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.
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 atWP:42.GGOTCC07:10, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
03:02, 10 December 2025 review of submission by Nikasandler
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.
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.
The draft in question isDraft:Nika Sandler, which was written by you,Nikasandler. Our content guideline onautobiographies says that they are a form of conflict-of-interest editing thatis 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'spolicies and guidelines very carefully. You have not done so. On Wikipedia, a person isnotable and therefore eligible for a Wikipedia biography when reliable, published sources that areentirely 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 thatany 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
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.
No. It has beenrejected, which means it willnot 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
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.
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 withWP:G15. I suggest you readWP: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
I am the subject ofDraft: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.
@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.
You syThe primary notability claim is the subject's role as co-lead/secretary...
Have you read about what Wikipedia means bynotability? It is not about what the subject is or has done: it is almost entirely about what has been independently and reliably publishedabout 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 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)10:22, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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).
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 independentreliable sources- this should be coverage that goes beyond merely discussing the activities of the company(seeWP: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
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 theautobiography 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 notnotable, 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. --bonadeacontributionstalk12:18, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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, (seeGolden 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
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?
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(seeWP:OWN). You are welcome to offer specific proposals for changes on the article talk page(Talk:Giuseppe Devastato) in the form of anedit 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 theautobiography 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 youqualify for an article, and as the article's subject youmust not edit it. You have what we call aconflict 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 atTemplate: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 (seeWP: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
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.
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 howWP: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 muchNeilyoung77 (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!
https://www.businessinsider.com/legal-ai-startup-legora-client-portal-2025-11 - In-depth Business Insider feature on Legora’s Portal product, business model and market position relative to Harvey (software) based on direct interviews with the CEO and Big Law / Big Four users, and including discussion of risks and adoption.
https://www.ft.com/content/00ea7657-9f5c-45d5-9230-b6fc638d03e4 - FT feature profiling Legora as a “fast-growing European challenger”, detailing its funding, customer base, AI capabilities and international expansion alongside other leading legal tech companies, selected by an expert panel.
https://www.ft.com/content/05e6e97e-26e7-4dab-b035-793c1a0f0ed8 - FT analysis of AI agents in legal work that uses Legora as a detailed case study, quoting the CEO and describing real-world client use and performance versus human lawyers in a broader industry context.
https://www.businessinsider.com/new-york-city-home-of-legal-tech-ai-lawyers-2025-11 - Business Insider feature on New York’s legal tech ecosystem that treats Legora as a key case study, covering its valuation, office expansion, customer base and strategy in the NYC market, and positioning it alongside peers such as Harvey and Clio.
@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. TheWP:NCORP guideline is derived fromWP: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 ofWP: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]
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]
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
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.
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]
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]
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, (seeGolden 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 inWP:42. If you cannot find several sources which do so, you will know that she does not meet Wikipedia's criteria fornotability, and no article is possible.
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)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
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 welcomeLex-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 atWP:COI.
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 fora notable company - which are mostly about what has been publishedabout 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 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. For somebody with aconflict of interest, I recommend starting by readingWP:BOSS.ColinFine (talk)17:31, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
16:11, 10 December 2025 review of submission by CWMartin99
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.
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?GGOTCC20:31, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Greenpark79 I see that you movedBBC Brand to mainspace. You are allowed to move things to mainspace yourself (assuming you don't have aconflict 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]
AfC reviewers have declined multiple US school district draft submissions citingWP:Notability; in addition to Bridgman Public Schools, see examples below. TheWikiProject 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 perWP:OUTCOMES#School_districts? Question: What specific criteria is my draft article missing?
@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. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸23:13, 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
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.
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 seeReferencing for beginners.331dot (talk)22:41, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
23:50, 10 December 2025 review of submission by GRM Elder Sean
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 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.
Many claims lack sources (each claim needs to be cited to a reliable source that meetsWP:42), large sections of the draft are blank, and contains speculative information (such as "Milestone episodes")GGOTCC03:45, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
05:11, 11 December 2025 review of submission by Purplemushy
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 isabout them, and isindependent of them, inmultiplesecondary sources which areWP:RS, and issignificant coverage. 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 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.
@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 atWomen in Red and theIndigenous 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
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.
@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.
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.
@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
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. --Reconrabbit15:50, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the thing, that discussion dealt strictly with a request to separate the WarnerMedia page into "Time Warner" and "AOL Time Warner." There was little to no mention of Warner Communications. SEC Filings and news reports clearly indicate that Warner Communications is not a continuous entity with WarnerMedia, but it appears the Wiki bureaucrats will continue to reject my submission until it's as long as long as the WarnerMedia page. (Which makes no sense considering more than a third of Wikipedia is merely stubs).TheFloridaTyper (talk)01:55, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should bring that up on the talk page of WarnerMedia in a new section and seek input from those more familiar with the subject. I saw you did so alredy in a prior thread but it did not get much engagement. Perhaps link to your draft in a new discussion as well so there is something concrete for others to look at. --Reconrabbit14:50, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
16:40, 11 December 2025 review of submission by Quanteamz
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?GGOTCC21:30, 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]
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]
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]
@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. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸23:31, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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_Hopking1971MRH (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]].
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]
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
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]
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.
We do not dispute the movie exists. But a Wikipedia article isonly 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.
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.
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.
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.
@SoniaGhodi Ghandy We are not yet speaking of theelephant 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 by331dot, 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. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸16:33, 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. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk 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 !
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 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 useverification, 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 blockjust 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.
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.
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]
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]
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]
Hello, @Akos kab. I'm afraid @GGOTCC gave you bad advice at the end there. It has resulted in you creating the draftbackwards.
First find the sources necessary to establish that he isnotable 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 inWP:42, write a summary of those sources. Your first source is too little to providesignificant 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.GGOTCC02:49, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
21:35, 12 December 2025 review of submission by BTCmagazine
I need suggestions for improving the article athttps://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 withWP:BLP, which governs all references to a living person on Wikipedia. Next, read throughWP:42 for information on the sort of sources you will need. Once you've done that:
If you are asserting that Tito is notable as an author, you'll want to look atWP: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 notnotable by Wikipedia standards, the draft will never be accepted.
Make sure thatevery 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.
The minor children's names should be removed perWP:NONAME; this is a BLP issue.
Proofread carefully. You have sentences such asJoseph Tito is the husband of Frank who has twin daughters, which sounds like Frank is the father of the girls, andthe 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.
Tito should be referred to by his surname (MOS:SURNAME) after the first mention of his name.
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]
Hello! You do not need to reference content that is online. As long as the references meetsWP: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.GGOTCC22:53, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
23:10, 12 December 2025 review of submission by ~2025-40306-60
As long as sources meetWP:42, age or format does not matter. A book from the library, newspaper from 1970, journal article from 2000, all are acceptable.GGOTCC23:36, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
@TheRealWoofwoof, the issue is not so much that the coverage is restricted to Russia, but that the accident, like the majority of crashes, lackssustained coverage. Ifreliable 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]
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)00:08, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
16:57, 13 December 2025 review of submission by Lprexl
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]
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!
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 theArticle Wizard.331dot (talk)21:06, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 inHelp:YFA,WP:REFB andWP:CITE, particularly that citations must be located at the facts they are used to cite.
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 🇺🇦🇵🇸08:26, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have "information pages" here. We havearticles, and they do not merely provide information. Wikiepedia article summarize what independentreliable 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 isa 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. SeeWP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.331dot (talk)10:32, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
07:40, 14 December 2025 review of submission by Filmybuff
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]
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]
@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 intoidiocracy
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.
Hello,My draft athttps://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 atDraft:Myriam Bouchentouf and enabled you to submit it. Draft space is the preferred location for submissions; it can be accessed via theArticle 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
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.
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
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
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 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
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]
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]
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]
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 readthis 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 isabout them, and isindependent of them, inmultiplesecondary sources which areWP:RS, and issignificant coverage. 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 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.
My submission of the article was declined because its references don't meet criteria ofWP: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]
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
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]
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. Seeother stuff exists.331dot (talk)08:55, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @VictoriaGaleno. 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)13:12, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 youRasikaofVR (talk)00:59, 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 interviewsRasikaofVR (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]
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]
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 isprobably 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 helpRasikaofVR (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
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 atDraft:Alexei Bogdanov (chemist and molecular biologist) to disambiguate fromthe existing article on a different perosn.
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]
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
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
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 readHelp:Referencing for beginners if you are having issues creating references, although you are the one who is expected to find them.GGOTCC12:03, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
11:26, 15 December 2025 review of submission by Bigsamfc
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.
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?
@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 isabout them, and isindependent of them, inmultiplesecondary sources which areWP:RS, and issignificant coverage. 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 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 isWP:BACKWARDS. Instead, please readthis essay, one of several which outline a process which will succeedassuming 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. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸16:28, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
16:27, 15 December 2025 review of submission by JustinMicroScooters
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.
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. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk 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]
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 threeand only three sources that each meetWikipedia: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]
@Qcne You've sent me down a rabbit hole of articles about the dynamics between neurodivergence and AI-flagging. It's interesting to see that the way I mask my writing makes me more prone to being flagged as a robot. I also think there's irony in the use of AI-based detection tools in discovering/giving false positives.
That said, I'll take what you shared above to heart and will approach this with a better-researched standpoint after the holidays. Genuinely, thank you for the feedback and candor.JustinMicroScooters (talk)21:52, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Youreironic 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.
It was declined again I do see it qualify for a Wikipedia article. I was wondering if anyone can help me find references for it though as its hard to find sources that arent from Modrinth themself.Youreironic (talk)23:37, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
20:18, 15 December 2025 review of submission by Shah198
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. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸20:33, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
20:46, 15 December 2025 review of submission by Th4shinee
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 isonly 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 independentreliable sources and chooses to write about you, showing how you area notable musician.
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 forWP:PROMOTION.GGOTCC20:53, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
22:20, 15 December 2025 review of submission by ~2025-40964-93
I am confused on the citations. I looked at the instructions and I thought I was doing it correctly the second time around. Can you provide me with an example showing what I am doing vs the correct way to help me understand?~2025-40964-93 (talk)22:20, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! The first is a game forum and the second is a blog. As both are user-generated content, they are not considered to be reliable sources as there is no overview to ensure the information is correct.GGOTCC03:19, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So I am going to say that the page shouldn't be on Wikipedia cause it doesnt have any reputable sources (from my searching) but I still want the draft just in case how can I move it to my user?Youreironic (talk)03:40, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Youreironic. Your account is old enough and has enough edits that you should be able to use themove function. You can move it to (eg)User:Youreironic/Modrinth.
So i want to add a infobox to my draft, but when I add the link to the image it only shows the link and not the image for some reason, and i need the image to be seenGfroi (talk)07:08, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Gfroi, for copyright reasons, Wikipedia can't use photos that are uploaded to other websites, such asThe Sun.
Hello, @Gfroi. Neither infoboxes nor images have any effect on whether a draft is accepted or not. I suggest you stop worrying about these until you have got your draft in a state where it is accepted.
When you do come to look at images:
Most infoboxes that take images just want the name of the file, egFile:Taylor Swift at the 2023 MTV Video Music Awards (2) (cropped).png, not a link or Wikilink.
With a few exceptions which are probably not relevant, all images used must be free for use. Unless they are very old, this means that the copyright holder must have made an explicit legal declaration that they are licensed under a licence such asCC-BY-SA. Most images you find anywhere on the internet cannot be used. Seeimage use policy.
My article was rewritten from the Vietnamese Wikipedia page (https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMC_Telecom), which was approved a long time ago and was originally written by us. I am not certain which specific issues have caused this draft to be considered promotional. All references provided are verifiable, and the content is intended to be factual and neutral. ThanksLinh.ttt (talk)09:04, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "us"? If you are employed, directly or indirectly, by CMC Telecom, the Terms of Use require you to make apaid editing disclosure; it does not require specific payment for editing or specific instructions to edit.
Each language Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own editors and policies. What is acceptable on the Vietnamese Wikipedia is not necessarily acceptable here. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others, especially when it comes to companies editing about themselves. It is up to the translator to make sure that the topic of their editing meets the requirements of the Wikipedia for which they are translating.
Your draft just summarizes the routine business activities of the company; this is notin depth coverage that establishes that the company meets thespecial Wikipedia definition of a notable company. The awards mentioned do not contribute to notability as they lack articles themselves(likeNobel Peace Prize orAcademy Award). The vast majority of companies on Earth actually do not merit Wikipedia articles. Only those which receive significant coverage in independentreliable sources do- coverage that goes beyond telling of the activities and offerings of the company and goes into detail about what is viewed by others as important/significant/influential about the company, not what it views as important about itself. The English Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell about themselves(even if this is permitted on other Wikipedias).331dot (talk)09:17, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, if I were to write about a similar company in a manner comparable tohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FPT_University, which my team previously edited using a similar approach, would that be acceptable? Thank you.
Please note 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.ColinFine (talk)14:18, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
12:42, 16 December 2025 review of submission by ~2025-34401-91
Hello,I’m looking for help from an experienced editor with copyediting and reviewing a draft biography that has been declined multiple times for “LLM-like” writing style, despite sourcing and notability issues having been addressed.
The draft concerns a British composer and musicologist with independent press coverage and a verifiable credit on an Oscar-nominated animated short film.
I would really appreciate assistance from a human editor willing to review, rephrase, or adopt the draft so it better aligns with Wikipedia house style.
Hi, I have cleaned up the article and accepted it. If you want to use Visual editing, there should be an option in the top-right corner of the editing window that allows you to switch between source and visual editing. It looks like a pencil. If you can find the books in the Bibliography and cite them withinline citations, that would be perfect. --Reconrabbit15:04, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
14:10, 16 December 2025 review of submission by Anh2101011
I'm not to sure what I need to do now. I listened to advice that was given upon decline. 1. We need primary source to reference. In the time, from decline dorrett white had an article written about her by a strong online news outlet, which is the new primary and I delete half the external links. I resubmitted and now my it's telling me the same thingMaxgus91 (talk)14:35, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You added a source, but its little more than images of her, and you didn't otherwise change the content of the article. You have not shown that she isa notable actress. You have documented her work but not summarized what independentreliable sources choose to say about her; such as critical analyses of her work by professional critics.
You have gone about thisbackwards; you wrote text and are now looking for sources to support it; you should first have the sources in hand before you begin writing.331dot (talk)14:42, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At the same time, I'm using articles the she is in and a full primary one. Or are you saying I should use exact wording from article almost like using quotesMaxgus91 (talk)14:52, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You generally should not copy verbatim the content of your sources. The sources you have provided are
mostly photos of her, not significant coverage
a brief interview with her, not significant coverage, not independent
a page with a photo of her, almost no text at all
a link to a film festival's website, no coverage of her
a film festival's website about a film, no coverage of her
i went ahead and change everything. I used 3 sources and left 3 paragraphs. From the best sources that she has rewritten pieces about her.Maxgus91 (talk)15:13, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Declined with a detailed rationale and an exhortation to prove notabilityprior to a rewrite. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸12:55, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Are AfC reviewers instructed to consider the near-presumptive notability of US school districts perWP:OUTCOMES#School_districts?
Courtesy link: Draft:FLAME University
Courtesy ping:Johnnykruger --DoubleGrazing (talk)09:09, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]