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.
Hi! My article has been waiting for review for around three weeks — could someone please take a look? In the meantime I've edited and improved my draft to meet notability + neutrality guidelines. I edited it based off previous reviewers' suggestions (rewrote sentences that were AI-modified, something I overlooked when I used AI to check for grammar, as it also reworded some sentences). I used third-party sources from news outlets like BusinessWorld, ABS-CBN, Philippine Inquirer, etc. Could someone kindly take a look or update on the article's status? I'd appreciate any feedback and comments as well, so I can incorporate these and hopefully receive final approval.
@M.reyes1987: we don't fast-track reviews by request; your draft will be reviewed when a reviewer gets around to it. As it says on top of the draft, reviews"may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,080 pending submissions waiting for review." Please be patient. --DoubleGrazing (talk)06:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article has almost no independent reliable secondary sources and none in "career"'. Even after separating the primary and secondary sources, almost all the "secondary sources" are articles by the university and one is to a list of patents (so essentially primary sources).
There seem to be 3 heads under which the article might qualify for presumed notability under WP:Academic.
Significant impact in their scholarly discipline is not, however, demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
So the questions I'd like help with are:
is a fellow of theAmerican Society for Microbiology grounds alone for notability, ie is it a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association or a major scholarly society
is the University of Alabama at Birmingham: a "major" institution (for the purpose of the distinguished professor criteria)?
Hi @Mmemaigret: I'd say as long as you can verify those two fellowships and the named chair (primary sources are enough), that should be enough to satisfy NACADEMIC. You'd certainly need to tag it for peacocky language and insufficient referencing, though. --DoubleGrazing (talk)07:07, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm reaching out to follow up on our draft titled Draft: Justin Loke. We incorporated the reviewers’ suggestions and submitted the updated version around two months ago. Since then, we haven’t received any further feedback or updates. We’re eager to move this forward and would really appreciate it if someone could take a look at the revised draft, or let us know if anything else is needed on our end to proceed. If it’s ready, we’d love to begin the next steps toward final approval and publication.
My article has been declined, citing "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability 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."
However, all I have written is using publicly available content published by credible sources, including Forbes, Nasdaq, the United Nations, and others. I have included proper citations/references of these credible sources in almost every sentence. Could you please pinpoint the exact sentence where it sounds like an advertisement, so that I can modify the same? I can see a similar article being approved and published by Wikipedia editors previouslyhttps://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verified_Market_ResearchParikshitdas91 (talk)04:06, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Parikshitdas91: The Spanish Wikipedia is a completely different beast from the English-language Wikipedia; I'm sceptical they have the exact same drafting and review processes we have. As for your article... good god,you've overkilled it.
Hi @Pawssum mobile vets, having a quick read, the two main issues are that the draft relies mostly onWP:PRIMARY sources, and that it comes across asWP:PROMO for Pawssum.
@Teri liew: we don't do pre-reviews (which are basically just normal reviews) here at the help desk. If you feel you have sufficiently addressed the earlier decline reasons, you can resubmit the draft, that way you will get a full review in due course. --DoubleGrazing (talk)06:54, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IP editor (I assume Teri liew? If so, please remember to log in!), I'll go over your first five sources and compare them againstWP:42 - this is our 'golden rule' for sources, and ideally you want every source to meet all three criteria there. To show that someonequalifies for a Wikipedia article, you need at least three sources that meet WP:42 and can point to which of the criteria inWP:BIO orWP:GNG you're relying on.
Business Times #1 is only a brief mention, not significant coverage;
I would strongly suggest going through your draft, assessing all your sources againstWP:42, and removing any that don't qualify. You will also have to remove any information that is sourced only to these weak references. If necessary, you can use a small number ofWP:PRIMARY sources for basic information like name, birthdate, etc. A few really good WP-42 compliant sources are much better than lots of weak sources.Meadowlark (talk)01:38, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Meadowlark - thank you for your kind guidance. the challenge about the Singapore main daily Business Times online platform is that you need to pay for subscription to get full article unless the stories already were with free access. What can i do in this instance ? I also thought that press releases from government agencies such as the Economic Development Board (EDB) would be reliable sources ? Singapore Business Review is an objective publication but I find that they do churn out stories as per media releases for those they do not add value to. I have deleted quite a number of references which are no longer valid as per guidance.Teri liew (talk)02:23, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Teri liew. Paywalled sources are acceptable, if they arereliable sources; but you may end up waiting longer for a reviewer who can read them. SeeWP:PAYWALL.
Singapore Business Review does not appear to have been discussed atWP:RSN; but from your dseciption, it would not be accepted as reliable.
Press releases from government are usually reliable, but they are almost alwaysprimary, and so do not contribute to establishing notability.
A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have independent chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and not much else. If few or no commentators have done so, or have not done so great enough depth to base an article on, then no article is possible.ColinFine (talk)12:37, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I recently received feedback that my article on SoftNet Technologies Limited is not adequately supported by reliable sources and that it reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia entry.
I would appreciate some clarification on this. Are all the sources I used considered unreliable, or are only some of them problematic? Additionally, I’d be grateful for any guidance on how to adjust the article’s tone to make it more neutral and suitable for Wikipedia’s standards.
The draft just tells about the business activities of the company and its offerings. This is promotional here(WP:YESPROMO). A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independentreliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets thespecial Wikipedia definition of a notable company. This should not include staff interviews, press releases, the mere reporting of routine business activities, orprimary sources. Awards do not contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article(likeNobel Peace Prize orAcademy Award).331dot (talk)08:22, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
11:41, 22 October 2025 review of submission by O S Prasanth
I have fully rewritten the draftDraft:Satish Chandra Jha in compliance with the feedback received earlier. All AI-generated or speculative content has been removed, and the article now relies solely on verifiable information from reliable, independent secondary sources, including:
The Times of India
The Indian Express
The Telegraph India
Live Hindustan
Prabhat Khabar
Official Government of Bihar documents (Education Department orders and appointments archived on official/state websites)
The tone is now neutral, factual, and sourced as perWP:V andWP:RS. Please consider this version for re-review underWP:BLP andWP:NPOL criteria.
We don't do on-demand reviews here at the help desk. You have resubmitted the draft, and it will be reviewed in due course once a reviewer gets around to it.
Don't us an AI to talk to us.Times of India is questionable reliability (seeWP:TIMESOFINDIA) and doesn't do the article any favors. You were already told this in an AFC comment in the draft some days ago, and yet you haven't fixed it. ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)14:50, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@O S Prasanth No amount of editing can conjure notability up where none exists. Their career may have been excellent, but public servants are not generally notable. I have rejected the draft to save you from a load of work and heartache. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸09:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
11:58, 22 October 2025 review of submission by Le gen dary tlo
Hello, my draft about Nigerian Afrobeat artist Le gen dary (Meshach Akhuetiemhen) was declined for notability. I would like advice on how to improve the article so it meets Wikipedia’s notability requirements for musicians. The artist has released an EP (Roots and Rhythm, 2025) and has been featured in several online articles and press releases. Could you please guide me on what types of reliable sources or references I need to add, and how to properly format them?Le gen dary tlo (talk)11:58, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, my draft about Nigerian Afrobeat artist Le gen dary (Meshach Akhuetiemhen) was declined for “not sufficiently notable.”I would like guidance on how to improve it so it meets Wikipedia’s notability requirements for musicians.The artist released an EP titled Roots and Rhythm in 2025 and has been covered in online news articles and music blogs.Could someone please explain what kind of reliable, independent sources I need to add or how to format them properly?Thank you for your help.Le gen dary tlo (talk)12:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft was wholly promotional and has been deleted. "Rising" musicians almost never merit articles; a musician must have already arrived and receive coverage in independentreliable sources that shows how they meet at least one aspect ofthe special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician.
Writing about yourself is ill advised, please see theautobiography policy. I suggest that you go on about your career as if Wikipedia did not exist; once you are truly notable someone independent of you will write about you.331dot (talk)12:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
13:23, 22 October 2025 review of submission by 2601:282:2:A8B0:F0EB:34B2:290:E327
I don't know how this page keeps getting denied, specifically for the reasons listed. Especially as similar pages like this one exist:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NewStore.
Rejection is typically the end of the line for a draft. If you have fundamentally changed the draft to address the concerns of prior reviews, you should first attempt to appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly and ask them to reconsider.331dot (talk)19:50, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have already sent a message to the editorUser:Seawolf35 who had rejected it but did not receive any response. I have now added independent and reliable sources to this draft. But even now people are commenting on this draft that the sources are not reliable and independent. Please help me. All the sources I have added are from Indian news agencies likeAmar Ujala,Hindustan newspaper and Amrit Vichar newspaper. All sources are independent and reliable.BrownCanary61 (talk)06:01, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EditorGenomics2025 I have left you a comment to assist you prior tp your first review. Bizarrely this posted first for @331dot. I have removed the notification form their user talk page, made an edit to the template they added, and placed the notification on your user talk page. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸21:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The submission of my article was declined due to the existence of the "Metalloproteinase" Wikipedia article. However, I feel that my page is very different as it is much more specialized, detailing a specific subclass of enzyme, compared to the more general overview of Metalloproteinase as described in this other article. I was hoping you could provide info regarding what specifically in my article is too similar to this other article that is preventing it from being accepted. Thank you.EthK34 (talk)00:14, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EthK34 Please consult your course tutor, as requested on your user talk page,if this is part of your WikiEd course. If the draft is important to your gradeplease do nothing to prejudice that grade.
With respect to the article and the draft, we do not use Draft space to prepare replacement articles. if you wish to editMetalloproteinase please go ahead and edit it. By this Ido not mean you should make a wholesale replacement. What you should do is to enhance it with properly referenced material where it is susceptible to enhancement. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸08:35, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
00:20, 23 October 2025 review of submission by KennethBaclawski
I received an email that I or someone on my behalf has tried to create a Wikipedia page with title "Washington Academy of Sciences". I have not tried to do this. I am on the Board of Managers of the Washington Academy of Sciences. What should I do about someone trying to create a Wikipedia page on my behalf?KennethBaclawski (talk)00:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @KennethBaclawski, and welcome to Wikipedia! You do not need to do anything - but I would be very wary of people contacting you about this draft, or indeed about Wikipedia in general, as there are many scammers who will try to get money out of you. Please seeWP:SCAM for more details, and report anyone who attempts to scam you using the information on that page. Best wishes,Meadowlark (talk)01:44, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@KennethBaclawski if you look at the draft you can see that it was created byDrabmuh. You will see that they have commented on their relationship in a discussion on their user talk page. It appears likely that they are known to you and you to them since they and you have each declared a relationship with the organisation.
Please use normal caution; this is the internet. While we have no reason to believe nor to disbelieve either of you, anyone can say that they are anyone, so it is up to you and to them to check each other's bona fides. I say this without intending to cast aspersions on either of you, and in the hope that you see that with clarity. Please, however, SeeWP:OUTING and act with public awareness of privacy.
Both parties do need to be aware ofWP:SCAM. Money should not be solicited nor change hands. I am not suggesting that this has been the case here.
Note, please, that anyone may create an article about any topic on Wikipedia provided it meets our acceptance criteria. The creation of a draft or an article should be of no concern to you, but a simple matter of pleasant surprise that one may be forthcoming. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸08:49, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
08:29, 23 October 2025 review of submission by Kushal079
@Kushal079: we don't do on-demand reviews here at the help desk. You have submitted the draft, and it is awaiting review. Please be patient. As it says on top of the draft,"This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,093 pending submissions waiting for review." --DoubleGrazing (talk)08:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am creating a draft article about Dr. Ashwin Porwal, an Indian colorectal surgeon based in Pune. The draft covers his biography, career, and innovations in anorectal surgery.
I am seeking guidance because the previous submissions were not accepted. I would like feedback on whether the current references demonstrate sufficient independent coverage to meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria for biographies of living persons, and advice on improving the draft to make it acceptable for Wikipedia.
Current references include coverage from The Indian Express, Times of India, India Today, Asia Book of Records, and an international patent.Hhc rajdeep (talk)08:38, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hhc rajdeep: we don't do pre-reviews here at the help desk, but I can tell you that the sources currently cited do not establish notability, because they are the subject commenting on things (plus that one patent citation, which contributes nothing).
@Hhc rajdeep You have not done sufficient research. I suggest you readthis essay, which has a process for researching and storyboarding a draft. Finding references whcih verify notability is the only place to start. Writing the draft is the final task in an article creation process. We are not looking for a great swathe of text, nor a huge number of references. We are looking for a precisely written draft from excellent references, neither too many too few. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸09:43, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hhc rajdeep: you will need to show that the subject meets the general notability guidelineWP:GNG, or possibly the one for academicsWP:NPROF. However, please be aware that the vast majority of surgeons and physicians are not notable, so you may well be on a hiding to nothing. My local hospital is a large teaching hospital of one of the top-3 medical schools in the world, and I am almost certain none of their surgeons have Wikipedia articles, or at most a few might do, but they are likely to have knight-/damehoods or other significant honours and/or senior positions at the university. --DoubleGrazing (talk)09:46, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hhc rajdeep I wonder whether you read what I have said to you. My guidance to you is the same. The same guidance is valid for any article creation. To help you, here is what I said:
You have not done sufficient research. I suggest you readthis essay, which has a process for researching and storyboarding a draft. Finding references whcih verify notability is the only place to start. Writing the draft is the final task in an article creation process. We are not looking for a great swathe of text, nor a huge number of references. We are looking for a precisely written draft from excellent references, neither too many too few.
@Hhc rajdeep I see you are creating a walled garden of drafts to promoteAshwin Porwal and his clinic. In June you inserted many promotional paragraphs into mainspace articles seeking to promote the clinic and Porwal. This failed and you received a number of warnings.DoubleGrazing,331dot, and I have tried to assist you, but I am now certain that you atWP:NOTHERE. The declaration of paid editing is not a licence to promote the organisations who are paying you. You have stretched my good faith beyond its elastic limit. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸17:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention to promote or advertise the company or the Dr. I have read the sources and I am grateful for the help. I will check notability, proper articles and references and then get back to editing. Sorry for any trouble.Hhc rajdeep (talk)07:50, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re Reliable Sources Ive quoted the Book the world record is published in and provided copies of the documents. What other evidence do you require? I have some congratulatory notes from different organisations, but I would have thought the Book was sufficient?2A0A:EF40:1624:B301:157A:9166:7446:888D (talk)12:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you are the creator of the draft, remember to log in when posting. As you took all the images, please disclose your connection to this event, seeWP:COI.
It would help a great deal is the draft had not been AI generated. it has all the hallmarks of AI generation, and needs to be written by a human being.
I want to upload a biography of someone notable here in Doha. I really want to publish an article about him. Please help me craft an articleJasxbaguio (talk)12:58, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I saw you deleted a draft I created about Dr. Devesh Chaturvedi, an IAS Officer. He holds a really high, significant position in Govt. of India. I understand you might not be aware of this but it was just a draft I made and I was still editing it. Wikipedia told me I can edit drafts and review them based on the submissions and comments left by reviewers. Why would you DELETE it? It has literally been 24 hours and it was not even published. I will now have to recreate the draft, I can't even find a way to reuse the details from the previous drafts.Dr.DeveshChaturvedi (talk)13:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First, you are speaking about Dr. Chaturvedi as if you are not him, but you are using his name as your username. You shouldn't be doing that unless you are him. If you are not him, you need to immediately request a change of username viaSpecial:GlobalRenameRequest orWP:CHUS.
You disclosed a COI on the draft itself; please also do so on your user page for better visibility, seeWP:COI. A photo used in your draft says it is a work of the Indian government; if you are employed by the Indian government, the Terms of Use require you to declare as a paid editor, seeWP:PAID.
@Dr.DeveshChaturvedi: it was purely promotional, with zero indication that the subject isnotable, and completely unreferenced as well. In any case, autobiographies are very strongly discouraged, seeWP:AUTOBIO. If you wish to tell the world about yourself and your exploits, you need to do that on a different platform, such as LinkedIn. --DoubleGrazing (talk)14:08, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
15:44, 23 October 2025 review of submission by 64.8.144.211
You can't, it has been rejected. It's a single sentence that has no sources. Writing a new article is the most difficult task on Wikipedia, please get some experience editing before attempting it. SeeYour First Article.331dot (talk)15:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
17:54, 23 October 2025 review of submission by 2001:579:2430:3710:5D7C:E5EC:7C00:5D57
This article satisfiesWP:GNG with significant coverage in independent reliable sources (Playbill, IBDB, BroadwayWorld, Palm Beach Post) documenting Broadway credits with Al Pacino/Kathleen Turner and regional premieres, plusWP:PROF#C1 as UF associate professor with extensive theatre scholarship. All claims verified via primary (IBDB) and secondary sources. Ready for mainspace.
Please, there seems no suitable reason to continue denial of this article as there are similar articles published with not even half the notability presented here. I urge publication of this as submitted, or any suggestions that will help me achieve this goal. Thank you so much for consideration.2001:579:2430:3710:5D7C:E5EC:7C00:5D57 (talk)17:54, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I’m reaching out regarding our submission titled Draft:Paystand. It has been more than 30 days since we submitted the article, and we have not yet received a review or response. We would appreciate any update on its current status or next steps.
We’re happy to provide any additional information if needed.
Hello @JValle21. Who is "we"? Accounts can only be used by one person. If you are employed by this company youmust declare this by following the instructions atWikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Failure to do so is a breach of our Terms and Conditions.
@JValle21: disregarding the pointless resubmission just a moment ago, this draft was most recently submitted on 1 Oct, which is c. 3 weeks ago. It will be reviewed in due course, once a reviewer gets around to it. Please be patient. --DoubleGrazing (talk)18:25, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This page's creator also submittedpt:Jorge Patrão to Portuguese WIkipedia mainspace. I don't speak Portuguese (though I can read it a bit because of its similarity to Spanish), but I suspect that article is LLM-generated too because of its overuse of boldface and dashes. I've attempted to PROD that version but I'm not sure if I've done it right, so if any reviewers here are active on ptwiki, I'd appreciate it if they could check that page and fix any template errors (or remove the template if they think it's not LLM-generated).—pythoncoder (talk |contribs)18:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
19:23, 23 October 2025 review of submission by AmandaK1987
It absolutely was a how-to guide/comparison. That is why I rejected it. I also left a message on your User Talk page about the class assignment.qcne(talk)19:38, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who once made a Wikipedia article for a class assignment, I wrote the text in Google Drive before publishing it. The article,First Chinese Baptist Church of San Francisco, is written in an encyclopedic tone and provides an overview of the topic, such as the church's history and physical structure. I also did it after having written dozens of other articles. Just from the title alone, this article would read as a directory for public services rather than an overview of the history/role/functions of a Kansas public health department. You could perhaps start withPublic Health Department of Kansas (or correct name) in a similar style and structure the articles on the main page are laid out.GGOTCC23:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This draft was strictly informational- as no where on Wikipedia do you have this information about local health departments in the state of kansas.AmandaK1987 (talk)19:35, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Articles about health departments should be summarizing what independentreliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the particular department, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition ofa notable organization. They shouldn't be comparing services or just describing them. We draw no distinction between "informational" and "promotional" here, seeWP:YESPROMO.
It is a poor and unfair assignment to give you to require you to create a Wikipedia article. It puts you under pressure while we aren't concerned with tasks you have been assigned. Your teacher should review theWikipedia Education Program material so they can design lessons that put less pressure on students and benefit Wikipedia.331dot (talk)19:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Could someone please move my sandbox submission for Interactive Entertainment Group, Inc. to the Draft namespace? It’s currently awaiting review but shows the “should be moved” warning. Thank you! —Stephengalgocy1 (talk)21:19, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've done my best to review this page 4-5 times now and made every adjustment possible. There are many comparable prodjects with pages that are far less objective in nature than the one prepared here. Just confused as to what more needs to be done to get this published and hence curious if someone can give more feedback. Appreciate all the help otherwise.Emmonsemmo (talk)23:42, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Emmonsemmo, when I look at your draft my first question is: how does this companyqualify for a Wikipedia article? There's a specific guideline,WP:NCORP, and it also tells you what sort of thingsdo not help show that the company qualifies (atWP:CORPTRIV). Your aim is to find three or more sources that all meet the triple criteria atWP:42and also indicate that the company meetsWP:NCORP in some way. Most companies don't, which is why creating an article for them can be very frustrating and often impossible.
When it comes to other companies/projects that have articles - often, these have been created in the 'wild west' of Wikipedia's early days and no one's looked at them much since then. It's also possible for people to create articles directly in mainspace that never get reviewed. If you've spotted articles you think shouldn't exist, please link them here or at least give us some names - we can't act on them unless we know about them! If you bring them to our attention, we can do something about them. I hope this is all of some help.Meadowlark (talk)23:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Emmonsemmo Please seeother 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, in many ways, for inappropriate content to get by us. This cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. Please tell us what this other inappropriate content is so we can address it and avoid others doing what you did. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that areclassified as good articles, which have received community vetting. Don't use any random article.331dot (talk)23:58, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Wikipedia team,My article about CafeScore was not approved. Could someone please help me understand specifically what I need to improve or add to the article for it to be approved?Thank you very much.Nguyễn Đăng Tráng (talk)03:11, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Nguyễn Đăng Tráng, please read the boxes inside the decline notices at the top of the page. There are two main issues:
It appears to have been written by aLLM/AI. We'd prefer an editor writes and verifies an article, not a machine prone to hallucinations.
Hello, @Nguyễn Đăng Tráng. 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 inreliable sources.If enough material is cited from independent sources to establishnotability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.ColinFine (talk)12:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
07:26, 24 October 2025 review of submission by Eitan577
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.
Hi, I’ve resubmittedDraft:CYE (company) after addressing all previous feedback (added independent reliable sources and rewrote the text for a neutral tone). Would someone be able to take another look? Thank you!Eitan577 (talk)07:26, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Eitan577 You have alleged that editors are discriminating against your draft because it is an Israeli company. If you have evidence of discrimination please take that evidence toWP:ANI as I have suggested in a very firm warning against making accusations of discrimination on your user talk page. If you have no evidence please apologise and withdraw those allegations.
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.
08:16, 24 October 2025 review of submission by Independentwriter8
I'm not sure how to improve so it doesn't read as much as an advertisement. In my opinion it reads very similar to the Wikipedia page from Kärcher (my main inspiration for this article). Their sources are also often their own website, but this company has existed for 90 years, so there's also some material available outside of their own website. i-team Global does not have it on that extend, but I've seen other Wikipedia pages who also don't have that many sources. Can someone help me improve?Independentwriter8 (talk)08:16, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please seeother 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. There are many ways inappropriate content can exist, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. This is why it is a poor-if understandable- idea to use any random article as a model or example. If you want to do that, use those that areclassified as good articles, which have received community vetting.
You(or your AI) has just documented the existence of the company and described its activities and offerings. Instead, you (you, not an AI) should summarize what independentreliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets thespecial Wikipedia definition of a notable company.
Could someone please let me know why my article failed the review process? I am trying to write a neutral article on TRIO Technical Solutions Ltd as a business, and although I am the MD of the company, I have declared in my user profile that I have a conflict of interest with the subject. I have used neutral language throughout the article, and tried to make it informational, as well as reference external awards sites where TRIO has been shortlisted or later won the award. It is in no way meant to be a 'sales piece', and so I would really appreciate some help and guidance on how to get this article accepted, please. Many thanks!62.254.117.225 (talk)08:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you are the creator of the draft, remember to log in when posting. The creator of the draft disclosed a conflict of interest, but if you are them, and you work for the company, you must make the stricterpaid editing disclosure instead, a requirement of the Terms of Use.
I fixed your header, you need the full title of the draft when linking(including the "Draft:" portion).
You are making a very common, but fundamental error, in that you are telling us what you want the world to know about your company, like its activities and offerings. That is the wrong approach. You call this "informational"; Wikipedia is not for merely providing information, we consider that promotional here, seeWP:YESPROMO, you don't have to be actively soliciting customers or selling something. Instead, you must gather and summarize what independentreliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets thespecial Wikipedia definition of a notable company. This should not include staff interviews, press releases, brief mentions, or the mere reporting of routine business activities.331dot (talk)08:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
as this information is important for the general public to know , i request to to re-consider the deletion of this page , its authentic and important knowledge for the users of this siteRitzOne (talk)10:23, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am once again struggling to get an answer on why a New York band with six albums and countless awards over their 14-year career is not being accepted to Wikipedia. I just added another source from an article in a prominent New York newspaper about the band's new single and a launch for their new music video (something organized solely by the band), and yes, there's an interview component but this isn't just some "blog." One of the band's singers just appeared on a popular and prominent national television competition series, as well. I have spent a lot of time researching and writing this entry and updating it to meet the Wiki standards and now one Safari Scribe has had a STOP put on it, so I can't even resubmit with the changes for reevaluation, and there doesn't seem to be anyone there to actually HELP get these articles published. Why is that?Edouglasww (talk)12:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And it was mentioned at least once when it won (as well as a source to when he was a finalist). I've removed many other sources already, because I was told they were unreliable. I was up to 40 sources at one point.Edouglasww (talk)12:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Though the Lennon contest is mentioned in that article, it doesn't yet have an article itself that shows it is a "major competition".331dot (talk)13:00, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to hear that. Unless you have a COI, you are free to disregard what more experienced people are telling you and move the draft into the encyclopedia yourself, as this process is usually voluntary. However, you would be rolling the dice that it wouldn't be nominated for a deletion discussion.331dot (talk)13:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merely releasing albums does not confer notability, as with the internet anyone can post music to the public. If an album or song charts, then there is notability.331dot (talk)13:03, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I did not realize this was an option, but the only reason why I have been so adamant about having my entry accepted is because during the course of me writing and trying to get it approved, I have seen many other bands on Wikipedia that do not meet the criteria as far as airplay, charting, etc. I'm not going to mention names but I saw a band opening at a concert who I had never heard of, and as most people do, I went looking for more information right here on Wikipedia, and they were listed with zero albums, no charting, etc. So clearly, people have been getting pages for other bands/musicians approved, while I've struggled, while spending time that I should be using for my paid writing gigs. I'm not sure being a band's fan and wanting to have more info about them in one place would be considered a COI, would it?Edouglasww (talk)13:15, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Edouglasww Being a fan is not a COI. But it can be mistaken for one if the person is so much of a fan that their personal investment in the topic acts as rose colored glasses, preventing them from hearing what more dispassionate people are saying.
That other articles exist does not necessarily mean that they were "approved" by anyone- or, if they were, that they meet current standards(depending on when the approval was done). This is why each article or draft is judged on their own merits and not based on the presence of other articles.
You said you have been a journalist for 30 years. I'm guessing that you thought that would be perfect experience for writing a Wikipedia article, and it certainly doesn't hurt. But writing for Wikipedia is very different than journalistic writing, as you are finding out. We usually recommend that new/inexperienced users not dive right in to creating articles- the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia- without first getting experience editing existing articles. Otherwise users often end up as you have- frustrated and angry as things are happening to, work you spent hours on about a topic that you personally enjoy, that you don't understand. I'm sorry this has happened.331dot (talk)14:46, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say that some of the worst writing I've seen on Wikipedia has been by people claiming to be journalists. I recall one some years ago who got all huffy when his highly non-neutral unsourced prose got reverted, as if being a journalist bestowed a presumption of correctness, and eventually left without ever accepting any advice. It is gratifying to see that Edouglasww has been receptive to feedback.
That said,@Edouglasww: there aremany ways described inWP:BAND for a band to merit an article here. If going through that list doesn't turn up any met criteria, then it's best to move on to something else. It may beWP:TOOSOON, so the draft can be revisited later. If it gets deleted after six months of inactivity, it can be restored easily simply by making a request atWP:REFUND. ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)18:54, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
13:43, 24 October 2025 review of submission by Agorgey737
I recently developed an article introducing my bio as a research scientist. It appears that the article does not meet the criteria of Wikipedia. I really appreciate help and support to edit my article and hopefully, it possible published by Wikipedia.Agorgey737 (talk)13:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Agorgey737 It seems that an AI Chatbot developed the article and you took that material and risked whatever it said. Please do not use AI to create anything.
You need to checkWP:NPROF and work out if you pass. Then, if you do, you need to destroy 100% of the AI generated slop and consider whether you are the person to create an article on yourself. Are you able to be sufficiently neutral about yourself to write objectively? Fewer than 5% of people are. Even if you think you are able to do it, why do you want to appear? Wikipedia does not enhance your reputation; you must enhance Wikipedia. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸13:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Agorgey737. Please read ourautobiography policy, and remember 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 inreliable sources.If enough material is cited from independent sources to establishnotability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not eventhink 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 asverifiability,neutral point of view,reliable, independent sources, andnotability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (theBold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to readyour 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 aconflict of interest.ColinFine (talk)12:16, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
14:22, 24 October 2025 review of submission by Jam.mckit00863872sd
Except that almost all of the persons named in this list do not have articles. The purpose of a list article is to list members of the list that have articles.331dot (talk)17:02, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was resubmitted multiple times without any changes. If there's an indication of being unresponsive to the previous declines messages, there's no reason for reviewers to keep spending time on it.hekatlys✉18:40, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to make the list yourself with reliable citations included to serve as the source of the information. However, a list of mayors in a town smaller than my highschool graduating class will likely fail to passWikipedia:Notability (politics) and may be deleted after a discussion.GGOTCC16:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no master schedule for when content is added to Wikipedia. Everything is based on unpaid volunteers, and their interests/willingness is what dictates the topics of articles.GGOTCC16:50, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject..." I've cited a biographical piece in the "Wall Street Journal," one in the "Nashville Post," one from the "Chicago Tribune," one from "Modern Healthcare," one from "Reuters." These are articles either entirely about him or largely pertaining to him. Along with several other resources for a guy who is largely responsible for establishing a Fortune 20 company, has a Deanship named for him at Washington and Lee University, and was integral along with two Heisman Trophy winners in selecting a football coach at Auburn University then auditing its athletic department.Dswisener (talk)17:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've got junk sources in there, such as Investopedia, routine announcements, and press releases. I suggest you clean those up before resubmitting. In particularInvestopedia is an unreliable source, and including it is a red flag that would trigger a decline, and since it's yourfirst source, a reviewer isn't likely to waste time looking further because the creator of the draft didn't review it properly first.
You need multiple significant coverage in reliable independent sources. I only see sig cov of the subject in Investopedia and Super Money. The rest are mentions. Investopedia is flagged as a unreliable source and the SuperMoney article also read like as not independent. So I think you need to find two good sources that discuss him for 250 words or more. (Also, on another note, 8 inline citations for one fact is over the top. Also, I would name the page Mac Crawford.)MmeMaigret (talk)06:38, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
21:33, 24 October 2025 review of submission by ScratchMC
Would you be able to point to the specific reason(s) my page keeps getting declined? Happy to make any necessary adjustments. Thank you!ScratchMC (talk)21:33, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated this for speedy deletion as unreviewed AI slop that includes a pre-declined review template in the very first edit as well as citations only to company pages and press releases. Really, you should know better. SeeWP:Golden Rule for starters. You can use an AI to help you find sources that meet Golden Rule criteria, but you should really write the article yourself, onlyafter you find sources. ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)06:56, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This draft was started by someone else. I revised it and, when I thought it was ready, submitted it for AfC review. (This was before I had reviewer rights myself).
The draft has been declined for encyclopedic tone/peacock terms. I've reviewed it again and I don't know what the reviewer is referring to so I'm struggling as to what to change.
I'd appreciate suggestions about what can be changed so that the article seems more neutral/objective.
The only peacock term I see might be "community leader" but that isn't the reason it was declined. To me it's borderline hagiography. You would get a more complete explanation if you asked the reviewer,Josedimaria. ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)07:06, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mmemaigret I think we have just seen that human beings are fallible. All of us make mistakes. Your draft has, as you will know already, beenAccepted by a different reviewer. Thank you for bringing this question here. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸09:26, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's all good. With an overabundance of caution, I removed any word that might be taken as subjective and resubmitted it and it was accepted. Thanks all.MmeMaigret (talk)15:38, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
10:19, 25 October 2025 review of submission by 2A0D:3344:3090:3908:68AF:4BA5:90D0:38A7
Having carried out considerable research and reviewed your guidelines, I believe this now meets and qualifies for a Wiki article. Does this now not show significant coverage about British restaurateur, Jeremy King with reliable published sources, indecent of the subject?
If not, I would appreciate some feedback as to where it falls short.
@Thomas.flynn: you cannot delete a page, since you are not an administrator. You canrequestspeedy deletion, but that will be declined, since you are not the sole author of that draft. (In any case, you placed the deletion request inside 'nowiki' wrappers, so it won't even be seen by an admin.) --DoubleGrazing (talk)17:04, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The creator ofDraft:Jeremy King is a disclosed paid editor who hasn't made any edits since he created that draft in July. I think @Thomas.flynn should pick anything that can be useful and update his draft with that material, and then submit just that draft. I would prefer seeing a draft from someone without a COI, and lose the paid-edit version. Thomas.flynn doesn't have many edits but he's been around for more than a decade. ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)17:36, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I'm just editing my version and have followed the advice of removing inline links and added the relevant external links and further reading sections.Thomas Flynn (talk)17:39, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Salvage what you can from the other version, and then I can delete it as a duplicate. Let me know when you're done. Don't resubmit yours until you have addressed the problems described in the recent declines. ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)17:42, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In particular, any sources in the other version that meet all three criteria inWP:Golden Rule, you should definitely use in your version. Those are the kind of sources that reviewers want to see. ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)17:49, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I addedThe Guardian source from that draft into your "further reading" section. Try to incorporate that and others into citations rather than list them in further reading, before resubmitting for review. ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)19:18, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have since move many titles from the 'further reading' section into the main copy and repurposed them as citations. I've also added a 'Restaurants' section, quite similar to NYC restaurateur David Chang's page (David Chang) as I feel it's important to list what he had, what now has and what's coming. Could you let me know your thoughts, with these changes/amendments now made? With thanks. ThomasThomas Flynn (talk)11:59, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lose that list.David Chang is a poor example to follow. It violatesWP:INDISCRIMINATE. Most of those restaurants aren't notable. There is no need to list each one separately. InDavid Chang I have condensed the bullet list into prose, which is preferable to a list. A list would be appropriate if each restaurant had its own Wikipedia article, but none of these do.
Using some other article as a basis for yours usually leads down a wrong path. Wikipedia contains a lot of crap already, which should be fixed or removed instead of compounding the problem by shoveling on more.
Hello, I’m requesting a review of the decision made on October 25, 2025, whereDraft:Funktasy was rejected by reviewer ZyphorianNexus for “not sufficiently notable.”The draft includes multiple independent, reliable, and secondary sources establishing notability perWP:GNG andWP:NCORP, including:CBC News – Meta suspended his business’s social accounts — it took him a month to reach a human (national coverage)MSN News – syndicated version of the CBC articleTipRanks – reference to the CBC coverageAmsterdam Dance Event – Hoss listed as an official ADE artistThe article has been fully rewritten for neutrality, fixed for citation errors, and verified to use reliable, independent sources.Would it please be possible for an experienced reviewer or administrator to reopen the draft for re-evaluation?Thank you very much for your time and consideration.- TanyaMusicwikiwiki (talk)18:00, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Musicwikiwiki thank you for taking the time to improve the draft.
I've re-examinedDraft:Funktasy, and my initial concern remains that the topic does not yet demonstratesignificant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources as required byWP:GNG andWP:NCORP.
The cited CBC/MSN article focuses primarily on Meta's account-suspension issue, not on Funktasy itself in a manner that provides substantial, in-depth coverage. Likewise, listings such as Amsterdam Dance Event are considered routine mentions rather than independent coverage. TipRanks' reference merely repeats what CBC already covered and thus does not add new, independent analysis.
While I did notice some improvements to neutrality and formatting in the page's history, notability depends on depth and independence of coverage, not on the number of citations or the subject's online presence.
After checking the cited sources and searching for additional coverage, I was unable to find any independent, non-trivial, in-depth sources that would establish notability. If such sources become available — for instance, features or profiles about Funktasy in major, independent publications — the draft could be reconsidered. For now, I do believe the decline remains appropriate per policy.ZyphorianNexusTalk18:32, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
19:29, 25 October 2025 review of submission by Vishnurajthannickal
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.
My draft article "Aadhaar Enrolment Centre" was recently declined. Could someone please let me know the specific reasons for the decline and provide guidance on how to improve the article to meet Wikipedia's notability and sourcing requirements? Thank you.Vishnurajthannickal (talk)19:29, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vishnurajthannickal It was not declined. You wrote this draft with the assistance of ChatGPT, and ChatGPT is not very good so it automatically added a broken decline notice to the top of the draft. I have removed the malformed ChatGPT-generated code.
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.
20:19, 25 October 2025 review of submission by OliverTwist83LuLu
Hi, thank you to whoever reviewed my draft about Stuart Grauer. Could you please clarify why it was declined and what I can improve (sources, tone, notability, etc.) before resubmitting?
Hi, my draft was declined earlier today, and I was wondering if there could be some clarification on the notability rules? From the comment from the AfC thing, it seems as if the notability rules inWikipedia:Notability (music) don't apply as long as there are sufficient reliable secondary sources with substantial coverage of the topic?
I have added a few more sources to the draft, and I was wondering if they are enough, as I don't want to resubmit if the changes are inadequate so as to not waste the time of reviewers. I would be very grateful for some clarification and/or assistance on this topic. Thanks!Jerry0225 (talk)21:26, 25 October 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.
Scratch: User profile: Has an account where TheRealSansPlayer has created and shared projects using the Scratch programming language. Projects: Has created and shared projects such as "Sans clicker," "Sans platformer," and "Colorful platformer!" and 64 more. Project development: Actively improves existing projects and has contributed many projects such as "Luck RPG Incremental NG+" and 66 more to many studios. Community engagement: The account has received recognition from other users for its games and advice.
Stax Project inclusion on Stax: The project "Rainbow grow a garden" was indexed by Stax, an AI block-coding community, providing visibility beyond the Scratch platform. It also achieved 1st place on the leaderboard. (no commenting or contributing is available on Stax.fun)
CodeTorch User profile: TheRealSansPlayer is also associated with CodeTorch, another block-coding platform. Projects: One of TheRealSansPlayer projects on this platform is "Paper Minecraft" and many more. 8th place on the leaderboard
Boot.dev Owns an account that frequently reaches the top of the daily leaderboard and is connected to a related discord channel. Makes personalized challenges and spends gems to get exp. is my corrected post, I didn't mean to advertise, just to inform.TheRealSansPlayer (talk)01:21, 26 October 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.
13:23, 26 October 2025 review of submission by Lekkyson4wiki
I’m new to Wikipedia and I'm made a draft of AbsoluteDigital Pictures, a British CGI studio, has been declined twice for lacking enough secondary sources. Could someone help me understand what kinds of sources I need or where to find them?
Hello, @WVWG9652. 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 inreliable sources.If enough material is cited from independent sources to establishnotability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
More generally: My earnest advice to new editors is to not eventhink 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 asverifiability,neutral point of view,reliable, independent sources, andnotability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (theBold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to readyour 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)16:19, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
hi there - the reviewer appears not to have read the referenced article in the Irish Times which describes David as "one of the most consequential Irish diplomats of the past 60 years". Could you clarify what else would be required to enable the creation of this article?Londonojb (talk)17:42, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i have submitted all the reference for the notability, he was a notable person in the state of Bihar, as a special secretary education. Most of the news are confined to Bihar state as his area of work is in Bihar state. Most of The reference submitted by me is in hindi, will it be a reason for rejection ?O S Prasanth (talk)02:15, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It wasrejected, not declined. That means stop, end of the line, it cannot be resubmitted, it will not be considered further, move on to something else. ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)03:42, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
02:46, 27 October 2025 review of submission by Fivelidz5lidz
I have made extensive edits to this page after each rejection. There is no promotional language. There is no LLM usage. The page keeps getting rejected with little guidance.
You removed some stuff, yes, but if it was LLM generated you didn't do much rewriting, just removing. It still has promotional language (the unsubstantiated puffery such as "unique in the health data ecosystem", and it still shows an LLM's penchant for using conjunctions, especially in headings. The Athaltec News citations look likechurnalism (press releases rewritten by a journalist). ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)03:39, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
03:45, 27 October 2025 review of submission by Korea2100
Hi, can someone please help me understand what would need to be changed to resubmit this article for creation? I noticed that every previous Christmas album that the Tabernacle Choir has released has its own Wikipedia article, so it would be puzzling if this one didn't also warrant its own article. Also, there are only so many "reliable" sources one can cite when it comes to creating an article about a music album, but I don't think that disqualifies its creation or renders it less "noteworthy" - it clearly exists. Please advise.Hooky6 (talk)04:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Hooky6, mere existence is not enough for something to be on Wikipedia - otherwise we would have to have articles for every person, place, company, event, or thing...that has ever existed. This is obviously impossible. Instead things have to benotable by Wikipedia's definition, which is considerably more narrow. It's completely possible for one album (or many) from a group to be notable (because critics have reviewed it and it has received extensive media coverage) while another is not. In the same vein, a book may be notable while the sequel isn't and perhaps even the author isn't; one sports star may be notable while another on their team may not be - and so on. If there aren't many reliable sources for something, it probably doesn't qualify for an article. This is always disappointing, but 99% of things/people/companies/etc simply don't qualify. If you've looked and can't find the sources, it's best to move onto something else.Meadowlark (talk)05:31, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So why do articles exist for all the other Tabernacle Choir Christmas albums? Are they "notable", but this one isn't? If the argument is that this album is not "notable," then I would argue that none of the others should be considered that way either.Hooky6 (talk)06:21, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well let me do that then. If you define it strictly by whether it's mentioned by reliable, third-party sources, then here are some sources that talk about it. Since this is a concert-based album, it seems reasonable that sources that review the concert can also be presumed to review the album as well.
@Hooky6: no, it doesn't work like that. As Meadowlark was explaining, it may be that this group's one album receives coverage, or gets certified gold, or hits the charts, etc., while another flops. The former would be notable, the latter might not be. It's only a question of whether an album meets theWP:NALBUM guideline; not whether it is by a group whoseother albums have met that guideline, since notability is not inherited.
It's also possible that those other articles donot meet our notability guidelines, but they were perhaps created before the current guidelines were put in place, or they were created by someone who didn't have to put their creations through a pre-publication review.
I believe this album (and many of the choir's albums) has hit the charts, although I'm not a subscriber to Billboard and thus have no way to check that.Hooky6 (talk)07:05, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I am having a problem with the quality of references for this article. If I take another literary magazine of similar standing Acumen poetryhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acumen_(magazine) I can see that the sources are very similar. Can you explain why my references are refused while those of Acumen are accepted being nearly identical? Do I have too many refernces, which explains the refusal and by removing some, could that help?Ledukedestquentin (talk)10:16, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a content which is aligned with Wikipedia guidelines but my article got rejected too many times. Could you please tell me what is the exact reason for rejection?Logeshkumarbs94 (talk)11:01, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, @Logeshkumarbs94. In simple terms, your draft was rejected because it doesn’t yet show that the company meets our criteria for inclusion. We have specific criteria for companies. We would need several independent, reliable sources that discuss the company in depth. The company’s own site, press releases, routine directory/profile pages, and brief mentions don’t count. Your draft has no usable sources, so there is no evidence the company meets our criteria, therefore an article is not possible at this time.qcne(talk)11:13, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I have used LLM to refine the code, but the original code was generated by me. Also I am a senior academic, so I know how to use references. What is the problem with the code and the references used? Can you provide details pointers to your comments? All the information provided in the draft is correct and represent me entirely. ThanksChristos Politis (talk)12:29, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Christos Politis: I would advise against using AI on Wikipedia, even to 'refine', because it really doesn't know what it's doing.
Four of your seven citations are to your own website, or that of your business. Two are to your profile at Kingston Uni, which you have presumably written yourself also? While you may be able to use close primary sources like these to support some, entirely non-contentious statements, for most things we require independent verification, especially where the article subject is a living person. --DoubleGrazing (talk)12:53, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Successfully writing a Wikipedia article about oneself is so difficult that very few people have ever managed it; in consequence wevery strongly advise against trying it: seeWP:autobiography.
A Wikipedia article (on any subject) should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and not much else. What the subject has said, written, published, or done is almost irrelevant except where it has been discussed by independent commentators.
In order to successfully write about yourself you would need to assemble sources which meet all the criteria inWP:42, and then, if you have found several which meet all the criteria, you would then need to effectively forget everything you know, think, or believe about yourself, and write a summary of what those sources say -even if you think they are wrong! (This is because Wikipedia is based onverifiability rather than truth). Do you see why I say this is very difficult?
More generally: My earnest advice to new editors is to not eventhink 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 asverifiability,neutral point of view,reliable, independent sources, andnotability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (theBold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to readyour 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 aconflict of interestColinFine (talk)16:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
12:40, 27 October 2025 review of submission by MdShahadatHossainSamit
Hello, @ZombieLeChuck. You haven't resubmitted the draft since it was last declined four months ago. If you have indeed improved the sourcing (and I recommend that you evaluate each one of your sources againstall the criteria inWP:42, then feel free to resubmit it for a further review.
Dear@Pythoncoder:thank you for reviewing my draft.I have revised the article throughout for neutrality, conciseness, and source-based phrasing.Rewrote or shortened sentences to remove promotional tone, verified all statements against independent sources, and rewrote company material in my own words with attribution.Also reformatted sections for consistency.Could you please point to specific sentences or sections that need further adjustment to meet AfC standards?Leo Fux (talk)14:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment reads like you copy-pasted from an LLM-generated edit summary then added a sentence each at the beginning and end to make the LLM output sound more coherent. Care to explain?—pythoncoder (talk |contribs)15:19, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
15:01, 27 October 2025 review of submission by Spicy Anonymous
Hello. My draftDraft:Farah Hussain was declined as “not notable.”I would like assistance in understanding how to improve the article so that it meetsWP:NBIO (notability for biographies) andWP:RS (reliable sources) standards.
The subject is an Indian civil servant who cleared the UPSC Civil Services Examination in 2015 (AIR 267) and is currently in the Indian Revenue Service (Income Tax). There are several reliable secondary sources, including Hindustan Times, The Quint, India.com, Lokmat, and Times Now Hindi, that profile her background and family of officers.
I want guidance on whether these sources are sufficient for notability, and if not, what kind of additional coverage or sourcing would be needed before resubmission.
Okay, thanks for the clarification. Could you please have a look atDraft Vyomika Singh as well? She’s a Wing Commander in the Indian Air Force and recently led the official briefing onOperation Sindoor, which got wide coverage in major outlets like TOI, News18, and Business Standard. Just wanted to know if that would be considered notable under Wikipedia’s criteria.Spicy Anonymous (talk)15:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wing Commander Vyomika Singh is an officer of theIndian Air Force known for her role and contribution duringOperation Sindoor. She has been recognized for her service and dedication to the nation.
Before I resubmit, I'd appreciate any final feedback on Draft:Penn Foster. I took about a month to edit and create a well-sourced, neutral article. Also, I'd welcome your advice on article placement. Given that Penn Foster hosts a disambiguation page, do you think this article qualifies as the primary topic under WP:PRIMARYTOPIC?DegreeDriven (talk)18:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Avanoonan We require references fromsignificant coverageabout the topic of the article, andindependent of it, inmultiplesecondary sources which areWP:RS please. SeeWP:42. Please also seeWP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources andWP: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. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸19:28, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
19:50, 27 October 2025 review of submission by Angelohuang
@Angelohuang You used an AI chatbot to create a sloppy promotional draft article. If you want to create a user page that outlines some of your interests as a Wikipedia editor, clickUser:Angelohuang. If you only want to be on Wikipedia to promote yourself and/or your company: go elsewhere.qcne(talk)19:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
20:46, 27 October 2025 review of submission by Lonelyastronautmusic
Hello, I am stuck at this step of the process when writing an Article. I have used very credible sources (Time, Tech Crunch, Wallstreet Journal) and kept the tone very neutral. I can't find or think of any more reliable sources than the above. How do I proceed with getting this Article approved?
My draft page, Ushur was declined at Articles for Creation. The reason given was "draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT." In keeping the page short and objective, it may be appearing AI-generated, but it is accurate and free of promotional language, vague claims, hallucinations, etc. I would greatly appreciate specific feedback from more experienced editors on what specifically does not meet expectations.AlisonLyne (talk)03:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AlisonLyne, my first concern is that the draft does not demonstrate how this companyqualifies for a Wikipedia article. More specifically, please seeWP:NCORP for what is required, along withWP:CORPTRIV for examples of things thatdo not help a company qualify. At the moment I only see routine business activities, which is what I would have declined it for. I hope that provides some assistance.Meadowlark (talk)05:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
05:00, 28 October 2025 review of submission by SJ8ANDREWS
Wikipedia has deleted the two images included for publication on this page, both of which were commissioned by Shock Octopus and for which Shock Octopus has the copyright for publication.
@SJ8ANDREWS, a very important thing to note here is that if Shock Octopus does freely license the images,anyone will be able to use them forany reason - even competitors and detractors - provided they give appropriate attribution. This is something that many groups would not want. You may wish to consider thenon-free image use guidelines and see whether there's a suitable alternative.Meadowlark (talk)05:40, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
05:34, 28 October 2025 review of submission by O S Prasanth
Declined as rendered impossible to review properly because ofWP:CITEKILL andWP:BOMBARD, with a fuller rationale on the draft. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸10:23, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Accepted by a different reviewer. Thank you for bringing this question here. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸09:26, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NDeleted so this is now moot 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸17:18, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]