Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.
Hi @Castroaisha0, if you're talking about your edits onCharles Reigeluth, they were reverted because another editor believed they wereLLM generated, and you removed a number of existing references. Your edits should build upon the existing content, and not replace it completely with a copy-and-paste of your draft.Nil🥝02:18, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I’ve created a short stub draft about a personal development method calledGSR System (Deep Development System).
The draft is based on a small number of secondary media sources (Grit Daily, Worldcrunch) and pilot, non–peer-reviewed studies (Zenodo/OSF). It is intentionally short, neutral in tone, and clearly states the preliminary status of the method.
The article was rejected with the reason "Please cite your sources using footnotes." I would like to improve the article, but on the one hand, I have listed all the sources used as footnotes in the "References" section, and on the other hand, there are no citations in the text for which I could cite sources. Did I misunderstand the reasoning, or what can I do to improve the article?2003:F9:BF1F:FE00:C142:57F8:B495:2B13 (talk)11:11, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Szabó Bálint Tamás! We are not Wikipedia moderators (there actually aren't any of those - we do have administrators but they're not in charge of draft review), just plain old experienced editors.
You last submitted your draft on October 9, and if you look at the draft you'll see up the top this message:Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,997 pending submissions waiting for review. Hopefully that will suffice for a status update :)Meadowlark (talk)11:58, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
12:36, 20 October 2025 review of submission by 88.209.117.210
Hello and thank you for reviewing the draft and for the detailed feedback.
I would like to improve the article so it meets Wikipedia’s standards, and I have a few questions to make sure I move in the right direction.
The book Eric Massholder was published in July 2025 and will soon be available through FNAC, so it is a verifiable published source. Should I limit the number of references and quotations from this book in order to avoid over-reliance on a single source and make the article publishable?
I understand that many exhibitions currently listed are unreferenced. Would it be better to remove most of them for now and keep only a small number of key exhibitions with independent references, and then expand later?
In general, would it be better to reduce the draft to a shorter, basic version first (only essential verified information), would take improve its chances?
Thank you again for your time and guidance — I appreciate any specific advice to align the draft with Wikipedia requirements.
An article is not merely for documenting the existence of a person or "basic" information. An article about a person must summarize what independentreliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition ofa notable person. There are also narrower notability categories likea notable artist. Anything that is sourced to Mr. Massholder or his associates does not contribute to notability.331dot (talk)12:57, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, IP user. The draft does not clearly specify the publisher of the book "Eric Massholder". If it is not published by a reputable publisher it may not be regarded as areliable source. If Kamil is indeed the publisher (presumably the gallery) then it is certainly not anindependent source, and can be used to support only limited uncontroversial factual information.ColinFine (talk)11:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
13:23, 20 October 2025 review of submission by 213.151.222.75
Hi, I'm trouble shooting why the Mitch Paone draft keeps getting declined, it should follow all the proper wiki criteria. Please let me know how to proceed. Thanks!DesignReviewed (talk)13:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @DesignReviewed, your draft wasn't declined before its deletion. It seems that you used a large-language model (LLM), such as ChatGPT, to generate the draft. LLMs often hallucinate, and out of the ten references on your page, only two actually exist - the rest are all from real sites, but the pages are completely made up by the chatbot. I suggest readingthis essay on LLM usage on Wikipedia andthe rationale under which your draft was deleted. Have a good day,HurricaneZeta (T) (C)14:11, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Aparnaamruthraj, the main issue with this page is the sourcing. There are only two sources, and the first source doesn't seem to support the claimHe is known for his political activism, particularly for **leading the Plachimada Coca-Cola struggle** and participating in various other protests in Kerala. The entire Early life and education section is unsourced (all claims, especially inBLP articles should be reasonably citedinline), as well as the career and awards and recognition section. The second source only contains a passing mention of the subject. I suggest that for this draft to be accepted, cite at least 2-3 reliable sources and 1 that shows significant coverage, preferably all of them (seeWP:42)HurricaneZeta (T) (C)15:38, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
16:13, 20 October 2025 review of submission by Louisvilleborn
I fixed your header, you need the full draft title, including the "Draft:" portion.
I restored the previous review; prior reviews must remain on the draft until it is accepted. It was declined because references were not properly done; please read the pages linked in the decline message carefully.331dot (talk)16:28, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
17:10, 20 October 2025 review of submission by Georgejaxx
Hi @DeonsGaming, a reliable source is secondary (not Wikipedia, which your source is, and not related to the subject), is independent, and provides significant coverage. If you can find something like a news article or a couple of them covering this mod, they would be reliable sources and you can cite them. Right now, your only source links to Wikipedia itself, which isn't a reliable source. Chances are that your mod isn't notable.HurricaneZeta (T) (C)18:43, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, those are primary sources and do not convey any information about the source. I don't think this mod is notable, unless you can get coverage from news sources or game sites and the link. Here's a list of reliable sources for video games/related things:WP:VG/S and here's a link for general sources:WP:RS/PHurricaneZeta (T) (C)20:04, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
18:55, 20 October 2025 review of submission by 66.210.44.45
Remember to log in when posting. Wikipedia is not social media for people to tell about themselves, please see theautobiography policy. Please also readWP:YOUNG along with your parent/guardian/custodian. You should not post personal information about yourself in this very public place.331dot (talk)18:58, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have resubmitted it and it is pending, the reviewer will leave you feedback. I suggest you cite or remove the uncited personal information about him.331dot (talk)10:15, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
04:32, 21 October 2025 review of submission by Aparnaamruthraj
@Aparnaamruthraj: that's exactly the problem, most of the sources onlymention him, in passing, without providing significant coverage of him. Passing mentions contribute nothing towards notability.
And the draft remains very poorly referenced, with entire sections without a single citation. Where are you getting all this information from?
Very few people have ever successfully created articles about themselves on Wikipedia, so itstrongly discouraged to try. SeeWP:autobiography.
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)12:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
07:03, 21 October 2025 review of submission by CloeyDeb
Can someone please explain what the issue is here, this woman is very prominent as a voice for Australian rural health and I'm not sure why I am being told she is not notable.CloeyDeb (talk)07:03, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CloeyDeb: did you read any of the reviewers' comments? They seem to me to explain quite clearly what the issue is. Notability is not about being a "prominent voice", it's about receiving significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are both reliable and entirely independent of the subject. This excludes interviews and anything where the subject is commenting on things, as well as anything based on publicity materials such as press releases, statements, advocacy or lobbying efforts, etc. --DoubleGrazing (talk)07:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
07:37, 21 October 2025 review of submission by Asbergerism
I recently wrote a page for New Zealanders of Cornish descent or "Cornish New Zealanders" and I used information sources or references? from the two reliable sources. One was the New Zealand Cornish Association and the other was Statistics NZ. I bet I probably didn't put something somewhere correctly or a trivial detail of such wasn't ... Anyway. I am not the best at formatting and I would like help from someone who knows how to navigate these parts. It's a valuable omission from wiki that I want corrected.Asbergerism (talk)07:37, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Asbergerism: your draft is unreferenced. There is one attempt at citing a named source, but that is not defined anywhere, so throws an error. Please seeWP:REFB for advice on referencing.
I will also add that primary sources may in some cases be used to verify information, but they do not establish the subject'snotability, which is a core requirement for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. --DoubleGrazing (talk)07:45, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Asbergerism. IN order to have a Wikipedia article about "Cornish New Zealanders" we would require several secondary sources; that is, several people whould indpendently have to have written books, studies, or articles specifically about the idea/category/group "Cornish New Zeaanders" - not just about specific people who are in that group. Do you think that is likely?
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)12:05, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Asbergerism First, I honestly don't see what the page adds to Wikipedia. Are we going to create a page for every county in England where NZers came from? Every province in every country where people migrated from to another place. Second, I don't think the draft page name is accurate. People who migrated themselves and their children might have been Cornish New Zealanders but their distant descendants aren't. Third, I don't think the New Zealand Cornish Association is an independent source, it's clearly related. And, has Stats NZ really written anything on the subject that might count as "significant coverage". For sig cov on this subject, suggest academic articles might be your best bet for sources. But suggest you might first readWP:42 andWikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.MmeMaigret (talk)03:10, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First, I think your keyboard manner could use some tweaking. I didn't come here to start a fight but you chose to comment on this... I'm not sure why the hostility is so high but thanks for your opinions, duly noted.Asbergerism (talk)04:45, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand exactly what parts of the draft are problematic. Is there any way I could receive more specific feedback? Thank you very much in advance. I really appreciate itAya.mochrik (talk)08:10, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I would like to check if this draft page is good for submitting for review, and if not, what are the improvements I can make to have it good to go for submission?Jasmine omens (talk)08:56, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't do pre-review reviews, please submit it in order to obtain feedback.
I would ask you about the logo, did you personally create it and personally hold the copyright to it as you are currently claiming? I see that you are a company employee, but typically a company holds the copyright. Logos are also not typically uploaded to Commons, which releases the image for use by anyone for any purpose with attribution(this includes competitors); logos are typically uploaded to this Wikipedia directly under "fair use" rules(which doesn't allow use in drafts, but does allow limited use in articles). Images are an enhancement, not a requirement for a draft.331dot (talk)09:18, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
09:04, 21 October 2025 review of submission by IanResearch
Hi there editors, I’ve trimmed my draft to remove promo tone and keep only third-party sources, but it was still declined as borderline WP:G11. Could you point out which parts are still seen as promotional so I can fix them? Thank you in advance!IanResearch (talk)09:04, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I searched this title on wikipedia, but didn't get a correct answer. So I thought to add what this exactly means. you can read the first paragraph where i mentioned what is event rentals and what they are providing and how the fare comes etc. when coming to the second paragraph i just add an external link because the person who search will get a clear idea on how exactly this service works. If you still feel its irrelevant, please remove this asap. thank youMass Event Rentals (talk)09:13, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have prepared a draft of an article about Paweł Rozenfeld:User:Sekcja Naukowa/sandbox.I believe it meets the notability and sourcing requirements of English Wikipedia.Could someone review and move it to the main space (i.e., create it as “Paweł Rozenfeld”) — thank you!Sekcja Naukowa (talk)10:56, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sekcja Naukowa I have fixed your header so it links to your draft and not to a nonexistent page entitled "Request to move draft: Paweł Rozenfeld".
You have submitted it for review and it is pending. Asking for a review does not speed this volunteer driven process, where drafts are reviewed in no particular order. Please be patient.331dot (talk)11:00, 21 October 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, and not much else.
After three attempts at submitting your draft, you have not managed to cite even one source that meets the criteria (seeWP:42), so the third reviewer has reasonably concluded that Cheleri does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and you should not waste any more of your or anybody else's time trying.
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. (I realise you created your account some years ago, but with only 9 edits in your history, you are still a new editor).ColinFine (talk)12:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
13:00, 21 October 2025 review of submission by Leonor1898
Hello,I wrote an article about the Luxembourg Protocol, and although I cited all my sources, the first submission was rejected. I put a lot of effort into it, but I was told that it appeared "copied" (due to close paraphrasing) or AI-generated.As this is my first serious article, I'm having trouble getting the style that Wikipedia requires. I would appreciate some help.Thank you in advance for any assistance.
Leonor1898 Please know that 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.
Thank you very much for your response and for the advice. Since I am not a native speaker, I always check the grammar with DeepL, grammarly or AI just in case. For my part, I have no problem whatsoever with the article being modified if it improves the English. I am being completely honest :)Leonor1898 (talk)13:20, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
13:19, 21 October 2025 review of submission by Michaeltopelpsyd
Hi, I'm a new editor (User:Michaeltopelpsyd) and not yet autoconfirmed, so I can't move my draft myself. I've prepared a biography draft on Jim Tullio, a music producer, with disclosed COI (I'm a professional acquaintance who conducted a 2025 interview—template added at top). It's sourced with independent refs and follows BLP guidelines.
Could a reviewer please move it to Draft:Jim Tullio and add the submission banner? I'd appreciate any quick feedback before I submit for AfC review. Thanks!
Michaeltopelpsyd I have fixed your header so it links to your draft as intended, and not to a nonexistent page entitled "request article be moved to draft". I have also placed your draft atDraft:Jim Tullio; draft space is the preferred location for draft submissions; draft space may be accessed by using theArticle Wizard.
Asking for a review does not speed this entirely volunteer driven process; it will be reviewed in due course as you have submitted it. Please be patient.331dot (talk)13:23, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that even if you were technically able to place the draft in the encycopedia yourself, this process is highly recommended until you gain experience in having drafts accepted- and if you have a COI it's more of a requirement.331dot (talk)13:24, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a question? I suspect you are writing about yourself, which is ill advised, please see theautobiography policy. Your draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. We don't have "profiles" here, we have articles. If you want to write a profile, use social media.331dot (talk)15:03, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
17:55, 21 October 2025 review of submission by MonsterTruckLover
Hello, I have created a new draft article about "Grade Calculator," a digital tool used by students and educators to calculate grades, GPA, and academic performance. The article includes an overview, types, and educational usage.
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)reliablesecondaryindependent of the subject
It's too early to be asking for help formatting and editing. You shouldfirst find at least 3 sources meeting all threeWP:Golden Rule criteria,before you write a single word of a draft. Right now you have zero such sources.
Given that Makerworld hasn't been around nearly as long asThingiverse, there may not be adequate sources. Printables is bigger and has been around much longer too, and it doesn't have an article either. ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)00:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
23:13, 21 October 2025 review of submission by Slgrandson
South African collection of poetry currently on the G13 list, previously tagged for AI, and not yet submitted. However, GNews brings up this item from a while ago; remind me if that qualifies perWP:NBOOK (further review hunts and a spot on myAFC queue aside).
We don't do pre-review reviews. I wouldn't accept it as it is. I'd say clean up whatever AI slop you can find (poor formatting, redundant headings, invalid sources if applicable) and then submit it. ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)00:04, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! My article has been waiting for review for around three weeks — could someone please take a look? In the meantime I've edited and improved my draft to meet notability + neutrality guidelines. I edited it based off previous reviewers' suggestions (rewrote sentences that were AI-modified, something I overlooked when I used AI to check for grammar, as it also reworded some sentences). I used third-party sources from news outlets like BusinessWorld, ABS-CBN, Philippine Inquirer, etc. Could someone kindly take a look or update on the article's status? I'd appreciate any feedback and comments as well, so I can incorporate these and hopefully receive final approval.
@M.reyes1987: we don't fast-track reviews by request; your draft will be reviewed when a reviewer gets around to it. As it says on top of the draft, reviews"may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,080 pending submissions waiting for review." Please be patient. --DoubleGrazing (talk)06:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article has almost no independent reliable secondary sources and none in "career"'. Even after separating the primary and secondary sources, almost all the "secondary sources" are articles by the university and one is to a list of patents (so essentially primary sources).
There seem to be 3 heads under which the article might qualify for presumed notability under WP:Academic.
Significant impact in their scholarly discipline is not, however, demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
So the questions I'd like help with are:
is a fellow of theAmerican Society for Microbiology grounds alone for notability, ie is it a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association or a major scholarly society
is the University of Alabama at Birmingham: a "major" institution (for the purpose of the distinguished professor criteria)?
Hi @Mmemaigret: I'd say as long as you can verify those two fellowships and the named chair (primary sources are enough), that should be enough to satisfy NACADEMIC. You'd certainly need to tag it for peacocky language and insufficient referencing, though. --DoubleGrazing (talk)07:07, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm reaching out to follow up on our draft titled Draft: Justin Loke. We incorporated the reviewers’ suggestions and submitted the updated version around two months ago. Since then, we haven’t received any further feedback or updates. We’re eager to move this forward and would really appreciate it if someone could take a look at the revised draft, or let us know if anything else is needed on our end to proceed. If it’s ready, we’d love to begin the next steps toward final approval and publication.
My article has been declined, citing "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies."
However, all I have written is using publicly available content published by credible sources, including Forbes, Nasdaq, the United Nations, and others. I have included proper citations/references of these credible sources in almost every sentence. Could you please pinpoint the exact sentence where it sounds like an advertisement, so that I can modify the same? I can see a similar article being approved and published by Wikipedia editors previouslyhttps://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verified_Market_ResearchParikshitdas91 (talk)04:06, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Parikshitdas91: The Spanish Wikipedia is a completely different beast from the English-language Wikipedia; I'm sceptical they have the exact same drafting and review processes we have. As for your article... good god,you've overkilled it.
Hi @Pawssum mobile vets, having a quick read, the two main issues are that the draft relies mostly onWP:PRIMARY sources, and that it comes across asWP:PROMO for Pawssum.
@Teri liew: we don't do pre-reviews (which are basically just normal reviews) here at the help desk. If you feel you have sufficiently addressed the earlier decline reasons, you can resubmit the draft, that way you will get a full review in due course. --DoubleGrazing (talk)06:54, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IP editor (I assume Teri liew? If so, please remember to log in!), I'll go over your first five sources and compare them againstWP:42 - this is our 'golden rule' for sources, and ideally you want every source to meet all three criteria there. To show that someonequalifies for a Wikipedia article, you need at least three sources that meet WP:42 and can point to which of the criteria inWP:BIO orWP:GNG you're relying on.
Business Times #1 is only a brief mention, not significant coverage;
I would strongly suggest going through your draft, assessing all your sources againstWP:42, and removing any that don't qualify. You will also have to remove any information that is sourced only to these weak references. If necessary, you can use a small number ofWP:PRIMARY sources for basic information like name, birthdate, etc. A few really good WP-42 compliant sources are much better than lots of weak sources.Meadowlark (talk)01:38, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Meadowlark - thank you for your kind guidance. the challenge about the Singapore main daily Business Times online platform is that you need to pay for subscription to get full article unless the stories already were with free access. What can i do in this instance ? I also thought that press releases from government agencies such as the Economic Development Board (EDB) would be reliable sources ? Singapore Business Review is an objective publication but I find that they do churn out stories as per media releases for those they do not add value to. I have deleted quite a number of references which are no longer valid as per guidance.Teri liew (talk)02:23, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Teri liew. Paywalled sources are acceptable, if they arereliable sources; but you may end up waiting longer for a reviewer who can read them. SeeWP:PAYWALL.
Singapore Business Review does not appear to have been discussed atWP:RSN; but from your dseciption, it would not be accepted as reliable.
Press releases from government are usually reliable, but they are almost alwaysprimary, and so do not contribute to establishing notability.
A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have independent chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and not much else. If few or no commentators have done so, or have not done so great enough depth to base an article on, then no article is possible.ColinFine (talk)12:37, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
08:07, 22 October 2025 review of submission by Touma m
Hello, I recently received feedback that my article on SoftNet Technologies Limited is not adequately supported by reliable sources and that it reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia entry.
I would appreciate some clarification on this. Are all the sources I used considered unreliable, or are only some of them problematic? Additionally, I’d be grateful for any guidance on how to adjust the article’s tone to make it more neutral and suitable for Wikipedia’s standards.
The draft just tells about the business activities of the company and its offerings. This is promotional here(WP:YESPROMO). A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independentreliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets thespecial Wikipedia definition of a notable company. This should not include staff interviews, press releases, the mere reporting of routine business activities, orprimary sources. Awards do not contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article(likeNobel Peace Prize orAcademy Award).331dot (talk)08:22, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
11:41, 22 October 2025 review of submission by O S Prasanth
I have fully rewritten the draftDraft:Satish Chandra Jha in compliance with the feedback received earlier. All AI-generated or speculative content has been removed, and the article now relies solely on verifiable information from reliable, independent secondary sources, including:
The Times of India
The Indian Express
The Telegraph India
Live Hindustan
Prabhat Khabar
Official Government of Bihar documents (Education Department orders and appointments archived on official/state websites)
The tone is now neutral, factual, and sourced as perWP:V andWP:RS. Please consider this version for re-review underWP:BLP andWP:NPOL criteria.
We don't do on-demand reviews here at the help desk. You have resubmitted the draft, and it will be reviewed in due course once a reviewer gets around to it.
Don't us an AI to talk to us.Times of India is questionable reliability (seeWP:TIMESOFINDIA) and doesn't do the article any favors. You were already told this in an AFC comment in the draft some days ago, and yet you haven't fixed it. ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)14:50, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@O S Prasanth No amount of editing can conjure notability up where none exists. Their career may have been excellent, but public servants are not generally notable. I have rejected the draft to save you from a load of work and heartache. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸09:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
11:58, 22 October 2025 review of submission by Le gen dary tlo
Hello, my draft about Nigerian Afrobeat artist Le gen dary (Meshach Akhuetiemhen) was declined for notability. I would like advice on how to improve the article so it meets Wikipedia’s notability requirements for musicians. The artist has released an EP (Roots and Rhythm, 2025) and has been featured in several online articles and press releases. Could you please guide me on what types of reliable sources or references I need to add, and how to properly format them?Le gen dary tlo (talk)11:58, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, my draft about Nigerian Afrobeat artist Le gen dary (Meshach Akhuetiemhen) was declined for “not sufficiently notable.”I would like guidance on how to improve it so it meets Wikipedia’s notability requirements for musicians.The artist released an EP titled Roots and Rhythm in 2025 and has been covered in online news articles and music blogs.Could someone please explain what kind of reliable, independent sources I need to add or how to format them properly?Thank you for your help.Le gen dary tlo (talk)12:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft was wholly promotional and has been deleted. "Rising" musicians almost never merit articles; a musician must have already arrived and receive coverage in independentreliable sources that shows how they meet at least one aspect ofthe special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician.
Writing about yourself is ill advised, please see theautobiography policy. I suggest that you go on about your career as if Wikipedia did not exist; once you are truly notable someone independent of you will write about you.331dot (talk)12:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
13:23, 22 October 2025 review of submission by 2601:282:2:A8B0:F0EB:34B2:290:E327
I don't know how this page keeps getting denied, specifically for the reasons listed. Especially as similar pages like this one exist:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NewStore.
Rejection is typically the end of the line for a draft. If you have fundamentally changed the draft to address the concerns of prior reviews, you should first attempt to appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly and ask them to reconsider.331dot (talk)19:50, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have already sent a message to the editorUser:Seawolf35 who had rejected it but did not receive any response. I have now added independent and reliable sources to this draft. But even now people are commenting on this draft that the sources are not reliable and independent. Please help me. All the sources I have added are from Indian news agencies likeAmar Ujala,Hindustan newspaper and Amrit Vichar newspaper. All sources are independent and reliable.BrownCanary61 (talk)06:01, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EditorGenomics2025 I have left you a comment to assist you prior tp your first review. Bizarrely this posted first for @331dot. I have removed the notification form their user talk page, made an edit to the template they added, and placed the notification on your user talk page. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸21:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The submission of my article was declined due to the existence of the "Metalloproteinase" Wikipedia article. However, I feel that my page is very different as it is much more specialized, detailing a specific subclass of enzyme, compared to the more general overview of Metalloproteinase as described in this other article. I was hoping you could provide info regarding what specifically in my article is too similar to this other article that is preventing it from being accepted. Thank you.EthK34 (talk)00:14, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EthK34 Please consult your course tutor, as requested on your user talk page,if this is part of your WikiEd course. If the draft is important to your gradeplease do nothing to prejudice that grade.
With respect to the article and the draft, we do not use Draft space to prepare replacement articles. if you wish to editMetalloproteinase please go ahead and edit it. By this Ido not mean you should make a wholesale replacement. What you should do is to enhance it with properly referenced material where it is susceptible to enhancement. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸08:35, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
00:20, 23 October 2025 review of submission by KennethBaclawski
I received an email that I or someone on my behalf has tried to create a Wikipedia page with title "Washington Academy of Sciences". I have not tried to do this. I am on the Board of Managers of the Washington Academy of Sciences. What should I do about someone trying to create a Wikipedia page on my behalf?KennethBaclawski (talk)00:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @KennethBaclawski, and welcome to Wikipedia! You do not need to do anything - but I would be very wary of people contacting you about this draft, or indeed about Wikipedia in general, as there are many scammers who will try to get money out of you. Please seeWP:SCAM for more details, and report anyone who attempts to scam you using the information on that page. Best wishes,Meadowlark (talk)01:44, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@KennethBaclawski if you look at the draft you can see that it was created byDrabmuh. You will see that they have commented on their relationship in a discussion on their user talk page. It appears likely that they are known to you and you to them since they and you have each declared a relationship with the organisation.
Please use normal caution; this is the internet. While we have no reason to believe nor to disbelieve either of you, anyone can say that they are anyone, so it is up to you and to them to check each other's bona fides. I say this without intending to cast aspersions on either of you, and in the hope that you see that with clarity. Please, however, SeeWP:OUTING and act with public awareness of privacy.
Both parties do need to be aware ofWP:SCAM. Money should not be solicited nor change hands. I am not suggesting that this has been the case here.
Note, please, that anyone may create an article about any topic on Wikipedia provided it meets our acceptance criteria. The creation of a draft or an article should be of no concern to you, but a simple matter of pleasant surprise that one may be forthcoming. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸08:49, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
08:29, 23 October 2025 review of submission by Kushal079
@Kushal079: we don't do on-demand reviews here at the help desk. You have submitted the draft, and it is awaiting review. Please be patient. As it says on top of the draft,"This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,093 pending submissions waiting for review." --DoubleGrazing (talk)08:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am creating a draft article about Dr. Ashwin Porwal, an Indian colorectal surgeon based in Pune. The draft covers his biography, career, and innovations in anorectal surgery.
I am seeking guidance because the previous submissions were not accepted. I would like feedback on whether the current references demonstrate sufficient independent coverage to meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria for biographies of living persons, and advice on improving the draft to make it acceptable for Wikipedia.
Current references include coverage from The Indian Express, Times of India, India Today, Asia Book of Records, and an international patent.Hhc rajdeep (talk)08:38, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hhc rajdeep: we don't do pre-reviews here at the help desk, but I can tell you that the sources currently cited do not establish notability, because they are the subject commenting on things (plus that one patent citation, which contributes nothing).
@Hhc rajdeep You have not done sufficient research. I suggest you readthis essay, which has a process for researching and storyboarding a draft. Finding references whcih verify notability is the only place to start. Writing the draft is the final task in an article creation process. We are not looking for a great swathe of text, nor a huge number of references. We are looking for a precisely written draft from excellent references, neither too many too few. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸09:43, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hhc rajdeep: you will need to show that the subject meets the general notability guidelineWP:GNG, or possibly the one for academicsWP:NPROF. However, please be aware that the vast majority of surgeons and physicians are not notable, so you may well be on a hiding to nothing. My local hospital is a large teaching hospital of one of the top-3 medical schools in the world, and I am almost certain none of their surgeons have Wikipedia articles, or at most a few might do, but they are likely to have knight-/damehoods or other significant honours and/or senior positions at the university. --DoubleGrazing (talk)09:46, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hhc rajdeep I wonder whether you read what I have said to you. My guidance to you is the same. The same guidance is valid for any article creation. To help you, here is what I said:
You have not done sufficient research. I suggest you readthis essay, which has a process for researching and storyboarding a draft. Finding references whcih verify notability is the only place to start. Writing the draft is the final task in an article creation process. We are not looking for a great swathe of text, nor a huge number of references. We are looking for a precisely written draft from excellent references, neither too many too few.
@Hhc rajdeep I see you are creating a walled garden of drafts to promoteAshwin Porwal and his clinic. In June you inserted many promotional paragraphs into mainspace articles seeking to promote the clinic and Porwal. This failed and you received a number of warnings.DoubleGrazing,331dot, and I have tried to assist you, but I am now certain that you atWP:NOTHERE. The declaration of paid editing is not a licence to promote the organisations who are paying you. You have stretched my good faith beyond its elastic limit. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸17:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention to promote or advertise the company or the Dr. I have read the sources and I am grateful for the help. I will check notability, proper articles and references and then get back to editing. Sorry for any trouble.Hhc rajdeep (talk)07:50, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re Reliable Sources Ive quoted the Book the world record is published in and provided copies of the documents. What other evidence do you require? I have some congratulatory notes from different organisations, but I would have thought the Book was sufficient?2A0A:EF40:1624:B301:157A:9166:7446:888D (talk)12:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you are the creator of the draft, remember to log in when posting. As you took all the images, please disclose your connection to this event, seeWP:COI.
It would help a great deal is the draft had not been AI generated. it has all the hallmarks of AI generation, and needs to be written by a human being.
I want to upload a biography of someone notable here in Doha. I really want to publish an article about him. Please help me craft an articleJasxbaguio (talk)12:58, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I saw you deleted a draft I created about Dr. Devesh Chaturvedi, an IAS Officer. He holds a really high, significant position in Govt. of India. I understand you might not be aware of this but it was just a draft I made and I was still editing it. Wikipedia told me I can edit drafts and review them based on the submissions and comments left by reviewers. Why would you DELETE it? It has literally been 24 hours and it was not even published. I will now have to recreate the draft, I can't even find a way to reuse the details from the previous drafts.Dr.DeveshChaturvedi (talk)13:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First, you are speaking about Dr. Chaturvedi as if you are not him, but you are using his name as your username. You shouldn't be doing that unless you are him. If you are not him, you need to immediately request a change of username viaSpecial:GlobalRenameRequest orWP:CHUS.
You disclosed a COI on the draft itself; please also do so on your user page for better visibility, seeWP:COI. A photo used in your draft says it is a work of the Indian government; if you are employed by the Indian government, the Terms of Use require you to declare as a paid editor, seeWP:PAID.
@Dr.DeveshChaturvedi: it was purely promotional, with zero indication that the subject isnotable, and completely unreferenced as well. In any case, autobiographies are very strongly discouraged, seeWP:AUTOBIO. If you wish to tell the world about yourself and your exploits, you need to do that on a different platform, such as LinkedIn. --DoubleGrazing (talk)14:08, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
15:44, 23 October 2025 review of submission by 64.8.144.211
You can't, it has been rejected. It's a single sentence that has no sources. Writing a new article is the most difficult task on Wikipedia, please get some experience editing before attempting it. SeeYour First Article.331dot (talk)15:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
17:54, 23 October 2025 review of submission by 2001:579:2430:3710:5D7C:E5EC:7C00:5D57
This article satisfiesWP:GNG with significant coverage in independent reliable sources (Playbill, IBDB, BroadwayWorld, Palm Beach Post) documenting Broadway credits with Al Pacino/Kathleen Turner and regional premieres, plusWP:PROF#C1 as UF associate professor with extensive theatre scholarship. All claims verified via primary (IBDB) and secondary sources. Ready for mainspace.
Please, there seems no suitable reason to continue denial of this article as there are similar articles published with not even half the notability presented here. I urge publication of this as submitted, or any suggestions that will help me achieve this goal. Thank you so much for consideration.2001:579:2430:3710:5D7C:E5EC:7C00:5D57 (talk)17:54, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I’m reaching out regarding our submission titled Draft:Paystand. It has been more than 30 days since we submitted the article, and we have not yet received a review or response. We would appreciate any update on its current status or next steps.
We’re happy to provide any additional information if needed.
Hello @JValle21. Who is "we"? Accounts can only be used by one person. If you are employed by this company youmust declare this by following the instructions atWikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Failure to do so is a breach of our Terms and Conditions.
@JValle21: disregarding the pointless resubmission just a moment ago, this draft was most recently submitted on 1 Oct, which is c. 3 weeks ago. It will be reviewed in due course, once a reviewer gets around to it. Please be patient. --DoubleGrazing (talk)18:25, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This page's creator also submittedpt:Jorge Patrão to Portuguese WIkipedia mainspace. I don't speak Portuguese (though I can read it a bit because of its similarity to Spanish), but I suspect that article is LLM-generated too because of its overuse of boldface and dashes. I've attempted to PROD that version but I'm not sure if I've done it right, so if any reviewers here are active on ptwiki, I'd appreciate it if they could check that page and fix any template errors (or remove the template if they think it's not LLM-generated).—pythoncoder (talk |contribs)18:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
19:23, 23 October 2025 review of submission by AmandaK1987
It absolutely was a how-to guide/comparison. That is why I rejected it. I also left a message on your User Talk page about the class assignment.qcne(talk)19:38, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who once made a Wikipedia article for a class assignment, I wrote the text in Google Drive before publishing it. The article,First Chinese Baptist Church of San Francisco, is written in an encyclopedic tone and provides an overview of the topic, such as the church's history and physical structure. I also did it after having written dozens of other articles. Just from the title alone, this article would read as a directory for public services rather than an overview of the history/role/functions of a Kansas public health department. You could perhaps start withPublic Health Department of Kansas (or correct name) in a similar style and structure the articles on the main page are laid out.GGOTCC23:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This draft was strictly informational- as no where on Wikipedia do you have this information about local health departments in the state of kansas.AmandaK1987 (talk)19:35, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Articles about health departments should be summarizing what independentreliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the particular department, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition ofa notable organization. They shouldn't be comparing services or just describing them. We draw no distinction between "informational" and "promotional" here, seeWP:YESPROMO.
It is a poor and unfair assignment to give you to require you to create a Wikipedia article. It puts you under pressure while we aren't concerned with tasks you have been assigned. Your teacher should review theWikipedia Education Program material so they can design lessons that put less pressure on students and benefit Wikipedia.331dot (talk)19:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Could someone please move my sandbox submission for Interactive Entertainment Group, Inc. to the Draft namespace? It’s currently awaiting review but shows the “should be moved” warning. Thank you! —Stephengalgocy1 (talk)21:19, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've done my best to review this page 4-5 times now and made every adjustment possible. There are many comparable prodjects with pages that are far less objective in nature than the one prepared here. Just confused as to what more needs to be done to get this published and hence curious if someone can give more feedback. Appreciate all the help otherwise.Emmonsemmo (talk)23:42, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Emmonsemmo, when I look at your draft my first question is: how does this companyqualify for a Wikipedia article? There's a specific guideline,WP:NCORP, and it also tells you what sort of thingsdo not help show that the company qualifies (atWP:CORPTRIV). Your aim is to find three or more sources that all meet the triple criteria atWP:42and also indicate that the company meetsWP:NCORP in some way. Most companies don't, which is why creating an article for them can be very frustrating and often impossible.
When it comes to other companies/projects that have articles - often, these have been created in the 'wild west' of Wikipedia's early days and no one's looked at them much since then. It's also possible for people to create articles directly in mainspace that never get reviewed. If you've spotted articles you think shouldn't exist, please link them here or at least give us some names - we can't act on them unless we know about them! If you bring them to our attention, we can do something about them. I hope this is all of some help.Meadowlark (talk)23:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Emmonsemmo Please seeother stuff exists. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and just not yet addressed by a volunteer. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible, in many ways, for inappropriate content to get by us. This cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. Please tell us what this other inappropriate content is so we can address it and avoid others doing what you did. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that areclassified as good articles, which have received community vetting. Don't use any random article.331dot (talk)23:58, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Wikipedia team,My article about CafeScore was not approved. Could someone please help me understand specifically what I need to improve or add to the article for it to be approved?Thank you very much.Nguyễn Đăng Tráng (talk)03:11, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Nguyễn Đăng Tráng, please read the boxes inside the decline notices at the top of the page. There are two main issues:
It appears to have been written by aLLM/AI. We'd prefer an editor writes and verifies an article, not a machine prone to hallucinations.
Hello, @Nguyễn Đăng Tráng. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject inreliable sources.If enough material is cited from independent sources to establishnotability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.ColinFine (talk)12:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
07:26, 24 October 2025 review of submission by Eitan577
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, I’ve resubmittedDraft:CYE (company) after addressing all previous feedback (added independent reliable sources and rewrote the text for a neutral tone). Would someone be able to take another look? Thank you!Eitan577 (talk)07:26, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Eitan577 You have alleged that editors are discriminating against your draft because it is an Israeli company. If you have evidence of discrimination please take that evidence toWP:ANI as I have suggested in a very firm warning against making accusations of discrimination on your user talk page. If you have no evidence please apologise and withdraw those allegations.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
08:16, 24 October 2025 review of submission by Independentwriter8
I'm not sure how to improve so it doesn't read as much as an advertisement. In my opinion it reads very similar to the Wikipedia page from Kärcher (my main inspiration for this article). Their sources are also often their own website, but this company has existed for 90 years, so there's also some material available outside of their own website. i-team Global does not have it on that extend, but I've seen other Wikipedia pages who also don't have that many sources. Can someone help me improve?Independentwriter8 (talk)08:16, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please seeother stuff exists. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and just not yet addressed by a volunteer. There are many ways inappropriate content can exist, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. This is why it is a poor-if understandable- idea to use any random article as a model or example. If you want to do that, use those that areclassified as good articles, which have received community vetting.
You(or your AI) has just documented the existence of the company and described its activities and offerings. Instead, you (you, not an AI) should summarize what independentreliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets thespecial Wikipedia definition of a notable company.
Could someone please let me know why my article failed the review process? I am trying to write a neutral article on TRIO Technical Solutions Ltd as a business, and although I am the MD of the company, I have declared in my user profile that I have a conflict of interest with the subject. I have used neutral language throughout the article, and tried to make it informational, as well as reference external awards sites where TRIO has been shortlisted or later won the award. It is in no way meant to be a 'sales piece', and so I would really appreciate some help and guidance on how to get this article accepted, please. Many thanks!62.254.117.225 (talk)08:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you are the creator of the draft, remember to log in when posting. The creator of the draft disclosed a conflict of interest, but if you are them, and you work for the company, you must make the stricterpaid editing disclosure instead, a requirement of the Terms of Use.
I fixed your header, you need the full title of the draft when linking(including the "Draft:" portion).
You are making a very common, but fundamental error, in that you are telling us what you want the world to know about your company, like its activities and offerings. That is the wrong approach. You call this "informational"; Wikipedia is not for merely providing information, we consider that promotional here, seeWP:YESPROMO, you don't have to be actively soliciting customers or selling something. Instead, you must gather and summarize what independentreliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets thespecial Wikipedia definition of a notable company. This should not include staff interviews, press releases, brief mentions, or the mere reporting of routine business activities.331dot (talk)08:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
as this information is important for the general public to know , i request to to re-consider the deletion of this page , its authentic and important knowledge for the users of this siteRitzOne (talk)10:23, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am once again struggling to get an answer on why a New York band with six albums and countless awards over their 14-year career is not being accepted to Wikipedia. I just added another source from an article in a prominent New York newspaper about the band's new single and a launch for their new music video (something organized solely by the band), and yes, there's an interview component but this isn't just some "blog." One of the band's singers just appeared on a popular and prominent national television competition series, as well. I have spent a lot of time researching and writing this entry and updating it to meet the Wiki standards and now one Safari Scribe has had a STOP put on it, so I can't even resubmit with the changes for reevaluation, and there doesn't seem to be anyone there to actually HELP get these articles published. Why is that?Edouglasww (talk)12:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And it was mentioned at least once when it won (as well as a source to when he was a finalist). I've removed many other sources already, because I was told they were unreliable. I was up to 40 sources at one point.Edouglasww (talk)12:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Though the Lennon contest is mentioned in that article, it doesn't yet have an article itself that shows it is a "major competition".331dot (talk)13:00, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to hear that. Unless you have a COI, you are free to disregard what more experienced people are telling you and move the draft into the encyclopedia yourself, as this process is usually voluntary. However, you would be rolling the dice that it wouldn't be nominated for a deletion discussion.331dot (talk)13:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merely releasing albums does not confer notability, as with the internet anyone can post music to the public. If an album or song charts, then there is notability.331dot (talk)13:03, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I did not realize this was an option, but the only reason why I have been so adamant about having my entry accepted is because during the course of me writing and trying to get it approved, I have seen many other bands on Wikipedia that do not meet the criteria as far as airplay, charting, etc. I'm not going to mention names but I saw a band opening at a concert who I had never heard of, and as most people do, I went looking for more information right here on Wikipedia, and they were listed with zero albums, no charting, etc. So clearly, people have been getting pages for other bands/musicians approved, while I've struggled, while spending time that I should be using for my paid writing gigs. I'm not sure being a band's fan and wanting to have more info about them in one place would be considered a COI, would it?Edouglasww (talk)13:15, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Edouglasww Being a fan is not a COI. But it can be mistaken for one if the person is so much of a fan that their personal investment in the topic acts as rose colored glasses, preventing them from hearing what more dispassionate people are saying.
That other articles exist does not necessarily mean that they were "approved" by anyone- or, if they were, that they meet current standards(depending on when the approval was done). This is why each article or draft is judged on their own merits and not based on the presence of other articles.
You said you have been a journalist for 30 years. I'm guessing that you thought that would be perfect experience for writing a Wikipedia article, and it certainly doesn't hurt. But writing for Wikipedia is very different than journalistic writing, as you are finding out. We usually recommend that new/inexperienced users not dive right in to creating articles- the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia- without first getting experience editing existing articles. Otherwise users often end up as you have- frustrated and angry as things are happening to, work you spent hours on about a topic that you personally enjoy, that you don't understand. I'm sorry this has happened.331dot (talk)14:46, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say that some of the worst writing I've seen on Wikipedia has been by people claiming to be journalists. I recall one some years ago who got all huffy when his highly non-neutral unsourced prose got reverted, as if being a journalist bestowed a presumption of correctness, and eventually left without ever accepting any advice. It is gratifying to see that Edouglasww has been receptive to feedback.
That said,@Edouglasww: there aremany ways described inWP:BAND for a band to merit an article here. If going through that list doesn't turn up any met criteria, then it's best to move on to something else. It may beWP:TOOSOON, so the draft can be revisited later. If it gets deleted after six months of inactivity, it can be restored easily simply by making a request atWP:REFUND. ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)18:54, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
13:43, 24 October 2025 review of submission by Agorgey737
I recently developed an article introducing my bio as a research scientist. It appears that the article does not meet the criteria of Wikipedia. I really appreciate help and support to edit my article and hopefully, it possible published by Wikipedia.Agorgey737 (talk)13:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Agorgey737 It seems that an AI Chatbot developed the article and you took that material and risked whatever it said. Please do not use AI to create anything.
You need to checkWP:NPROF and work out if you pass. Then, if you do, you need to destroy 100% of the AI generated slop and consider whether you are the person to create an article on yourself. Are you able to be sufficiently neutral about yourself to write objectively? Fewer than 5% of people are. Even if you think you are able to do it, why do you want to appear? Wikipedia does not enhance your reputation; you must enhance Wikipedia. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸13:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Agorgey737. Please read ourautobiography policy, and remember that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject inreliable sources.If enough material is cited from independent sources to establishnotability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not eventhink about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such asverifiability,neutral point of view,reliable, independent sources, andnotability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (theBold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to readyour first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. And that is even without aconflict of interest.ColinFine (talk)12:16, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
14:22, 24 October 2025 review of submission by Jam.mckit00863872sd
Except that almost all of the persons named in this list do not have articles. The purpose of a list article is to list members of the list that have articles.331dot (talk)17:02, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was resubmitted multiple times without any changes. If there's an indication of being unresponsive to the previous declines messages, there's no reason for reviewers to keep spending time on it.hekatlys✉18:40, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to make the list yourself with reliable citations included to serve as the source of the information. However, a list of mayors in a town smaller than my highschool graduating class will likely fail to passWikipedia:Notability (politics) and may be deleted after a discussion.GGOTCC16:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no master schedule for when content is added to Wikipedia. Everything is based on unpaid volunteers, and their interests/willingness is what dictates the topics of articles.GGOTCC16:50, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject..." I've cited a biographical piece in the "Wall Street Journal," one in the "Nashville Post," one from the "Chicago Tribune," one from "Modern Healthcare," one from "Reuters." These are articles either entirely about him or largely pertaining to him. Along with several other resources for a guy who is largely responsible for establishing a Fortune 20 company, has a Deanship named for him at Washington and Lee University, and was integral along with two Heisman Trophy winners in selecting a football coach at Auburn University then auditing its athletic department.Dswisener (talk)17:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've got junk sources in there, such as Investopedia, routine announcements, and press releases. I suggest you clean those up before resubmitting. In particularInvestopedia is an unreliable source, and including it is a red flag that would trigger a decline, and since it's yourfirst source, a reviewer isn't likely to waste time looking further because the creator of the draft didn't review it properly first.
You need multiple significant coverage in reliable independent sources. I only see sig cov of the subject in Investopedia and Super Money. The rest are mentions. Investopedia is flagged as a unreliable source and the SuperMoney article also read like as not independent. So I think you need to find two good sources that discuss him for 250 words or more. (Also, on another note, 8 inline citations for one fact is over the top. Also, I would name the page Mac Crawford.)MmeMaigret (talk)06:38, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
21:33, 24 October 2025 review of submission by ScratchMC
Would you be able to point to the specific reason(s) my page keeps getting declined? Happy to make any necessary adjustments. Thank you!ScratchMC (talk)21:33, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated this for speedy deletion as unreviewed AI slop that includes a pre-declined review template in the very first edit as well as citations only to company pages and press releases. Really, you should know better. SeeWP:Golden Rule for starters. You can use an AI to help you find sources that meet Golden Rule criteria, but you should really write the article yourself, onlyafter you find sources. ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)06:56, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This draft was started by someone else. I revised it and, when I thought it was ready, submitted it for AfC review. (This was before I had reviewer rights myself).
The draft has been declined for encyclopedic tone/peacock terms. I've reviewed it again and I don't know what the reviewer is referring to so I'm struggling as to what to change.
I'd appreciate suggestions about what can be changed so that the article seems more neutral/objective.
The only peacock term I see might be "community leader" but that isn't the reason it was declined. To me it's borderline hagiography. You would get a more complete explanation if you asked the reviewer,Josedimaria. ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)07:06, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mmemaigret I think we have just seen that human beings are fallible. All of us make mistakes. Your draft has, as you will know already, beenAccepted by a different reviewer. Thank you for bringing this question here. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸09:26, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's all good. With an overabundance of caution, I removed any word that might be taken as subjective and resubmitted it and it was accepted. Thanks all.MmeMaigret (talk)15:38, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
10:19, 25 October 2025 review of submission by 2A0D:3344:3090:3908:68AF:4BA5:90D0:38A7
Having carried out considerable research and reviewed your guidelines, I believe this now meets and qualifies for a Wiki article. Does this now not show significant coverage about British restaurateur, Jeremy King with reliable published sources, indecent of the subject?
If not, I would appreciate some feedback as to where it falls short.
@Thomas.flynn: you cannot delete a page, since you are not an administrator. You canrequestspeedy deletion, but that will be declined, since you are not the sole author of that draft. (In any case, you placed the deletion request inside 'nowiki' wrappers, so it won't even be seen by an admin.) --DoubleGrazing (talk)17:04, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The creator ofDraft:Jeremy King is a disclosed paid editor who hasn't made any edits since he created that draft in July. I think @Thomas.flynn should pick anything that can be useful and update his draft with that material, and then submit just that draft. I would prefer seeing a draft from someone without a COI, and lose the paid-edit version. Thomas.flynn doesn't have many edits but he's been around for more than a decade. ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)17:36, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I'm just editing my version and have followed the advice of removing inline links and added the relevant external links and further reading sections.Thomas Flynn (talk)17:39, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Salvage what you can from the other version, and then I can delete it as a duplicate. Let me know when you're done. Don't resubmit yours until you have addressed the problems described in the recent declines. ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)17:42, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In particular, any sources in the other version that meet all three criteria inWP:Golden Rule, you should definitely use in your version. Those are the kind of sources that reviewers want to see. ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)17:49, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I addedThe Guardian source from that draft into your "further reading" section. Try to incorporate that and others into citations rather than list them in further reading, before resubmitting for review. ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)19:18, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have since move many titles from the 'further reading' section into the main copy and repurposed them as citations. I've also added a 'Restaurants' section, quite similar to NYC restaurateur David Chang's page (David Chang) as I feel it's important to list what he had, what now has and what's coming. Could you let me know your thoughts, with these changes/amendments now made? With thanks. ThomasThomas Flynn (talk)11:59, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lose that list.David Chang is a poor example to follow. It violatesWP:INDISCRIMINATE. Most of those restaurants aren't notable. There is no need to list each one separately. InDavid Chang I have condensed the bullet list into prose, which is preferable to a list. A list would be appropriate if each restaurant had its own Wikipedia article, but none of these do.
Using some other article as a basis for yours usually leads down a wrong path. Wikipedia contains a lot of crap already, which should be fixed or removed instead of compounding the problem by shoveling on more.
Hello, I’m requesting a review of the decision made on October 25, 2025, whereDraft:Funktasy was rejected by reviewer ZyphorianNexus for “not sufficiently notable.”The draft includes multiple independent, reliable, and secondary sources establishing notability perWP:GNG andWP:NCORP, including:CBC News – Meta suspended his business’s social accounts — it took him a month to reach a human (national coverage)MSN News – syndicated version of the CBC articleTipRanks – reference to the CBC coverageAmsterdam Dance Event – Hoss listed as an official ADE artistThe article has been fully rewritten for neutrality, fixed for citation errors, and verified to use reliable, independent sources.Would it please be possible for an experienced reviewer or administrator to reopen the draft for re-evaluation?Thank you very much for your time and consideration.- TanyaMusicwikiwiki (talk)18:00, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Musicwikiwiki thank you for taking the time to improve the draft.
I've re-examinedDraft:Funktasy, and my initial concern remains that the topic does not yet demonstratesignificant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources as required byWP:GNG andWP:NCORP.
The cited CBC/MSN article focuses primarily on Meta's account-suspension issue, not on Funktasy itself in a manner that provides substantial, in-depth coverage. Likewise, listings such as Amsterdam Dance Event are considered routine mentions rather than independent coverage. TipRanks' reference merely repeats what CBC already covered and thus does not add new, independent analysis.
While I did notice some improvements to neutrality and formatting in the page's history, notability depends on depth and independence of coverage, not on the number of citations or the subject's online presence.
After checking the cited sources and searching for additional coverage, I was unable to find any independent, non-trivial, in-depth sources that would establish notability. If such sources become available — for instance, features or profiles about Funktasy in major, independent publications — the draft could be reconsidered. For now, I do believe the decline remains appropriate per policy.ZyphorianNexusTalk18:32, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
19:29, 25 October 2025 review of submission by Vishnurajthannickal
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
My draft article "Aadhaar Enrolment Centre" was recently declined. Could someone please let me know the specific reasons for the decline and provide guidance on how to improve the article to meet Wikipedia's notability and sourcing requirements? Thank you.Vishnurajthannickal (talk)19:29, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vishnurajthannickal It was not declined. You wrote this draft with the assistance of ChatGPT, and ChatGPT is not very good so it automatically added a broken decline notice to the top of the draft. I have removed the malformed ChatGPT-generated code.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
20:19, 25 October 2025 review of submission by OliverTwist83LuLu
Hi, thank you to whoever reviewed my draft about Stuart Grauer. Could you please clarify why it was declined and what I can improve (sources, tone, notability, etc.) before resubmitting?
Hi, my draft was declined earlier today, and I was wondering if there could be some clarification on the notability rules? From the comment from the AfC thing, it seems as if the notability rules inWikipedia:Notability (music) don't apply as long as there are sufficient reliable secondary sources with substantial coverage of the topic?
I have added a few more sources to the draft, and I was wondering if they are enough, as I don't want to resubmit if the changes are inadequate so as to not waste the time of reviewers. I would be very grateful for some clarification and/or assistance on this topic. Thanks!Jerry0225 (talk)21:26, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Scratch: User profile: Has an account where TheRealSansPlayer has created and shared projects using the Scratch programming language. Projects: Has created and shared projects such as "Sans clicker," "Sans platformer," and "Colorful platformer!" and 64 more. Project development: Actively improves existing projects and has contributed many projects such as "Luck RPG Incremental NG+" and 66 more to many studios. Community engagement: The account has received recognition from other users for its games and advice.
Stax Project inclusion on Stax: The project "Rainbow grow a garden" was indexed by Stax, an AI block-coding community, providing visibility beyond the Scratch platform. It also achieved 1st place on the leaderboard. (no commenting or contributing is available on Stax.fun)
CodeTorch User profile: TheRealSansPlayer is also associated with CodeTorch, another block-coding platform. Projects: One of TheRealSansPlayer projects on this platform is "Paper Minecraft" and many more. 8th place on the leaderboard
Boot.dev Owns an account that frequently reaches the top of the daily leaderboard and is connected to a related discord channel. Makes personalized challenges and spends gems to get exp. is my corrected post, I didn't mean to advertise, just to inform.TheRealSansPlayer (talk)01:21, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
13:23, 26 October 2025 review of submission by Lekkyson4wiki
I’m new to Wikipedia and I'm made a draft of AbsoluteDigital Pictures, a British CGI studio, has been declined twice for lacking enough secondary sources. Could someone help me understand what kinds of sources I need or where to find them?
hi there - the reviewer appears not to have read the referenced article in the Irish Times which describes David as "one of the most consequential Irish diplomats of the past 60 years". Could you clarify what else would be required to enable the creation of this article?Londonojb (talk)17:42, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Accepted 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸22:15, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Declined as rendered impossible to review properly because ofWP:CITEKILL andWP:BOMBARD, with a fuller rationale on the draft. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸10:23, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NDeleted so this is now moot 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸17:18, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]