Your recent article submission toArticles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Pythoncoder were:
Your draft shows signs of having been generated by alarge language model, such as ChatGPT. Their outputs usually have multiple issues that prevent them from meeting our guidelines on writing articles. These include:
This submission appears toread more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from aneutral point of view, and should refer to a range ofindependent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia'sverifiability policy and thenotability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmitafter they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go toDraft:Dealfront and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned andmay be deleted.
Hello,Df2025!Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at theArticles for creation help desk. If you have anyother questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at theTeahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!—pythoncoder (talk |contribs)12:03, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HelloDf2025! The thread you created at theTeahouse,Review thinks LLM, but it's all me baby..., has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.
My name isJahnavi and I am a design researcher at the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF). The Language and Product Localization Team is conductinga study on how editors create new articles or add new sections to existing articles on Wikipedia. We’d also like you to explore some design concepts and provide feedback. Based on your experience, we believe you would be a valuable participant in this study and would like to invite you to take part in an interview to share your insights on creating new sections or articles on Wikipedia.
This study is taking place between 23rd Sept - 6th Oct. The interview lasts about 75 minutes and is conducted remotely over Google Meet in English. Please note that you would be required to share your screen to demonstrate your process and explore the design concepts. We can provide live interpretation into your preferred language upon request. We are pleased to offer a digital thank you gift through our partner service,Tremendous, for completing the interview.
If you would like to participate in an interview, please complete thisshort form. I will contact you using the email you provide in the form with instructions on how to participate.
If you have any questions or concerns about this research, please feel free to ask me. I look forward to hearing from you,
Hi, I'm afraid I am on annual leave and won't be able to participate this time, but thank you for reaching out - I look forward to experiencing the continued development of the wiki UI!
Your recent article submission toArticles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Niafied were:
This draft's references do not show that the subjectqualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
Make sure you add references that meetall four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn aboutmistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
This submission appears toread more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from aneutral point of view, and should refer to a range ofindependent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia'sverifiability policy and thenotability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmitafter they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go toDraft:Dealfront and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned andmay be deleted.
First, thanks for taking the time to review my article so quickly. I'm really interested in learning how to publish a good article of Wiki, but am obviously still going wrong somewhere. I've spentweeks months reading other wiki pages trying to organically learn and recognise good practice - which is what I'd thought I'd recreated on this submission.
I've read dozens of pages that relate to the subject matter and ensured they were all independent of the subject - even going as far as using some reputable competitors reviews - but the feedback states "multiple sources that arein-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements),reliable,secondary andstrictly independent of the subject"... can you point out where I'm going wrong please as I thought I'd now ticked these boxes. Nothing I've referenced has been created by me, the company 'Dealfront', it's former entities 'Leadfeeder' or 'Echobot' or any employee or former employee (as far as I have been able to verify).
Secondly, I've taken out all promotional language to avoid the post sounding like an advertisement, and have stuck strictly to facts (that I've then tried to verify with the independent sources)... where am I still going wrong? Is it perhaps the 'Awards' section? As an encyclopidic article, I felt this would be allowed as it's simply stating facts again (with evidence), but am I not to say anything positive? That seems to go against what others have managed to get published on their pages, but am happy to revise if I can understand where the problem still lies.
Hey, thank you so much for the additional feedback - super grateful! Was not aware the a press release from an independent source was still not acceptable (obviously will need to re-review all my sources!) Thanks againDf2025 (talk)11:39, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
