindymae, Church Basement Ladies also has issues noted by the " needs additional citations" tag at the top so a poor example to follow. I suggest taking a look at articles that have met the WP:Good article criteria. Also, social media (including Yelp) are not reliable sources so should not be used nor is Broadway World and generally YouTube so remove all of those. Usually what is needed are critical reviews by reputable critics/publications (not press releases, announcements or other routine coverage). S0091 (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:47, 29 May 2025 review of submission by Nichol40

[edit]

This article has been rejected for publication because of not having credible sources. Does the following qualify as such?: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2025/01/07/republicans-liked-crypto-before-trump-did/77398253007/ Nichol40 (talk) 18:47, 29 May 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.
Very little of the draft is sourced; every substantive piece of information about a living person needs a source, see the Biographies of living persons policy. You need to show that he is narrowly a notable academic or more broadly a notable person. 331dot (talk) 19:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:25, 29 May 2025 review of submission by Adityaraodank

[edit]

I tried so hard , what more should I do to get this article up ? Adityaraodank (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing that you can do, it has been rejected. 331dot (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Adityaraodank
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.
Writing an article without first finding the necessary independent reliable substantial sources is like building a house without surveying the building plot and verifying that it is stable enough to build on: your house will likely fall down (or be condemned by the authorities) and your work will be wasted. ColinFine (talk) 17:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:42, 29 May 2025 review of submission by WilfredNewton

[edit]

Could you please advise what is promotional so that it can be deleted or amended WilfredNewton (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was wholly promotional and has been deleted. Wikipedia is not a place to tell about an organization and its offerings. A Wikipedia article about an organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization.
If you work for the school, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 21:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:58, 29 May 2025 review of submission by Cindy0299

[edit]

Hello Reviewer Team,

May I ask what should be modified for the article? Thank you so much! Cindy0299 (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is entirely 'written' by an AI, and you have not even checked to see if it makes sense before submitting. You will need to start from scratch and write in your own words this time, descriving what reliable secondary sources have to say about the subject and nothing else. CoconutOctopus talk 21:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:47, 29 May 2025 review of submission by PencilPR

[edit]

Hi I would like to add picture for reference of the information of the biography , i have tried to add picture/scan of news papers. I tried to make an account in wiki commons, but i keep getting the auto error, i email them but nothing. PencilPR (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PencilPR Pictures arte not useful as references, and are usually the copyright of another. Please do not attempt to use pictures as references. Please do not upload copyright material.
This is not Wikimedia Common. Not only do we not know what the auto error is we cannot help you. Please try using the login credentials you have here when you log in to Commons You have no need to make a new account there. There is a unified login to all/most WMF sites. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:11, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have permission from the artist himself to upload picture, he the one that asked me to do the biography and wanted to add the news clipping and picture of himself and artwork. to be honest i am still new at this and i am trying to follow you tube video and i still don't get it. i even made a new version wiki page of the original in spanish i am trying to publish the new one the is translate to english. i am not even sure how to even asked to be review PencilPR (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PencilPR Is the artist himself the owner of the copyright? Or does he simply possess the picture?
I have given you the ability to submit Draft:Juan Elías López for review. Regrettably you wrote it on your User page. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PencilPR You seem to be a paid editor. Please read WP:PAID and comply. Being a pad editor means that you are paid to learn how to do things here. Many volunteers are unlikely to help you to earn your living. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 30

[edit]

04:01, 30 May 2025 review of submission by Twin mohamed shafiq mustafa

[edit]

wikipedia is worst my real twin history and photo wear removed Twin mohamed shafiq mustafa (talk) 04:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Twin mohamed shafiq mustafa uh... ok? Your submission has been rejected and will not be considered further. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:17, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:45, 30 May 2025 review of submission by Malaysianforchange

[edit]

Hi, I have included various news links to the Article, and I believe the subject is notable with those references....do I need to include more news links? Malaysianforchange (talk) 04:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Malaysianforchange: this draft has been rejected, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:48, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:36, 30 May 2025 review of submission by InfamousEntries

[edit]

Hi! I made an article about Chris Motionless, American singer of heavy metal band, Motionless in White. I want to know why it was declined. Keep in mind it was my first article, so please tell me how I can improve next time! InfamousEntries (talk) 11:36, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@InfamousEntries: this draft was declined because it does not demonstrate that the subject is notable enough for a standalone article. Individual band members must satisfy the WP:GNG notability guideline, which requires significant coverage (of them as an individual, not merely as a member of a band) in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I have thankfully found more articles discussing Motionless. Are there any other things I need to improve? InfamousEntries (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:35, 30 May 2025 review of submission by Sooup

[edit]

I think a previous editor has added links to prove independent coverage of the band after being declined on the grounds of insignificant coverage.

The links talk about the songs and albums of the band with praise, and I don't know how to incorporate these links as citations without adding song-specific content which makes the article sound like an advertisement (again).

The links in question are currently placed under the temporary "Independent coverage" section of the draft Sooup (talk) 13:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sooup: those sources presumably support some statements in this draft (because if they don't, then they have no place being there), so please cite them against such statements. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:09, 30 May 2025 review of submission by GiraffeLover19

[edit]

I want to know what I can do to get this article approved, as I put more sources and data for my draft, but it got rejected for the same reason. GiraffeLover19 (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @GiraffeLover19, I looked at this draft and noted that the draft is about 2026 election which is toosoon for now. Regarding your added references in the draft, there's not significant coverage about the election as it includes just passing mentions only. I want to remind you that, the draft is declined only not rejected. In my opinion, following are the areas where you can improve.
1) Gather more information about the election which must be verifiable by reliable and independent references to the subject.
2) Focus on Notable Development of the election.
3) Avoid speculation or prediction. Fade258 (talk) 01:16, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:46, 30 May 2025 review of submission by Emmakristoffy

[edit]

I have submitted an article for Jacqueline Edmondson, the current President of the University of Southern Maine. I would like to resubmit this article for review and would appreciate any suggestions to get the article approved/clarification on what was missing or could be improved in the article. Thank you so much! Emmakristoffy (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emmakristoffy You need the full title, including the "Draft:" portion, when linking. I fixed this for you. On your user page, you had coding in place to prevent proper display of your disclosures, I fixed that too. 331dot (talk) 15:53, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I appreciate it! Would you suggest any other changes, or does it look like I can resubmit for review? Emmakristoffy (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to hear from the reviewer first. I can say thst most of the awards described will not contribute to notability, as they lack articles themselves(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). 331dot (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging the reviewer Endrabcwizart, as they declined it as an unsourced BLP, but it has sources. 331dot (talk) 15:56, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:00, 30 May 2025 review of submission by Imagemaker12

[edit]

1. " They do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) of the subject in published, reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

The references provided are "not passing mentions," and they are secondary sources/news articles. I would like to understand what you mean by "Secondary Sources/Reliable" if newspaper articles are not accepted by you.

2. "None of the awards are major awards, and they do not meet any other criteria listed at WP:NFILM."

I checked WP:NFILM. There was no mention of what Wikipedia considers "Major Awards," and what sort of awards Wikipedia accepts. I need your help with this matter.

Thank you. Imagemaker12 (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Imagemaker12 "Major award" is usually understood to mean an award that itself merits an article, like Academy Award or Palme d'Or. 331dot (talk) 19:10, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The draft does little more than briefly describe the plot and describe routine activity around the film(casting and a screening of the film). These are not significant coverage; significant coverage for a film generally consists of professional reviews of the film, or other major coverage of the film beyond mere casting announcements/the release of the film. 331dot (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:36, 30 May 2025 review of submission by Quentin Rupert

[edit]

I need to understand what I did wrong. I've only used articles about the actress Quentin Rupert (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue is the manner in which you wrote citations. Please see Referencing for Beginners. 331dot (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 31

[edit]

07:33, 31 May 2025 review of submission by 103.188.136.190

[edit]

Dear Sir, Will you please tell us the rejection issue? or do you have any advise for complience? 103.188.136.190 (talk) 07:33, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is just pure self-promotion. My advice is not to attempt to publish this type of content. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:54, 31 May 2025 review of submission by PawsFC-GM

[edit]

Hello I raised a question on 13th April, at 17:35, which 331dot responded to. Unfortunately, I only recently saw this response. I've added a reply, but I'm not sure if it will be seen now. I can post a new question if necessary, but I'm hoping someone can respond to the thread from 13th April. Thanks, Andy. 

PawsFC-GM (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:35, 31 May 2025 review of submission by Kapsicum

[edit]

pls allow this i need this for school project Kapsicum (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Kapsicum. I'm sorry that you apparently need for a school project something which, at present, you seem to be completely incapable of doing. I suggest you show this reply to whoever you are doing this project for, and ask them to read WP:Education program/Educators
Creating a new article is much more difficult, especially for new editors, than people often think. 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 Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else. Unless there is published material about your subject, it is impossible to have a Wikipedia article about it. ColinFine (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:00, 31 May 2025 review of submission by Legend of 14

[edit]

My decline reason is very vague, and not sufficient for me to actually improve the article. My draft was declined because my 6 sources don't meet at least of 4 factors, but the specific factor was not explained, and at least 5 of them seem to meet all 4 factors. Legend of 14 (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1293238300"