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
Dec 2025
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

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


December 9

[edit]

Draft submission to Draft:SumnSlight

[edit]

My draft article "SumnSlight" was not published to be in the article’s page because it was declined and it won’t let me to submit the draft. ~2025-39460-42 (talk) 00:14, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-39460-42 All the buttons are present to allow resubmission. However, it needs to pass WP:NSONG or any resubmission will be pointless. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:10, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:39, 9 December 2025 review of submission by Beasty333

[edit]

Ive added further detail what more do I need Beasty333 (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is rejected. Jothefiredragon🐲talk🔥contributions🧨log✨mail🐉global 04:56, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:58, 9 December 2025 review of submission by Skwaky

[edit]

I am a human being. I am a novice editor trying to get my draft article in front of a senior editor. I am not the subject of this article. I have not used an AI to write this article, but I have used Chat GBT to help me get through Wikipedia's arcane and confusing submission process. After waiting more that a month with no response to my submission, I asked Chat GBT what I had done wrong in my submission. Chat said that my submission lacked a time stamp or time template, and that was why it was being ignored, and that it would help me insert one into the draft. As I was trying to follow Chat's instructions on adding that template, I received a notice that my article was rejected and I was accused of using the AI in drafting the article. Clearly, the AI, in trying to insert the time template has triggered the reject response which assumed that I am a bot or a user of AI to write my article. This is unfair and very discouraging. Please, can I have the help of a human editor to help me through this crisis, and to examine my article and to point out what specifically I have done wrong. My article was written by myself. There is no puffery in it, only facts, which are carefully documented. The subject, Jim Andrews, is a well known digital poet and artist. He deserves a Wikipedia page. My stub is an attempt to begin this process. And I repeat, I am not Jim Andrew, and an AI had no part in writing this draft stub article. Skwaky 

Skwaky (talk) 04:58, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Skwaky Do not rely on AI ChatBots. Their advice is faulty. Please use the WP:AFC process. Please do not resubmit with no edits made. For this reason alone I have no Declined it. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:13, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent I assume you mean WP:AFC? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:54, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch, Helpful Raccoon. I have corrected it. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:57, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Skwaky
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 22:43, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:20, 9 December 2025 review of submission by ~2025-39292-74

[edit]

I believe this page demonstrates sufficient notability, everything is independently referenced, yet it keeps being declined by the same person. Is anyone able to please take a look and point out what is missing? ~2025-39292-74 (talk) 05:20, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-39292-74 No, it does not "keep being declined by the same reviewer." They declined it a second time because the sleep difference between reviews was trivial. Perhaps they might have noted that for you. We are not going to change a review when the edits have not addressed prior review comments. Would you? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:17, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are no helpful comments to address. I might not change the review, but perhaps I would leave it open for a second opinion.
The first review had valid comments, which have all been addressed. Since then I don't believe it has been given a fair review. ~2025-39292-74 (talk) 10:02, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The concerns have not been addressed. That you were not told what you want to hear does not mean the review was unfair.
The username of the creator of the draft was inappropriate, so I have blocked it. If that was you, please log in to your account and propose a new username. 331dot (talk) 10:10, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would be very helpful if I was told what to address, I stead of just being told I am wrong. ~2025-39292-74 (talk) 10:24, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@~2025-39292-74  Done in a comment on the draft, and in some detail. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 11:42, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. It is greatly appreciated. ~2025-39292-74 (talk) 14:32, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:11, 9 December 2025 review of submission by Darrylrose

[edit]

would an article about all manufacturerss phone flash/torch lights be aceptable? Darrylrose (talk) 09:11, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Darrylrose Assuming you can show that a topic passes WP:GNG, any and all topics are acceptable. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:14, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:27, 9 December 2025 review of submission by MopBanana

[edit]

I believe this draft may have been incorrectly declined under the belief that is is the same as or represented by The Hallmarks of Cancer, however they are not referring to the same topic despite similar names and the topic of this draft is not mentioned or discussed in the Hallmarks Of Cancer article (as far as I can see).

While The Hallmarks of Cancer is about a 2000 paper and its subject, the subject of this draft is https://cancerhallmarks.com/ which is related but is not the same as the paper - it is a curated gene set and online tool/information site which is based on the above paper as well as others. MopBanana (talk) 09:27, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please inform the reviewer of this directly, on their user talk page(click "talk" next to their username in the decline message) 331dot (talk) 10:14, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:02, 9 December 2025 review of submission by Darrylrose

[edit]

is this better now? Darrylrose (talk) 10:02, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's better in that it refers to phones in general, but I would suggest expanding the Smartphone article with any information about phone flashlights that it lacks currently, just as other phone features are discussed there. If necessary, you can then have a discussion on its article talk page about splitting the article. 331dot (talk) 10:17, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:35, 9 December 2025 review of submission by Colintoast

[edit]

Hi - I'm new to this, and my submission was declined due to an issue with sources, which I don't fully understand: it has links to Telegraph, Times and UK government sites. Is it a formatting issue? Thanks Colintoast (talk) 10:35, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Colintoast: your draft cites three secondary sources, of which two (Fortune, Times) aren't really about this person. The Telegraph one is better, albeit that it seems to be at least in part based on an interview. We normally require at 3+ sources that full meet the WP:GNG standard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:52, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much - that's very helpful. I'll add more sources in due course, thank you Colintoast (talk) 10:55, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Colintoast It may help you to see Referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 10:59, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah very useful, will take a look at that, thanks! Colintoast (talk) 11:00, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:33, 9 December 2025 review of submission by E1Oracle

[edit]
We do not accept requests for an early review. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 11:45, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page has been re-written, please re-asses. E1Oracle (talk) 11:33, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@E1Oracle The draft will be reviewed in due course. We do not accept requests for an early review. In the meantime please continue to work on the draft to improve it wherever you are able. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 11:44, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

12:25, 9 December 2025 review of submission by A.MoeedHussain

[edit]

Why has my article been declined? Could you please tell me what corrections are needed? A.MoeedHussain (talk) 12:25, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have stated on the draft "I am a representative of The Red Betty, or related to her management/label." this is suggestive of the fact that you are creating this for a reward, that you are a WP:PAID paid editor (0.95 probability). I have left you a formal question on your user talk page whcih must be answered as your next edit of any description, please.
As a paid editor you are expected as part of your remuneration to abide by all of the rules. You are paid to discover, learn, understand, and implement all relevant rules, policies, and procedures. Further, you are paid to write neutral and correctly referenced prose which passes these criteria. This is an amateur project. Amateur editors do not generally feel the need to assist paid editors to receive their pay. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:38, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@A.MoeedHussain Further to that, you have been told by the reviewer what to do. It seems strange that you appear to have missed reading that information. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:41, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @A.MoeedHussain.
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.
One of the things that makes it especially difficult to write about somebody you know well or are working for is that having found the essential wholly independent sources about your subject, you then need to effectively forget everything you know about the subject - and especially anything the subject wants you to say - and write a summary of what the indepedent sources say about your subject - even if they say things that your subject does not like.
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. And that is even without a COI. A paid editor should also study WP:BOSS and WP:YESPROMO. ColinFine (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:35, 9 December 2025 review of submission by ScholarSourceNote

[edit]

Hello, I need help understanding conflicting feedback on Draft:David B. Daniel after three declines.

-First decline (SafariScribe, Nov 29) said does not meet WP:PROF criteria -After substantial revision, I added 10+ independent reliable sources -Second decline (HwyNerd Mike, Dec 6) said the tone not encyclopedic -Revised again and rewrote for neutral encyclopedic tone   -third decline (Fermiboson, Dec 7) said, "nothing substantive has changed"

The current article cites Chronicle of Higher Education, Washington Post, Science, APS Observer, Education Next, peer-reviewed journals, and National Academies Press.

Daniel appears to meet WP:PROF Criterion #1 with research impact; he co-founded international society, was the founding editor of PROSE Award-winning journal, National Academies panel, Chronicle coverage. He also appears to meet Criterion #8 with prestigious awards like APS Fellow, national APA award.

Do these not satisfy WP:PROF? If not, what would? After adding substantial sourcing and rewriting for tone, most recent reviewer said "nothing substantive changed". Should I have documented changes differently?

I'm new to these templates and want to make sure I'm following Wikipedia's guidelines correctly. After three declines alternating between notability and tone concerns, I'm uncertain how to proceed and would appreciate a second opinion.

Thank you! 

ScholarSourceNote (talk) 13:35, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ScholarSourceNote I have looked hard at your edit between submissions, and agree. Nothing substantive has changed. What are you seeing that I am not, please?
I'm struggling to see that Daniel "founded the Teaching Institute of the Society for Research in Child Development " from the reference given. I see in that reference that "Daniel set the tone for the inaugural International Convention of Psychological Science Teaching Institute".
A very practical suggestion for you is to self critique your own references. Write in your own words what they say about Daniel, and only what they say about Daniel. You will perform a significant précis by doing this.
I think you have probably written what you wish to say about the subject, and then sought references after writing in order to cite what you say. This is WP:BACKWARDS. Instead, please read this essay, one of several which outline a process which will succeed assuming the subject to be notable. If it isn't notable then no amount of editing can help. We use the references in the process described in the essay to determine and verify notability. No suitable references means the subject is not notable, and it is time to stop. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 14:31, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:36, 9 December 2025 review of submission by Umi951

[edit]
No reviews on-demand, at least at here. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 13:50, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

kindly review it Umi951 (talk) 13:36, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

14:42, 9 December 2025 review of submission by LancEditor

[edit]

I’ve been working on a draft about StoneBridge School, and it was declined for sounding promotional. I’m not aiming to promote the school. I tried to keep the tone neutral and used the most reliable sources I could find.

I’ve looked at similar school articles and noticed they seem to use the same types of sources, so I’m a little unsure about what I might be doing wrong. I’m not trying to force an article that doesn’t belong. I just want to understand what separates a keepable school article from one that doesn’t meet the standard, and whether there’s anything I can do to improve this one. LancEditor (talk) 14:42, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LancEditor You hear to have done nothing about the AI generation. That militates against acceptance. However, there is something else that militates more strongly against acceptance: WP:NSCHOOL
Schools used to get a free ride; not any longer. There has to be something genuinely notable for a school to qualify, and schools which do not are being weeded out gradually. The separator is notability. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 14:54, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And please do not use AI assistance to draft messages to other editors. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 14:57, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:10, 9 December 2025 review of submission by Abiolaspace

[edit]

I have tried updating my draft to the best of my knowledge. I would like to seek your advice on what I should do. Thanks in anticipation to your positive response. Abiolaspace (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Abiolaspace. Unfortunately the draft has now been rejected - there is not indication at this time that Moshood meets our criteria for inclusion. As such, the draft won't be considered further unless substantially more sources that proof notability under WP:NPERSON can be found. qcne (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:33, 9 December 2025 review of submission by ~2025-39608-49

[edit]

My draft was rejected, with only a short explanation and quoting notability guidelines. However, the guidelines are quite elaborate and broad, and I do notice many points the articles surely does meet, in my opinion. For example, reliability, independence or secondary sources. Surely not all of the sources are like this, but, as I understand, it is not forbidden, to also have not-independent sources in addition to independent. So I can only guess the precise reason why the article was rejected. Would it be possible to ask for a bit more guidance what exactly the issue is, so that now, or in the future, I could actually undertake something to correct it and get it approved? ~2025-39608-49 (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @~2025-39608-49. Ideally we'd be looking for a minimum of three sources that each:
- are independent of the company (no press releases, interviews with staff, etc)
- are from reliable sources (e.g. mainstream newspapers)
- and provide significant coverage of the company. This is the one most sources get stuck on, as we're looking for analysis that goes beyond routine business coverage (like acquisitions, hiring and firing) and want to see some sort of critical discussion, commentary, debate, review, etc. qcne (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the answer. But that opens another question: how do I preserve the page, so that it is not deleted, and so that, in case more such articles are created, I could resubmit? Writing the texts, structuring and formatting the page is considerable work, and of course I do not want it to go to waste. ~2025-39608-49 (talk) 10:20, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@~2025-39608-49 Drafts are kept for six months after the last edit. You can reset this timer by making a small dummy edit every five months and 20 days or so (just remove a full stop or something). Even when drafts are deleted for inactivity after six months, they can be retrieved via Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. qcne (talk) 10:26, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remember to log in when posting. 331dot (talk) 10:57, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:36, 9 December 2025 review of submission by Hvn85

[edit]

Hello friends,

I recently created an article about "Panini Kabob Grill", which operates 30 locations across California. I’ve reviewed and referenced several external sources, including Forbes, to ensure the information is accurate and well supported.

After five rounds of edits and submissions, it seems I’m no longer able to make further changes or resubmit the article. Could you please let me know how or when I can submit a new version for review on the same subject?

Thank you in advance. Hvn85 (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may still edit the draft. If you can fundamentally edit it to address the concerns of reviewers, you may then ask the rejecting reviewer to reconsider their rejection.
You have only summarized routine coverage, not significant coverage in independent reliable sources. You only wrote that Forbes wrote about the company, you say nothing about what they said. See WP:ORGDEPTH.
The vast majority of businesses do not actually merit Wikipedia articles. 331dot (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @331dot Thank you for your respond. Hvn85 (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:43, 9 December 2025 review of submission by Kapparently

[edit]

Hi, I've been working on a new draft article about Dr. Samuel R. Browd and would appreciate any feedback or a review from an experienced editor. The draft hasn’t been reviewed yet, and I want to make sure it meets Wikipedia’s standards. Thank you. Kapparently (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the information so you can submit it for a review. We don't do pre-review reviews here. 331dot (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:49, 9 December 2025 review of submission by SillyLavalizard

[edit]

Hello! Can I please get clarification on why the page was declined? SillyLavalizard (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TruGrid page to be exact. SillyLavalizard (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are no citations and the draft only advertises the company business. See Wikipedia: Referencing for Beginners. GGOTCC 17:10, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:12, 9 December 2025 review of submission by ~2025-39632-59

[edit]

i want to confirm ~2025-39632-59 (talk) 17:12, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-39632-59: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Your sources are Twitter and the dev, and this reads like a blatant advertizement. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:29, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After two declines with no improvement in sourcing, it's clear that the topic doesn't meet inclusion criteria, therefore it was rejected. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:52, 9 December 2025 review of submission by Zuckermanelaine

[edit]

HI there Could you please tell me where this article does not contain suitable references? It is referenced the entire way through.I would appreciate someone pointing out where you believe it's not referenced so I can make the subsequent changes Regards Elaine Zuckermanelaine (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Zuckermanelaine. You have not formatted any of your references properly. Please use the Visual Editor and follow the tutorial at WP:INTREFVE. qcne (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I do appreciate you telling me.
Best EZ Zuckermanelaine (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:21, 9 December 2025 review of submission by Umi951

[edit]

kindly help...its a prominent medical university in uzbekistan Umi951 (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Umi951. We require sources that are *independent* of the University, but you have none. Do any exist? Please have a read of WP:NORG. qcne (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
hi...thanks for reply...yes i have listed them...the university is listed in world directory of medical schools here https://search.wdoms.org/home/SchoolDetail/F0006296 Umi951 (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't suitable sources, as they're mostly primary sources. The directory is also not a suitable source to evidence proof of meeting our criteria for inclusion. qcne (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the reply...kindly let me know what type of sources we need...i will check and list them Umi951 (talk) 19:38, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please check Wikipedia:CORPDEPTH which explains. qcne (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the reply..i have went through the article earlier in detail...ive gathered possible related references...ive just added reference to Times Higher Education rankings of the university..kindly review the same.. Umi951 (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Umi951 That is still not significant coverage. qcne (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok...i went through the article and requirements...ive submitted university sources, THE rankings, WDOMS listing, official govt press releases...what else can we arrange for the same...kindly help with exact type of resources needed...i need help with this...thanks in advance Umi951 (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Umi951 With these being the only sources(?) then the University does not meet our criteria, and cannot have an article at this time. Therefore the rejection stands. You should write about something else. qcne (talk) 20:00, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the reply...we can include news links ? there are many...also, i noticed tashkent medical academy which is much smaller, has been listed with mostly its own links in references...i need help that can really help me with this ~2025-38464-74 (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
News sources may work, feel free to add them to the draft. Tashkent Medical Academy also doesn't have very good sources, and would not have been accepted if it came via the draft process. qcne (talk) 20:12, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, ive resubmitted with more independent sources included...kindly re-look at the same Umi951 (talk) 06:36, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

kindly help..the university is listed in world directory of medical schools here https://search.wdoms.org/home/SchoolDetail/F0006296 Umi951 (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Umi951.
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.
Listings in directories are of no use in writing articles.
Sources which only mention the subject in passing are of no use in writing articles.
Sources in which the subject or its associates were in any way involved (writing, editing, publishing, giving interviews, issuing press releases) are of little use in writing articles.
Government sources are rarely of any use in writing articles, as they either do not contain significant information about the subject, or if they do, it clearly comes from the subject, and so is not independent.
So news articles might be useful - provided they are completeloy indepedent of the institute and contain significant coverage - at least several paragraphs about the institute, information which does not simply come from the institute's website or prospectus.
See WP:42 for more on this.
Other articles - such as Tashkent Medical Academy are irrelevant. We have many articles which are terrible. I have just tagged that as needing secondary sources (I am puzzled as to why it was accepted at AFC). Each submission is judged on its own, not against other articles: see other stuff exists. ColinFine (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the reply...i've resubmitted with several independent resources related to news, research, official decrees....kindly re-look into the same Umi951 (talk) 07:12, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:42, 9 December 2025 review of submission by Authorereer

[edit]

why did you decline it? Authorereer (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Authorereer. Hopefully you can understand why your draft is not appropriately written for Wikipedia? It also has zero sources. qcne (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:02, 9 December 2025 review of submission by ~2025-38563-03

[edit]

This article appears to meet the criteria for notability based on basic criteria for notability for sports. Is that not the case here? They have won multiple international competitions in England and China. ~2025-38563-03 (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Winning a competition does not make him notable, there needs to be significant independent coverage (not just quotes/interviews or trivial mentions) of him personally, which does not appear to be the case after looking through the sports-related sources. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Chinese language sources cite him specifically multiple times. Notability guidelines say that it is irrespective of language of the source?
Additionally, from an Academic perspective, his work is cited and taught at the University of Cambridge as part of a course.
This is confusing as it was declined for notability first, then LLM despite being human written, and now notability again. It seems as if the goal posts for the article keep shifting. Clarification on what the actual reason for the decline would be helpful. ~2025-38563-03 (talk) 01:04, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From machine translation, it seems that this source only briefly mentions/quotes him, and the other Chinese sources don't mention him at all. Different reviewers can have different opinions on why an article should be declined. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Helpful Raccoon. The subject does have a profile in the New York Times, would that stand to count as significant and verifiable enough? he New York Times (18 April 2025). "Their Love 'Moved the Earth'". Archived from the original on 20 April 2025. Retrieved 4 December 2025. ~2025-38563-03 (talk) 03:48, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It still appears that based on the general notability criteria, this would satisfy it:
Sports personalities WP:SPORTSPERSON
Main page: Wikipedia:Notability (sports)
An athlete is likely to have received significant coverage in multiple secondary sources, and thus be notable, if they have been successful in a major competition or won a significant honor. Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to meet the GNG (general notability guideline). ~2025-38563-03 (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point of the notability guidelines is to ensure that a topic has enough material in independent sources to serve as a basis for an article. This wedding story barely helps at all with writing an article; it contains minimal analysis of the subject. College competitions without a Wikipedia article are not "major competitions", and the notability guideline still requires significant coverage.
Do you have a connection to Kittredge? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria for academic notability can be found at WP:NACADEMIC. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SPORTSIGCOV
    • All sports biographies, including those of subjects meeting any criteria listed below, must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article.
~2025-38563-03 (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:04, 9 December 2025 review of submission by Denizyuret

[edit]

This draft has been rejected a second time. The first rejection was based on LLM-like language and missing sources. I went through the whole article fixing the sources and being careful to provide independent sources for every claim. The article has been rewritten by hand. This last rejection does not provide any specific issues and I do not know how to fix what I do not understand. Denizyuret (talk) 20:04, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted
I'd suggest asking the last reviewer directly on their user talk page(click the word "talk" next to their username in the decline notice) to elaborate beyond their message that they left at the top of their draft. 331dot (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Denizyuret. Judging by your user name, you are trying to write about yourself.
Almost nobody has ever managed to do this successfully, and Wikipedia strongly discourages anybody from trying: see WP:autobiography.
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:09, 9 December 2025 review of submission by AlphaCore

[edit]

I see many reviewers have declined this draft with the reason 'no WP:SIGCOV', but I feel the subject has sufficient coverage in many reliable sources worldwide. The person is the CEO of a leading AI Company. I see a comment on the draft that the person is just a CEO and nothing else. So Sunder Pichai ? Someone help me with this. I do not want to decline without a valid reason. 

 AlphaCore talk 22:09, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @HurricaneZeta @Theroadislong @Bonadea @Caleb Stanford as previous reviewers to know their POV. AlphaCore talk 22:14, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AlphaCore: I would not accept it at this point. There's a bit of WP:CITEKILL but the sources are primary and/or non-independent (press releases and interviews) and mainly about his company. The company appears to be (marginally) notable, but WP:NOTINHERITED applies. --bonadea contributions talk 08:14, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bonadea Copy that, Before decline, let me deeply research on it. Thanks for the clarity AlphaCore talk 20:44, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'm not a previous reviewer, I also would not accept it. All I'm seeing are interviews and primary sources, and no one seems to go into much detail about Srinivas himself. Don't forget about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - Pichai having an article, which was created in 2009 before AfC came into existence, means nothing for Srinivas. I also suspect that a CEO of Google is slightly more likely to be notable than a CEO of an AI company. Meadowlark (talk) 10:42, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Meadowlark Thanks for the clarity. I mentioned S Pichai, as he is from the same region as Aravind's. I get it, Thanks for the clarification. AlphaCore talk 20:51, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @AlphaCore: Thanks for the ping. In the present state, it looks relatively reasonable to me, or at least borderline. As for the reliable sources... WP:FORBESCON doesn't help, and the Berkeley sources may not be independent, but we do have Wired, Bloomberg, Yahoo, maybe that's enough. We shouldn't link the subject's PhD thesis, AFAIK there is no precedent for that. Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:13, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did a pass with many fixes. IMO, fine to accept in present state. Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Caleb Stanford Copy that, let me see. I decided to go deep on this topic as it is potentially notable. Tanks for your clarification. AlphaCore talk 20:55, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:48, 9 December 2025 review of submission by Sleepyfuecoco

[edit]

I had an independent editor review and recommend to me that I should submit a (new) replacement article for Mermaid (software) wikipage because the original + new version are formatted differently and the copy is not the same. I saw that this request was declined; I wanted to ask what the best path forward would be in situations like these? Sleepyfuecoco (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sleepyfuecoco We decline drafts where the existing article should be edited. The right approach is to edit the existing article, exactly as it says in the decline notice. I suggest most strongly that you do not use the material in the draft. Your referencing is not appropriate.
We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the changes you wish to make are not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
Because you will be editing the existing article please take any further questions, including ths about referencing, to WP:TEAHOUSE where a different team of volunteers will be happy to help you. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:13, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sleepyfuecoco I see you have a conflict of interest, so you are already aware you shouldn't edit the article directly, but Articles for Creation isn't really built to process rewrites of existing articles. You are more likely to be successful by proposing small changes on the article talk page as was previously suggested there. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 11:09, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Helpful Raccoon I apologise for not seeing this prior to your alerting me, and thus for closing the discussion prematurely. Thank you for your additional input. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:30, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion where Sleepyfuecoco was advised to create a new draft is at Talk:Mermaid (software). --bonadea contributions talk 11:46, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Helpful Raccoon
Noted, thank you both! Just wanting to make sure I respect Wikipedia rules during this process – appreciate the clarification. Sleepyfuecoco (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:49, 9 December 2025 review of submission by Benwrites

[edit]

I'm not exactly sure why this one was rejected beyond the note "This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article.". I submitted because there are several reliable sources and so many mentions of Givebutter around the web in news articles that I think people will be in need of a third-party source like Wikipedia to understand the company. Could someone support? Benwrites (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, this is the draft: Draft:Givebutter Benwrites (talk) 22:50, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
You have just summarized the routine business activities of the company, not significant coverage in independent reliable sources that shows how the company is a notable company. Most companies on Earth actually do not merit Wikipedia articles. 331dot (talk) 23:12, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response.
Regarding the sources, there are dedicated news articles from the Washington Post, American Banker, TechCrunch, Yahoo Finance and CityBiz mentioned. Further, there are regular mentions of the company in many sites referenced like Mail Online, Yahoo News and ABC News - lots of celebrities and newsworthy campaigns seem to use and mention this platform.
I also noted in my research that very similar companies have a dedicated Wikipedia with much less coverage:
- Donorbox
- Classy (company) Benwrites (talk) 23:28, 9 December 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, and just not yet 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 by us. We can only address what we know about. This cannot justify adding more inappropriate content.
Mentions of the company, or the reporting of its routine business activities like raising capital, does not establish notability. See WP:ORGDEPTH. If you see other articles doing this, please identify them so we can take action. We're only as good as those who choose to help. 331dot (talk) 23:43, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you work for this company, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand now that raising capital or mentions don't count, thanks for sharing. Do the articles like the Washington Post on "Three GW roommates are selling ads to give money away — maybe to you" and the dedicated article on CashApp and Givebutter's integration "Why Cash App ventured into nonprofit payments" not count enough as notable?
I do not work at this company. Benwrites (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Benwrites, you seem to have the common misconception that adding more references to a draft is better. That is false. Quality is vastly more important than quantity and a slew of mediocre references just makes the work of volunteer reviewers harder and more confusing. Your draft is clogged with references that do not help establish notability. You would be far better off by summarizing five or six outstanding references than including 44 references, many of which are of no value and are being used to verify inappropriate content. Cullen328 (talk) 04:30, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting! I had no idea. I just did a deep dive of all news about them to collect the full story / prove notability.
Do you think I should streamline now to make the quality sources more visible? Benwrites (talk) 05:40, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Benwrites.
The answer is Yes. Remove all trivial or irrelevant sources, and the information that is supported only by them.
Don't throw them away yet, because it is possible that a few of them will be useful to add detail once you have an acceptable article based on substantial independent sources.
Without looking at your draft, I suspect from what has been said above that your best course would be to start again from the beginning.
First, find your three or four really good sources, that are wholly independent of the company, and together say enough about it to base a decent encyclopaedia answer on.
Then, if you have found such sources, forget everything you personally know about the company and write a summary of what those sources say.
At that point your draft will have a good chance of being accepted. You can continue to work onit, including adding nice-to-haves like images, infoboxes, and a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information from lesser sources.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 10:14, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @ColinFinethis was an incredibly useful and thoughtful response. I already appreciate the Wiki community so much.
I've removed 90% of the sources and kept it to the few that make sense, and only written the article based on what is verified in them. Resubmitted now, so fingers crossed. ~2025-39627-07 (talk) 05:13, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow I've just submitted it using a temporary account (?). Not sure how that has happened, but this last message was me. Benwrites (talk) 05:18, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:25, 9 December 2025 review of submission by ~2025-39638-11

[edit]

Hello, I am not sure how to find specific areas in the article that should be updated for a better chance at approval. Can you please help me by pointing out specific areas that I need to update where others may be acceptable? I am trying to determine if there are sections that are problematic or if it is the entire article. Thank you so much! ~2025-39638-11 (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have largely summarized the routine activities and offerings of the company, which does not establish that the company is a notable company as Wikipedia defines one.
As the CEO received a notable award, it might actually be that he merits an article and not the company itself. 331dot (talk) 23:47, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 10

[edit]

02:19, 10 December 2025 review of submission by Membersryan89

[edit]

i want to create a wikiepedia page for my favorite content creator 

Membersryan89 (talk) 02:19, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How nice! In that case, your first step would be to find sources. These should be independent of the creator, reliable (professionally published), and in depth. You should try to find about three of these sources to create a good foundation of a draft. You can read more at WP:42. GGOTCC 07:10, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:02, 10 December 2025 review of submission by Nikasandler

[edit]

Hello,

My draft Draft:Nika Sandler was declined by Pythoncoder with the comment that it “shows signs of being written by a large language model”.

I would like to clarify that the draft was written manually based on the reliable sources listed, and the text has been significantly reworked multiple times.

Because I have previously communicated to Pythoncoder that I prefer not to be reviewed by them, and because the “LLM-like” decline reason appears to be applied routinely, I kindly request reassignment of my draft to a different AfC reviewer.

Thank you in advance for your help. — Nika Nikasandler (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would have declined it too, for the same reason, especially your first submission. Stop relying on an AI. AIs don't know how to write Wikipedia articles. A stronger reason for declining would be over-reliance on sources that originate with you.
I have to ask: Exactly why do you want an article about yourself on Wikipedia? Is it vanity? SEO? Publicity? Or what? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:44, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The draft in question is Draft:Nika Sandler, which was written by you, Nikasandler. Our content guideline on autobiographies says that they are a form of conflict-of-interest editing that is strongly discouraged, so you should expect careful reviews of your work. Well over 99% of people who try to write autobiographies on Wikipedia end up failing and the very few that succeed follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines very carefully. You have not done so. On Wikipedia, a person is notable and therefore eligible for a Wikipedia biography when reliable, published sources that are entirely independent of that person devote significant coverage to that person and their work. When you have a commercial relationship with a publication because they publish your photos, nothing that publication says about you is independent. Publishing a selection of your photos is not significant coverage of you. Interviews of you are not independent coverage because they consist of you talking about yourself and your work. References to any such coverage are of no value because they do not help establish notability, and only serve to distract and waste the time of reviewers. I have written several biographies of photographers and so I can say with confidence that any competent AfC reviewer would decline your draft. Start by ruthlessly removing all poor quality references and the content that they verify. Will anything be left? Cullen328 (talk) 04:10, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:39, 10 December 2025 review of submission by Dileepnnit

[edit]

Request: Help with Draft:Naren Shetty – Notability & Reference Verification

[edit]

Hello, I am the creator of Draft:Naren Shetty and I would like help understanding how to fix the issues mentioned in the latest decline review.

  • Subject: Dr. Naren Shetty – Indian ophthalmologist, Director & Head of Cataract and Refractive Lens Services at Narayana Nethralaya.

I am requesting assistance with the following:

1. **Notability confirmation:** 

  I have included multiple independent, reliable sources (e.g., The Hindu, Times of India, Prajavani, Udayavani, Varta Jala, Ophthalmology Times).  
  I would like guidance on whether these sources meet the criteria for significant coverage under WP:NBIO.

2. **Reference verification:** 

  Previous reviewers pointed out that some citations did not support the statements they were attached to.  
  I have now removed incorrect citations, added proper news references, and ensured all sources directly verify the content.  
  I would appreciate help reviewing whether the current inline citations meet Wikipedia standards.

3. **Neutral tone (WP:NPOV):** 

  I have rewritten promotional or subjective phrasing (e.g., claims about surgical precision) into neutral, verifiable statements.  
  If there are still sentences that appear non-neutral, I would be grateful for specific pointers.

4. **Structural and style issues:** 

  Please let me know if anything else in the draft (section layout, sourcing style, reference formatting) needs correction before resubmission.
  • Main sources included in the draft:*

- The Hindu (news article) – glaucoma awareness - Times of India – feature covering his professional work - Prajavani – AR device for low-vision & public health programs - Udayavani – AR device coverage - Ophthalmology Times – article discussing research outcomes - Varta Jala – glaucoma awareness & Narayana Devalaya - Prajavani – vitamin D & eye health - Maastricht University – PhD defence page (for degree verification only)

All sources listed above are independent publications except the Maastricht University page (used only as an academic verification).

I want to make sure the draft correctly follows **WP:V**, **WP:BLP**, **WP:NPOV**, and **WP:NBIO** before I submit it again.

Thank you very much for your time and guidance. Dileepnnit (talk) 04:39, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dileepnnit Likely a copy paste output from ChatGPT, right? CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 07:56, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't use an AI to communicate with us. We'd rather communicate with you. Your draft still has hallmarks of LLM generation.
Also, Times of India is an unreliable source (see WP:TIMESOFINDIA), so remove it. LLMs don't have a clue about what kind of sources are required.
Why does Naren Shetty want an article about himself on Wikipedia so keenly that he is willing to pay someone for it? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 08:10, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:53, 10 December 2025 review of submission by Umi951

[edit]

ive resubmitted with several independent resources related to news, research, official decrees....kindly re-look into the same Umi951 (talk) 06:53, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. It has been rejected, which means it will not be considered further. You can discuss with the reviewer to re-open it for review if you want. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 08:13, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:08, 10 December 2025 review of submission by Haya Shakhsher

[edit]

Hello, Hope this message finds you well,

I submitted a draft about TJDEED Technology and Its not being accepted, could you please let me know the reason and what i need to edit so it can be accepted.

Thank you, Haya Shakhsher (talk) 07:08, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Haya Shakhsher: the reason is stated in the decline notice. In any case, you've resubmitted this draft, so it will be assessed again in due course when you will receive further feedback. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:14, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:38, 10 December 2025 review of submission by AdeelAhme

[edit]

I wrote the page myself in a natural, human style and included accurate figures and information. However, my submission was removed with the remark that it appears to be AI-generated. Please advise how I can make the content sound more human, especially when presenting figures or factual details. AdeelAhme (talk) 07:38, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No advice is needed; it has been rejected, which means the topic will not be considered further, and then it was deleted in accordance with WP:G15. I suggest you read WP:BACKWARD and start over, writing it yourself in your own words using only what the sources say. The AI generation was obvious from the way you copied the citations as unverifiable plain text rather than the proper citation formatting. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 08:18, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:44, 10 December 2025 review of submission by ~2025-32490-22

[edit]

I am not sure how to fix this draft so that it can be published ~2025-32490-22 (talk) 07:44, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Write it in your own words, without relying on LLM generation. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 08:19, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:30, 10 December 2025 review of submission by Abuhasanjahangir

[edit]

Repeated declines for notability/BLP on COI draft (FIFA 2026 leadership) – seeking neutral review/adoption, 10 December 2025

[edit]

Hello,

I am the subject of Draft:Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir and have fully disclosed my conflict of interest (COI) on the draft's talk page since October 2025 (no paid editing involved). The draft has been declined multiple times via AfC, primarily for notability (WP:GNG/WP:NPERSON) and BLP concerns (e.g., due weight on a past allegation section).

The primary notability claim is the subject's role as co-lead/secretary in securing Port Alberni (British Columbia) as the only non-host-city Team Base Camp for the 2026 FIFA World Cup, with coverage in Canadian regional outlets (e.g., Alberni Valley News, Times Colonist, CHEK News) and in-depth profiles in Bangladeshi national media (e.g., Daily Janakantha, Daily Sangram, ATN News).

Recent revisions (last submitted ~5 hours ago on 10 December 2025): - Elevated national/international sources to the lead for stronger GNG support. - Integrated the Anti-Corruption Commission case neutrally into the career paragraph (removed bold header to reduce weight, fixed typos, kept factual sourcing per BLP). - Trimmed any remaining promotional tone and cleaned citations/categories.

The draft is currently pending review (queue position reflects ~852 submissions). Previous Teahouse feedback (e.g., December 5 and 9 threads) noted it as "marginal" but improving, with suggestions that the FIFA hook and sources could meet guidelines if verified neutrally.

Could an experienced neutral editor please take a fresh look, verify the sources, make any final neutrality/BLP tweaks, and either resubmit or move to mainspace if it now meets standards? I'd be happy to answer questions on the draft talk page.

Thank you! — Abuhasanjahangir (talk) Abuhasanjahangir (talk) 09:30, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abuhasanjahangir: yes, an experienced, neutral editor will take a look, that's pretty much the definition of the AfC process. We do not fast-track reviews here at the help desk, your draft will be reviewed in due course; please be patient.
Do NOT attempt to move it again into the main article space, on account of your COI.
Also, please do not remove earlier AfC declines and comments, they must remain there until the draft has been accepted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:35, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: One more thing, do you operate both the Abuhasanjahangir and Abujahangir accounts? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:37, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing, they've declared them as alt accounts on the Abuhasanjahangir account's userpage and made an attempt on the other one (albeit with a broken template) after receiving helpful advice from a patrolling editor :) 10:49, 10 December 2025 (UTC) Meadowlark (talk) 10:49, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Abuhasanjahangir.
You sy The primary notability claim is the subject's role as co-lead/secretary...
Have you read about what Wikipedia means by notability? It is not about what the subject is or has done: it is almost entirely about what has been independently and reliably published about the subject. ("Notability" is an unfortunate word because it misleads people. It's really about making sure that there is enough material to base an article on, remembering that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ) ColinFine (talk) 10:22, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abuhasanjahangir no Declined with a detailed rationale and an exhortation to prove notability prior to a rewrite. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:55, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:47, 10 December 2025 review of submission by ~2025-39608-49

[edit]

My draft for the page has been declined, with the comment: "Although it is well written and detailed but the sources do not establish notability under WP:GNG or WP:ORG." Could I get some more direction, where can I find more explanation which notability criterion the article fails? I am reviewing the references, trying to find out, but I do see multiple independent and reliable sources, like a Montel article, Report.at article, EcoAustria analysis, FAZ PDF, parliamentary ElWG statement, several podcasts. While there are also a few primary sources, I thought that was not forbidden; nevertheless, is that is the issue, I could remove them and the corresponding text. To be able to actually fix the flaw and generate an article according to Wikipedia rules, a bit more concrete would help me a lot. ~2025-39608-49 (talk) 09:47, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting. I fixed your header so it links to your draft as intended(the full, exact title is needed, including the "Draft:" portion).
You have just summarized the routine business activities of the company, this does not establish that the company meets our special Wikipedia definition of a notable company.
I see this is an Austrian company; what I say here only applies to the English Wikipedia; the German Wikipedia has different editors and policies; they are less strict than we are when it comes to companies editing about themselves; this draft(if translated) would likely be acceptable on the German Wikipedia, even if it isn't here. We are much less interested in what a company wants to say about itself and its activities, we want a company employee like yourself to set aside everything they know about their company and limit themselves to summarizing significant coverage in independent reliable sources- this should be coverage that goes beyond merely discussing the activities of the company(see WP:ORGDEPTH). Most companies on Earth actually do not merit Wikipedia articles(here).
You mention the leaders of the company contributing to policy debates- that might merit the leaders articles, but not the company itself. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:56, 10 December 2025 review of submission by Abiolaspace

[edit]

My title was declined and it cannot be resubmitted. What should I do?because I don't know what to do. Abiolaspace (talk) 09:56, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing that you can do except move on to another topic. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves. Please read the autobiography policy. We want to know what others independent of you choose on their own to say about you, not what you say about yourself. One of your two sources is a press release, which is not an independent source. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abiolaspace: The vast majority of all people are not notable, as Wikipedia defines notability. Being an Amazon bestseller does not make a person notable, and the draft was declined four times without any independent, secondary sources being added – so the fifth time it was submitted, it was rejected with no option to resubmit, because it would only waste your own time as well as that of the volunteer reviewers if you kept submitting it. --bonadea contributions talk 12:18, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly let me know what needs to be added to make the draft article meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. Abiolaspace (talk) 13:42, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Abiolaspace. Please see the essay No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. ColinFine (talk) 17:13, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:28, 10 December 2025 review of submission by Ahmed allam 911

[edit]

It wasn’t my intention for it to look like a CV. I simply wanted my first article to be easy and not complicated, so I thought of writing a biography of a random person from LinkedIn. I promise to revise it carefully and work hard on improving it so that it meets the standards of Wikipedia. Ahmed allam 911 (talk) 10:28, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahmed allam 911: whether it was your intention or not, a CV is what you ended up writing. Also, a "random person from LinkedIn" may not be all that random, given that you seem to have taken that photo of him, and you both share a surname. I'm deleting this draft as purely promotional and entirely non-notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:37, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Ahmed allam 911.
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, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source. ColinFine (talk) 17:13, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:44, 10 December 2025 review of submission by ~2025-39869-38

[edit]

Hello everyone,

please I would like ask you help. Someone created a Wikipedia page with my information many years ago, and I thank them. However, I've never been asked for permission personally, and I would kindly like to manage my information myself. I've created a new page; would it be possible to get it accepted by the community?

Thanks in advance, Giuseppe Devastato ~2025-39869-38 (talk) 10:44, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting.
Wikipedia articles are written and managed by the community, not the subject of the article. You have no special rights to it as the subject(see WP:OWN). You are welcome to offer specific proposals for changes on the article talk page(Talk:Giuseppe Devastato) in the form of an edit request(click for instructions). The article will not necessarily say what you think it should say, but your input is welcome as it is with any other editor. Please see the autobiography policy.
I would highly suggest that you propose incremental changes, one or two at a time, to greatly increase the chance a volunteer will want to invest the time in reviewing your requests. Proposing a wholesale rewrite would take much time to review. I understand you would probably like it changed as soon as possible, but that must give way to the volunteer nature of this project. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Giuseppe (@~2025-39869-38), welcome to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, this is not going to have the results you hope for. Wikipedia articles are written by uninvolved editors who think you qualify for an article, and as the article's subject you must not edit it. You have what we call a conflict of interest, so you cannot make direct edits.
The best thing to do would be to submit edit requests on the article's talk page. The way to do this is outlined at Template:Edit COI. Ideally, you should request only one or two things at a time, and make sure that anything you want to add has a good reference (see WP:42 for more). Requests that say something like 'please change (sentence you want changed here) to (whatever you want to add, remove, etc) - see (add source here)' usually work best because it's clear what you are asking and that you have a source for the change. I hope this helps. Meadowlark (talk) 10:55, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:07, 10 December 2025 review of submission by Snakepitter87

[edit]

Dear Wikipedia team,

thanks for all the work to keep the information on the internet consistent, informative, and neutral!

I got feedback that the article for the artist Kabeaushé was sounding like it's being made with AI. I actually rewrote most of the passages myself from the sources I found from the websites and the artist's team, but to make it really sure I went through the whole text again and made sure all phrasing, tone and information are suiting the Wiki guidelines. I also checked with ChatGPTZero (like the reviewer did before) and it's also indicating it's being made by a human being.

I'm not really sure what I can do more besides that and I'd be very happy if someone could give me feedback on the recent changes before I resubmit; I don't want to the article to be deleted and I'm very happy to adjust to any direction needed.

Thanks a lot! Snakepitter87 (talk) 12:07, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Snakepitter87: if you believe you've addressed the reasons for the earlier decline, then you may resubmit this and it will be reviewed again in due course. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:07, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:11:09, 10 December 2025 review of resubmission by Neilyoung77

[edit]

Hi all. Please could I ask for a second opinion on this draft?

It was recently declined at AfC on the basis that there was "insufficient amount of info in published reliable independent sources". I've queried this with the reviewing editor (see our discussion here), who agreed that pieces cited in the FT, Business Insider and City AM are independent secondary coverage, but considered them largely company pitch/context and not enough to support even a short article. I'm not sure I agree as these are fairly weighty sources and the articles are in-depth. Am I misunderstanding how WP:GNG is being applied in this case, or is the consensus that the existing sources are still too limited?

I’d be really grateful for a view on whether the current sourcing is sufficient to treat the subject as notable, or whether it'd be best to leave the draft until more coverage appears. Thanks very much Neilyoung77 (talk) 13:11, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Neilyoung77: to save us having to do a full source analysis, can you list here the top 3-4 sources which in your view satisfy GNG/NCORP? I've quickly glanced at the sources, and there is a lot of routine business reporting like funding rounds etc. ("Legora raises", "Legora announces", "Legora launches" etc.). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:04, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course - here they are. I have also put them at the top of the draft article Talk page. Thanks for taking a look!
Neilyoung77 (talk) 14:19, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Neilyoung77: I think the first BI piece is probably okay. (The other is same reporter, same publication, so those two only count as a single source.) The first FT one is not really significant coverage, esp. as half of it is direct quotations from the Legora CEO. The other FT piece isn't really about Legora, it's about the need for human oversight. And finally, the City AM one is mostly the CEO talking. The WP:NCORP guideline is derived from WP:GNG but is stricter, and does require at least three sources that unambiguously meet the GNG standard. I don't think your sources quite do that yet.
This may just be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Most startups simply haven't achieved enough and been around long enough to attract the sort of secondary source coverage that we need to see. And whatever they have attracted, usually comes as a result of their frantic efforts to get themselves talked about, for obvious reasons. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's really helpful to know, thanks @DoubleGrazing. Sounds like best to let this sit in draft and see what other coverage emerges before resubmitting. Appreciate you taking the time. Neilyoung77 (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:28, 10 December 2025 review of submission by Lprexl

[edit]

Hi, thanks a lot for your feedback. I am writing to respectfully submit a significantly revised draft of the article concerning Unzer (Company). This revision was undertaken with the strict goal of adhering to Wikipedia's core content policies. Based on your feedback; I have reviewed and revised any language that could be perceived as promotional, marketing, or non-neutral. I have also expanded the number of independent, external sources. Last, I included a section of critical and regulatory oversight. I hope that with these changes, you can consider the article for publication. Otherwise, I really appreciate your feedback. Lprexl (talk) 13:28, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lprexl: okay, you have resubmitted the draft, so it will be reviewed in due course once a reviewer gets around to it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:01, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thank you. I also made my affiliation to Unzer clear. I want to ensure that I follow all rules - let me know if there is anything else I should disclose. Lprexl (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:54, 10 December 2025 review of submission by Abuhasanjahangir

[edit]

I have a declared COI as the subject of this draft and fully accept Timtrent's decline on December 10, 2025 (and all prior declines), citing insufficient significant coverage for WP:GNG/WP:BIO, WP:BACKWARDS concerns, and related issues. I also respect the administrative moves and feedback from other reviewers (e.g., Vinegarymass911 on structure). I will make no further edits or resubmissions myself.

To address the core notability issue, recent sourcing focuses on significant, independent coverage from multiple reliable secondary sources:

- Dedicated Bangladeshi feature articles providing biographical depth and regional/international perspective: e.g., Daily Janakantha (Sep 3, 2025) on his "unique achievement," covering Bangladesh textile career (policy reforms for SMEs, Apex Textile Group roles) and FIFA leadership; Daily Sangram (Dec 9, 2025) with similar bio details, a direct quote, and analysis of his expatriate impact; Daily Naya Diganta (Sep 2025) and ATN News (Sep 16, 2025) emphasizing his "visionary" role as committee co-lead/secretary. - Independent Canadian sources (e.g., Alberni Valley News, Times Colonist, CHEK News – multiple 2025 articles) documenting his co-leadership in securing Port Alberni's unique FIFA 2026 base camp designation (only non-host Canadian city).

I would greatly appreciate if an uninvolved editor could: - Independently review these sources for WP:GNG/WP:BIO compliance (focusing on significant coverage about the subject, not just events). - If satisfied, rewrite the draft per WP:BACKWARDS (source-first, neutralize tone, merge career chronologically, expand lede, remove inline links/typos/premature tags/categories). - Resubmit to AfC or move to mainspace as appropriate.

Thank you—I rely entirely on the community for further progress. Abuhasanjahangir (talk) 13:54, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abuhasanjahangir: please do not use AI to generate your messages, we have no interest in talking to a text prediction algorithm.
Also, do not start a new thread; there is an existing one from earlier today just a few threads up.
And last but not least, we will not get involved in co-editing your self-promo piece; nor should you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:58, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:13, 10 December 2025 review of submission by Laptss

[edit]

I do not understand why the article has been rejected. The reviewer attributed the rejection to its shortness, but then suggested it might have failed per NW:SCHOOL. The Recife School, however, wasn't an educational establishment, but a philosophical movement. Laptss (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Laptss. I agree, and have undone the decline. FYI @Royiswariii. qcne (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:30, 10 December 2025 review of submission by ~2025-39830-32

[edit]

Me made this for me and my friends and someone rejected it and I just wanted to talk to my friends though this place without doing anything bad 

~2025-39830-32 (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@~2025-39830-32 This is Wikipedia, an online encyclopaedia. If you want to talk to your friends, please go to a social media website? qcne (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:58, 10 December 2025 review of submission by ConiLoree

[edit]

My article keeps getting rejected and I'm not sure why. I've triple checked all references. ConiLoree (talk) 14:58, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ConiLoree You have presented Arons as a WP:ROTM person doing a job. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:52, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't appear that way. Do they have to be on tv in order to qualify as notable. She was 1/3 of Kate Spade which is a very notable brand (the other two thirds being Andy and Kate). She just happened to be behind the scenes but they were all partners. Are there not enough sources, I have plenty to add if that's the issue. ConiLoree (talk) 02:36, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @ConiLoree.
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, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.
Most of your sources are what Arons says - Wikipedia has almost no interest in what Arons says or wants to say.
Almost all of your sources should each meet all the criteria in WP:42. If you cannot find several sources which do so, you will know that she does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article is possible.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So just to confirm, the sources can not be quotes from the subject? Only what other people say. Wikipedia is very unique and it's difficult to get it right. To me, the voice seems pretty neutral and I cannot include things that aren't from the subject, if it coming from a third party may be vulnerable to misinformation. Most of these are interviews from reliable media. Not sure how this doesn't adhere to Wikipedia's criteria. I'll keep working on this, it would be helpful what lines in particular don't follow the criteria. ConiLoree (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:52, 10 December 2025 review of submission by Lex-Ba-D

[edit]

Hi, I'm trying to create my company wikipedia page but it gets rejected and I don't really understand why. Any help or directions would be more than welcome Lex-Ba-D (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lex-Ba-D. You should not be writing about your company on Wikipedia without declaring your conflict of interest. Please immediately declare by following the instructions at WP:COI.
I do not see evidence in the sources this company meets our criteria for inclusion. qcne (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Lex-Ba-D
Your question indicates that, like many people, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is.
A Wikipedia article about your company, whoever wrote it, would not belong to you or your company, would not be controlled by you or your company, and would not necessrily say what you would like it to say. Thinking of it as "your company's page" is really unhelpful and misleading.
Unless your company meets Wikipedia's criteria for a notable company - which are mostly about what has been published about it by people wholly unconnected with it - then any attempt to write an article abvout the company will be a complete waste of time and effort.
If the independent sources to establish notability do exist, then the article should be based almost entirely on what those independent sources say (including if they say things you don't like!) rather than on what you or the company want to say.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. For somebody with a conflict of interest, I recommend starting by reading WP:BOSS. ColinFine (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:11, 10 December 2025 review of submission by CWMartin99

[edit]

How can I change my page title? I used EPS as a placeholder and would like to change it to Echogen. CWMartin99 (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @CWMartin99. I have moved the draft to Draft:Echogen. However, you have not proven notability under WP:CORPDEPTH yet. qcne (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'm still working on it! Thanks for your help, and your patience. CWMartin99 (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:07, 10 December 2025 review of submission by MasonPolomski47

[edit]

Just wondering why my article was declined I'm new to Wikipedia and spent a good amount of time on it. Thanks! MasonPolomski47 (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MasonPolomski47. I am afraid as a small local street race, it would not pass our criteria for inclusion at Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion (events). qcne (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:20, 10 December 2025 review of submission by Ccreegan

[edit]

Hello, and thank you in advance for your help.

I have created a draft biography in my Sandbox using independent, reliable sources. Because I am the subject of the article, I should not submit it myself due to Wikipedia’s conflict of interest guidelines.

I am requesting a neutral editor to please review the draft and, if appropriate, move it into the Draft namespace and/or submit it through Articles for Creation.

Here is the draft: User:Ccreegan/sandbox

Thank you very much for your time and assistance. Ccreegan (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This sandbox has been deleted as spam. Do not spam Wikipedia, do not use an AI chatbot to write drafts or to communicate with us. qcne (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:54, 10 December 2025 review of submission by Greenpark79

[edit]

Can I remove the articles for creation template and now just publish it directly to the mainspace? Greenpark79 (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You certainly can, although it is not recommended for beginners. Just as my first article was published via AfC, the point is to help new editors while improving the enclopedia. From your talk page, I assume your draft has already been approved? GGOTCC 20:31, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was never accepted; Greenpark79 just placed a AfC acceptance template on their own talk page. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, that is intentionally misleading. GGOTCC 22:07, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, or just a misunderstanding of the AfC process. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies that was confusion on my part. Greenpark79 (talk) 15:28, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Greenpark79 I see that you moved BBC Brand to mainspace. You are allowed to move things to mainspace yourself (assuming you don't have a conflict of interest), but it does not count as being accepted through Articles for Creation. The article has several issues, so I have moved it to a draft for reasons stated on your talk page. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen your reply and will be working on adding further links. Greenpark79 (talk) 15:29, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:39, 10 December 2025 review of submission by 1dcmiles

[edit]

AfC reviewers have declined multiple US school district draft submissions citing WP:Notability; in addition to Bridgman Public Schools, see examples below. The WikiProject Schools notability guidelines state that US school districts are nearly always found to be notable, and schools without sources that signify notability should be merged into the district page. Declined drafts from AfC reviewers cause confusion because of this inconsistency, discourage new editors like myself, and require extra work to request reconsideration.
 Question: Are AfC reviewers instructed to consider the near-presumptive notability of US school districts per WP:OUTCOMES#School_districts?
 Question: What specific criteria is my draft article missing?

Recently rejected school district articles:
•Talk:Winslow Public Schools#Notability of school district articles
•Talk:Avon Central School District/Archive 1
•Draft:Bridgman Public Schools
•Draft:Lindenhurst Union Free School District
•Draft:Tri-Valley Community Unit School District 3
•Draft:Twinsburg City School District 1dcmiles (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@1dcmiles Are you here for assistance or are you here to make a point? The question is rhetorical.
People who come here to make a point often put our volunteers off from offering assistance. I'm telling you this because I perceive you are here to make a point, and you have discouraged me successfully from offering assistance. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:13, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@1dcmiles I see you have received a very useful answer while forum shopping at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools § Discourage AfC reviewers from citing WP:Notability to decline draft US school district submissions. Forum shopping is as deprecated as asking the other parent. I will give you assistance on that issue and counsel you most strongly against it. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:51, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1dcmiles Though you have only edited for about 14 months, you created your account in 2015. Is that why you seem to have knowledge of guidelines that most new users wouldn't? 331dot (talk) 15:34, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:24, 10 December 2025 review of submission by LandSurveyExpert

[edit]

Hi there, my article was rejected, and I am still unclear why. I feel like there is sufficient evidence to support the notability of my topic and article. LandSurveyExpert (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
You have just documented what the organization does; you need to show that it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization, through summarizing what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say is important/significant/influential about it.
If you are associated with this organization, that must be disclosed, see conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:30, 10 December 2025 review of submission by ~2025-39877-31

[edit]

the biggest challenge has been finding linkable references to his life. I have two other newspaper articles but only have scans from the Brooklyn Public Library and the Library of Congress. Is there a way to add them? With those 2 articles, would it be enough independent references to be accepted? thanks! ~2025-39877-31 (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting(if you're the creator of the draft). You don't need to provide scans of newspaper articles(which could be problematic from a copyright standpoint). You just need to provide sufficient information for someone to theoretically locate the newspaper article; title, author, publication date, page numbers, etc. Please see Referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:50, 10 December 2025 review of submission by GRM Elder Sean

[edit]

I am new to creating a wiki page. I am trying to let people learn about a gaming clan Galactic Order, GRM Gaming. A group dating back to 2004. any help would be greatly appreciated. GRM Elder Sean (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GRM Elder Sean Certainly. This is what is required in order to create a draft article: We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
Either the references exist and it will move forwards. or they do not, and it will not. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:55, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 11

[edit]

03:28, 11 December 2025 review of submission by Y82006

[edit]

Why is this article 2026 in Philippine television denied after the review? Some programs already have sources. Y82006 (talk) 03:28, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many claims lack sources (each claim needs to be cited to a reliable source that meets WP:42), large sections of the draft are blank, and contains speculative information (such as "Milestone episodes") GGOTCC 03:45, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:11, 11 December 2025 review of submission by Purplemushy

[edit]

I am requesting assistance because my artist is in an underrepresented group, which is why there are not many sources on her. How would I go about this for publishing my article? Purplemushy (talk) 05:11, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Purplemushy For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
No exceptions for any reason. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:33, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Purplemushy We can't give underrepresented groups a pass on important policies, especially when living people are involved. 331dot (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Purplemushy, I see the article says Anderson Linklater just graduated this year (unclear on whether this was with a bachelor's or master's) but it might simply be too soon for her to have an article. An interesting topic though, and if you are interested in covering underrepresented groups on Wikipedia outside of your school project you might want to consider looking at Women in Red and the Indigenous peoples of North America Wikiproject. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 20:38, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:26, 11 December 2025 review of submission by Susimudoics

[edit]

I have wrote this draft again. I have added reliable sources also. I think, this section should be deleted now - 

{{Multiple issues|
{{Autobiography|date=September 2025}}
{{AI-generated|date=December 2025}}
}}

Can I resubmit it now? Your suggestions will be very helpful. Thank you! Susimudoics (talk) 05:26, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Susimudoics Do you have a connection to Yeasmin? You created your account, found this draft and started editing it after User:Rafa Yeasmin had been working on it for two months. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:15, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Helpful Raccoon Yes, I am in her production team. I told her not to edit her own draft by herself, and let me rewrite or edit it. That’s why I created my account and started editing this draft. Susimudoics (talk) 07:27, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for disclosing your connection. You working on the draft is not much better than Yeasmin working on it herself, since both of you have a conflict of interest. Since you are employed by her or her agency, you are considered a paid editor and thus need to formally disclose that by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:42, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Helpful Raccoon I am not getting paid for this. By the way, I have not received my answer yet. Susimudoics (talk) 12:04, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Susimudoics You receive your pay as a worker for her or her agency.
We do not review by request, nor do we perform pre-reviews. You must use the judgement your employer pays you to use. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:44, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:26, 11 December 2025 review of submission by Eegnetwork

[edit]

Hello,

I understand that my draft for Erjohn & Almark Transit was declined due to the lack of reliable sources. I acknowledge that one of the sources I used (the Philippine Bus Photography Association blog on Blogspot) is not considered reliable under Wikipedia guidelines, even though it contains detailed historical information about the company and its buses.

I would like to ask for guidance on whether it is acceptable to remove unsupported content that relies solely on the blog, and retain only the basic information, routes, and operational changes related to the Southwest Integrated Transport Terminal (SITT, now PITX) and route cuts. These claims are supported by reliable sources such as GMA News Online, Manila Bulletin, and other reputable publications.

Additionally, I would like to ask whether documents hosted on Scribd, such as the LTFRB Memorandum Circulars, can be considered reliable sources for citations in the article.

Would it be possible to revise the draft in this way so that it can be reconsidered for publication? I would greatly appreciate any advice on how to make the article compliant while preserving the verifiable information.

Thank you for your time and guidance. Eegnetwork (talk) 09:26, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Eegnetwork I wonder if you would confine yourself to wholly human generated comments here, please. Even using AI to 'polish' your messages is not appropriate. We prefer to communicate with humans, not ChatBots. Human created queries get answered.
I was tempted to ask ChatGPT to draft an answer to your question. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:26, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:29, 11 December 2025 review of submission by Tsangminglee

[edit]

Hi, is there a way I can draft the article again, after being rejected for resubmission?

Thank you. Tsangminglee (talk) 09:29, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tsangminglee Prior reviews must remain on the draft, please do not remove these. If you have fundamentally changed the draft to address the concerns of reviewers, you should first appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly and ask them to reconsider.
Note that most companies on Earth actually do not merit Wikipedia articles. Please read WP:BOSS, and show it to your superiors and colleagues. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tsangminglee Are you here for any purpose other than to promote your employer? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:15, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:46, 11 December 2025 review of submission by Shiran Hazan

[edit]

Hello, I've fixed all the issues I first received and added only reliable sources can someone help me finalizing and approving the article? Shiran Hazan (talk) 13:46, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Shiran Hazan: if you feel you've sufficiently addressed the decline reason(s), you may resubmit the draft for a new review; there is a blue 'resubmit' button on the bottom of the most recent decline template.
Just one thing: there are a large number of external links listed under the citations which are not cited anywhere – what is their purpose? If they are not supporting anything in the draft (ie., if no part of the draft is based on them), then please remove them as superfluous. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:00, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:25, 11 December 2025 review of submission by TheFloridaTyper

[edit]

This is not an assistance request. More so, I want to know what exactly the page is missing for it not to be its own page. Warner Communications was quite a prominent conglomerate that was well-known during the 1970s and 1980s. Simply keeping it as a section within the WarnerMedia page diminishes how influential it once was. TheFloridaTyper (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion in March on the talk page of WarnerMedia (linked here) lays out the reasoning for why these are not separate articles. Mainly, that the page is not long enough to warrant splitting it in two and that the conglomerate is considered a continuous entity with WarnerMedia. -- Reconrabbit 15:50, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:40, 11 December 2025 review of submission by Quanteamz

[edit]

Thanks for reviewing. I have a question regarding this wiki page, since the q-distribution is new and proposed in that paper, there is no second place to have the same distribution. For related distributions, I have plenty of references. So I think classifying it as no adequate reference seems not that appropriate. What do you think? Quanteamz (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia, as an enclopedia, is that last place something would be written about as each claim needs to be supported by an existing reference. Since most of the article is still uncited, it would not be accepted. Perhaps more time is needed for more research into the subject, or you could look into other databases for more sources? GGOTCC 21:30, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Quanteamz We do not publish articles on new research that has not been covered by independent sources. If no sources have discussed this particular distribution besides its inventor, then we cannot have an article about it. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:58, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Let me work on the citation part, which is hard as I am new here. Quanteamz (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:14, 11 December 2025 review of submission by Huggy wuggy3132

[edit]

idk Huggy wuggy3132 (talk) 21:14, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Huggy wuggy3132. Wikipedia is not a social media website so please do not create "profiles" for yourself on here. qcne (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:39, 11 December 2025 review of submission by Anne-linni

[edit]

Hello, I found that the painting draft I created, The Cut Melon, is written in a French Wikipedia article ([1]) and I don't have translating rights to French to English yet, but I am still able to translate from English to French. I am still finding references to this article but I found after I created this draft it was created in French. May someone delete this the draft, please? | From the person, Anne-linni (talk) 22:39, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if I questioned this in a unrelated desk, can you please refer me to the right question desk so I can answer my question? | From the person, Anne-linni (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Anne-linni.
For a page which nobody but you has significantly edited, you can request deletion by inserting {{db-author}} (as it appears here, including the curly brackets) at the top of the page. ColinFine (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. From the person, Anne-linni (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:00, 11 December 2025 review of submission by 8iP01

[edit]

I would like to know why this has gotten rejected thoroughly. 8iP01 (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@8iP01 Please comfirm that yu have read the comment left by the rejecting reviewer and then return to this thread to ask about anything to you do not understand, ideally after asking the rejecting reviewer on their user talk page. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:31, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an enclopedic article. GGOTCC 00:31, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 12

[edit]

04:47, 12 December 2025 review of submission by Thestoragescanner

[edit]

How can I publish this article? Can I get some insight Thestoragescanner (talk) 04:47, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can't, it's pure WP:ADMASQ. Draft rejected and deleted; user blocked. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:51, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:14, 12 December 2025 review of submission by Rahulmamtani28

[edit]

I want to make edits which follows all the wikipedia guidelines and make FLAME University Page live. Rahulmamtani28 (talk) 07:14, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:FLAME University
@Rahulmamtani28: then you'll need to show that this organisation is notable; currently the source cited provide zero evidence of that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:18, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How Can I show this organisation is notable? Can you guide me please? Rahulmamtani28 (talk) 07:20, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rahulmamtani28: the relevant notability guideline is WP:ORG, that tells you what sort of sources we need to see.
What is your relationship with this university? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:24, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:01, 12 December 2025 review of submission by ~2025-40003-52

[edit]

How do I get some help on where I'm going wrong with my submission? Thank you. John ~2025-40003-52 (talk) 08:01, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This sandbox draft specifically was declined as a duplicate of your earlier Draft:Cowboy X. Please don't submit multiple drafts on the same subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:08, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping: Johnnykruger -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:09, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:59, 12 December 2025 review of submission by Odair Correia

[edit]

Hello,

I am requesting guidance regarding the draft Draft:Cvorm, which has been declined on notability grounds.

The subject is a Cape Verdean plastics recycling and manufacturing company that has received coverage from multiple independent news outlets (national and international), has participated in international environmental forums, and is referenced in official government publications.

I understand the requirement for in-depth, independent secondary sources under WP:GNG. However, I am unsure how to proceed, as the subject already has:

• coverage by established independent media, • international exposure through recognised events, • and an accepted article on the Portuguese-language Wikipedia.

I would appreciate clarification on what specific type of additional coverage or sourcing would be required for this draft to meet notability standards on English Wikipedia, given the existing sources and public presence of the subject.

Thank you for your time and guidance. Odair Correia (talk) 08:59, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Odair Correia: this draft cites only routine business reporting and (other) primary sources. We need to see fully independent significant coverage. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:04, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:00, 12 December 2025 review of submission by 1971MRH

[edit]

I would be glad for any guidance on what is required to meet the significant coverage threshold for an article to be approved. My draft has multiple print and film citations. It would be helpful to better understand what is missing, wrong or other that I might resolve, to gain acceptance of the article. Draft:Mark_Hopking 1971MRH (talk) 12:00, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1971MRH I fixed your header so it links to your draft as intended and not to a nonexistent page entitled "Help understanding AfC decline - not show significant coverage". Elsewhere, links are made this way [[Draft:Mark Hopling]].
You seem to be writing about yourself, while not forbidden, it is ill advised, please see the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves. Wikipedia articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the subject, and summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the subject, and what makes it notable as Wikipedia defines the word, like a notable person. 331dot (talk) 12:10, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:50, 12 December 2025 review of submission by VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004

[edit]

The anime has all the sources and it’s ready to go. However, how I can help get the page back on track (the Japanese, French, Chinese and Korean Wikipedias all have the anime info being split into its separate pages.) VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004 (talk) 12:50, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have changed the draft since it was last declined, you may resubmit it, but I might leave an explanation on the article talk page as to why a standalone article is warranted here, separate from the series itself. 331dot (talk) 13:01, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
but the last time I edited was before I submitted the draft with the addition of the reviews section (given that Funimation Entertainment's US DVDs only covered episodes 1-78 and they didn’t license any more eps from SUNRISE (before the work copyright was transferred to BNP)) VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004 (talk) 13:08, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you're saying the draft has not changed; you have two options that I can see; one, edit the existing article about the series as a whole to include information about the show and then have a discussion about splitting it off, or, two, unless you are under a restriction on directly creating articles or have a conflict of interest, you are free to disregard this process and move the draft into the encyclopedia yourself. This process is usually voluntary, but you would be rolling the dice on it surviving a merge discussion or articles for deletion discussion(probably the former). 331dot (talk) 13:19, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:02, 12 December 2025 review of submission by SoniaGhodi Ghandy

[edit]

I am fed up with you guys. You cant take IMDB + Youtube as references. As soon as I add a 3rd reference of moviebuff.com you block me. All weird then I realize you are gringos. All I am doing is creating a movie based article. Not some terrorist content... Now I understand why you all are Anglo Saxons, just like Trump you waste other people's time.. You have no value for others time. You are self flattering nincompoops who dont zilch ! Google is much friendly. And I stop all funding to you ! I regret having made monetary donations and am pretty peeved at myself for having supported dimwits such as you wiki guys.. Happy demise wiki! SoniaGhodi Ghandy (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, @SoniaGhodi Ghandy! qcne (talk) 14:06, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After seeing this log of unnecessary blocks on multiple users, I realize you Wiki guys are simply adept at wasting time of the whole world. I would've understood if you were understaffed but the reasons listed by others in this forum are evidence you guys are skilful at wasting time of everyone. Now I realize Wikipedia is Pure wastage of time. SoniaGhodi Ghandy (talk) 14:12, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel your time would be best spent elsewhere, then go do so. If you're interested in actually discussing your draft and the reasons it was declined, please do that too. I understand that this can be frustrating, but that is no excuse for attacks. 331dot (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Understand that this can be frus.." but wait.. This ain't my first on Wiki. only id changed. I have to write long msg now. This is tiring.
1. You wont even let me publish for your approval much less publish at production. Why does it have to be all so complicated? In 1995 India wasnt on Internet. So references are scarce. The movie is a rare one.
2. I am not saying any of you are personally wrong about this situtation, but as a collective, this is really not about me publishing someone else's content and masquerading as the owner. It's a 1995 movie. Tons of Hindi and other Indian movies have been published here so why not this?
3. Something amiss? Your message only claims references amiss. I have followed most of your Wiki instructions. A few are not available. For instance, references are few and scarce by.
4. If you as Wiki are unhappy despite my giving you world-renowned references like IMDB and Youtube for a simple movie based article I am adding wkithout claiming copyrights, is it logical for you to reject it saying references are insufficient?
5. And as soon as I add more references you block me citing prevening of abuse... Do you know what this tells me?
Show me your logic and my shortcomings on this. Lets see if I can waste more time only on debugging rather than core content.
I still can't fathom what you folks are after! The movie exists in Indian history. That's the references I gave you. If they wont work for you, what can I expect by your own high standards?? This is a movie not some white paper. I am not claiming copyright of anything merely publishing as "info" for others. Hope you get that.
You'd point that out if I missed it but no you didnt. SoniaGhodi Ghandy (talk) 14:54, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SoniaGhodi Ghandy IMDB has never been an acceptable source on Wikipedia to establish if a film meets our criteria.
We do not dispute the movie exists. But a Wikipedia article is only a summary of what existing reliable sources state about a subject, nothing more. So if there are no sources, there can be no article.
Since this movie is from 1994, perhaps acceptable sources can be found in old hardcopy newspapers or magazines?
This account also has never been blocked. I cannot see evidence that 'moviebuff' is on our spam blocklist. What was the actual URL you were trying to add that let to our spam filters automatically blocking it? qcne (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Answering your both messages, will answer on the other accounts later. Will focus on the content first.
1. ref link moviebuff : https://www.moviebuff.com/deewana-sanam
2. since I am new on this account, cant even upload an image as evidence.
3. That begs another qn: if I take screenshot of youtube.com and upload here would you consider that img a copyright of Google? I seriously dont understand you guys anymore but I feel feedback on Wiki wont help.
4. So I'll focus on this movie. searching for Old print media content, but most of it is maybe lost due to tabloids shutdown, etc. Will try.
Adding more comments in my next ensuing comment on the other accounts and the additional evidence you are asking. SoniaGhodi Ghandy (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't looking for evidence of the movie existing. We only have articles about notable topics. We measure notability by the amount/quality of reliable sources that talk about the subject.
If those sources don't exist that means no article.
So, on point 3. If you took a screenshot of a YouTube video, the copyright would be with the person who made the video. That's not Wikipedia rules, that's the law. There are lots of caveats to this, but that's generally how it works. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:28, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB and YouTube are user-generated without editorial oversight, so they aren't acceptable as sources. YouTube can be in certain situations if the channel hosting the video is verified as belonging to a reputable media outlet.
You are free to wait three more days for you to gain the ability to place drafts directly into the encyclopedia, if you want to disregard what more experienced people are telling you, but you would be rolling the dice that your work would not be nominated for deletion.
What other accounts have you used? 331dot (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ive answered in previous comment, but some more data below
1. Not sure of Wiki "Verifiability".. Another movie music ref:
https://www.discogs.com/release/14003439-Milind-Sagar-Deewana-Sanam?srsltid=AfmBOop4Sxd9WKkg5hZCTobYgiT8C9bY6I9rmdZ54oa8Pei4w0vHJFfG
one more ref: https://www.jiosaavn.com/album/deewana-sanam/qZrtW0rJCAI_
2. From all your answers, I do fully realize time is my essence and everything is futile w/ Wiki. Not begrudging! Closure is essence. Can't linger on these. More so since evidence of tabloids and print media.
3. I fully understand I wont be getting wiki "verifiability" satisfied in my life time... I have 3 more such movies but now I know it's beyond futile.
thanks @Lee Vilenski for clarifying point #3 I just over-realized I was wrong..
Other accounts: I used 1 via gmail which was hacked years ago before covid, and I lost access moved on. I think that gmail of mine is moonrocker4 not sure though. dont remeber the user name on that.
I recently created my own wiki username "Dev_Kilner". this is active. lemme know if you need the email on that. I think I made only minor edits to existing articles.
This sonia.. is the only other one I have, 3 in total. SoniaGhodi Ghandy (talk) 15:53, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SoniaGhodi Ghandy Discogs is not a source you can use. The second source is just a place to stream songs. Neither of these are acceptable sources. You do not seem to have understood or read any of our policies or guidelines. I would strongly suggest you read Wikipedia:Everything you need to know before making any further edits. qcne (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SoniaGhodi Ghandy We are not yet speaking of the elephant in the room. I find your use of the term 'gringos' to be a racist slur. Yes, it is debatable, but the context in which you have used it is insulting and I perceive it to be used as a slur.
You have been warned about personal attacks on your user talk page by 331dot, an editor whose opinions I respect. I am asking them by pining them here if that epithet is the reason for their issuing a very firn warning. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:33, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was the reason for my warning. 331dot (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have we considered to not feed the troll? GGOTCC 17:03, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure this is necessarily a troll; maybe a frustrated person who doesn't understand what we are looking for. I have no tolerance for slurs or personal attacks generally. 331dot (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a troll. This is an editor who has exceeded my zero tolerance level for racial slurs and attacks. @331dot thank you for your patience. I take a more draconian view than yours. I would almost certainly have issued a block as soon as I saw the slur. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:10, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So much for Wiki ethics and trolling me back just to prove worthless points + travesty of time, eh ?
If I ever was a troll, that is! Feeding the troll ? Well, you are now ! I said it, I meant it.. Still do. But I aslready told I dont begrudge. Policies are necessary but
1. Why solicit monetary donations aggressively from everyone including NON-"notable" and non-"verifiable" people when only "notable" and selectively "verifiable" content is approved ? Ethics ! Doesnt mean Wiki is bad
But.. Money from even lower strata is ok but content must be premium, against the very definition I got from Google search: quote
Wikipedia means free, online encyclopedia collaboratively edited by volunteers, named from "wiki" (Hawaiian for "quick") and "encyclopedia," aiming to provide knowledge for everyone, accessible to anyone with internet to create or change articles, though overseen with some expert checks.
unquote // hope you guys say you dont use Google search as verifiable. Would love that !
2. I was working albeit quick to bring "knowledge" of a not so well known 1995 movie.. Suddenly "verifiable" and notable". wasting my time more on these nonsense back ± forth !
And yet
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
Yet yet yet.. I MUST provide "verifiability" and "notable" references and sources. Swell..
4. All for a trivial motion picture 1995 movie that had multiple Internet "sources" citing its various content which I already provided but Wiki rejected. Why? Policy! Icing on the cake ? "notable" Wow. + not "verifiable". Swell enough..
"Draconia" ... Well well... now that I stopped long ago, do gang up on me... closure of some kind, eh ?
@331dot was clear and I stopped, The whole forum does.. but boy oh boy we DO LINGER ON... do WE stop ?? Threat > "I would almost certainly.." @Timtrent
Blocking must be some kinda comic relief, maybe more ! closure I presume..
I lost. WIKI won.. TRUCE SoniaGhodi Ghandy (talk) 05:00, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you are frustrated, but the creating an article is one of the more difficult things to do on Wikipedia. I will just clarify a couple things:
1. Wikipedia (the platform, or at least the WMF) do indeed ask for donations. However, that doesn't make any difference to the general editor and makes zero difference to our policies and procedures. I for one could not care less if someone has donated.
2. Wikipedia is indeed a place "anyone can edit", but that doesn't mean that privilege is a right. We don't have "expert checks", that's why we have strict policies as to what is acceptable so there doesn't need to be.
3. We have articles on notable topics. There are millions of articles on Wikipedia. If we didn't draw the line somewhere, literally everything would have an article. The inclusion criteria is (in the most part) limited to just "things" that have been talked about in sources. And, those sources need to be in good standing. We need this for a couple reasons - how do we know what is being written is true? We use verification, not truth. If we write something on Wikipedia and it is backed up by a reliable source, even if it is wrong, we have done due dilligence. Using this as inclusion criteria is not foolproof, but it is what we have.
4. Wikipedia should never be cited as "truth". We are a summary of what sources say about a subject. We do our best, but we've never gone out to be a reliable source on anything.
5. As this is a 90s film, have you thought about looking for newspaper reviews? That seems like the location where you would find sourcing. If no reviewers covered it when it came out and no one has mentioned it in the years since, why should we have a page on it? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:34, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SoniaGhodi Ghandy If you don't wish to give the WMF money, or cannot afford to do so, don't give them money. Most of us editors don't care if you give them money or not. It's not required in order to edit or access information here. If you are getting requests for donations, you can turn them off in your account preferences. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SoniaGhodi Ghandy Put simply, and in my opinion, your behaviour has been unacceptable from the start of this thread where you issued the racial slur. Were I an administrator I would have issued you with an immediate, unwarned, short duration, finite block just for that slur.
Short duration blocks are designed to give an editor time for reflection on their behaviour, and then to return without the need to appeal after that reflection. We require adult, civil, collegial behaviour here. My hope would have been that you came back post block prepared to exhibit that.
Threat? It was in no way a threat. I have no power to do anything. It was a statement, no more and no less. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:40, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:30, 12 December 2025 review of submission by Rameescheruvote

[edit]

what is the reason to reject? Please let me know Rameescheruvote (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was wholly promotional and has been deleted. Please learn more about Wikipedia before attempting the very difficult task of creating a new Wikipedia article. You may find the new user tutorial helpful, as well as reading about neutral point of view. It's best to create drafts via the Article Wizard and not in your sandbox. 331dot (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:56, 12 December 2025 review of submission by TrishTang

[edit]

Hello all, I’ve rewritten the article based on your feedback. The wording has been simplified, and stronger sources have been added as we'll as removed.

Thanks for reviewing it again - Trish TrishTang (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have resubmitted it and it is pending. It's not necessary to post here when you submit. 331dot (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:42, 12 December 2025 review of submission by Lucyanthropology

[edit]

I am trying to submit a simple english wikipedia article for review, and I don't see a submit button. I added {{AfC submission|||ts=20251212194255|u=Lucyanthropology|ns=4}} to the top of my article, but I don't think it worked. Lucyanthropology (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Lucyanthropology.
This is the English Wikipedia. Simple English Wikipedia is a separate project, and may have different procedures and different templates. Please ask at simple:WP:Simple talk ColinFine (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:06, 12 December 2025 review of submission by Akos kab

[edit]

I would like to kindly ask why my article was declined. I included two reliable references to demonstrate that the subject is a real person. Could the issue perhaps be related to the article being written in Spanish? I would be grateful for any feedback that could help me improve the submission before resubmitting it. Akos kab (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you refer to Draft:Lazlo Moussong, then yes. This is the English Wikipedia; the Spanish Wikipedia can accept the draft as each Wikipedia is segregated by language. I am unsure if the Spanish Wikipedia has an equivalent to AfC, but you should start there! GGOTCC 21:29, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All right! I would actually like to have an English version of the article, so I will prepare a proper translation and submit it for review. Thank you so much for your prompt response! Akos kab (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is great! You are more then welcome. Feel free to translate the current draft, no need to start from scratch! GGOTCC 21:50, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Akos kab. I'm afraid @GGOTCC gave you bad advice at the end there. It has resulted in you creating the draft backwards.
First find the sources necessary to establish that he is notable by the standards of English Wikipedia, which are probably different from those of Spanish Wikipedia.
Then, if you can find adequate sources that each meet all the criteria in WP:42, write a summary of those sources. Your first source is too little to provide significant coverage; your second may well be a good one, but one good source is not enough - and indeed, much of your draft is unsourced. ColinFine (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is certainly true, thank you. My deeper point is that the draft can not be evaluated by any reviewer at all if they are unable to read the language and dissertain the topic. GGOTCC 02:49, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:35, 12 December 2025 review of submission by BTCmagazine

[edit]

I need suggestions for improving the article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Joseph_Tito_(author) . I have tried to meet all Wikipedia requirements and followed guidelines as best as I understand them, but some details might still be missing. I used my own knowledge of how to write a Wikipedia article, yet there may be areas that need expansion, clarification, or verification. In your opinion, what important information should be added or improved to make the article stronger and more complete? BTCmagazine (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BTCmagazine, there's a few things I would suggest you work on. First of all, make sure you're familiar with WP:BLP, which governs all references to a living person on Wikipedia. Next, read through WP:42 for information on the sort of sources you will need. Once you've done that:
  1. If you are asserting that Tito is notable as an author, you'll want to look at WP:NAUTHOR and decide which criteria you believe he satisfies. If it's 3, you will need to find independent, reliable (WP:42) reviews of his books as evidence that they're notable works. This is most important, since if Tito is not notable by Wikipedia standards, the draft will never be accepted.
  2. Make sure that every statement in your draft is sourced or else remove the statement if you have no source. For example, all of these need sources or removal: born 14 November 1979; Joseph was born in Rome, Italy. His father is Italian and his mother is Canadian. At the age of six, he relocated with his family to Toronto, Ontario.; Joseph Tito is the husband of Frank This is second-most important as adhering to BLP is absolutely vital.
  3. The minor children's names should be removed per WP:NONAME; this is a BLP issue.
  4. Proofread carefully. You have sentences such as Joseph Tito is the husband of Frank who has twin daughters, which sounds like Frank is the father of the girls, and the Canadian citizenship act [...] led to the American-born daughter of the Canadian-citizen father being born in Kenya - the citizenship act did not lead to the children's birth; there are two daughters, not one; the American-born daughter[s] cannot simultaneously be born in Kenya.
  5. Tito should be referred to by his surname (MOS:SURNAME) after the first mention of his name.
I hope that helps for starters, and happy editing! Meadowlark (talk) 07:17, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:06, 12 December 2025 review of submission by LorenzaWilkins25

[edit]

Hello, I have a draft in the Draft articles category but do not see the “Submit for review” button. My account may be too new. Can a reviewer please advise? LorenzaWilkins25 (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to Draft:Lorenza Wilkins and you may submit it, but I would recommend going to Referencing for beginners first to learn how to format references. Also know that, while not forbidden, writing about yourself is highly discouraged, please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:19, 12 December 2025 review of submission by Dsbethune

[edit]

It is commonplace for university or other research groups to make pdf copies of a publication available even in cases where the original publisher charges for that publication at its home website. Can a Wikipedia reference point to the free version or must it only point to the publisher's? Dsbethune (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A source does not need to be free to access. You only need to provide information for someone to locate it. 331dot (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! You do not need to reference content that is online. As long as the references meets WP:42, you can cite whichever version works for you. Personally, I cite the physical page numbers even if I have a pdf version of the book, but you are free to do something else. GGOTCC 22:53, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:10, 12 December 2025 review of submission by ~2025-40306-60

[edit]

help me please i have question If a citation is from printed material published 20 years ago, how does Wikipedia handle it, and will it be accepted? ~2025-40306-60 (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As long as sources meet WP:42, age or format does not matter. A book from the library, newspaper from 1970, journal article from 2000, all are acceptable. GGOTCC 23:36, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 13

[edit]

05:14, 13 December 2025 review of submission by Mr Nerd 96

[edit]

i am not sure if this page is eligible for submission as an article can someone guide me, this movie is released on 13 december 2025, i do belive it comes under notability criteria. Mr Nerd 96 (talk) 05:14, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr Nerd 96: you have submitted the draft, and it will be reviewed in due course when a reviewer gets around to it, then you'll find out whether it is accepted or not. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:58, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:25, 13 December 2025 review of submission by Pushpamwiki

[edit]

Ask advice Pushpamwiki (talk) 14:25, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pushpam, please create a userpage to introduce yourself as an editor, not an article draft. Thanks, Nil🥝 14:56, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:59, 13 December 2025 review of submission by TheRealWoofwoof

[edit]

I don't know why the submission was declined. I am a new editor, and my user page shows that I am NOT very experienced. I would like a simple explanation for the AfC submission being declined. I tried to get some sources but I'm pretty new. Thanks! TheRealWoofwoof (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TheRealWoofwoof. It looks as though the accident only had coverage from within Russia. I don't believe this has significant coverage unfortunately. 11WB (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TheRealWoofwoof, the issue is not so much that the coverage is restricted to Russia, but that the accident, like the majority of crashes, lacks sustained coverage. If reliable sources have written about the accident years after it occurred and described why this particular accident is special (database entries do not count, and community-run sites like [2] are probably not reliable), then it would likely qualify for an article. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, it's not my fault this is happening?
Thanks.
TheRealWoofwoof (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @TheRealWoofwoof.
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) 00:08, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:57, 13 December 2025 review of submission by Lprexl

[edit]

I received a notification from Wikipedia regarding my previous submission, saying that my article appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. I have revised the article to use a neutral tone and include independent, reliable sources. Does this version now comply with Wikipedia's guidelines for neutrality and verifiability? I would consider all sources reliable and independent, except for one corporate website, which I used for lack of other sources that are up to date. I am thankful for your guidance. Lprexl (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have resubmitted it, the bext reviewer will leave you feedback. We don't do pre-review reviews. 331dot (talk) 21:15, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:29, 13 December 2025 review of submission by Lehrling18

[edit]

Hello, I have created a new article on the IV Corps (Netherlands) and need help moving it to the correct Draft space for submission to AFC.

I have ensured the article includes strong secondary sources (Brongers, Oorlogsorganisatiën) to meet WP:GNG requirements. Could an editor please move the page for me and ensure the AFC submission tag is correctly applied? Thank you!

Lehrling18 (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your header so it doesn't link to a nonexistent page entitled "Request to move article to Draft:IV Corps (Netherlands)". I have moved the draft. You may directly create drafts via the Article Wizard. 331dot (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 14

[edit]

04:11, 14 December 2025 review of submission by Sammytoluwa

[edit]

Why declined my article? Sammytoluwa (talk) 04:11, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sammytoluwa, your draft has no references. Please have a read of Referencing for Beginners to learn how to use citations and add them to your draft. As it stands, the subject of your draft doesn't appear to meet our inclusion criteria for musicians. Please also see the note the reviewer left on your draft. Nil🥝 04:16, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:34, 14 December 2025 review of submission by ~2025-40411-25

[edit]

I am trying to submit a college information page, but it is not being approved. I have added multiple sources, and they are valid, so everything seems fine to me. However, I might be missing something, which is why it has not been approved yet.

I do not understand many things because I am new to submitting articles on Wikipedia. I have read many articles about how to avoid mistakes, but I still do not understand what is left to do to get it approved. please help me ~2025-40411-25 (talk) 06:34, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-40411-25 Please read, absorb, and implement what you find in Help:YFA, WP:REFB and WP:CITE, particularly that citations must be located at the facts they are used to cite.
We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:26, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have "information pages" here. We have articles, and they do not merely provide information. Wikiepedia article summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a topic. You have just summarized the offerings of the college and one minor action of a staff person which is more relevant themselves and not to the college itself. This does not establish that the college is a notable organization.
Until a few years ago, the mere existence of an educational institution was sufficient to merit it an article, but that is no longer the case, colleges are treated like any other organization. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. 331dot (talk) 10:32, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:40, 14 December 2025 review of submission by Filmybuff

[edit]

I have followed Wikipedia guidelines while creating this article. There is no promotion involved and no payment received. I am willing to rephrase the entire article if required. I would like to contribute to WikiProject Companies and request guidance on how to improve this draft.- Filmybuff (talk) 07:40, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Filmybuff Thank you for your excellent statement of intent. Please take this forward by examining the declines and acting on them 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:24, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Timtrent, Sir, thats where I am facing issue.
1. Secondary sources, I fetched.
2. Reliable sources done.
3. Removed promotional way of waiting.
Still I got rejection, Either in support topics or from mentors available. I am getting generalized guidance. Can I get specific instruction ? - Filmybuff (talk) 08:32, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
You were given specific advice, at the top of the draft(but below the pre-written messages). The vast majority of the draft just summarizes the routine business activities of the company(raising funds) and its offerings. These do not establish notability. The one thing that does aid notability is that the company got a notable award(Champion of Change), but you need to say more than "they got an award". Why did they get an award for their work with the government? Undoubtedly many hundreds if not thousands of companies do business with the Indian government, why recognize this one?
Did you ask someone from the company to upload the logo? I don't see(maybe I missed it) where you were accused of paid editing, why bring it up? 331dot (talk) 08:45, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot
1. I understood the context sir.
2. Logos, were already present. As this subject had an Wikipedia article in Hindi language. I searched in commons
3. I am very particular about paid/marketing articles. Removing the logo right now, if its surpasses the guidleines or WP:Paidediting
Meanwhile you should literally have a glance at their Hindi language article, it is written like a brochure. Really surprised how it got acceptance.
- Filmybuff (talk) 08:57, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Filmybuff The Hindi lagunage article is a freestanding article elsewhere, and we do not use it for precedent. No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy
The logo's presence is a separate matter. That is being handled on Wikimedia Commons. It has nothing to do with paid editing. It is either suitable for Commons or is not. That decision is being made there by administrators there.
Have you translated the Hindi article? If so, on the drat talk page, please deploy {{Translated page}} with all parameters filled out. That will provide attribution. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:05, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:53, 14 December 2025 review of submission by Atalyr

[edit]

Hello, My draft at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Atalyr/sandbox was declined recently. - The decline notice on the draft pge only shows the letter "t" and provides no specific reason. - My user Talk page does not have a detailed notification explaining the decline. The draft appears to have been declined by EarwigBot on November 28th, but I can't determine the specific Wikipedia policy it is failing (e.g. Notability, Promotional tone, or Sourcing). Can an experienced reviewer please look at the draft and provide the exact reason for the decline so I can make the correct improvements and resubmit? Thank you. Atalyr (talk) 09:53, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Atalyr The AI that you used to write the draft put a decline notice on it for you- it does that for some reason. No human has actually reviewed the draft. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have placed the draft at Draft:Myriam Bouchentouf and enabled you to submit it. Draft space is the preferred location for submissions; it can be accessed via the Article Wizard. Please write in your own words without using an AI(even to "polish", really).
Links to most other pages or articles on Wikipedia do not need the whole url, just the title in double brackets, like [[Draft:Myriam Bouchentouf]]. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:19, 14 December 2025 review of submission by Srilankadriversbooking

[edit]
editor indeffed 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:28, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reason for requesting assistance: Srilankadriversbooking (talk) 10:19, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Srilankadriversbooking Rejected as an advert and up for speedy deletion as an advert. Your username is highly suggestive of your status as wishing to spam your own organisation. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:23, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

12:42, 14 December 2025 review of submission by Afí-afeti

[edit]

What's wrong with the article?, Aside meeting WP:ANYBIO, with 2 national honors. Afí-afeti (talk) 12:42, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:49, 14 December 2025 review of submission by WandaL1710

[edit]
Linking this unanswered thread to the near duplicate 18:05, 14 December 2025 review of submission by WandaL1710, and closing. Please do not open multiple threads 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:41, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Could an experienced Wiki editor point to 1-2 specific examples of where/how this draft reads more like a “magazine” article and not an encyclopaedic entry? Also, please give an example or two of “peacocking” appearing in this draft. I’m not sure how to revise it given those reasons for denial. Thanks! WandaL1710 (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

16:40, 14 December 2025 review of submission by Gfroi

[edit]

I cant really understand what to put in references Gfroi (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gfroi. I am afraid that Wikipedia only hosts articles about topics that meet our strict criteria for inclusion. This Minecraft server does not. qcne (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
well u do have some wikipages for minecraft servers Gfroi (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, those are mostly servers with significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent, secondary sources. qcne (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:05, 14 December 2025 review of submission by WandaL1710

[edit]

Season’s Greetings, all! I struggle to see how my draft Wiki entry of a UK musician “reads more like a magazine article than an encyclopaedic entry” (words to that effect from the reviewer). That was the only reason given for its denial on 14/12/2025. I would like to make it acceptable, but I fail to see how the “tone” mimics a magazine, and would sure appreciate a few eyes on this draft. Many thanks, blessings! WandaL1710 (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WandaL1710 The first set of eyes you need are those of Theroadislong who reviewed it thus. Have you engaged with them yet? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:36, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WandaL1710 inappropriate tone includes “toured with many top musical acts of his day” “Cummings met many famous performers but remembers being most influenced by” “he keeps these bongos on his bedside table today” “appeared centre stage to belt the Dire Straits standards” The draft is also littered with external links which we don’t use in the body of an article. Theroadislong (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. I aim to make this entry better. Most all of the quotes you listed, above, were verifiable links/Referenced sources. But I take your point(s). Thanks for not “biting” the newbie! Cheers. WandaL1710 (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, yes in the process of contacting. I was merely intrigued by the original reviewer’s comments and what/how they came to the denial decision, and I thought it would be helpful for me, when revising, to have more “data. “ Thank you for your kind assistance. WandaL1710 (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:11, 14 December 2025 review of submission by AmongKB

[edit]

My draft was apparently banned from Wikipedia 7 months ago, but I only just made it. Is something wrong with it? AmongKB (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AmongKB please see the history of the draft you mention. Your only recorded edit that I, as a non administrator, can see is this post of yours. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:32, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is, I was making a draft for a Wikipedia entry for Dandy's World, but for some reason the draft immediately said it wasn't allowed. I checked the Wikipedia guidelines and my draft didn't break any rules. AmongKB (talk) 19:51, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AmongKB Did you happen to notice the reason? If not I doubt anyone can help with this precise problem. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:00, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult to help without knowing the exact message you saw. If you attempted to create it in article space, that would be disallowed. 331dot (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot, @AmongKB, all I can think of without additional information is a potential reference triggered the "no thank you, not this website" filter. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:08, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It says "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." I checked why this could be but I didn't see why. AmongKB (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AmongKB The draft does currently say that. But your account has not edited that draft, nor are you prevented from doing so. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't ever edit it. I created the draft, but I'm assuming someone else did before me. AmongKB (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't create the draft because it was already created. You are free to edit the draft, if you can change it to address the concerns of the reviewer, you can ask the rejecting reviewer to reconsider. 331dot (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok, thank you. AmongKB (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:22, 14 December 2025 review of submission by Ernest S Flagler-Mitchell

[edit]

Hello, I previously attempted to create a biography draft that was rejected. I’ve stepped back and prepared a neutral fact summary with independent sources. I’m looking for guidance or a neutral editor willing to review whether this subject may meet notability and, if so, help rewrite it appropriately. Ernest S Flagler-Mitchell (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ernest S Flagler-Mitchell Every reviewer is neutral. We do not, however, do pre creation reviews. We review post submission. Please create, and resubmit. May I suggest you read this essay before touching your keyboard in edit mode.
Your neutral fact summary is less important than references which meet this set of tough criteria:
For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
It seems you are embarking on your autobiography. less than 5% of people are capable of writing one which passes WP:BIO. I hope you are part of the 5% 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:29, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:59, 14 December 2025 review of submission by Камиль Серый 171

[edit]

My submission of the article was declined because its references don't meet criteria of WP:GNG. Could you explain which references should I remove/replace and which parts of the article cause the problems? Камиль Серый 171 (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you describe your connection to this man, as you took his picture? 331dot (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am a student of Moscow State University and I participate in the project which aim is to create articles about russian chemists. This man is a professor at my university. I took this photo at an interview with him. Камиль Серый 171 (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:04, 14 December 2025 review of submission by Jvbpds

[edit]

I would like to know why my draft continues to be declined. What criteria were not met in the article? Jvbpds (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is something unclear about what the reviewers have said? 331dot (talk) 20:06, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, @331dot, few reviewers offered anything beyond the standard decline response (which provides no specification of the problem). Furthermore, all the issues raised were duly corrected, as can be seen with a simple check of the draft; but even so, the last reviewer declined it twice, and on both occasions provided no explanation. Jvbpds (talk) 01:13, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For an album to be notable the draft/article generally has to include reviews by professional reviewers; the "critical reception" section is empty. 331dot (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the "critical reception" section only has an infobox and no text does not necessarily imply a disagreement with the standards of notability. As can be seen in the article "Cursed (Paleface Swiss album)", this pattern is repeated, which did not prevent the article from being created. Jvbpds (talk) 01:30, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jvbpds: Except for the very pesky fact that the Cursed article was never drafted, and was instead created directly in mainspace by an autoconfirmed account almost a year ago today. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 08:27, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not an automatic ticket to an article- there still must be text within the article that summarizes sources. It's not enough to just say it meets the criteria. As J.C. noted, not all articles go through this process, so it is possible that inappropriate articles exist, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate articles. See other stuff exists. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:38, 14 December 2025 review of submission by VictoriaGaleno

[edit]

I'm new to this and would like what am I doing wrong VictoriaGaleno (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use AI to generate articles, and please declare if you have a conflict of interest regarding the subject matter. guninvalid (talk) 23:17, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @VictoriaGaleno. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 13:12, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 15

[edit]

00:18, 15 December 2025 review of submission by BilltheBison

[edit]

How do I make my references in-depth, reliable, and strictly independent of the subject? How do I add secondary references for my article? BilltheBison (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can't "make" your references those things. They either are, or they're not. 331dot (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

00:59, 15 December 2025 review of submission by RasikaofVR

[edit]

Please let me know what needs to be fixed. Thank you. I have referenced all that is required not able to put a finger on what needs to changed/fixed or removed. Would be of great help if you could point me. Thank you RasikaofVR (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As stated by the reviewer, they don't seem to meet WP:NSINGER. The awards don't count towards notability as they seem to lack articles about themselves(like Grammy Award). 331dot (talk) 01:14, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you but in Indian carnatic music these awards do hold a signigicant status, but let me know if i need to remove any of them. Whatever is being added as citation are from reliable source & not self published or interviews RasikaofVR (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that the awards are not important, but until there are articles about them they don't contribute to notability. You don't necessarily need to remove them, but they don't aid notability. Which of the notable single criteria do you claim this singer meets? 331dot (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry didnt understand what you mean by - Which of the notable single criteria do you claim this singer meets? kindly explain RasikaofVR (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The singer meets the notable criterion of recognition by major sabhas, as evidenced by repeated invitations to perform at the Madras Music Academy during the December season, which is widely regarded as a benchmark of excellence in Carnatic music. RasikaofVR (talk) 01:38, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria are listed at WP:NSINGER. A singer needs to be shown to meet at least one of them. You seem to be asserting #7? 331dot (talk) 01:49, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
7 & 10 - she has performed Devotional national channel Tirupati Tirumala Devasthanam (TTD),
11 - she is an A-graded AIR which is national Radio channel RasikaofVR (talk) 01:56, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you associated with her in some way? Your username says "of VR". I haven't examined all of the provided sources, but some don't mention her(seeming only to document specific pieces of information) or mention her only briefly. You have 27 sources which is probably too many. I would rewrite it to only summarize details of her life and things that show she meets the criteria for an article. Critical reviews by professional critics are good. 331dot (talk) 02:03, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not related to her just created the email ID Rasikas of VR which mean Fan of VR.
Kindly give me some examples for this - "I would rewrite it to only summarize details of her life and things that show she meets the criteria for an article." Thank you & appreciate your help RasikaofVR (talk) 02:10, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Instagram is not an appropriate source(user-generated) and should be removed(along with what it cites unless you can find another source). Sources 7 and 8 don't seem to even mention her. 331dot (talk) 08:59, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:18, 15 December 2025 review of submission by DrakshayaniKalyani

[edit]

are the references counted depending on the content length?

I have added reference to most of the conten published online . DrakshayaniKalyani (talk) 08:18, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not on content length, but on whether they are independent, reliable, and show significant coverage. Nil🥝 08:22, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:24, 15 December 2025 review of submission by Rsenij

[edit]

I've uploaded talk section and labelled this article as a translation of an article from Russian Wikipedia. Is there a specific reason this draft cannot be published? Rsenij (talk) 08:24, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsenij The draft will only be reviewed once you submit it. Pre-reviews are not undertaken. While awaiting review. It is currently located at Draft:Alexei Bogdanov (chemist and molecular biologist) to disambiguate fromthe existing article on a different perosn.
In the meantime please do continue to work on the draft. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:04, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've submiited the draft several times, reviewers claim that I'm not using footnotes. I don't understand whether it's forbidden to use link from a Russian language interview as a source for an English Wiki or is there a problem with the current version of the ru wiki article which has not yet been reviewed. Thank you. Rsenij (talk) 10:17, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not said you're not using footnotes, your sources are not independent reliable sources; interviews are the person speaking about themselves. 331dot (talk) 10:53, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Rsenij. Each Wikipedia is a separate project, with its own standards and procedures. Just because an article is acceptable in ruwiki does not necessarily mean that it will be acceptable in enwiki. ColinFine (talk) 13:20, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:27, 15 December 2025 review of submission by Eransharv

[edit]

Thank you for your feedback on my previous submissions! I have completely rewritten the article from scratch, basing it solely on independent, reliable sources such as The New York Times, The Jerusalem Post, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, DownBeat, JazzTimes, London Jazz News, Arts Fuse, Stereophile, BBC Music, and NPR-affiliated outlets. I have avoided using any self-published or institutional sources for notability and have focused on verifiable coverage and critical reviews. The new draft is available at User:Eransharv/Barak Mori . Please feel free to review it and let me know if you have any further suggestions. I would appreciate it if you could delete the previous rejected draft, as this is a completely new version. Thank you for your time and guidance! Eransharv (talk) 10:27, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eransharv Please don't use multiple forums to seek assistance, as this duplicates effort.
If you have rewritten the draft, you should take your sandbox text and replace the existing draft text with it(though you must leave the previous decline messages) before resubmitting it. We don't do pre-review reviews. 331dot (talk) 10:29, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:11, 15 December 2025 review of submission by Terrell52

[edit]

I need help adding citations to the references.

I'm almost done creating this page, and I think this is the last step.

Could really use a break, because I've been trying to create this page for nearly a year. Terrell52 (talk) 11:11, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the article is still uncited. As this draft is about a living person, each claim needs to be directly cited to a source. You can read Help:Referencing for beginners if you are having issues creating references, although you are the one who is expected to find them. GGOTCC 12:03, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:26, 15 December 2025 review of submission by Bigsamfc

[edit]

Why was declined and help me please Bigsamfc (talk) 11:26, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which draft are you referring too? GGOTCC 12:01, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please I need help I want to create article and I don’t know how to create it please help me please ~2025-40882-77 (talk) 12:50, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @~2025-40882-77.
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.
Also, if you have come to Wikipedia specifically to create a particular article, please read WP:PROUD and WP:YESPROMO. ColinFine (talk) 13:23, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Help:Getting started and Help:My first article are a good start! GGOTCC 14:31, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:21, 15 December 2025 review of submission by Hellowikieditor

[edit]

Hello, I would like to ask for advice before resubmitting this article.

I understand that I need quality references to support this post. I have just added a reference from MusicBrainz to support Neil Lockwood's songwriting and singing on an album by the multi-platinum artist Bonnie Tyler. Is this a quality citation?

His notable career highlights include being the lead singer of ELO Part II, part of Alan Parsons' (who has sold more than 10 million career albums) recording and touring band, as well as being very involved in the making and touring of 2 Pete Bardens albums, whose original band Camel were a significant prog rock band from the 1980s. How can I emphasise his connection sufficiently? Because he is not the leading name in these acts, it will be unlikely that i can find him mentioned by name other than in album notes.

I have found a Dutch music site that reviewed Alan Parsons' The Time Machine, that mentions Lockwood twice. - "No Future in the Past is another song on which Neil Lockwood does the vocals. It's a nice rock song with good vocal harmonies and backing vocals by Chris Rainbow and Stuart Elliott. Great toe-tapper !" - https://dprp.net/reviews/1999/011#time -- Is this reference permissible, please?

Thank you for any support you can offer. 

Hellowikieditor (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hellowikieditor Let us look at this anlther way. For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
What you need to do is to compare your referencing with those very tough criteria. Rather than giving you a fish I am teaching you to fish.
I think you have probably written what you wish to say about the subject, and then sought references after writing in order to cite what you say. This is WP:BACKWARDS. Instead, please read this essay, one of several which outline a process which will succeed assuming the subject to be notable. If it isn't notable then no amount of editing can help. We use the references in the process described in the essay to determine and verify notability. No suitable references means the subject is not notable, and it is time to stop. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:28, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:27, 15 December 2025 review of submission by JustinMicroScooters

[edit]

Good morning,

I am struggling to understand what parts of the article are being flagged as "written by an LLM", and I'm unsure how to address that. I've rewritten this article multiple times to try to shake that impression, but it doesn't seem to be working.

Writing in the required unbiased tone, limits word choice, and repetition happens because I have to avoid 'marketing' language. If you have any specific advice on how to improve this article, I'm more than happy to follow it to the letter, but currently I have more questions than answers from the support documents previously linked to me.

On adding references, I can add more but I've tried to avoid links that claim us as the "best" and such, as I worried that they would be flagged as promotional. We're consistently talked about in the toy space, and by major publications, so if there's a way we can demonstrate ourselves as the market leader we are without being flagged for promotional content, I'm also 'all ears' there.

Again, I want to emphasize that my intention in creating this article is to establish ourselves as we are, alongside our manufacturing partner (Micro Mobility System) and peers (Micro Scooters - UK) on Wikipedia, while following the rules for publication as closely as possible.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

Justin JustinMicroScooters (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This "I want to emphasize that my intention in creating this article is to establish ourselves as we are, alongside our manufacturing partner (Micro Mobility System) and peers (Micro Scooters - UK) on Wikipedia" is a major red flag. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:34, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. I understand the concern with conflict of interest, and I’ve  tried to make my position at Micro clear on my talk page to follow policy and provide transparency.
I can see why you felt my earlier wording raised a red flag. My aim is simply to neutrally summarize what independent, reliable sources have already published about Micro.
If any parts of the draft read as overtly promotional or feel like LLM-generated content, I am more than wiling to revise them. What I was hoping for was guidance on which areas need attention so I can bring this draft into line with Wikipedia’s content policies. JustinMicroScooters (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft tells us everything that you would like the public to know about your company, it is just advertising. The history section is primary sourced and the rest is poorly sourced. Theroadislong (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JustinMicroScooters Please don't use a chatbot to communicate with us. A number of AI-detectors flag that reply as 100% AI generated. qcne (talk) 19:09, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JustinMicroScooters Your AI chatbot tells me that it is WP:NOTHERE. Do you have anything you, the human, wish to add? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:38, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be absolutely clear, I am a human being, and I wrote the questions above without the aid or intervention of any LLM/chatbot. If my replies sound overly formal, I apologize for adding confusion. I was trying to be polite and succinct, and if that comes across as AI, I suppose it's something I'll have to be more aware of moving forward.
I write formally when I'm asking any sort of question because I worry that my ADHD 'stream-of-consciousness' might come across as flippant or meandering. To avoid wasting your time, I wrote a response this morning and then edited it to hell and back trying to ensure it only covered the specific questions I had. It would seem that was a mistake.
I am **genuinely** trying to create an article that fits the Wikipedia model. I am not trying to pull a fast one, nor am I trying to put bot-content on Wikipedia. From my initial reading of the (extensive) rules around Wikipedia articles months ago, I thought I would be writing a "first draft" that someone would eventually pick up to make into a publishable article. When I realized that wasn't how things worked, I tried to put something together that was "just the facts" and I can see now that what I put together is not good enough as is. That's fair! It's also the type of criticism I'm happy to take, because I don't write on Wikipedia daily so it's not shocking to me that I'm not terribly good at it.
At the end of the day, I apologize that my lack of understanding has ruffled feathers. All I can ask is how do I move forward from here productively? I don't want to waste anyone's time, and don't want to escalate (what I assumed was) a minor situation into some sort of conflict. JustinMicroScooters (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting us know, @JustinMicroScooters. Three AI detectors flagged your reply as "100% AI generated", but neurodiversity - as someone on the spectrum myself - can mimic the typing style of chatbots. Also, I will point out one of your sources has the "source=chatgpt" flag at the end of the URL.
What are the three and only three sources that each meet Wikipedia:GOLDENRULE? Exclude churnalism; press releases; interviews with staff; routine business coverage like acquisitions, funding rounds, hiring and firings. Do sources that meet the criteria in that link exist? If so, post them here so I can assess. If not: then it's a good indication that this company does not meet our criteria for inclusion at this time. qcne (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JustinMicroScooters A practical suggestion since you are in need and are asking, is to read this essay. It may mean that you discards all the you have written and start again, following a basic, simple process. Indeed, you truly should start again. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:22, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:58, 15 December 2025 review of submission by ~2025-40948-68

[edit]

IT'S EVIL AND SCARY.

IT'S GOING TO JUMPSCARE YOU.

IT WILL CHASE YOU FOR ETERNITY. ~2025-40948-68 (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oh no! qcne (talk) 19:07, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:59, 15 December 2025 review of submission by Youreironic

[edit]

"This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources"

Is that specifically for Reception is the History part good does Modrinths news itself not count and need another citation? Youreironic (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Youreironic We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
We have no interest in what Modrinth says about itself, neither from its own sources, nor on any PR site. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:12, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:18, 15 December 2025 review of submission by Shah198

[edit]

I am asking for help to improve the Wikipedia article on Abir Abdullah, a Bangladeshi photojournalist. I want to make sure the article follows Wikipedia rules, is written in a neutral way, and uses reliable sources to show his notability. Shah198 (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Shah198 Others will doubtless give you additional comments. Mine is "Please do not decorate drafts or articles with pictures you have found on the internet." This one is proposed for deletion on Wikimedia Commons as a copyright violation. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:33, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:46, 15 December 2025 review of submission by Th4shinee

[edit]

It is telling me to get better sources, but the reason I am making a Wikipedia page is to get those better sources, so I dont know what websites to put. Th4shinee (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Th4shinee. That doesn't make sense: a Wikipedia article is only a summary of existing, mostly secondary sources. If there are no sources that meet our requirement, an article is not possible. qcne (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can't use Wikipedia to generate notability- you must already be notable in order to merit a Wikipedia article(not a "page"). Wikipedia is the last place to write about a topic, not the first, because Wikipedia can only summarize what others have already said. I suggest you go on about the work of your career and allow an article to organically develop the usual way- when an independent editor takes note of coverage of you in independent reliable sources and chooses to write about you, showing how you are a notable musician.
Please see the autobiography policy, as well as the reasons an article is not necessarily desirable. 331dot (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You fundamentally misunderstand the point of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an enclopedia that complies existing information into one loctation. This is the last place something would be written about. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a place for WP:PROMOTION. GGOTCC 20:53, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1327719477"