Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

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


September 30

[edit]

00:42, 30 September 2025 review of submission by 49.185.27.111

[edit]

Dear Sir,

Do I need to provided the year published for the many books that Claudia Joseph has written?

Also, she has written for the Mail Online , Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday - should I include these as references or not (given the current Wikipedia ruling)?

I am assuming Muck Rack is fine as a reference which lists all of the hundreds of her articles from all publications.

Thank you 49.185.27.111 (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're focusing on the wrong thing. If you're writing a biography of Claudia Joseph, you want significant, independent coverage that is about Claudia Joseph. What you're doing is the equivalent of assembling a résumé, not a biography of Claudia Joseph. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:20, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:26, 30 September 2025 review of submission by Tmdbss

[edit]

My article is being rejected instantaneously. How could anyone read it that quickly? Tmdbss (talk) 01:26, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Tmdbss, when you created your new draft, you added in a template that included the "Decline" message – did you copy and paste it from another page? Your last draft on this subject has already been accepted and published to Sebastien Silvestri, so I'm unsure why you've created another draft for him in your sandbox. Nil🥝 02:16, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tmdbss The AI that you used to write it added the decline notice; they sometimes do that, for some reason. No one has actually read it. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:02, 30 September 2025 review of submission by 2603:6010:1303:5DA6:8454:4E37:63AA:E963

[edit]

What can I do to get this page approved 2603:6010:1303:5DA6:8454:4E37:63AA:E963 (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article has already been rejected and cannot be resubmitted without a fundamental rewrite. There isn't the slightest indication given that this is a notable individual, and the extremely sparse text is completely unsourced in any case. If the most notable things about this individual are that they like tacos, play Fortnite, and are "where wholesome" (whatever that means), I cannot imagine any possibility that a suitable Wikipedia biography could be written at this time. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:24, 30 September 2025 review of submission by BayHarborButcher1

[edit]

Article declined for not enough reliable sources? I followed along the same structure as another local football club that has their article published. Not understanding what is needed? I provided references to the points BayHarborButcher1 (talk) 02:24, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BayHarborButcher1 Note that clubs do not have "their page published" here. Our articles(not pages) are typically written by independent editors, and those articles are not the property of their subjects, see WP:OWN. From the wording of the draft, I gather you are a part of this club, if so, see conflict of interest. If you are employed by the club, you must make the stricter paid editing disclosure.
Please see other stuff exists. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and just have not yet been addressed by a volunteer. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can, when they can, it is possible for inappropriate content to get past us, even for years, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. If you would like to help us, please identify this other article you have seen so we can take action if needed and prevent others from doing as you did. We can only address what we know about, and we are only as good as the people who choose to help us. Though understandable, this is why it is a poor idea to use any random article as a model. It's best to use those that are classified as good articles, which have received community vetting.
You have just documented the basic information about this lower level club; you need to summarize independent reliable sources with significant coverage. The history section is completely unsourced. The section about Mr. Magin should just be removed, the article is about the club, not him. 331dot (talk) 08:31, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:04, 30 September 2025 review of submission by Winterspier

[edit]

The criteria being applied to this draft seem disproportionately harsh and inconsistently applied when compared to the existing entries for other members listed (many with Wikipedia entries and many (including the stub for Edward Wyndham) without. My request for more specific and more in depth explanations to the reviewer has been ignored. Can I request a second review by a different reviewer? Winterspier (talk) 05:04, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Winterspier Please see other stuff exists. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and just have not yet been addressed by a volunteer. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can, when they can, it is possible for inappropriate content to get past us, even for years, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content.
That this is a volunteer effort is why it may appear standards are "inconsistently applied". We're only as good as those who choose to help us, as people choose what they want to work on in their free time. Until we're all paid to be here, that's just the way it is.
The reviewer replied to you here(the discussion was subsequently archived). If you resubmit it for another review without addressing the issues that led to the first decline, most reviewers will just decline it again out of hand. The main issue is that you have just documented his activities and not really said how he is a notable person according to the sources you have provided. If you resubmit it, another reviewer will look at it, but switching out the reviewer won't solve this issue. 331dot (talk) 08:22, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response and advice. I too am a volunteer (and also a modest donor to Wikipedia.) I have re-read "other stuff exists" and understand the issue that it seeks to address, as well as the principle elaborated in your second sentence. I point out that the "space" for Edward Wyndham existed before I wrote this draft. His name is one of many of the members of the House of Burgesses that currently do not have a Wikipedia entry. I have deliberately avoided writing a panegyric. I have not made reference to the extensive writings of his immediate relatives. I have checked them against reliable secondary sources, some written closer to him in historical time, and some more recent, so as to address the issue of "age matters". I have also done the research on the complex socio-political dynamics between England and Colonial America, and the relationships with Native Americans. I have tried to give equal focus to his significance and his notability. If the article reads as "just documenting his activities" that reflects the advice that the article should not contain any original research or subjective judgmental attitude or opinion. I agree with that focus. It reflects much of the power and benefit of Wikipedia. IMHO, I have addressed all open issues, and respected the useful advice offered. I think that my current draft should be accepted into the pre-existent space, so that others can read and improve it in accordance with Wikipedia policies and principles. 2600:1700:42F9:2000:48D0:9B66:5002:DBAA (talk) 22:09, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:05, 30 September 2025 review of submission by William Ooi Inn Khang

[edit]

I don't see an option to resubmit the updated page William Ooi Inn Khang (talk) 07:05, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@William Ooi Inn Khang: there's a blue button that says 'Resubmit' in the bottom left corner of the large pink box.
I take it you used to operate the OCK Group Berhad account, but set up this new one when that was blocked? In which case, presumably the appeal on the blocked account can be declined?
You need to make a paid editing disclosure; I'll post the instructions on your talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:12, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@William Ooi Inn Khang: For completeness I will be assessing all sources in both drafts.
Not listed here are four sources which 404 out and overwrite the URL with what they're forwarding to. Two are from The EDGE Malaysia, one is SEDA, and one is Bursa Malaysia. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 22:20, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Jéské Couriano, moving on from this appreciate your assessment. William Ooi Inn Khang (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:19, 30 September 2025 review of submission by 119.74.170.237

[edit]

I have neutralised the descriptors and provided links - i was advised that press releases do not constitute as good sources but I noted that many other listings had press releases in their references as links. Please help me to improve the draft as I have done the subject an injustice with my editing because I am so new at this. I really appreciate all the help I can get. 119.74.170.237 (talk) 10:19, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see other stuff exists. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate. If you see other articles sourced to press releases, please tell us what they are so they can be addressed, we won't compound the problem by creating more inappropriate content. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:53, 30 September 2025 review of submission by Skzfv

[edit]

Hello, The page received a message that more references should be added to it, But all the information in the page was read and approved by Moshe (The writer is a relative of Moshe). thank you Skzfv (talk) 12:53, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Skzfv The subject's approval is not relevant, it is not required or requested. Articles are typically written without any involvement from, or even the knowledge of, the subject. (I guarantee you Donald Trump approved exactly zero of the content of his article and associated articles.) Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves, either directly or through a representative. See the autobiography policy.
As Mr. Fogel served in the Israeli military, especially during times of conflict- you are not permitted to edit about him until your account is extended-confirmed(is 30 days old with 500 edits). I will post more information about this on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 12:59, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Skzfv: with respect, it is totally irrelevant whether Moshe has "approved" this or not; subjects featured in articles have no control over the contents of those articles, nor is their approval required.
Everything in the draft must be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources. The draft currently cites no sources at all. This is wholly unacceptable in any article, but especially so in articles on living people (WP:BLP).
Do no resubmit without addressing the decline reasons, otherwise the draft may be rejected outright with no option to resubmit.
If someone is writing about a relative, or anyone or anything else that they have an external relationship with, this gives rise to a conflict of interest (COI) which must be disclosed. I have posted a message to that effect on the author's talk page. And by the fact that you know this to be the case, I assume you have a relationship of similar kind? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:28, 30 September 2025 review of submission by Edouglasww

[edit]

Hi, I'd love to get advice on how I can get this entry approved, and I think it might involve some mediation, because I've added plenty of sources and references for the work by this Brooklyn band who have released six albums (and one of whose member has appeared on national television shows) with no luck and no response. Edouglasww (talk) 14:28, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected in June. If you have now fundamentally rewritten the draft to address the concerns of reviewers, you should first appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly and ask them reconsider. 331dot (talk) 14:38, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:35, 30 September 2025 review of submission by Djoeright

[edit]

Hello, my draft was declined and I have made some changes. I'm wondering if someone can take a look and give me any advice before I resubmit it Djoeright (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Djoeright We don't do pre-review reviews. If you feel that you have addressed the concerns, you should resubmit the draft. 331dot (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All I'll say is that you obviously used an AI to write it. A reviewer won't be inclined to clean up that mess for you. Just look at it, with liberal use of superfluous boldfacing, trademark symbols in the text, unnecessary unencylopedic detail as if you're getting product-placement sponsorship kickbacks. Be sure none of the citations are hallucinated, I didn't bother to check. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback. I took out all the bold face and the TM symbol. I left in some of the notable equipment not because of kickbacks but because it is common on other recording studio wikipages to include it as part of the explanation of the studio, like if you were talking about a car and mentioned what type of engine it had. I trimmed a lot of fat and even took out the language "Grammy Award Winning" just in case it was coming across like a peacock term. I also added some additional press coverage and took out any reference to the studio's own website. I would love if you took another look to let me know if you think its better. Thanks again. Djoeright (talk) 18:53, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's improved.
Remember, just because other substandard articles may exist here, and an AI writes a substandard article, doesn't mean we have to accept it. Each article is evaluated independently of any others.
You have at least one source that fails to verify the statement citing it (description of room dimensions, more unnecessary detail). Check your other sources too, I checked only one. Also, the second paragraph of the lead gives more detail than the body text gives, which is backward, the lead should summarize the body. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:28, 30 September 2025 review of submission by R2025kt

[edit]

Hi, my draft was declined, so how can I make sure I establish this page like I did with WGAL Jim Sinkovitz that went through because of a successful draft article that I'm not doing with NBC News' Sam Brock? R2025kt (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft wasn't declined, it was rejected. That means STOP, don't continue, don't waste the community's time with further requests to review, move on to some other topic. The reviewer explained that the sources don't verify the claims and they don't verify that the subject is notable. Multiple sources should comply with WP:Golden rule and not be routine coverage. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:42, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Thank you R2025kt (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:34, 30 September 2025 review of submission by Yuri cutie

[edit]

Hello,

as suggested by the reviewer I am writing here to better understand why my article submission was declined and to get some help with the article.

Thank you. Yuri cutie (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Yuri cutie. Have you read Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion (people)? How does Byron, specifically, meet one of the criteria in your opinion? Which criteria number does he meet? qcne (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:45, 30 September 2025 review of submission by AmaiAo1997

[edit]

how do i get the sources to make it like a wikipedia page? it's my first time doing this. AmaiAo1997 (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The history section is unsourced. Where are you getting your information from? 331dot (talk) 21:52, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this website
https://hicbc.com/tv/agaruanime AmaiAo1997 (talk) 22:18, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @AmaiAo1997, check out Help:Referencing for beginners for a guide on citing your sources (or WP:REFVISUAL if you're editing using the VisualEditor). Nil🥝 22:22, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Maybe i cant translate a page from Japanese to English. But can you translate these page from Japanese to English.
The following pages are:
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/アガルアニメ - Agaru Anime (アガルアニメ)
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/毎日放送制作日曜夕方5時枠のアニメ - Nichi-5 (日5, Hepburn: Nichi-go) AmaiAo1997 (talk) 22:29, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And is it ok if you can translate this from english to japanese? please?
the following page:
Sanda (manga) AmaiAo1997 (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AmaiAo1997: Straight translations usually don't work if translating into en.wp, as the English-language Wikipedia has stricter standards around sourcing and eligibility than most other projects. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 22:39, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
well, i've seen other wikipedia pages that are similar to these being translated. how come these pages i've sent to you can't be translated? Japanese for Sanda (manga), and english for both Nichi-5 & Agaru Anime. please, we gotta make this work. AmaiAo1997 (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AmaiAo1997: That argument doesn't work around here. As for why I haven't discussed Sanda (manga) it is because that would require me to be able to (1) read Japanese (automated translation does not work on context-heavy East Asian languages) and (2) understand ja.wp's rules for translating content into it, which requires (1) as a prerequisite. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:04, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can some one else do it? AmaiAo1997 (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:32, 30 September 2025 review of submission by 60.114.238.5

[edit]

Hi, I'm looking for a second opinion on Draft:Michael Craven. The draft was declined for not having enough significant coverage, but I believe the sources are actually substantial. Craven's the guy who was NJPW's first non-Japanese GM, ran events in the US, UK, and Australia in the same year(a first for Japanese combat sports), and later was hired by RIZIN as the first foreigner in a top MMA exec role in Japan. He's interviewed directly by Sports Illustrated (Justin Barrasso), profiled by Fox Sports Australia, and is the sole topic of a feature on Undisputed. These aren't routine mentions; they talk directly about his actions and decisions. I realize wrestling and MMA management figures get covered mostly as part of big features/interviews, and not standalone biography-style stories. Quick question about the NJPW podcast reference; the reviewer called it a primary source, but this is an official company interview where he discusses his role and background in detail. Is this unusable, or does it have some value when combined with the independent sources? Can someone with experience in wrestling/MMA or sports industry articles check these references and let me know if they meet the significant coverage standard for Wikipedia? If these aren't enough, what specifically needs to be added? Any advice or feedback is very welcome. Thank you so much. 

60.114.238.5 (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Forgot to log in!) Any help is welcome! Ru04JP (talk) 01:16, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I think the feedback was eactly correct. Most of the material consists primarily of interviews with Craven, not independent or significant coverage of Craven. And that's left is basically repeated multiple times, and is a rather prosaic notice that he was hired for a job. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:36, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you disagree with the assessment, discuss it with the reviewer. Reviewers became reviewers because they are trusted to give thorough reviews that the community agrees with, so asking for a "second opinion" isn't going to change anything. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 1

[edit]

01:52, 1 October 2025 review of submission by MaryGaulke

[edit]

Hi! I posted last week and didn't receive a response; hoping it's OK I post again. (Please note I have a COI: The Connor Group is a client of mine.) Hoping for any clarity about why the sources in this draft don't meet the standards of WP:NCORP.

Amongst other guidelines, I've been referencing the third paragraph of WP:INHERITORG (the subject of the article "does not need to be the main topic of the source material" for that source to count towards notability.). I take this to mean that RS coverage that talks about the company's founder can still contribute to the company's notability if it also discusses the company's operations in depth. I couldn't find an official rule of thumb, but I found User:Rusalkii/AfC source guidance useful: 2-3 paragraphs/15+ sentences primarily about the subject. By that metric, the org has significant coverage in Forbes (editorial, not contributor content), Dayton Business Journal, and Commercial Observer; CNN is also near 15 sentences by my count.

I'd really appreciate any insight on what I'm missing here so I can make better notability assessments in the future. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 01:52, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it's not rude for me to bump this! I'd be grateful for any POV here. Mary Gaulke (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:55, 1 October 2025 review of submission by RSMCoAdvocate

[edit]

My draft was declined without inline reviewer comments — I’m not seeing any reviewer feedback. Please help me identify what issues caused the decline and how to resolve them? RSMCoAdvocate (talk) 07:55, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you created a draft, you did so while logged out, can you link to it? It isn't at the title indicated in the header.
Additionally, you will need to change your username as well as make a formal declaration; see your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 07:58, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:26, 1 October 2025 review of submission by Farguraan

[edit]

Hello, I have recently submitted the draft Draft:FarhadHguran. I have added several reliable secondary sources, including academic journal articles, literary critiques, and news coverage. The draft is now well-referenced and structured according to Wikipedia standards.

Could someone kindly review it at your earliest convenience? Thank you very much for your time and assistance.

Best regards, Farguraan (talk) 08:26, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Farguraan Please see your earlier message above for the answer to this question. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:45, 1 October 2025 review of submission by Mehdi-Boumendjel

[edit]

Hello,

I’ve written a draft article about Mehdi Boumendjel (myself) and would appreciate assistance in reviewing it. My goal is to ensure that the page is objective, factual, and properly sourced according to Wikipedia standards.

Any feedback or suggestions to improve neutrality, structure, or citations would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you very much for your time and support!

Best regards, Mehdi Mehdi-Boumendjel (talk) 08:45, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mehdi-Boumendjel: I've declined your draft, because it is in French. This is the English-language Wikipedia, and we can only accept content in English.
Note also that you shouldn't really be writing about yourself; per WP:AUTOBIO, autobiographies are very strongly discouraged. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:51, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @DoubleGrazing,
Thanks so much for your time. I’ve resubmitted it in English.
Do you think it’s fine to go through the process in English first and then add a French translation afterward?
I’m the one posting it, but it was written by someone else. I added the disclaimer since it’s coming from my account. There are sources provided, and even though it’s generally discouraged, it still follows the rules and remains purely factual.
Please let me know what you think. Edits are welcomed from anyone that's the beauty of Wikipedia
Best,
M. Mehdi-Boumendjel (talk) 09:17, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you take the image of yourself? It appears to be professionally taken and not a selfie. Typically copyright rests with the photographer, not the subject.
The draft reads as your resume and not a summary of what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about you, showing how you are notable in a Wikipedia sense. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The photo was taken by Mr Sami Smati (Amateur Photographer) so technically the copyright is his. Mehdi-Boumendjel (talk) 10:05, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mehdi-Boumendjel Then you must immediately without delay go to Commons and work to put an accurate statement of who created the image and who holds the copyright. The easiest thing to do would be to request the deletion of the image and have the photographer upload it themselves; there are other methods but they are harder. Please address this at Commons. 331dot (talk) 12:58, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Images are actually not relevant to the draft process, which only considers the text and sources. Putting a new image can wait until the draft is accepted. 331dot (talk) 13:02, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What you do on the French Wikipedia is up to you- that is a separate project with its own policies and editors. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mehdi-Boumendjel: yes, you resubmitted it, and I declined it again. One of the sources mentions you in passing, the others not at all. In other words, there is no evidence that you are notable enough to justify an article.
Besides which, the draft is effectively unreferenced. While you may well know this information to be true, that isn't enough – it must be verifiably true. Wikipedia articles are written by summarising what reliable and independent sources have previously published about a subject, not by saying whatever the subject wants to say. Those sources must then be cited in support of the information.
Final point: 8 minutes lapsed between my first decline and you saving a translated version. I'm guessing you used some sort of machine translation tool for that? If you do that, you have to carefully check the result, to make sure the tool has got it right. Very often they don't. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:25, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I had the translation done already before as I was looking to translate it in english directly.
- Again, this article has been written by someone else but as I'm the one publishing it and editing it, I added the tag that it's biased.
- I shared other references in our talk here that are mentioning me or talking about myself. There are other sources in paper as well but I can't reference them here I imagine.
Could you please tell me if the ones I shared are good enough for your policy?
Thank you
M. Mehdi-Boumendjel (talk) 10:11, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Mehdi-Boumendjel. A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and little else.
I'm sorry about your grandfather, but there should be little more than a sentence about him in an article about you. Five of the sources appear from their titles to be about him, not about you, and so probably do not belong in this article at all.
Most of your sources, and all the sources which you are using to establish that you meet English Wikipedia's criteria for notability, must be wholly independent of you, reliably published, and contain significant coverage of you (specifically). Something that mentions you in passing, doesn't count. Something that quotes you, doesn't count. See golden rule.
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 see your account has been there for four years, but with 15 edits in your history, you are a new editor). ColinFine (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:31, 1 October 2025 review of submission by 94.174.140.253

[edit]

Hiya -

I'm asking for help as Women's football has next to no media coverage outside of the WSL, despite being incredibly popular. This is amplified even further in Manchester, where the local paper covers Manchester City & Manchester United ahead of local teams. It also doesn't help when the women's side isn't affiliated with a football league team in the men's game - Wigan, for example, are the league below West Didsbury & Chorlton Women, and have never gone as far in the FA Cup or as high in the league structure, but are deemed worthy of a wikipedia page purely as they have an affiliated Football League side

I plan to help build visibility for women's football sides, but the paucity of coverage makes that difficult despite many teams now pulling in crowds bigger than those in the lower reaches of men's non-league football.

Any assistance on this would be appreciated. 94.174.140.253 (talk) 10:31, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "paucity of coverage" is a fundamental problem, insurmountable even. Wikipedia articles are mostly composed by summarising what independent and reliable secondary sources have previously said about a subject. If sufficient such sources don't exist, then they cannot be summarised, and it isn't therefore possible to base an article on them.
Your objective of addressing the gender balance of football coverage in Wikipedia is laudable, but if a club – women's or men's – isn't (yet) notable enough to justify an article, then there isn't anything we can do, really. After all, the vast majority of footy clubs are not notable, so in that sense there is nothing particularly unusual about this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:47, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose what I would say if that is the case is: there's a double standard at play in what is notable for the men's game, and the women's game.
To reel off some examples that are outside of the pyramid in the men's game that are deemed notable - Dalton United F.C. have never played outside of the West Lancashire League - at highest, the 11th step in the pyramid, and have next to no coverage or references; Whitehaven A.F.C.'s only thing of note is that they've entered the FA Cup a few times and the FA Vase, playing similarly lowly; Eagley's main claim to fame is finishing second in the 11th tier once. These are all examples from one regional division in the North West, but there's plenty of others across the country - these are just the first three I was able to find without much looking.
In comparison, West Didsbury & Chorlton Women are in the fifth tier, they've reached the first round of the FA Cup twice, and have average attendances of 100+ for home games. Taking gender out of it, there's no question about which of the above sides are more notable and worthy of a wikipedia entry.
To be clear, my frustration isn't with yourself DoubleGrazing - but the much higher bars women footballers (and athletes overall) have to clear to be recognised vs their male counterparts in every single regard. 94.174.140.253 (talk) 11:23, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not knowledgeable enough about the subject matter of football to comment on any double standard in men vs. women terms. But there is an inconsistency in how articles have come about over the years. In the early days of Wikipedia, there was a 'land grab' situation, a rush to get articles published, because without a certain critical mass of content, you can't really claim to be an encyclopaedia. Back then, if an editor knew something about a subject, they wrote it down, with little or no regard to referencing and notability etc., with the logic that if something wasn't right, someone would come along sooner or later to correct it. As the project grew, rules were put in place to ensure increasing degrees of accuracy and noteworthiness, and fast forward 20+ years we now have quite a high bar for inclusion, regardless of the subject. The problem is that with over 7m articles in the English Wikipedia, there is a lot of legacy stuff which doesn't measure up to the current standards. I'm sure there are any number of articles out there on football clubs that have existed for years, but which wouldn't be accepted today. It's just that until someone comes across them to flag up their issues, we don't know what and where these problems are, we just know they are there somewhere. I haven't checked, but this may explain the existence of some of the articles you mention. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:05, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To take one of your examples, Dalton United F.C. has been tagged as needing more citations since 2008. I strongly suspect that it ought to be deleted - but in order to nominate it for deletion, one should first do the checks in WP:before, and (like thousands of editors before me) I have no interest in putting in that effort. ColinFine (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:04, 1 October 2025 review of submission by Info.Forscher

[edit]

Native speaker German-Newbie - a little bit lost in the wikipedia-universe. My first draft was recently declined. One reason given is the possibility of a conflict of interest. I found the article „Are you connected to the article topic?“ which says „ you must disclose your relationship“. Where I have do disclose my relationship? In the article? I know Giselle Anne because I am a dancer of the Argentinian Tango too, but I have no close personal contact. I am a collector, historian, teacher and organizer of the subject „Argentine Tango“ since 33 years without financial interests. I think the work of Giselle Anne is worth appearing on Wikipedia. I have absolutely no idea how to continue here on wikipedia. I think I need someone from the community to guide me through my first steps toward improving the article? Who has special experience in training newbies/beginners? Info.Forscher (talk) 11:04, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Info.Forscher It appears that you have a close connection to the subject because you claim that you personally took images of her- images that appear to be professionally taken where she posed for you- and that you hold the copyright to them. If you did not take the images, you must immediately without delay request their deletion from Commons as you are infringing on the copyright of the actual photographer.
Images are actually not relevant to the draft process, which only considers the text and sources. Images can wait until the draft is accepted, they are an enhancement, not a requirement. 331dot (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. So, regarding the images first I will "request their deletion from Commons". How do I request it? Info.Forscher (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There should be a "nominate for deletion" link on the Commons pages for the images; its location may depend on how you are viewing it(mobile or desktop). Please ask the editors on Commons for more information. 331dot (talk) 16:50, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:40, 1 October 2025 review of submission by Percyvear

[edit]

Reliable sources include the BBC, SKY and BBC Radio Scotland which are all independant in this creation, also includes UK Offical Charts, are we able to reconsider this for approval, thank you Percyvear (talk) 14:40, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional puffery like "musical journey" should be removed, but you may resubmit the draft if you feel that you have addressed the concerns of reviewers. 331dot (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Percyvear.Independent the BBC might be, but an article published by the BBC which is clearly based on an interview, is not.
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.
Making sure that the text is almost entirely based on wholly independent sources will also probably eliminate the puffery - not just "musical journey", but also "aspirations ... from a young age". ColinFine (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:14, 1 October 2025 review of submission by R2025kt

[edit]

Hi, I added a source from Tehran Bureau (which is an independent source) on PBS Frontline from 2011 about Iran protests and Arouzi is seen witnessing and talking about arrests and activism. Can you look and see if it counts as an independent source before I resubmit it please? R2025kt (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @R2025kt you need sources that have written about Ali Arouzi. What he has written or said are primary sources and cannot be used to establish notability as Wikipedia defines it. S0091 (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfC: Is sourcing/weight sufficient for Draft:The Socio-Economic Megaproject Theory of the Great Pyramids of Egypt?

[edit]

Hello!

I’ve submitted Draft:The Socio-Economic Megaproject Theory of the Great Pyramids of Egypt for AfC review and would appreciate guidance on whether the current sourcing and due weight meet AfC expectations.

The draft cites independent, secondary sources for context (e.g., Mark Lehner & Richard Redding 2006; Pierre Tallet – Diary of Merer 2012; Barry Kemp 2006; Kurt Mendelssohn 1974; George Reisner 1942; Zahi Hawass 2003). It also mentions recent coverage/reception (Zenodo DOI papers, a popular-science article, a documentary film). DOI examples: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15858488 ; https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16732277

Specific questions:

  • Is the sourcing sufficient to establish notability/weight (and to avoid UNDUE)?
  • Is the balance appropriate for AfC (neutral lead, context, references)?
  • Any COI handling concerns beyond the declared COI and use of secondary sources?

Talk thread for the draft: Draft talk:The Socio-Economic Megaproject Theory of the Great Pyramids of Egypt

Many thanks! — Jacek Krzysztoń (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jacek Krzysztoń you have submitted it for review so a reviewer will look at it and give feedback. S0091 (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help me with my Afc!

[edit]
Moved from User talk:Rankfile330

Please help me with... Hi there and thanks for helping. My partner and I are trying to create our bios on wiki. I read that, for musicians (like myself), winning a major award can automatically construe notoriety (pasting from guidelines: Any biography Shortcut WP:ANYBIO The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times; ) I won (and was nominated twice) for an Emmy Award. However my article was declined. I would love to know more about editing for wikipedia. It's fascinating. Perhaps if I kept the info and biograpical data to a minimum, it might work? I tried to be very exhaustive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mark_Baechle Rankfile330 (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Others may have a different opinion, but I believe the well-known and significant award in relation to the Emmys, would be that of the national awards, rather than the regional chapters as if you said to someone 'I won an Emmy' without any qualification, that's what they would assume you are referring to.
Also, any text that was generated by an LLM, such as ChatGPT, needs rewriting - RichT|C|E-Mail 22:52, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the pointers. I will go over the article. I did use an llm in the first round (unaware that it was a bad idea) and then rewrote everything. Live and learn.
The regional Emmys are considered a major award, as are the news, documentary and children's varieties. I will make sure it's worded precise! I will send it your way, happy to get any help I can get in this endeavor. Rankfile330 (talk) 23:54, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 2

[edit]

02:10, 2 October 2025 review of submission by Thuvard

[edit]

This submission has been arbitrarily declined. It is in fact accurate, with all appropriate sources noted. The Southern Aviator was a real, well-known and important publication for general aviation audiences for more than 20 years, from 1987 through 2008. I can't bring this submssion to a better condition - I have worked to show its place and cultural position for the general aviation industry through 2 decades in the southeastern US. Please advise how I might move it forward with a single reviewer without context throwing it out. 

Thuvard (talk) 02:10, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Thuvard. I declined your draft because it contained a ChatGPT-created piece of malformed code. Since you used ChatGPT you should read our guidance on Wikipedia:Large language models.
The problem with using ChatGPT is that they tend to make stuff up. Because you used ChatGPT at some point in the creation of the draft, it puts the entire draft in question.
However, I made no comment on the content of the draft. If you have read through our guidance and are absolutely positive ChatGPT did not hallucinate any sources or information, feel free to re-submit the draft for review.
I declined it without prejudice and would be happy to look at it again if you let me know you've checked it thoroughly. qcne (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:27, 2 October 2025 review of submission by Farguraan

[edit]

Hello, I have recently submitted the draft Draft:FarhadHguran. I have added several reliable secondary sources, including academic journal articles, literary critiques, and news coverage. The draft is now well-referenced and structured according to Wikipedia standards.

Could someone kindly review it at your earliest convenience? Thank you very much for your time and assistance.

Best regards, Farguraan (talk) 06:27, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Farguraan I have reviewed it and unfortunatley the decision was to decline. That doesn't mean you can't keep trying. Here are the notes I left you: Currently reads as overly promotional. Take a look at WP:BLP to learn more about creating a biography of a living person. Ktkvtsh (talk) 06:36, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is this an article about yourself. You'll need to declare a Conflict of Interest. Ktkvtsh (talk) 06:38, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't listening; they've posted this inquiry twice before. 331dot (talk) 07:51, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draft also now seems to be at Draft:Farhad Heydari Guran. 331dot (talk) 07:53, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:55, 2 October 2025 review of submission by Purvaja D

[edit]


Can you please tell me what I can do to get this article accepted on Wikipedia? Purvaja D (talk) 07:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Purvaja D You were told what to do, but you kept resubmitting the draft without making any changes. Because of that, the draft was rejected. If you are now prepared to make changes, please do so, then ask the rejecting reviewer on their user talk page to reconsider. 331dot (talk) 07:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made some minor changes each time before resubmitting the review. I also added some links and made a few edits to the draft. I have changed whole article in my last edit. However, the article keeps getting rejected. 150.107.25.157 (talk) 10:00, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember to log in when posting. Your only two sources are a Facebook and Instagram profile. Please carefully read Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion (organizations and companies) to see what sort of sources we need. We require reliable, secondary sources. Offline (print) sources are okay, but you didn't include any. If you can find three strong secondary sources that meet our requirements, let me know and I will take another look. qcne (talk) 11:47, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you are associated with this magazine, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID and WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 07:58, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The magazine was established in 1948, but it has not received much coverage in mainstream media. That is one of the reasons I want to raise awareness about it. It was founded by Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) leader Baba Rao Bhide, but there is very little information about him available on Google. More material exists in magazines and other print sources. What should I do now? 150.107.25.157 (talk) 10:01, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Purvaja D There is simply no indication this magazine meets our criteria for inclusion, I'm sorry. qcne (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:34, 2 October 2025 review of submission by Noor.habib2025

[edit]

Hi,

I created this page as a part of my practice to learn Wikipedia. The draft has been declined. Please let me know how to publish it. There are some very good resources to support this page.

https://www.entrepreneur.com/en-ae/leadership/the-100-abbas-sajwani-co-founder-and-ceo-of-ahs-properties/484763 https://www.forbesmiddleeast.com/lists/30-under-30-2024/abbas-sajwani/#:~:text=Under%20the%20AHS%20Group%20umbrella,development%20value%20reached%20%242.75%20billion. https://www.arabianbusiness.com/opinion/why-are-uae-entrepreneurs-among-the-most-optimistic-on-the-planet https://gulfnews.com/business/property/cityscape-global-2021-abbas-sajwani-wants-to-pick-up-older-super-luxury-homes--and-he-has-a-reason-1.1636448402019 https://gulfbusiness.com/gb-march-interview-ahs-properties-abbas-sajwani/ https://economymiddleeast.com/eme-videos/video-interview-abbas-sajwani-founder-ceo-ahs-properties/ https://www.mepmiddleeast.com/business/abbas-sajwani-launches-real-estate-firm-for-ultra-luxury-mansions https://www.thenationalnews.com/business/property/2023/10/17/dubais-ahs-properties-plans-to-launch-850-million-project-in-dubai/ https://meconstructionnews.com/50098/emirati-entrepreneur-launches-real-estate-company-with-focus-on-high-end-properties https://www.forbes.com/sites/amandalauren/2025/03/28/this-dubai-property-is-setting-new-expectations-for-the-luxury-living-market/ https://www.businesstoday.me/construction/ahs-properties-celebrates-double-victory-at-the-construction-innovation-awards/ https://www.constructionweekonline.com/business/revealed-most-influential-arabs-of-2023-in-the-construction-landscape Noor.habib2025 (talk) 09:34, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Noor.habib2025: only the sources cited in the draft matter, there's no point in listing additional sources here.
The ones cited are pure churnalism.
Have you been asked by someone to write this? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:02, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't start multiple threads with the same questions. If you have comments to make, add them to this thread. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have heard about Mr. Abbas Sajjwani through Google. I am still a beginner and this is my first page, which I tried to create and it got declined. Can you help me in publishing this page? Noor.habib2025 (talk) 11:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Noor.habib2025: you heard about him through Google (whatever that means), and that inspired you to create your very first Wikipedia article on him?
I can't help you publish this, because the sources are insufficient for establishing that he is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:26, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting Noor.habib2025 first created this in mainspace after autocon-busting to bypass WP:ACPERM; it was kicked back to draft due to the sourcing issues. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 14:19, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:08, 2 October 2025 review of submission by Sundayochigbo

[edit]

My article was rejected and i believe i followed the guidelines and proper citation Sundayochigbo (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sundayochigbo: the sources are just churnalism puff pieces.
They also don't properly verify the draft contents. For example, the 'Family' gives details of her family members, etc., none of which is even mentioned in the source cited against it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How can i get a proper draft with notable citations or do i have to remove the section for family until there is a citation for it? Sundayochigbo (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sundayochigbo: I can't really tell you where to find solid sources.
If I thought there was any chance of this person being genuinely notable, I would have declined your draft, not rejected it outright. But all I could find was more puff pieces like the ones you're citing, as well as social media accounts and similar; these are all hallmarks of a 'famous-for-being-famous' person's self-promotional efforts, and Wikipedia should not be thought of as yet another channel to wage that campaign.
You should probably tell your boss that it cannot be done (see WP:BOSS); perhaps try some paranormal fancruft wiki instead? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:37, 2 October 2025 review of submission by 2A02:A420:254:9684:507:6E93:8DDC:C7F1

[edit]

Hi, thank you for your feedback. Could anyone elaborate on how to improve the page for it to be approved? To me this isn't clear yet. Thank you very much! 2A02:A420:254:9684:507:6E93:8DDC:C7F1 (talk) 14:37, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you created the draft, remember to log in when posting.
Most of your sources seem to be interviews, which are not independent sources. It's also not clear to me how this musician meets the definition of a notable musician.
What is the general nature of your conflict of interest? 331dot (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:28, 2 October 2025 review of submission by AriaKeys

[edit]

Hello, my draft about French musician Stéphane D’Esposito (Neo) was rejected as not notable. I understand the concern, but I would like to provide stronger sources demonstrating significant coverage:

– Trax Magazine (France, 1998) – feature on Neo’s “black jazz” style (print). – Coda (Canada, 2002) – international jazz magazine article (print). – Remix Japan (2005) – coverage in a major Japanese music magazine (print). – Musique Info Hebdo (France, 2007) – professional French music press (print). – Marseille l’Hebdo (2008) – regional press profile (print). – BBC Radio 3 “Jazz on 3” (2015) – national broadcast including Neo. – Plus online coverage: SoulTracks, Soul & Jazz & Funk, Paris Jazz Club official program.

Would these sources be considered sufficient to establish notability under the music criteria? I can provide scans of the print articles if needed. Thank you for your advice. AriaKeys (talk) 18:28, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @AriaKeys. Please don't provide scans of the magazines, as that would be copyright infringement. We can accept offline sources where no online copy exists, you just need to ensure you provide a full reference so that a reader can find them in a library or archive if interested.
Without being able to see those print sources, they might be okay if they:
- provide significant, transformative coverage of Stéphane that goes beyond just a brief mention. Some sort of critical analysis, in-depth review, discussion, debate, etc.
- are independent of Stéphane - not based fully on an interview with them, or their associates or publicist.
If you have at least three sources that meet the above two criteria, and are also from mainstream publications (these sound like they are), then it's a good indicator that the person does meet our criteria for inclusion.
Since the draft has been rejected, your next step is to see if @Hoary would consider undoing the rejection. qcne (talk) 21:22, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AriaKeys, Qcne, I took "The three strongest independent editorial sources demonstrating coverage beyond mere airplay" to mean the three strongest independent sources. I read all three. (I didn't merely read and consider the titles of all three; I clicked the three links and read what I found.) What I read did not amount to what I would call significant coverage. ¶ Moreover, Draft talk:Stéphane D’Esposito shows that this selection of three wasn't the first attempt at singling out the more important sources. Now we are asked (above) to consider seven "stronger sources demonstrating significant coverage". Seven? Even if links were supplied, I'd be disinclined to click on all seven and evaluate them. ¶ The article has the subheading "International recognition (2014–2017)". If such recognition started as recently as 2014, I'd expect it to be clearly visible on the web (perhaps via the Wayback Machine). I am not going to spend more time on this draft, and I am not going to revert my rejection. However, I'll consider reverting the rejection if given a reason to do so by any editor who hasn't contributed to the draft. -- Hoary (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback. I understand your concerns and would like to respond point by point.
The notability of Stéphane d’Esposito (Neo) is documented in several independent, professional print sources from the early 2000s, and not merely by listings or airplay.
According to WP:GNG, significant coverage in print publications is acceptable even if not available online. These magazines are archived at the Bibliothèque nationale de France (BnF) and the National Diet Library of Japan, ensuring accessibility and reliability.
Here is a prioritized selection with exact page numbers:
Level 1 — Most significant coverage
  • Coda Magazine no.12 (2001) – feature article: “Neo, the (Néo)classical touch” (p. 50); album review The Story of Blackjazz (p. 62).
  • Remix Japan no.141 (March 2003) – interview (pp. 64–65); label presentation with Welcome to the Boom Boom Room release (p. 113); album reviews of The Story of Blackjazz and Welcome to the Boom Boom Room (p. 125).
  • Loud – Club & DJ Culture Magazine no.099 (March 2003) – cover feature alongside international artists (Gloria Gaynor, Groove Armada); illustrated interview (pp. 28–29).
Level 2 — Additional professional interviews and analyses
  • Techno Import Magazine no.3 (2001) – “Neo, du jazz dans la house” (interview, p. 16).
  • Marseille l’Hebdo (12 Nov 2003) – article: “Les touches jazzy-house de Neo” (p. 35).
Level 3 — Repeated industry mentions
  • Musique Info Hebdo (2002): no.196 p.39; no.197 pp.17,19; no.198 pp.17,19; no.200 pp.17,19; no.202 pp.17,19; no.203 p.21.
  • Danceclub no.66 (Sept 2002) – Deep Dimensions – Selected by Tó-Zé Diogo (p. 9).
Taken together, these sources show continuous editorial coverage between 2001 and 2003, including multiple interviews, feature articles, and reviews in respected French and Japanese professional magazines. This clearly satisfies WP:GNG as they provide independent, significant secondary coverage well beyond mere airplay or directory listings. AriaKeys (talk) 11:56, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That list of sources is unverifiable, you have simply pasted the output of an AI, so the sources may as well be hallucinated. The fact that multiple interviews a basis of the argument indicates that neither you nor your AI has any clue what is required for establishing notability. If you want to talk to us, then do so, don't go through an AI. It's been rejected, move on. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:41, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:34, 2 October 2025 review of submission by Aaronkenneally

[edit]

Hello, I previously submitted a draft article on myself, Aaron Kenneally, an Irish Shotokan Karate instructor. The draft was declined for tone, and later deleted under criterion G15 (“LLM-generated content that has not been adequately reviewed: AI slop”) by Jimfbleak. I understand that Wikipedia discourages AI-generated drafts. However, I believe I meet notability guidelines, as I have multiple independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage of me and my work over many years, including: Evening Echo (2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2017, 2022, 2023) – several feature and profile articles, not just event mentions Irish Fighters magazine (2011) – a full feature article Cork Independent (2011) – “Club of the Week” profile Official SKIF Yudansha-Kai website – listing me on the executive committee All of these sources are available on my club’s media page with scans: https://www.bushidokarate.ie/bushido-karate-club-media.php I’d like advice on the best way to proceed: Should I recreate the draft in my user sandbox and manually rewrite it in strict encyclopedic style using only these sources? Since the previous draft was deleted under G15, do I need to request undeletion first to recover it, or is it better to start clean? Would an experienced editor be willing to help me frame the article correctly so it doesn’t get flagged as AI-style? I want to make sure the article is neutral, source-based, and policy-compliant, and I’m happy to do the work myself with guidance. Thank you for any advice. –– Aaronkenneally Aaronkenneally (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Aaronkenneally. We do highly discourage autobiographical writing but if you wanted to try again, I'd recommend really closely reading our policies and guidelines (start at Wikipedia:Everything you need to know) and then seriously consider if you do meet our criteria for inclusion. The majority of people in the world do not. If you are sure you do, then you are free to create another draft. But please don't use ChatGPT. Let me know if you have any more questions. qcne (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I understand the concern about autobiographical writing and AI. The draft in my sandbox is based on published sources, mainly newspaper and magazine features (Evening Echo, Irish Fighters, Cork Independent), along with federation recognition. I’ve kept the tone neutral and sourced, and I’d appreciate feedback on whether the current draft meets neutrality and notability standards before I resubmit. Aaronkenneally (talk) 08:54, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aaronkenneally We don't do pre-review reviews, if you want your draft reviewed, you need to resubmit it. 331dot (talk) 08:59, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've placed your draft at Draft:Aaron Kenneally, draft space is the preferred location for drafts. 331dot (talk) 09:01, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:52, 2 October 2025 review of submission by Aswath Monimoca

[edit]

What to do Aswath Monimoca (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you use Linkedin.com, Wikipedia is not a forum for promotion. Theroadislong (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ali Arouzi

[edit]

Hi, I'm trying to submit this article as a shortened version, but I can't seem to submit it well. What am I missing that won't let it go through? The reason why is that I want to create new articles for old and new journalists who deserve a chance in the spotlight but unfortunately some of them I thought I had written very well in my own words get pulled out from under me. I tried to do the same thing for NBC News' Sam Brock but it won't go through. R2025kt (talk) 19:06, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia so it has been rejected I suggest you find other topics to edit. Theroadislong (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Thank you R2025kt (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can write a well-written article, but if the notability of the subject cannot be proven by multiple instances of significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject (as described in WP:Golden rule), then don't waste your time. The sources you have cited may be reliable, but they fail the criteria of independence or significant coverage, or both.
See WP:BACKWARD, which is what you're doing, starting with text. Write the article forward instead. Find your 'golden-rule' sources first. Don't write a single word of the article until you have gathered the sources. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:00, 2 October 2025 review of submission by SageRain

[edit]

why did you delete Celyra? i worked hard on it and i thought it was gonna stay here since its a "free dictionary." SageRain (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i meant on Wiktionary SageRain (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SageRain Wikitionary only hosts words that have widespread use - not words you have personally made up. If you wanted somewhere to post your own made up definitions and words, perhaps get a blog or go to social media? qcne (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:11, 2 October 2025 review of submission by Raybusmann

[edit]

Hi! I'm looking for assistance with this warning message:

Reviewer tools Warning: The page Paul Outlaw redirects to Jen Catron and Paul Outlaw. Please ensure it is not a copy or that this page is located at the correct title.

The "Paul Outlaw" who is the subject of the page I created on 29 September 2025 is not the same "Paul Outlaw" as the subject of the redirect page. Since the new article has not yet been published, how can the redirect be stopped in the period before a disambiguation page is created? Thanks! Raybusmann (talk) 22:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for a reviewer to approve the draft. The reviewer will handle the moving, renaming, and disambiguating as needed. It is likely that Paul Outlaw would become a disambiguation page pointing to the other two articles because there is no clear dominance of one Paul Outlaw over the other in terms of notability and common knowledge. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Raybusmann (talk) 05:14, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:33, 2 October 2025 review of submission by TheaterSquareMuse

[edit]

Can you confirm that my submission was edited to include citations? I'm new to the publish process. It is pending consideration by your team.

Thank you! 

TheaterSquareMuse (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The draft is still completely unsourced. If you added citations, you didn't save the edit. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 3

[edit]

02:28, 3 October 2025 review of submission by J·B·D

[edit]

My submission was declined on the basis of WP:TOOSOON guidelines; in the decline notice, the main reasons were cited as a) the absence of charts or reviews for the soundtrack, and b) insufficient coverage of topic. Considering the soundtrack's predecessor was moved from the draft namespace to the main namespace the same day it was announced, with only two veritable references, I'm not entirely sure why my submission was not accepted under similar circumstances (and with a good number references as well), unless there have been changes to submission policy since last year. I would appreciate any clarification or guidance on the matter. J·B·D (talk) 02:28, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

J·B·D, policies concerning submission and notability haven't changed as far as I know, but various interpretations are possible, even among reviewers who are well-informed and wide awake. (On top of that, a reviewer may be misinformed or sleepy.) As it is, this draft looks as if it has been created conscientiously -- but it is, and can be, little more than a product announcement. Why not wait till film and soundtrack are released, and some reviews are published? -- Hoary (talk) 04:36, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Too add to what Hoary said above, sometimes reviewers may go too fast and miss something. I will admit I have bee sleepy at times and may have been when I responded to your request on my talk page. But, I left you a follow-up reply this morning after digging deeper on your behalf. Both links should provide you with some valuable feedback (and recommendation which you have not done). --CNMall41 (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:33, 3 October 2025 review of submission by Tangentblack

[edit]

Hello editor!

I'm looking for some further assistance about the nature of the sources needed to verify the notibility of the subject.

The several sources I provided are all independent from the subject (third party, not self-published, secondary sources) from reliable international or national companies/institutions.

For instance, the subject Anderson Dias (https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_Dias) achieved the same kind of record and is featured in less secondary, independent sources than Michael Angelo Zervos. Dias was the basis for the collection of information submitted to wikipedia for review.

Are you able to aid me to understand the "significance" interpretation of your rejection?

Thanks Tangentblack (talk) 02:33, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant", Tangentblack, in this context means "saying a lot about Michael Angelo Zervos". There's no point saying that this draft is sourced better than is pt:Anderson Dias, and for two reasons. First, Portuguese- and English-language Wikipedias have different requirements. Secondly, English-language Wikipedia has plenty of articles that fail its (our) own standards. We don't want to add more of these. -- Hoary (talk) 03:38, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you mean to say that the current draft fails to provide enough sources by way of the available coverage for the subject? So I need to collect additional secondary sources? Tangentblack (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tangentblack, I have not looked at the sources that you cite. You cite nine of them. Do the nine include three or four that are independent of Zervos (they are not based on interviews with him, or similar) AND that are published by reliable outlets AND that say a lot about him? -- Hoary (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Most of the sources qualify the last two criteria but I think only one of them fulfill all three you list. In other words, most of them do feature some interviews with him, though I'm not sure if they're exclusives conducted by the reporter themselves or pull-quotes from other reporting on him.
I take it I should find a couple more that are independent reporting in order to resubmit. Tangentblack (talk) 22:14, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:53, 3 October 2025 review of submission by 47.187.194.162

[edit]

I did not understand the error code throughoutly. How can I fix my error? 47.187.194.162 (talk) 02:53, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." Within that, "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia" is linked to WP:Notability. Have you read WP:Notability? Also, a sign says "STOP". Unsurprisingly, that means that you must stop. Not fix any error, but instead simply stop. -- Hoary (talk) 03:29, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question about draft Dian Rana

[edit]

Hello,

A previous draft about Dian Rana (Indonesian digital literacy advocate) was deleted at AfD in September 2025. Since then, multiple independent reliable sources have published significant coverage, for example:

- TVOnenews : https://www.tvonenews.com/ekonomi/375186-jawab-tantangan-bupati-ppu-konten-kreator-dian-rana-nyatakan-siap-dialog-terbuka-bahas-ikn

- Elshinta: https://elshinta.com/kategori/1/aktual-dalam-negeri/vigenk-kisah-inspiratif-dian-rana-pegiat-literasi-digital-berawal-karyawan-back-office-135929

- Kaltimpost: https://kaltimpost.jawapos.com/utama/2386628382/bupati-ppu-tantang-kreator-konten-diskusi-bareng-bahas-persoalan-ikn-karena-sepaku-perlu-pemerataan-pembangunan

- Rest Of World : https://restofworld.org/2024/indonesia-capital-change-influencers/

- Liputan6: https://www.liputan6.com/showbiz/read/6123324/tak-hanya-ngonten-ikn-dian-rana-suarakan-hati-rakyat-lewat-wawancara-khusus

- Media Indonesia: https://mediaindonesia.com/hiburan/781357/kreator-konten-dari-kaltim-saksi-pembentukan-ikn

Would any uninvolved editor be willing to review whether the subject may now meet the notability criteria, and if appropriate, consider drafting a neutral article based on these sources?

Thank you. 182.8.178.191 (talk) 05:15, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I gather since you are asking for an "uninvolved" editor that you yourself are involved- you need to disclose this, see WP:COI and WP:PAID.
This Help Desk is not for asking for others to do work for you- that's Requested Articles, but it is backlogged to the point of uselessness. If you want to see an article about this person, you need to write it yourself; if you do have a conflict of interest, you are permitted to use the Article Wizard to create and submit a draft for an independent editor to review. 331dot (talk) 08:00, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:36, 3 October 2025 review of submission by 2402:D000:810C:4947:70C3:567D:B42F:E89F

[edit]

Hello,

I noticed that the article on Draft:OptimoGov has been tagged as promotional. I would like to request assistance in improving the article so it better aligns with Wikipedia’s guidelines on neutrality and encyclopedic style.

I acknowledge that some of the current wording may read like promotional material. My goal is to help ensure the page is factual, well-sourced, and neutral. To that end, I would appreciate input on the following:

Identifying promotional language – If there are specific sections or phrases that sound like marketing copy, I’d be grateful if editors could flag them so they can be reworded or removed.

Improving references – I want to make sure the article relies on independent, reliable secondary sources (e.g., news coverage, academic references) rather than primary or self-published material.

Proposed edits: I am happy to draft suggested changes here on the Talk Page in line with the Neutral Point of View policy, and will wait for consensus before they are added to the article itself.

I will not make direct edits to the article given my connection, but I am committed to working collaboratively with editors to bring the page up to Wikipedia standards.

Thank you for your time and guidance. 2402:D000:810C:4947:70C3:567D:B42F:E89F (talk) 11:36, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't get involved in co-editing here at the help desk. If you have specific questions, you may ask those.
That said, this draft has been deleted as unambiguously promotional, which presumably makes your query redundant? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:58, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're both talking to an AI. I don't know why people let AIs speak for them. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:19, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:45, 3 October 2025 review of submission by JoshNorthTramp

[edit]

Hi there, thank you for taking the time to review this draft. I noticed the feedback that the article "does not meet the 5 pillars of Wikipedia." I’d really appreciate some clarification on this point, because from my perspective I’ve tried to align the draft with those principles:

  • **Wikipedia is an encyclopedia** - the draft is structured like other company articles (History, Products, Reception, Awards, Community involvement) and avoids indiscriminate detail.
  • **Neutral point of view** - I’ve worked to remove any marketing and promotional language/indication and include both positive and critical reception (e.g. Trustpilot reviews, independent comparisons).
  • **Free content** - all text is original and sources are cited.
  • **Civility** – I’m engaging in good faith and open to constructive feedback.
  • **No firm rules** - I understand articles evolve, and I’m happy to keep improving this one.

Could you help me understand specifically which of the pillars you feel the draft is failing to meet?. Thank you in advance for your advice. JoshNorthTramp (talk) 11:45, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JoshNorthTramp Please see other stuff exists. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits and not biased on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and just not yet addressed by a volunteer. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can, when they can, there are many ways for inappropriate content to exist, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. While understandable, it is a poor idea to use any random article as a model or example. If you want to use another article as a model, use those that are classified as good articles, which have received community vetting.
If you would like to help us, please identify these other similar articles you have seen so action can be taken and others are less likely to do what you did. We're only as good as those who choose to help us.
Your draft was deleted as wholly promotional. Note that the Swedish Wikipedia is a separate project, with its own policies. What is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others.
You made a common error for company employees is that you want to write what you want the world to know about your company, like its offerings and activities. That is the wrong approach. You need to forget everything you know about your company, and gather independent reliable sources that given your company significant coverage and describe how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. The vast majority of companies do not, but it depends on the sources. Sources like interviews, press releases, and the mere reporting of routine business activities does not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 12:58, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JoshNorthTramp: the draft was entirely based on primary sources, it was basically you telling the world about your business, and that's what made it inherently promotional. Wikipedia is not to be used for promotion of any kind; accordingly, the draft has been deleted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:51, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The five pillars are a description of our general philosophy, and not policies in and of themselves. 331dot (talk) 13:01, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:59, 3 October 2025 review of submission by AriaKeys

[edit]

I would like to ask for a review of my draft after a rejection. The concern was that the sources did not amount to significant coverage. Here is a prioritized selection of independent, professional and international print sources (with page numbers), archived at the Bibliothèque nationale de France and the National Diet Library of Japan:

Level 1 — Most significant coverage • Coda Magazine no.12 (2001): feature article “Neo – the (Néo)classical touch” (p.50); album review *The Story of Blackjazz* (p.62). • Remix Japan no.141 (March 2003): interview (pp.64–65); label presentation incl. *Welcome to the Boom Boom Room* (p.113); album reviews (p.125). • Loud – Club & DJ Culture Magazine no.099 (March 2003): cover feature with international artists; illustrated interview (pp.28–29).

Level 2 — Additional professional sources • Techno Import Magazine no.3 (2001): interview “Neo, du jazz dans la house” (p.16). • Marseille l’Hebdo (12 Nov 2003): article “Les touches jazzy-house de Neo” (p.35).

Level 3 — Industry mentions • Musique Info Hebdo (2002): no.196 p.39; no.197 pp.17,19; no.198 pp.17,19; no.200 pp.17,19; no.202 pp.17,19; no.203 p.21. • Danceclub no.66 (Sept 2002): *Deep Dimensions – Selected by Tó-Zé Diogo* (p.9).

These sources provide clear, independent, significant coverage (interviews, reviews, feature articles) from 2001–2003, well beyond mere airplay. I would appreciate guidance on resubmission or re-evaluation in light of these sources. AriaKeys (talk) 11:59, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AriaKeys: on a point of order, once a draft has been rejected (as opposed to merely declined), that is the end of the road. If evidence of notability has come to light which wasn't considered at the time, you may appeal that rejection, but you should take it directly to the rejecting reviewer, in this case Hoary. Only if you don't get a response or otherwise don't get anywhere, can you bring the matter here.
I'll also add that, while it is impossible for me to look into the sources you've listed above, I can't help noticing that there are a few interviews included. Interviews are primary sources, and neither independent nor, usually, particularly reliable. There are also a couple of album reviews: those might help to make the albums notable, but unless they also provide significant coverage of this person, they would not contribute to his notability. Bear that in mind when making your appeal case. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:39, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please don't talk to us through an AI chatbot. We're all humans here, and we want to talk to other humans. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is merely a repeat of #18:28, 2 October 2025 review of submission by AriaKeys (close above), where I had already responded. -- Hoary (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AriaKeys, stop ignoring other editors' comments, stop removing templates you don't like, and interpret a sign saying "STOP" as a directive to stop. If you persist, you will be blocked. -- Hoary (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:59, 3 October 2025 review of submission by Annaromanskaconectys

[edit]

Hello,

I'm trying to publish a page on Wikipedia that describes a company. I am avoiding any selling or promotional language, I just want people to know this is an outsourcing company in Romania for when they research us. Please advise on how I can get this page live - I have provided multiple links to press releases that confirm its existence since 2004.

Best Anna Annaromanskaconectys (talk) 11:59, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Annaromanskaconectys: whether you use promotional language or not, what you're doing is fundamentally promotional – you're telling the world about your business, to spread awareness of it; that is the definition of promotion, see WP:YESPROMO.
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a business directory. To be included in it, your business must be deemed notable, meaning that it is in some way remarkable or noteworthy enough that multiple independent secondary sources have on their own initiative decided to publish significant coverage about you and why they think you stand out from your peers. Note that this is a high bar, and the vast majority of businesses in the world are not notable.
The notability guideline for companies is WP:NCORP. Your job is to show that your company meets that. The process for creating a draft is outlined at WP:GOLDENRULE. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:25, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @DoubleGrazing - I understand. I believe I have provided enough evidence from independent secondary sources that have published material and coverage on our topic over a long period of time. Annaromanskaconectys (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Annaromanskaconectys: with respect, you haven't. Your sources are routine business reporting, blogs, press releases, and other primary sources, none of which contribute towards the NCORP notability standard. Besides which, four of the sources don't work, and one is behind some sort of a login, which means I can't check it (if it's just a paywall, that's okay, but if it restricts access to eg. members of a particular organisation, then that might not qualify as a published source). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:56, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:13, 3 October 2025 review of submission by 12tonerowurboat

[edit]

Thank you for the speedy review!

This article already exists in the Dutch Wikipedia with the same sources, so I was wondering if the guidelines for the sources are different for Dutch and English wikis and that's why it got declined, or if I have made a syntax/format error with the references. I now see that some of the sources that have been re-used in my draft are listed as separate sources, could that be the reason for declining?

Thank you so much, safe edits! 12tonerowurboat (talk) 12:13, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@12tonerowurboat: yes, you hit the nail on the head! The notability, referencing, etc. requirements are different in different language versions of Wikipedia, with the English one having almost certainly the strictest ones.
Citing the same source multiple times would ideally be done using WP:NAMEDREFS, yes, but not doing so wouldn't be a reason to decline a draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:19, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. I have gathered more references in both languages, and will submit for a re-review.
If it is declined again, and someone wants to re-work on this article in the future, is there anything I should do to make sure they can access this draft as well? Or should I try the translation tool and paste my source there? Thank you for your time. 12tonerowurboat (talk) 12:43, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@12tonerowurboat: all (well, most) pages on Wikipedia are publicly available and editable by anyone.
Note that if a draft hasn't been edited (by a human) for six months, it gets automatically deleted, but it will in most cases be undeleted upon request. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:29, 3 October 2025 review of submission by 192.76.8.193

[edit]

My page was turned down because it was judged to lack "notability", however one of the criteria for notability for an academic is: "The person has held a distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, a named chair appointment that indicates a comparable level of achievement, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon." Mark Harris is the Andreas Idreos Chair in Science and Religion--arguably the most distinguished chair in the world for the subject. How does this not meet the guidelines for notability? 192.76.8.193 (talk) 12:29, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the draft is almost entirely unreferenced, there may be many claims of notability, but scarce evidence of it. If you manage to support it appropriately with inline citations to reliable published sources, it will almost certainly be accepted. (Note that anything which cannot be thus supported must be removed, per WP:BLP.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:44, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:53, 3 October 2025 review of submission by Authority, O.U. Albert

[edit]

Please how can I draft Profile Article that is acceptable to wikipedia? Authority, O.U. Albert (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Authority, O.U. Albert. Wikipedia does not host resumes so, if you wanted to write a resume, please go to a website like LinkedIn. Your draft in it's current form is not viable. We have strict criteria for inclusion for biographic articles, which you can read at Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion (people). qcne (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Authority, O.U Albert We don't have "profiles" here, we have articles, and they are typically written by independent editors. I would do as ably suggested by GhostWhite. 331dot (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 4

[edit]

08:53, 4 October 2025 review of submission by 96.241.128.248

[edit]

I am a first time editor, requesting assistance to understand if I have correctly resubmitted this draft article for review 96.241.128.248 (talk) 08:53, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that you are Crusader076, then yes, you have successfully resubmitted the draft. At any rate, someone has. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:00, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:21, 4 October 2025 review of submission by Buntyyadav25

[edit]

Hi there, I've written Wikipedia content for Cogito Tech. Based on the requirements, I've substantiated each statement by providing links to credible websites/ whitepapers including The Financial Times, Everest Group, Accenture, Decan Herald, and LesEchos, among others. Despite them being highly credible and secondary sources, Wikipedia is rejecting the page content.

May I know the concrete reason behind the rejection? Please look into it asap. Buntyyadav25 (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Buntyyadav25 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
Are you in a hurry for some reason? If you are associated with this company, that must be disclosed, see conflict of interest and paid editing(which includes employment). 331dot (talk) 10:23, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've been given reasons by reviewers, the draft is largely sourced to press releases and interviews, which are not independent sources(even if published by a third party). 331dot (talk) 10:25, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Buntyyadav25: it's not enough that everything is supported by reliable sources; that only covers the verifiability requirement. This draft was declined for lack of evidence of notability, which has a higher pass threshold, since the sources must also be entirely independent of the subject, and provide significant coverage of it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:26, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft also contains ridiculous promotional content, ie. "company employs more than 2,000 professionals to support the algorithms of the world’s leading AI companies" Please disclose your conflict of interest. Theroadislong (talk) 10:29, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:21, 4 October 2025 review of submission by Wecklost23

[edit]

Request for second opinion: Draft:Little Cure (band)

Hello, and thank you for your time.

I would like to request a second review for my draft Draft:Little Cure (band).

The previous reviewer declined the submission, stating that sources such as Oricon, CDJournal, Konami, and Tower Records are “primary or unreliable.” However, these are **established Japanese media outlets and music databases** with recognized editorial independence — comparable to Billboard Japan, Rolling Stone Japan, or AllMusic.

Both **Oricon** and **CDJournal** have long histories as independent secondary sources documenting artist releases, television appearances, and music industry coverage. In fact, the Oricon database lists LITTLE CURE’s official releases under **Nippon Columbia** with catalog numbers (COCA-15360, COCA-15367), and CDJournal includes editorial artist pages and disc information, confirming independent publication.

Additionally, LITTLE CURE’s songs were officially licensed and credited in **Konami’s BEMANI series (pop’n music)**, which has been covered by multiple rhythm game databases and fandom wikis internationally.

I would deeply appreciate a second opinion from a reviewer familiar with **Japanese music publishing standards** or **non-English sources**. Thank you very much for your consideration and for supporting cultural balance across different language communities. Wecklost23 (talk) 12:21, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wecklost23 I fixed some formatting issues with the header.
You have resubmitted the draft and it is pending; it's unnecessary to ask for a review, and does not speed the process. We cannot guarantee a reviewer will have particular expertise- nor should it be necessary if the draft meets standards. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:47, 4 October 2025 review of submission by JoidC

[edit]

If i can be helped with that what are the issues that this draft are facing now and how to improve it from the present condition ? JoidC (talk) 17:47, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JoidC Please disclose your connection to this man(you took a picture of him), see WP:COI and WP:PAID.
You were left reasons by reviewers, do you have a more specific question about them? 331dot (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any connection with him nor i have taken the picture. JoidC (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @JoidC. You uploaded File:Prof. Happymon Jacob.png, marking it "own work", and you asserted that you were the copyright holder, and that you had legal status to license it as Wikipedia Commons requires.
If you did not take the picture, then I imagine that the copyright holder would not be pleased that you are giving away legal rights that are not yours to give. I shall mark the picture for deletion on those grounds. ColinFine (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm deleting it. JoidC (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


October 5

[edit]

02:08, 5 October 2025 review of submission by Wecklost23

[edit]

Hello, and thank you for your time. I would like to request clarification regarding my draft article about the Japanese technopop unit Little Cure: 

Draft:Little Cure (band)

This draft has been declined multiple times (by Dan arndt and Vrxces), citing a lack of reliable, secondary, and independent sources. However, I have already included numerous verifiable references from reputable Japanese music media and official databases documenting the band’s commercial activities and game-related appearances.

Sources included

[edit]
  1. Oricon Official Artist/Product Listings
Oricon product page
Oricon TV appearance record

These show commercial product and broadcast data on Japan’s most authoritative music database, often used as a secondary source on the Japanese Wikipedia.

  1. CDJournal Artist and Review Pages
CDJournal artist article
CDJournal disc review

CDJournal is an established Japanese music publication with editorial content, making it an independent secondary source.

  1. Konami Official Game Credit Pages
pop’n music official site (Konami)

Official documentation of Little Cure’s music used in pop’n music and pop’n stage from the BEMANI franchise.

  1. Retail and Distribution Records
Tower Records listing
Amazon – Silver E・TUDE
Amazon – bit of love

These confirm official distribution via Nippon Columbia (a major label), with catalog codes COCA-15360 and COCA-15367.

  1. JoySound Karaoke Database
JoySound song listing – "SILVER E・TUDE"

Confirms continued inclusion and public recognition.

  1. Primary Reference (context only)
Hiroko Konishi Official Site – Profile page

Used only for background details, not as sole verification.

---

My questions

[edit]
  1. Given that Oricon and CDJournal are treated as reliable secondary publications in the Japanese-language Wikipedia, can these be considered independent secondary sources under English Wikipedia’s WP:NBAND and WP:MUSICBIO?
  2. Are there examples of accepted Japanese-language sources for musical groups that I could model for citation formatting?
  3. If the issue is mainly about reference formatting or translation of publication data, could you please advise on the best standardized approach?

I’d deeply appreciate any guidance to revise the article properly before resubmission. Thank you for your help and understanding. 

Wecklost23 (talk) 02:08, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Wecklost23: this draft has been declined for insufficient evidence of notability. You have two options for demonstrating that, either via the general WP:GNG or the subject-specific WP:BAND guideline. Essentially, the former requires significant coverage in multiple secondary sources; the latter, significant musical achievements. Looking at your draft, I'd say you may struggle to show either, but the latter is probably your better bet.
The reason I say that, your draft cites some unreliable sources (Fandom and RemyWiki are user-generated), otherwise unusable ones (Amazon and Tower Records are retailers), and at least one that doesn't work (#1 / 7). Product pages, profiles, and 'official' anything are primary sources. Song or performance listings aren't significant coverage. Music reviews may contribute towards the notability of the music, but not usually of the performer. After taking all those out, I don't think there is much left. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:15, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:45, 5 October 2025 review of submission by Stephen Guosheng Meng

[edit]

i dont know why the draft was declined immediately after i submitted it Stephen Guosheng Meng (talk) 10:45, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephen Guosheng Meng: it wasn't declined. You added yourself a faulty submission template marked incorrectly as 'declined'. Did AI tell you to do that? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:49, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yes, actually i did following the instructions of AI Stephen Guosheng Meng (talk) 11:07, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Stephen Guosheng Meng: please don't use AI. Among many other reasons, AI is really rubbish at editing Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:11, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've undone your edit. When you're ready to submit (and I would argue, not yet) please do not manually edit the template, just click on the blue 'submit' button. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:51, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
any comments on the draft? Stephen Guosheng Meng (talk) 11:13, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid I have marked the draft for deletion, @Stephen Guosheng Meng, as it's pure spam. qcne (talk) 11:25, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne: I think you only did so with the sandbox one, did you also mean to request speedy on the draft space version? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:28, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, thanks. qcne (talk) 11:35, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you mean the figure as included or the introduction part? Stephen Guosheng Meng (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:13, 5 October 2025 review of submission by Sivasiddhikundaliniyoga

[edit]

The article was rejected for not showing significant coverage on the reliable secondary sources - regarding this, 1- Will you consider any of these as reliable sources? - a) news articles published by news channels; b) blog articles published by third parties; c) references made in blog articles by third parties 2- Will you consider PDFs of old news articles as reliable source?

Thank you 

Sivasiddhikundaliniyoga (talk) 12:13, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Sivasiddhikundaliniyoga. I'll answer your questions, on the assumption that you will change your user name to an appropriate personal account name, and be unblocked.
You can find the criteria that sources must meet in the golden rule.
  • News sources published by news channels: usually reliable (unless otherwise noted at WP:RSP) but not necessarily independent - nothing based on the subject's words (eg interviews, or press releases) will do for establishing notability. They also need to contain significant coverage of the subject: a passing mention won't do.
  • Blogs are almost never acceptable as reliable sources, because there is no editorial process. See WP:Blogs.
  • Sources referenced by blogs may or may not be acceptable: it is up to you to look at them and judge whether they meet the criteria. You should never cite a source you have not seen yourself.
  • The format of a source is irrelevant. In citing a source, you should give bibliographic information such as title, author, year, publisher, page number (there are templates and tools to help with this: see WP:REFB). If a legal copy is available online, then it is helpful to link to it, but that is not usually an essential part of the citation, and offline sources are acceptable, if they meet the crieria. A PDF of a news article may be acceptable; but often it is a copyright violation (posted by somebody without rights to do so), and Wikipedia should never link to a copyright violation. Even if it is a legal copy, we need to consider the reliability of wherever it is hosted: how do we know it is a faithful copy of what it purports to be?
ColinFine (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:41, 5 October 2025 review of submission by Guyshomenet

[edit]

My draft Draft:The_Flood:_Music_for_MANNA was declined on September 28, 2025 by RangersRus. He claims the album did not receive "significant coverage" despite several entire articles being written about the album and it's inclusion in a television documentary.

I believe it meets WP:NALBUMS due to significant coverage. May another reviewer take a look?”


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Flood:_Music_for_MANNA Guyshomenet (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Guyshomenet: the draft cites three sources. The first is a hyperlocal one, and is the musician talking about the album, ie. not an independent source. The second doesn't even mention the album. The third doesn't appear to be an independent source, either, since it says that it is "sponsored by advertisers and we cover music released by the record labels with whom we partner". -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:51, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:55, 5 October 2025 review of submission by Riedener

[edit]

A draft of this article was submitted but it was rejected due to its tone and/or for lacking "encyclopedia" format. I made additional edits, using the definition of an encyclopedia article as a guideline. I feel it is factual and has sufficient references. It was resubmitted and is waiting for approval. The rejecting editor commented that the subsequent edits were "minor." Specific feedback would be appreciated. I'm willing to make changes to the tone, format or references. Riedener (talk) 13:55, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Riedener: I'm not sure what, if anything, you're asking? The draft has been resubmitted, and will be reviewed once a reviewer gets around to it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:04, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm asking the help desk for advice that will improve the odds of this article being accepted the second time. I feel "encyclopedia format/tone" is somewhat subjective, and the feedback I received was vague. A few examples, from my draft, might be helpful. Thanks. Riedener (talk) 14:13, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Riedener: we don't normally do pre-reviews here at the help desk. But as I was looking at the draft, a few thoughts came to mind, which I might as well share:
  1. The draft is very long, and written more like an essay than an encyclopaedia article, but perhaps even more so like a tribute. I think you could condense it quite a bit, and focus on the most salient points, especially those which make this person worthy of note.
  2. ...speaking of which, based on a cursory glance, it isn't quite clear to me what his claim to fame is. I get that he was an enthusiastic advocate, etc., but I couldn't quite reach that "aha, that's why he should be included in a global encyclopaedia" realisation. If it is in there somewhere, it needs to be more to the fore. Readers should know after the first paragraph or two what makes the subject noteworthy.
  3. Somewhat related to the previous point, it isn't clear what makes this person notable enough for a Wikipedia article?
  4. It is important that the information is clearly supported by reliable sources. While this person is long since dead, and the draft isn't therefore subject to our rules of referencing governing articles on living or recently-deceased people, we still need to know where the information comes from, so that it can be verified. I counted at least 20 paragraphs without any citations.
  5. Offline sources must be cited with sufficient bibliographic detail to enable them to be reliably identified for verification; see WP:OFFLINE for advice.
  6. Originally offline sources which exist in online archives must similarly be cited with full detail: eg. source #6 (and probably also 7 and 10-12) only points to the publication, without indicating the page, article title, author, or any such information which would enable the reader to locate the relevant section without having to plough through the whole publication.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I forgot to say also that sources must be published; #2 (correspondence) and #15 (logbook) don't sound like they qualify. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Riedener. A WIkipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people, wholly unconnected with the subject, have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and not much else.
What the subject or their associates say or want to say (in any medium) is not relevant; nor is what you know about the subject unless it is verified by a reliable published source. ColinFine (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:07, 5 October 2025 review of submission by Tonari1982

[edit]

Hi! Our draft Draft:3DforScience (a Spanish scientific communication/medical animation company) was declined on 23 April 2025 by DoubleGrazing for not showing multiple in-depth, reliable, secondary, and strictly independent sources.

Before we resubmit, could you please sanity-check our plan and advise on the kind of sources we should add?

1) Source expectations We’ve started collecting independent, non-promotional coverage and want to confirm whether items like these would typically satisfy significant coverage under the general/company notability guidelines (Spanish-language sources included):

Forbes España (Los 100 más creativos): list entry profiling the founder (Javier M. Floren) and referencing the company and its work. Does a mainstream business outlet’s profile/list entry help establish notability for the company itself, or is it better reserved for a potential BLP? Forbes España

Related clarifications: Do award organizer pages (e.g., winner lists) meaningfully help with notability, or are they generally considered routine announcements unless there’s independent coverage discussing the company’s significance?

Are trade-press interviews (e.g., PMFarma) treated as primary and therefore weak for notability?

2) Consistency question We noticed the article Random42 (a comparable UK medical animation studio) exists with seemingly limited in-depth independent sourcing (e.g., Companies House entry, Bloomberg company overview, Alantra “Fast 50” PDF, plus two book mentions). We fully appreciate WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and aren’t arguing “X exists, so ours should too”; rather, we’re trying to understand what aspect of that article’s sourcing meets GNG so we can emulate the right approach, or whether it should instead be tagged for improvement. Could you comment on the type of sourcing from that page that AfC reviewers consider sufficient vs. insufficient?

3) Practical next steps If the above examples are borderline, what specific kinds of sources should we pursue so the draft is likely to pass AfC? For instance: Independent feature articles in national or regional newspapers or major business media discussing the company’s work/impact (not just press releases). Trade-press features written by journalists (not contributed content) that analyze the company’s role in the sector.

Academic or industry reports that discuss the company’s projects substantively (not just name-drops). If coverage focuses on the founder rather than the company, does that still contribute to the company’s notability if the piece discusses the firm’s achievements in depth? We’ll hold off resubmitting until we align the draft with your advice. Tonari1982 (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Tonari1982. I'm not going to attempt to answer your questions point by point: I'll just point you at golden rule, which I think will answer most of them.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:43, 5 October 2025 review of submission by Mailteena

[edit]

Hi! I am having trouble understanding what the reviewers mean by reliable secondary sources. I have included 5 in-depth articles about the subject, focused solely on the subject, that were published over the years in national and state-level newspapers as main references. Manorama - India's largest circulated regional daily - has carried two articles about the subject and her firm in both Malayalam and English in different years. Two national newspapers - the Hindu and The Indian Express - have published articles on the subject. These are not passing mentions, and these media houses/publications are not connected to her. There is also an online magazine that has carried an article on this script writer. She has won a national award, and been mentioned in other media for this achievement. Some of the biographic details have been taken from the websites of India Foundation for Arts and Kerala Architectural Festival, which are pan-Indian and pan-Kerala organisations and not affiliated to any person. What more reliable source can be added to address this issue? I have used these same newspapers as references for creating other Wikipedia articles, and there seemed to be no issue with those. Hence, this query. I asked this question a few days ago and did not receive an answer, so I am copy/pasting it again. Mailteena (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How did you obtain access to her to take her picture?
Awards do not contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award).
You have described her work, but not what makes her notable.
You have resubmitted it and it is pending, the next reviewer will leave feedback. 331dot (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:47, 5 October 2025 review of submission by WhippySmash

[edit]

Hello, I’m requesting assistance improving and correctly submitting the draft article titled "Draft:Shawn Hale." The draft has been declined due to notability and sourcing concerns, but all citations have been reviewed and syntax errors fixed. This is my first submission to Wikipedia and I would appreciate help from experienced editors to review the references and advise on proper submission steps. Thank you for your time and guidance. WhippySmash (talk) 22:47, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You added the decline template and the notability templates yourself when you used AI to create the draft for you - one of the many reasons we ask you not to do this. CoconutOctopus talk 23:02, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 6

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1315311655"