Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

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


November 4

[edit]

00:04, 4 November 2025 review of submission by Evan Shenberger

[edit]

Because i want my YouTube channel to get more famous, but it got hated quickly. Please, help me. Evan Shenberger (talk) 00:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Evan Shenberger:, because this is a company page, it will need to meet WP:NCORP. In order to show that, there needs to be sources that talk in-depth about the company. Unfortunately, I cannot locate any in a search so do not believe this will be notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Evan Shenberger. Because i want my YouTube channel to get more famous means "to promote my channel". Promotion of all kinds is forbidden on Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 10:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

00:23, 4 November 2025 review of submission by Mkecassidy

[edit]

Hello, I'm new to Wikipedia and submitted my first article last week. It was almost instantly rejected. Being new, I expected a good number of suggestions and some hardy editing. Unfortunately, the editor of my piece left very little direction on how the piece could be improved. He noted that it sounded like an advertisement and was based solely on cited material that was created by me. I tried hard to take a neutral approach to the piece and in fact studied published entries covering two similar companies and used them as a guide. I thought all three pieces were fairly similar in terms of neutrality. I'm quite willing to accept that I failed the neutrality test, but I could use some specific pointers on how to fix that. As for the second point on citations, the short entry that I produced includes many citations from third-party sources and none from material created by me, so I wonder if there isn't some confusion here. Any suggestion on how to proceed? Thank you. 

Mkecassidy (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you ask the reviewer?
To me it looks like you're describing mundane company operations, and that the draft exists solely for publicity purposes.
If what you wrote "was based soley on cited material that was created by me" do you mean you created the sources and you are citing them? If so, that won't work. Sources must be independent of the article subject. See WP:Golden Rule for an overview of the sort of sources we expect. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:14, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Very helpful. I wanted to gather a little more information before asking the reviewer, as I was honestly confused by the second part of their critique. I included more than a dozen citations, including The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, TechCrunch, Fast Company, Bloomberg, The Irish Times, none of which included material in part or in total created by me. I thought maybe I was misunderstanding the point the reviewer was making.
I will ask them about the shortcoming there and work to make the piece sound less like an advertisement. Thanks again. Mkecassidy (talk) 22:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Mkecassidy, your main goal is to show that this company qualifies for a Wikipedia article - being a company, the specific criteria you need are at WP:NCORP. Companies are difficult because most of what you'll find is simply routine business activity; most companies are not and never will be notable by Wikipedia's standards. You need at least three sources that meet all three criteria in WP:42.
As to the advertisement comment - offers a suite of products including fraud and chargeback protection with a 100% financial guarantee is very promotional. Basically if the company would use the sentence in their advertising, Wikipedia probably isn't interested. I hope that helps! Meadowlark (talk) 02:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the example of advertising language. That's the kind of guidance I was looking for. I'll explain what the company does in a different way and look through the piece for other similar types of descriptions. Thanks again. Mkecassidy (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Mkecassidy. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 10:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ColinFine. Yeah, I thought I had enough material from independent sources to meet the criteria, based on other published Wikipedia entries I reviewed. But, it's back to the drawing board. Thanks again. Mkecassidy (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just hopping in here to say that if you want to see articles that would be good to compare your draft with, have a look at the aptly named 'Good articles' for your subject's field - here's the business/organisation ones. These articles have been reviewed and vetted by the community. There's a lot of articles on Wikipedia that shouldn't be here, often from the early days when the criteria were much less strict, and we simply don't have enough volunteer time to find and improve them all. Unfortunately this means that you may end up comparing your draft to a terrible article without knowing! If you do run into articles you think are questionable, we're always happy to have a look at them and take appropriate action. Meadowlark (talk) 00:17, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That makes a lot of sense @Meadowlark. Thanks for the pointer. As a matter of fact, the two articles I most closely studied were from some time ago — 2019. I'll check out the Good Articles page you referenced.
Thanks again. Mkecassidy (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:03, 4 November 2025 review of submission by Sarfy36

[edit]

Hi... I just created a simple new page... however it got declined for lack of footnotes/references. I have added references though... what am I missing? Please help. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Shakuntla_Bhagwaria_(politician) Sarfy36 (talk) 01:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the decline notice and comment I left on the draft. It explains what you are missing. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:45, 4 November 2025 review of submission by 2607:FEA8:551F:8090:607A:7727:6AF0:FF2F

[edit]

bro publish it then i will delete i=t 2607:FEA8:551F:8090:607A:7727:6AF0:FF2F (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's rejected. That means stop, don't waste your time further, and don't waste our time. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:59, 4 November 2025 review of submission by FactMechanic

[edit]

Hello! I created the article for Excel Motors (a Jamaican automotive manufacturer) and need help understanding what qualifies as a credible source. The sources I cited were from verified sources (the BBC and Jamaica Observer newspaper). The response cited a press release by one of my sources was an issue. Is a press release from a verified independent source an inadequate credibility? FactMechanic (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a very simple guideline that explains what qualifies as a credible source: WP:Golden Rule. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @FactMechanic. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 10:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the advice. Does this mean that if there is no news source where the original founder is not speaking that the company never existed in the eyes of Wikipedia? With the company going out of business more than twenty years ago and little press coverage of anything in Jamaica at that time, much less a small manufacturer, how would I be able to prove that this was a real company in the eyes of Wikipedia if a source where the founder is speaking is deemed not credible. FactMechanic (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't confuse existence with notability. Wikipedia has articles on notable subjects as defined by WP:CORP. Existence is not sufficient.
There have been millions of companies that went out of business over the past few centuries, and almost none of them merit a Wikipedia article. Thousands in Silicon Valley where I live rose and fell during the dot-com bubble (I was involved with three of them), and none would merit a Wikipedia article either, in spite of the fact that they existed and likely generated a local news story here and there. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining the notability requirements! This is the most concise answer I’ve gotten regarding publishing issues. I hadn’t considered that the subject’s notability itself would contribute to the source issue. I will try to better understand these requirements for future publications. FactMechanic (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The notability requirements for any topic are summarized concisely in WP:Golden Rule. You need multiple (like, at least three) golden-rule sources for a topic to be considered notable. In the case of corporations, WP:CORP has an additional requirement that the source must have national scope and audience reach (or at least regional). ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:16, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:10, 4 November 2025 review of submission by Yuli04011995

[edit]

I would like to know which of the references are not considered reliable sources. Also this subject I believe meets the requirement that the subject qualifies for an article, per the requirement that it meets any of the eight academic-specific criteria, specifically, this subject meets criteria under the Wikipedia:Notability (academics) page (ie. person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution as the chair of the Computer Science department of Boston University). I appreciate your help, thank you very much. Yuli04011995 (talk) 02:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yuli04011995 All of them. I have left a comment on your draft. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:41, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:34, 4 November 2025 review of submission by JilingHat

[edit]

He is Famous Artist in Bangalore i don't know why the articles got rejected ? JilingHat (talk) 03:34, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of the sources are written by the subject. Essentially, all of those references are advertisements. We are not interested in what Sejekan thinks about himself, but an overview of how others his impact, as each source should be independent of the subject and reliable. The only sources not by Sejekan mention him only in passing.
You call him famous, but fail to explain why. Are there any well known pieces he made? What were the awards for? Superlative claims like that should be self-explanatory in the article rather then out-right stated. GGOTCC 03:49, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(User blocked as a sock.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:30, 4 November 2025 review of submission by Mykyta Ageyev

[edit]

Could you please explain to me, why my draft is not eligible for Wikipedia? Mykyta Ageyev (talk) 05:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mykyta Ageyev. Like the thread right below, your draft fails to show that this company meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). In particular, most or all of your references are of the sort specifically ruled out by that notability guideline, namely announcements of funding rounds, IPOs, acquisitions and executive hires. These are the type of sources specifically excluded by WP:NCORP#Examples of trivial coverage. It's all "the company announced this" or "a company executive said that". These sources are clearly generated by company press releases or public relations activity. One is openly identified as a press release. These sources are not independent, and do not provide significant, in depth coverage of the company. Your next step is to do one of two things: eliminate the weak references and instead provide references to far better sources. Or, to abandon the draft if excellent sources do not yet exist, because without such sources, it is not possible to write an acceptable Wikipedia article about the organization. Cullen328 (talk) 08:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mykyta Ageyev, one of the things that has caused the rejection is that you decided to resubmit the draft without making any changes at all - this leads reviewers to conclude that you do not think you can improve the draft, in which case it should be rejected to avoid wasting your time and the reviewers' time on pointless resubmissions. It's always a good idea to read reviewers' comments (on your talk page and under the big pink box on the draft page) and edit the draft to address the problems they mention. Meadowlark (talk) 08:16, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your comment.
I will review those sources and will update an article! Mykyta Ageyev (talk) 08:48, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mykyta Ageyev, if you think you can salvage this draft, there's a few things you need to do. The draft has been flagged as being written with the help of AI/LLMs (ChatGPT or similar) and as not having good references. Firstly, read through WP:42 and WP:NCORP so you know what kind of sources you can use. Then to address the LLM concern, you will need to completely rewrite it - not just update it - in your own words. If you do both of those, you can then appeal to the rejecting reviewer, @Theroadislong (courtesy ping). Don't do this until you're absolutely certain that the draft is as perfect as you can make it - you will probably only have one chance here. I'm not sure that the company does meet WP:NCORP, as outlined by Cullen above - so make that your first priority. Good sources are key! Meadowlark (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:36, 4 November 2025 review of submission by 36Flames

[edit]

This article was rejected thrice & the third declined has no comments. How to proceed for improvement? 36Flames (talk) 07:36, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 36Flames. Your draft fails to show that this company meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). In particular, most or all of your references are of the sort specifically ruled out by that notability guideline, namely announcements of funding rounds, IPOs, acquisitions and executive hires. These are the type of sources specifically excluded by WP:NCORP#Examples of trivial coverage. It's all "the company announced this" or "a company executive said that". These sources are clearly generated by company press releases or public relations activity. These sources are not independent, and do not provide significant, in depth coverage of the company. Your next step is one of two things: eliminate the weak references and instead provide references to far better sources. Or, to abandon the draft if excellent sources do not yet exist, because without such sources, it is not possible to write an acceptable Wikipedia article about the organization. Cullen328 (talk) 07:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Cullen328 for explaining it in details. However, can you share some examples which are considered as notable sources because I have checked & wasn't sure about it. The citations which I have mentioned are actual & factual data with journalist involved & those are perennial sources as well. Still Notability is an issue. Hence, need guidance with some examples. -- 36Flames (talk) 06:46, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Golden Rule. I mean it. Read it. It's short and direct. Don't do anything else until you read it.
Once you've read it, then tell us, which sources do you believe meet all three criteria described? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:57, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Anachronist, again my question is - I need some organisation examples to understand more about Notability because all the perennial sources or Indian Newspaper are covering it or not. I have read all the Notability related guidelines. Now I just want some reference to check so that I am pretty much sure about it & then cross check with Veefin Group article so that I can improvise or else will ask for deletion of the article. -- 36Flames (talk) 07:21, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Organization examples? See Wikipedia:Good articles/all and search the page for "company", then you'll find plenty.
You still need to answer the question I asked. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 07:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Anachronist. I will definitely come back to you with the evaluation of my article (Veefin Group). However, I still don't have clarity. Entire Good Articles page doesn't have any Indian company similar to my queries. Maximum of them are of US or any other region. Some of the articles are viewed, however, it is of places or something. Which are not giving me any clarity. As mentioned below to Cullen328, there are lots of theories, but we are lacking in terms of examples or clarity. -- 36Flames (talk) 08:20, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In your browser, go to Wikipedia:Good articles/all like I suggested, press ctrl+F to find a word on the page, and search for the word "company" and you'll find many examples.
However, you are also asking the wrong question. Each article is evaluated in isolation without regard to what else exists on Wikipedia.
All that matters are whether you have multiple sources meeting WP:Golden Rule criteria. I ask again, what three sources do you believe meet the criteria? If you actually read WP:Golden Rule, it should be trivially easy to identify sources that qualify. The first source, for example, is a press release, so it doesn't qualify. Most of your sources, in fact, are either press releases or announcements of routine activities. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 09:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Anachronist, @Cullen328Cullen328 or @DoubleGrazing I got some clarity. Still looking for example for good coverages.
I totally understand and did the analysis as suggested. Veefin Group article has to be deleted. It does not pass the Notability. Even first comment was "no evidence of notability whatsoever; the sources are just routine business reporting, which does not contribute towards WP:NCORP."
What I have understood is the guidelines (theory) & things which should not be included.
Many articles are not notable as per the WP:RSNOI
My simple question is -> I just need 2-3 Indian company related sources link where I can understand clearly about notability which includes all the details. I have understood for biography, films and others.
My Analysis:
Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass Notes
Economic Times Link 1 Yes No No Yes Used for key people from ongoing news.
Entrepreneur Link 2 Yes No No Yes Used for key people from ongoing news.
Business Standards Link 3 Yes No No Yes Used for key people from ongoing news.
Financial Express Link 4 Yes No Yes Yes Used for key people. Acquisition trivial coverage not counted.
Economic Times Link 5 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Used for Lead Paragraph, it has ISSN mark as well. Low in significant, however, it should be valid as Journalist spoke about details.
Livemint Link 6 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes IPO is not a trivial coverage (not mentioned there). Coverage is low as per the topic, however, Journalist has mentioned about the company details.
The Hindu Businessline Link 7 Yes No No Yes Raised funding, trivial coverage. This can be removed.
Financial Express Link 8 Yes No Yes Yes Acquisition, trivial coverage. This can be removed.
The Hindu Businessline Link 9 Yes No Yes Yes Acquisition, trivial coverage. This can be removed.
The Hindu Businessline Link 10 Yes No Yes Yes Acquisition, trivial coverage. This can be removed.
Financial Express Link 11 Yes No No Yes Acquisition, trivial coverage. This can be removed.
BW Disrupt Link 12 Yes No Yes Yes Acquisition, trivial coverage. This can be removed.
Entrepreneur Link 13 Yes No No Yes Acquisition, trivial coverage. This can be removed.
Campaign India Link 14 Yes No No Yes Acquisition, trivial coverage. This can be removed.
The Hindu Businessline Link 15 Yes No No Yes Acquisition, trivial coverage. This can be removed.
Entrepreneur Link 16 Yes No No Yes Acquisition, trivial coverage. This can be removed.
Financial Express Link 17 Yes No No Yes Acquisition, trivial coverage. This can be removed.
Total qualifying sources 6 These 6 are my forced ones.
36Flames (talk) 14:45, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@36Flames: I have removed the indenting from the table so it displays properly, and corrected the "Pass" column based on your assessments of the other columns (which are unchanged). Based on that, there are a total of only two that pass, not 6. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:29, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist, thank you very much. I have got some clarity. Let me try if I can find some good sources. Still learning. If things doesn't workout. I will ask for deletion. -- 36Flames (talk) 17:52, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@36Flames: this draft was only declined, not rejected (rejection would mean the end of the road). Comments are optional, it is the decline notice that matters, as it gives the reason(s) for the decline. In this case, it is say that there is insufficient evidence the subject is notable according to the WP:NCORP guideline. You need to therefore provide better sources to satisfy that guideline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, DoubleGrazing for explaining it in details. However, can you share some examples which are considered as notable sources because I have checked & wasn't sure about it. The citations which I have mentioned are actual & factual data with journalist involved & those are perennial sources as well. Still Notability is an issue. Hence, need guidance with some examples. -- 36Flames (talk) 06:46, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You asked the same question above, and I answered it above. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you say it was declined with no comments? And this is actually the fourth decline. :The third decline, by reviewer user:Thilsebatti, had the edit summary "Declining submission: adv - Submission reads like an advertisement" with an inline template explaining in that problem in detail.
The fourth decline, by user:AllWeKnowOfHeaven after you made minimal changes, had the edit summary "Declining submission: corp - Submission is about a company or organization not yet shown to meet notability guidelines" with an inline template explaining the notability problem in detail. Meters (talk) 08:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ohh my apology, Meters, I have not checked the comments under the history section. I was checking the top section of the article. -- 36Flames (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
36Flames, the issue with sources is not whether the source is notable. Some highly notable sources are completely unreliable. Examples of notable but unreliable sources that come to mind are Weekly World News and Der Stürmer. What you need are sources that are simultaneously reliable and independent and that devote significant, in depth coverage to this topic. WP:RSP is a guide to commonly discussed sources, but it is not comprehensive because there are many thousands of sources. Wikipedia editors need to develop the skill of evaluating the reliability of lesser known sources on their own. Cullen328 (talk) 07:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Cullen328. Exactly, my point is the same. There are lots of theories about notability. There are lots of dont's in the notability. I have seen in many of the AfD's that Indian Newspapers are not notable & close the AfD. How we can develop skills if there are no clarity? That is why I am asking for examples for entire notability. -- 36Flames (talk) 08:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
36Flames, are you really hearing me? You are focusing on the notability of sources which is irrelevant. What is relevant is the RELIABILITY of sources. Cullen328 (talk) 08:20, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328, I am talking all about notability. Presumed, Significant Coverage, Reliable, Sources & Independent of the Subject. Yes many of the citations do have Journalist & they are from perennial sources. So, yes I am hearing to you. But still clarity is missing. -- 36Flames (talk) 08:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@36Flames: I think at this point you're just arguing the semantics or whatever, rather than making the effort to actually understand our policies and guidelines. There is plenty of "clarity" around our definition of notability, starting at WP:N.
The long and short of it is that the sources in your draft provide no evidence of notability, being only routine business reporting ("Veefin appoints...", "Veefin raises...", "Veefin launches...", etc.), which is invariably based on press releases or similar material, ie. not independent, and only covers a specific issue such as new product launch rather than providing independent and significant coverage of the subject as a whole.
You said earlier that if Veefin doesn't prove notable, you'll drop it. I think we're getting close to that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:23, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, DoubleGrazing. I know that if there are multiple declines & all of them are towards notability (majorly seen for independent & significant coverage) then the article will not go to mainspace. I also know that I will not be able to answer Anachronist appropriately. Even my mentor (Codename Noreste) is not replying for my questions. I am not arguing, just need clarity or else everytime I will fail to contribute.
1) My understanding for independent means source is from publicly published newspaper from perennial sources list and journalist name present then how come it is still not independent?
2) Just need few Indian organization examples where sources are notable which covers all the 5 pointers.
Also, I need a mentor to guide me. If you can be my mentor it will be great. Don't worry I wont't ask too many queries. -- 36Flames (talk) 08:51, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"My understanding for independent means source is from publicly published newspaper from perennial sources list and journalist name present then how come it is still not independent?"
There is more to it than that. A perfectly 'legit' source, say the New York Times or The Guardian, may publish an article which is based on an interview of a business founder or executive talking about their business. That would mean it is not independent, as it is a primary source (the subject talking about themselves), although appearing in what would typically be classified as a secondary publication. Similarly, many seemingly respectable publications, eg. trade magazines such as CRN, routinely carry content based on press releases etc., which again would not be independent, significant coverage, even though the publication itself is by and large an acceptable source.
Indian newspapers have (not only, but especially) a reputation for low 'news threshold', and are even known to accept content in exchange for payment. That is why routine business reporting, celebrity gossip, film-related chatter, etc. in them is often treated with a degree of skepticism; see WP:RSNOI. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:03, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DoubleGrazing, this is good & thanks. I know this. Let me evaluate Veefin Group article with all the citations so that it will be answered to dear Anachronist as well. -- 36Flames (talk) 13:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@36Flames: Another rule of thumb (you probably already know this): Don't just focus on where the article comes from, pay attention to what it says. If it's just reporting funding or acquisitions, it probably will be rejected as not "significant". A lot of the sources you used are not "significant", so it doesn't matter if they're independent. AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:57, 4 November 2025 review of submission by 12Gaurav12

[edit]

Why my article get rejected , I want to know reason 12Gaurav12 (talk) 07:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 12Gaurav12. Your draft is an almost entirely unreferenced essay giving your personal opinions about modern furniture. Please read WP:NOTESSAY. It bears no resemblance to an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia already has an article called Modern furniture and does not need another article on the same topic. Cullen328 (talk) 08:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:46, 4 November 2025 review of submission by Info.jkshukla

[edit]

Dear Team, I have put a lot of afforts to write my first article. I am new to Wikipedia. The Person I am writing about is very renowned for her work in the industry and received multiple rewards and recognization as well. I took help from LLM to fix any gramatical errors of my article, not to write it.

I need your expert guideance and advice to publish the article It will also help me to contribute more on Wikipedia by writing and updating more articles. Please help me. Thanks, Info.jkshukla (talk) 10:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Info.jkshukla You took a photo from her website, but her website states "all rights reserved", so you cannot use images from her website here and you must immediately without delay request the image's deletion from Commons. The vast majority of images on the internet are not suitable for use on Wikipedia.
You have documented her work and accomplishments, but this is actually not what is being looked for- we are looking for a summary of what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about her and what makes her a notable person as Wikipedia defines one. If she is renowned for her work, we need the sources that say that and why, not just a description of her work. Awards are meaningless towards establishing notability unless the awards themselves have articles(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award).
If you can fundamentally change the draft to address the concerns, you should first appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 10:53, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You must write in your own words, do not use AI. Please see guidance on AI use. 331dot (talk) 10:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Info.jkshukla Please never upload copyright violations anywhere, least of all to Wikipedia Commons. At least you declared the apparent author, but even they are unlikely to be the copyright owner. Stuff you find om the internet is almost always copyright items and you may not upload them.
This has been nominated for deletion on Commons as a copyright violation. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 11:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I'm sorry, but this draft does not show any shred of notability for the person, and that means there cannot be an article about her. As for the LLM style writing, one typical indication (not by any means the only one!) is the inclusion of fluff text similar to "X has been profiled in Y publication". That's irrelevant! If the text in Y publication is a reliable, independent, and secondary source, information from there can be included in the article without any help from an AI, with the publication Y source used as a reference. An AI also doesn't understand that something like the paid puff piece replicated in four different places here, here, here, and here is the same thing and cannot be used as four different sources – a human reading the sources discovers that in a few seconds! (To be clear, that source is worthless for Wikipedia's purposes anyway and can't be used at all.)
Abandon this draft and spend some weeks or months editing existing Wikipedia articles to learn about the policies and guidelines. Doing that will make you much better able to create a draft from scratch! --bonadea contributions talk 11:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The draft has been rejected, not just declined. That means STOP, don't continue wasting your time or ours on this, and move on to something else.
It is obvious that the LLM did far more than merely "fix grammatical errors" as you claim. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:56, 4 November 2025 review of submission by Thembinkosi Nene

[edit]

i want to know why is my article declined Thembinkosi Nene (talk) 12:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thembinkosi Nene I have fixed your header so it links to your draft as intended, you need the full title, including the "Draft:" portion.
The reviewer left the reason at the top of the draft, do you have more specific questions about it? 331dot (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Thembinkosi Nene.
The reviewer told you that three of your sources were not reliable, so you have responded by removing two of them and resubmitting with no other changes.
This is like if you built a house, and an engineer told you that some of the beams were not strong enough to support the structure, so you just took those beams out. This doesn't work: you need to cite (and base almost the whole of your article) on sources that are reliable, independent, and contain significant coverage of Prizmondz Artz - see WP:42. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 17:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:10, 4 November 2025 review of submission by MATHEMATICART

[edit]

Why u reject my article ? An article about mathematics and art. I am an artist and in same time a mathematician specialized in artificial intelligence. My company is www.directingintelligence.com and my artistic work is www.mathematicart.org MATHEMATICART (talk) 14:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @MATHEMATICART.
Your draft was rejected because it isn't an encyclopaedia article, it is an essay or a research paper.
A Wikipedia article should be a summary of existing published sources about a subject. original research is never acceptable in a Wikipedia article.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 17:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:11, 4 November 2025 review of submission by Touma m

[edit]

My draft has been declined again. I understand that the reviewer mentioned it reads more like an advertisement rather than an encyclopedic entry. However, I had previously been advised to declare a Conflict of Interest (COI), which I did when editing my draft the second time. I was under the impression that making this COI disclosure would help my draft move forward in the review process. Could I please get more clarification on why the disclosure didn’t affect the outcome, and what specific changes I should make to meet Wikipedia’s neutrality standards? Touma m (talk) 14:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's best for you to disclose on your user page(also see my comment on your user talk page) so it has maximum visibility. While it's required that you do this, it is not a guarantee or promise that your draft will be accepted.
What you are attempting to do is not easily accomplished. Please read WP:BOSS, and show it to your superiors, as it is specifically relevant to your situation. Most people in your position fail; are you the rare person who can succeed? Possibly, but the odds are against it. 331dot (talk) 14:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The awards you mention do not contribute to notability, as the awards themselves lack articles(like Nobel Peace Prize or Grammy Award). You have just summarized the activities of the company, this is routine coverage that does not establish notability. Please read WP:ORG carefully. 331dot (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:39, 4 November 2025 review of submission by ContentCreator100

[edit]

Hi, I just want to understand why this article was declined when it contains just as much if not more references than other articles about music composers/directors (for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurent_Belissen)? Thank you ContentCreator100 (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ContentCreator100 Please see other stuff exists; that other articles exist does not necessarily mean that they meet current standards, if they ever did. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can, when they can, inappropriate content can get past us. This cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles, which have received community vetting.
If you want to help us, and prevent others from doing what you did, please identify these other articles you have seen so action can be taken. We need the help, and we are only as good as the people who choose to help. The article you cite, Laurent Belissen(the whole url is not needed when linking) has only one source and isn't acceptable at present. 331dot (talk) 14:49, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ContentCreator100:, I left a comment on the draft. It is an uphill battle here as there is a lot of rewriting and sourcing that needs to be replaced. Even then, there is no guarantee of notability, but at least this is a place to start should you decide to continue working on the draft. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I really appreciate the help. I will continue working on the draft with your feedback in mind. ContentCreator100 (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:17, 4 November 2025 review of submission by Zena Ghossoub

[edit]

Hello, my draft “Zena Ghossoub” was recently declined with the reason “This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia,” under the WP:NARTIST guidelines. I would like to request that the draft be moved to my user space (User:Zena_Ghossoub/sandbox) so I can continue improving it by adding more reliable, independent sources and neutral content. I am working on improving the article's notability and would appreciate any further feedback or guidance you can provide. Zena Ghossoub (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to be in your user space, you are welcome to continue to edit it where it is. Draft space is the preferred location for drafts. As long as you edit it once every six months, it will remain(and even if deleted due to inactivity it may be restored via WP:REFUND). If you improve the draft to address the concerns, you should first appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zena Ghossoub: It's been rejected, not just declined. That means stop, don't continue, you would be wasting your and the community's time submitting it for further review.
I don't know what possesses people to want to write articles about themselves. Vanity? Self-promotion? Publicity? None of those things are allowed here. See Wikipedia:Autobiography for further advice. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:21, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for review: Chrome Angelz RC draft

[edit]

Hello editors, I’ve recently resubmitted a draft for Chrome Angelz RC, an international women’s motorcycle riding club founded in 2011. The draft now includes multiple independent reliable sources, such as: CBC News via Yahoo Canada (2015) NBC26 News (2019) Journal Tribune / Portland Press Herald (2018) Duluth News Tribune (2019) Wisconsin Agriculturist (Farm Progress, 2019) WBBM Newsradio (2023) Cronkite News (2021) I’ve also rewritten for neutral, encyclopedic tone, disclosed my COI as the organization’s webmaster (not a member), and used self-published sources only for verifiable factual data like founding year and nonprofit status. The current draft is located here: 

👉 User:85frankenstein/sandbox

Would any experienced reviewer be willing to take a look when time permits? Thank you very much for your time and help! 

—85frankenstein (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @85frankenstein. I've moved it to Draft:Chrome Angelz RC and removed the broken code that ChatGPT generated when you used ChatGPT to format your draft. Since you used ChatGPT, please very carefully read Wikipedia:Large language models and ensure every part of your draft has no LLM hallucinations.
The draft has been submitted for review and will be reviewed in due course. qcne (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much !!!!! ~2025-31224-09 (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
85frankenstein Remember to log in when posting. 331dot (talk) 18:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:10, 4 November 2025 review of submission by Nideon

[edit]

Hi,

I need support to undeatand what it is needed to the page being accepted.

there issue is mention as the next : WP:NCORP there is zero significant coverage in independent sources.

but it was not dificult to find similar irish companies with a wikipedia page that has the same templete as me that it was accepted.

Exemple : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_Networks

So I need support to understand what is needed. My latest edit has 12 references. Nideon (talk) 18:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nideon Please see other stuff exists. That other articles exist does not necessarily mean that they were "approved" or "accepted" by anyone. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can, when they can, it is possible for inappropriate content to get past us, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. This is why we judge each article or draft on their own merits and not based on the presence of other articles. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Agile Networks has been tagged as problematic since 2012. Not the best example to use. 331dot (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:29, 4 November 2025 review of submission by Ryan Kaviu M

[edit]

why was it decliined please provide in depth information Ryan Kaviu M (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can say that you cannot take an image of the school logo to get around copyright, you will need to immediately without delay request its deletion. 331dot (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your sources are mostly primary sources or basic information. The school seems like it could be notable, but you need more independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:04, 4 November 2025 review of submission by Masudparvej023

[edit]

I am requesting assistance to improve and verify information about the Ziovix social media platform. As the founder and current CEO, I want to ensure that the details presented are accurate, neutral, and meet the notability and formatting standards required by Wikipedia. I seek guidance in organizing the article structure, adding reliable sources, and properly categorizing the content under relevant WikiProjects. Masudparvej023 (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place to promote your platform. See WP:YESPROMO. 331dot (talk) 19:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting administrator/reviewer attention – Draft:Dr Sunita Dube

[edit]

Hello, I would like to request an administrator or experienced reviewer to review my draft article Draft:Dr Sunita Dube.

The draft has been improved with multiple independent, reliable sources including The Indian Express, Hindustan Times, The Times of India, Business Standard, and The Week, as well as references in government and academic records (Rashtrapati Bhavan DPL listing).

Earlier feedback (by 331dot on 4 November 2025) suggested the subject may be notable but needed stronger sources. These have now been added.

Kindly consider re-reviewing for publication. Thank you! Wiki-Edit-Your-Life (talk) 19:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Draft:Dr. Sunita Dube Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:14, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you have already selected the article for review. It will be checked when a reviewer is available. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:15, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean "submitted", @Lee Vilenski ColinFine (talk) 11:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:13, 4 November 2025 review of submission by ~2025-31286-63

[edit]

Where should I place the paid editor disclosure? And what should this disclosure look like? ~2025-31286-63 (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest way to disclose would be to create a non-temporary account and disclose on its user page; absent doing that, just disclose on the draft talk page. 331dot (talk) 19:35, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please log in to your account User:Jared Press when editing. Theroadislong (talk) 12:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:52, 4 November 2025 review of submission by GFeastko4444

[edit]
Answered with an exhortation to find a better website 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:36, 5 November 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.

help GFeastko4444 (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GFeastko4444 Please go elsewhere to share your fictional stories. There are plenty of other websites that allow that content. qcne (talk) 20:53, 4 November 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.

21:06, 4 November 2025 review of submission by XRodox

[edit]

My submission was rejected, I’d like ways I can better revise and update my draft to make it more effective and more likely to be accepted. XRodox (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @XRodox. You have provided no evidence that this person meets our strict criteria for inclusion: Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion (people). You need to do that for there to be any chance of an acceptance. It is quite likely this person does not currently meet our criteria, and therefore cannot have an article written about her. qcne (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:18, 4 November 2025 review of submission by ~2025-31256-01

[edit]

Can you edit this article? ~2025-31256-01 (talk) 22:18, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can, but we generally do not get involved in co-editing here. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 02:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's now a reasonable stub, I think. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:49, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 5

[edit]

02:23, 5 November 2025 review of submission by Borunth

[edit]
Draft deleted editor blocked 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:33, 5 November 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.

Please help to post from sandbox Borunth (talk) 02:23, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Borunth: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. I've tagged this advertizement delivered with the volume of a jet engine for deletion. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 02:33, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

12:50, 5 November 2025 review of submission by Safitis

[edit]
Contact made between editor and reviewer 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:32, 5 November 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.

Greetings, colleagues. I'm a little unclear about what's wrong with this article. Of course, I don't have much experience, but the sources are quite serious, professional, and quite authoritative for Uzbekistan. Usmanov is being discussed by authoritative critics in the country. Perhaps it would be worth expanding on the sources for this article? Usmanov and his work are not being mentioned in passing. He has received awards and recognition.

If you could suggest anything to strengthen the article, I would be extremely grateful. Thank you! Safitis (talk) 12:50, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Safitis First, please have a converstaion with the declining reviewer. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:02, 5 November 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.

13:51, 5 November 2025 review of submission by Lukedxhehexd

[edit]
See WP:NOTSOCIAL 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:34, 5 November 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.

Why did you remove my article, yes I understand its not true or anything like that but still. I'm explaining why we should understand strangers fairly? Im complaining about this btw Lukedxhehexd (talk) 13:51, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not host essays, this is not a blogging website. Please find the proper forum for your essay, like social media. 331dot (talk) 14:00, 5 November 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.

15:22, 5 November 2025 review of submission by Borisandre

[edit]

Hi everyone,

I’m looking for some advice on my draft article on Klippa. It was declined on 25 September 2025 with the note that the references didn’t show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article.

Since then, I’ve rewritten it carefully to make sure it uses a neutral tone and only relies on independent, reliable, secondary sources, none of which we had any involvement in creating. I’ve tried to ensure the sources give real coverage, not just brief mentions or routine announcements.

Despite these changes, the draft hasn’t been reviewed again since September, and I’m not sure why it’s still falling short. Could someone take a look and let me know whether the current sources are strong enough under the WP:GNG and WP:ORG guidelines? And if not, what specifically I could add or change to get it closer to acceptance?

I’d really appreciate any guidance, as I’m trying to make sure everything fits Wikipedia’s standards and is done the right way.

Thank you for your help! Borisandre (talk) 15:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a hurry? The template says it can take more than 2 months. There is no deadline here.
Just looking at it, it still contains evidence of having been written by an AI. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't use multiple forums to seek assistance; I replied on your other posting. 331dot (talk) 15:47, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Borisandre no Declined with rationale. Your decision is now simple. Are you able to find sources thus?
We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
If so then rework the draft according to what those sources say. If not I suggest abandoning your quest. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:25, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:12, 5 November 2025 review of submission by Boyd2703

[edit]

My draft was flagged for peacock language and not sounding like an encyclopaedic entry. Could I please have further insights on this? I can see the word 'strengthening' may be deemed peacock language but uncertain where else I have written it not like an encyclopaedia. Keen to improve and learn! Would love to start over and resubmit but would like clearer insights into how I can improve the writing, is it a need to strip back the information and language entirely? Many thanks. Boyd2703 (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are making a fundamental- if common- error in that you are telling us what you want the world to know about your company, like its activities and offerings. That's the wrong approach. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. "Significant coverage" is that which goes beyond just telling routine information about the company and goes into detail about what the source sees as important/significant/influential about the company. You have 52 references- far too many- most of them seem to be basic reports or other primary sources. What are the three absolute best independent reliable sources with significant coverage that you have?
Please see WP:BOSS, and show it to your superiors and colleagues. Companies trying to force the issue of creating an article about them aren't usually successful. Our articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the topic, who take note of coverage of a topic and choose to write about it. 331dot (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Boyd2703 Thsi draft is a blatant advert. I have requested speedy deletion. That does not stop you from starting again. However, as presented, I an unable to see the org passing WP:NCORP. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:32, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to review my article and share your feedback. I truly appreciate your experience and insights, particularly regarding writing quality and sourcing. I’m currently conducting a thorough review and have started revising the draft based on your recommendations.
While I understand your concerns, I would like to request that the article not be deleted at this stage. I believe there is sufficient third-party coverage and reliable sources to meet notability requirements. Additionally, I’ve noticed similar articles, like the Klippa one above, proceeding despite potential conflicts of interest, which makes me feel this topic warrants inclusion as well or at least a second chance.
That said, I fully respect your expertise and the standards you uphold. My aim is to improve the article so it aligns with Wikipedia’s guidelines, and I welcome any further advice you may have. Please may I have another opportunity. Thanks so much. Boyd2703 (talk) 17:27, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Boyd2703 No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
Ask a self declared paid editor you may not advertise your paymaster's business. You may only writ neutral and well referenced prose. You might be able to solve the major issues the draft has, but you will be far better to start from new, good sources. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:19, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:21, 5 November 2025 review of submission by Vasima Faruqui School

[edit]
Editor blocked 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:14, 5 November 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.

Hi Boby,

This is Jwaad Ahmed, the president of Vasima Faruqui Charitable Society. I am the founder of Vasima Faruqui School, I have started this school in the beloved memory of my mother Vasima Faruqui and please help me upload this information on Wikipedia. I am new to Wikipedia. Your help is highly appreciated and approval is highly obliged.

Regards, Jwaad Ahmed President & CEO Vasima Faruqui School Vasima Faruqui School (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Rejected draft deleted, user blocked.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:31, 5 November 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.

17:26, 5 November 2025 review of submission by ~2025-31139-74

[edit]

Dear sir/mam Thank you for your message. I appreciate your guidance. I am willing to improve the article content. I am currently working on adding **independent and reliable sources** to verify the information mentioned in the article.

If you could please point out which parts appear promotional or insufficiently sourced, I will revise them accordingly to follow Wikipedia's policies and neutrality standards.

Thank you. Ratna Sunuwar ~2025-31139-74 (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are Ratnasunuwar, please log into your account whenever editing.
Everything is insufficiently sourced, since there are no inline citations (hard requirement in articles on living people) and the sources cited don't seem particularly good.
We don't host autobiographies. If you wish to tell the world about yourself, please try LinkedIn or some other social media platform instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:35, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please communicate with us directly, not through an AI. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:11, 5 November 2025 review of submission by PASAPHC2024

[edit]

Hi, I’ve recently resubmitted my draft after substantial improvements. It now cites multiple independent, reliable sources providing significant biographical coverage including a CT Insider feature (a Hearst Media publication), two Reading Eagle features, and an article from The Pit. Could someone familiar with film or photography topics please take a look and let me know if it now meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for biographies? Thanks so much! PASAPHC2024 (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @PASAPHC2024, having a quick look at your sources I think you have fallen into the same trap as many new editors: to help demonstrate notability, a source must be all three of reliable, independent, and significant coverage. See WP:42 for more information. Usually we ask for at least three WP:42-compliant sources to show a subject is notable.
Interviews and articles based largely around them are not independent, so you immediately lose the CT Insider piece and the RE piece by Speese for your notability sources. Of the remainder, the Forbes source is a passing mention (not significant coverage), The Pit appears to be about someone else entirely (or is a primary non-independent source if you're using information Hazard gave there), Getty Images is none of the three, and the RE piece by Hanson is a passing mention. The RE piece by Rasmussen is great - you want more like that! I hope that breakdown is of some use to you. Meadowlark (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:17, 5 November 2025 review of submission by Hookthis

[edit]

I am wondering where I might find the reasons my new submission was rejected. I specifically addressed all of the previous issues. Your time and efforts are most appreciated. Hookthis (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hookthis, many of your sources do not seem to exist. Did you use ChatGPT/another AI or LLM to help write this draft, by any chance? Meadowlark (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]


November 6

[edit]

01:26, 6 November 2025 review of submission by Bohan Zhang1

[edit]

Why is my article rejected? Where did I go wrong on? Bohan Zhang1 (talk) 01:26, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's no evidence for notability for the simulation, there's basically nothing about the simulation beyond a single sentence, and there are no references of any kind, let alone the independent, reliable, significant sourcing required for articles. It also reads like an introduction for a running log that you and your team will make for your project, something that is suitable for your own web page hosted elsewhere, not an encyclopedia article. You also seem to have undisclosed conflict of interest as well. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:47, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bohan Zhang1 In addition to what CoffeeCrumbs said, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day and Wikipedia:NOTWEBHOST. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:56, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:08, 6 November 2025 review of submission by RebeccaShear

[edit]

My submission has been rejected on the basis of references not being reliable, secondary or strictly independent. However, they are stories that have been published by independent media outlets like the Boston Globe, AdAge and The Australian. How can I get more information on why they are not suitable references? RebeccaShear (talk) 04:08, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCORP would be the best place to get further information. The references you've provided -- and most of the article -- basically focus on the normal day-to-day functions of a corporation, not anything that makes this a notable corporation. Routine reporting on things like acquisitions, mergers, reorganization, and funding rounds are considered WP:CORPTRIV, and cannot be used to establish notability. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RebeccaShear The sources may be reliable- but they only document routine business activities. Your draft just tells of the activities and offerings of your company. This is not significant coverage. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. "Significant coverage" is that which goes beyond just telling of the activities of the company and goes into detail about what is important/significant/influential about the company as the source sees it, not as the company itself might see it.
Please read WP:BOSS, and show it to your superiors and colleagues. In short, companies trying to force the issue of creating an article are rarely successful. Our articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the topic, who take note of coverage of a topic in independent sources and choose on their own to write about it. 331dot (talk) 10:13, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:18, 6 November 2025 review of submission by Ishikatiwari2775

[edit]

My page is not getting published, although it is not for advertising purpose. Ishikatiwari2775 (talk) 06:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have two major problems with your draft, @Ishikatiwari2775. The first is that you have not shown that the company qualifies for a Wikipedia article; you can find the relevant criteria at WP:NCORP. The second is that your draft was written by an AI/LLM such as ChatGPT, so the wording is extremely promotional - LLMs always write like this, and it is not suitable for a Wikipedia article. To fix both issues you will need to find sources that are not WP:CORPTRIV, and then you will need to completely rewrite the draft in your own words. Other pages that might be helpful: WP:42 (what you're looking for in a source), WP:YFA (basic overview of writing a draft). Meadowlark (talk) 06:46, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:00, 6 November 2025 review of submission by Noareuv

[edit]

ive created a draft but i can't seem to publish it for review Noareuv (talk) 10:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Noareuv: I've added the necessary template to it. There's a blue 'submit' button in the bottom-right corner of the template, just click that when ready. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:08, 6 November 2025 review of submission by Meiteileima

[edit]

Hi, I attempted to create a Wikipedia page for Archana Kapoor, but it was declined on October 14. The article included sources such as mainstream news coverage and content from reputable organizations’ social media and writeups. Could you please help me understand what improvements are needed for it to be accepted? Meiteileima (talk) 12:08, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meiteileima I fixed your header, your draft is actually in your sandbox.
You have described her activities, but not what makes her a notable person as sources see it. Interviews with her do not contribute to notability. 331dot (talk) 12:11, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not only interviews, Archana Kapoor is an Indian media entrepreneur and development communicator known for her pioneering work in community radio and gender advocacy. She is the Founder of Seeking Modern Applications for Real Transformation (SMART) and Radio Mewat, one of India’s first community radio stations established to empower rural and marginalized communities through participatory communication.
Kapoor also founded and directs The Radio Festival (TRF) — a national platform supported by UNESCO, Prasar Bharati, and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. TRF brings together public, private, and community broadcasters, as well as podcasters, to celebrate audio and foster dialogue on the future of sound.
Internationally, Kapoor has represented India at several global forums, including as a TEDx speaker in Washington DC and a speaker at the 62nd Session of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) in New York. She has participated in Asia-Pacific Broadcasting Union (ABU) Radio Festivals and UNESCO-led consultations on media, gender, and sustainable development.
She collaborated with UNESCO New Delhi and CEMCA to launch the international handbook “Best Practices of Community Radio and Sustainable Development Goals.” Her contributions have been recognized with the Devi Award, Laadli Media Award, and SKOCH Order of Merit, among others. Meiteileima (talk) 12:17, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Meiteileima: I get the feeling you're not hearing what we're trying to say. Being a TEDx speaker means her speaking. Being interviewed is her speaking. Commenting on things is her speaking. None of that contributes anything to her notability. Commentators, lobbyists, advocates, etc., by definition spend their time speaking and getting their views into media, that's just their standard stock in trade. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:23, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources are Kapoor commenting or being interviewed, or otherwise primary sources. We're not interested in what she has to say, we want to see significant coverage about her, in multiple secondary sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:16, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Her contributions have been recognized with the Devi Award, Laadli Media Award, and SKOCH Order of Merit Meiteileima (talk) 12:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Awards are meaningless towards notability unless the awards themselves merit articles(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). 331dot (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But I’ve seen many people who have Wikipedia pages without winning a Nobel Peace Prize or an Academy Award. How come they have one? I’d like to create one too — please help me. Meiteileima (talk) 12:22, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see other stuff exists; there are many articles that are likely inappropriate, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate articles. If you want to tell us what these other articles you have seen are, we can take action so that others don't do what you did and base a draft on poorly written articles.
I offer the Peace Prize only as an example of an award that has an article, meaning that someone being given a Peace Prize is notable. Anyone can create an award- I can give you my 331dot Editing Award. That's meaningless because it's not notable, so it wouldn't confer notability on you. 331dot (talk) 12:27, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Meiteileima: that's as may be, but if you don't say that in the draft, then it's pretty pointless to say that here at the help desk, either. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
so tell me what should I do, to accept it as wiki article, enlighten me Meiteileima (talk) 12:24, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Meiteileima: almost certainly (unless this person is an elected legislator, senior scientist, etc.) you need to demonstrate that she meets the general notability guideline WP:GNG. That requires significant coverage (not just passing mentions), directly of her (not some related matters like causes she advocate for), in multiple secondary sources which are reliable and entirely independent of her and of each other. That excludes interviews, matters she has commented on, and things she has otherwise said or written. It also excludes anything based on press releases or other publicity/campaign materials, as well as any sponsored content (churnalism, advertorials, etc.). So you need to first find 3-5 sources that meet the GNG standard, and then draft your content based on them, as described in WP:GOLDENRULE. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:28, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:41, 6 November 2025 review of submission by Masyundai

[edit]

Bisa buatkan article tentang Opposition Indonesia Masyundai (talk) 13:41, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Masyundai, if you want an article about Opposition Indonesia to be written, you have to do it yourself. Otherwise, add a list item to Wikipedia:Requested articles, or ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indonesia. -- Reconrabbit 15:55, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Masyundai: Siapa pun dipersilakan menulis artikel tentang Oposisi Indonesia jika memiliki sumber tepercaya, tetapi ini bukan tempat yang tepat untuk meminta seseorang menulis drafnya. Anda dapat mengirimkan permintaan di WP:RA (dalam bahasa Inggris, ya!), tetapi perlu diketahui bahwa editor biasanya menulis artikel yang ingin mereka tulis, bukan artikel yang diinginkan orang lain. (Google Translate digunakan untuk menulis ini.)
Anyone is welcome to create an article about Opposition Indonesia if they have reliable sources, but this is not the right place to ask for someone to write the draft for you. You can submit a request at WP:RA (in English, please!) but be aware that editors usually write articles that they want to write rather than articles other people want them to write. (Google Translate was used to write this.) Meadowlark (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:03, 6 November 2025 review of submission by Cullimorer

[edit]

My draft page I am trying to create is marked as generated by a large language model but I wrote it myself Cullimorer (talk) 14:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mark it as AI-generated if I was reviewing it, but it looks like the article needs more sources since there is nothing that supports Hughes' early life and education other than his MA at Metfilm, as well as several statements under Career. Also, the references are more supporting the notability of Dreaming Whilst Black and not Hughes himself since he isn't being discussed in any detail by the independent sources in the text. -- Reconrabbit 15:41, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:19, 6 November 2025 review of submission by Anamul Hasan Rafin

[edit]

what i have to do for posting this? Anamul Hasan Rafin (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing; it has been rejected and now deleted; please find somewhere else to advertise. 331dot (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See also deletion log of User:Anamul Hasan Rafin/sandbox/Email Signature Generator. —‍Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:56, 6 November 2025 review of submission by RasikaofVR

[edit]

Please let me know what you mean by "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia" she has more than 100 concert links in youtube. I have a bunch of news articles for 'The Hindu' RasikaofVR (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RasikaofVR You continually re-submitted without improving the citations. Please very carefully read the referencing tutorial at Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1. If you can create proper references, let me know and I'll take another look. qcne (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I modified it, can you please give me example of what you mean by references. Thank you RasikaofVR (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RasikaofVR There are no in-line citations. We require in-line citations. Please follow the tutorial at Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1. qcne (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is in-line citation (cite web) which i have added already, is there anything else that needs to be added. RasikaofVR (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly haven't read the tutorial I have linked to you twice now, as there are no in-line citations in the draft at all. qcne (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the citations can please check, i am not able to submit because i think i did too many submissions:) RasikaofVR (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In a biographic article, every single statement must have in-line citations. Everything. Most of the draft is still uncited. qcne (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh got it. Thanks RasikaofVR (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the page is removed, i will create again with all the citaions. Thank you for your patience, appreciate it RasikaofVR (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RasikaofVR: please proceed with care. I've just deleted three copies of your promo piece, and issued you a warning. If you can produce a non-promotional draft with reasonable evidence of notability, please go ahead. But if you carry on this same vein, you will likely be blocked for spamming. Up to you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:50, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thank you, I will submit a draft in sandbox 1st then will create page ones everything looks good. RasikaofVR (talk) 20:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:30, 6 November 2025 review of submission by RajendraRajan.M

[edit]

why my article declined ? what is the reason? and how to resolve it RajendraRajan.M (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RajendraRajan.M Your draft article is blank. It has no content. To resolve this, please write something on the draft. qcne (talk) 18:33, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
where to write? i have already created a content RajendraRajan.M (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Click here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ARajendraRajan.M%2Fsandbox&veaction=edit
and when you're finished, save it by clicking "Publish changes" qcne (talk) 18:48, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You created an article on your user page, I have moved it to here Draft:Rajendra Rajan for you. Theroadislong (talk) 19:44, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:31, 6 November 2025 review of submission by RasikaofVR

[edit]

What should i do RasikaofVR (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in your above message, @RasikaofVR, you continually re-submitted without improving the citations. Please very carefully read the referencing tutorial at Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1. If you can create proper references, let me know and I'll take another look. qcne (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:32, 6 November 2025 review of submission by Jedi0012

[edit]

i am getting it denied due to Subject of Criteria or something and i have 4 references of the game. I would like this verified and put onto the Wikipedia page as Tanks 3D .io is a real game and I play it. Jedi0012 (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, @Jedi0012. It is not possible for topics that do not meet our criteria for inclusion to have a Wikipedia article. Just because you play the game and it exists, doesn't mean it merits an article here. qcne (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I give up. Jedi0012 (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you've had a bad experience - writing a new article is the most difficult task a new editor can do. Why not look at some easier tasks like improving existing articles that interest you? See Special:Homepage for some suggestions. qcne (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine. Jedi0012 (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:55:35, 6 November 2025 review of submission by Kbedell

[edit]

I have had this article rejected for a second time due to it being initially generated by an LLM. I did initially use an llm to generate the article and complete some research on the topic, but I have combed over it in detail and have done my best to remove any promotional writing, ensured there are no hallucinations, and verified the existence of all referenced articles.

I believe the article is now in a state where it is solid and fact-based with minimal promotional tone. You can review the edits I've made and I believe I've done a conscientious job to ensure it meets standards.

I will review the article one more time and will do my best to make appropriate changes, though at this point I'm guessing what could be a problem unless I can get more specific feedback.

Thank you for your support. Kbedell (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have now verified that there are no AI hallucinations, feel free to re-submit for review. However, I would probably cut down on the Activities and Traditions sections which belong more in a brochure vs Wikipedia. Ensure the camp meets our criteria for inclusion at Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion (organizations and companies). qcne (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your assistance. I have simply removed the Activities and Traditions sections to reduce the risk of seeming promotional. I've also done another sweep of the article to look for other promotional tone and have resubmitted. Kbedell (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:35, 6 November 2025 review of submission by ThisUserIsVivid

[edit]

Advice on German-language sources for Draft:Vivid Money

Hello, I’ve resubmitted Draft:Vivid Money. Most of in-depth coverage there is in German, so I’ve added English trans-titles and set out a WP:THREE (t3n, IT-Finanzmagazin, FinanceFWD), plus two additional sources (Manager Magazin, and another FinanceFWD article).

Could someone advise whether these sources satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:RS for AfC? I’ve left an AfC comment noting a preference for a German-speaking reviewer, given the source language. Thanks! ThisUserIsVivid (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ThisUserIsVivid What you are doing is asking for a review here as well as resubmitting your draft. Makimg a request will neither speed not slow the review. It will happen when it happens. In the meantime please continue to improve the draft. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:56, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent: Thanks for the note, and apologies if my post suggested I was trying to accelerate AfC, I’m not. I resubmitted the draft as usual and posted here to double-check the sourcing.
For context, the last AfC reviewer and I discussed this on the draft talk page (see Draft talk:Vivid Money#Follow-up after AfC decline), and we agreed it may be better assessed by someone comfortable with German-language fintech sources. I’ve noted that as a preference in an AfC comment (but of course not as a request).
My specific question is whether the sources listed at Draft talk:Vivid Money#Notability (WP:NCORP) – WP:THREE satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:RS for AfC. If any fall short, guidance on whether the issue is routine, its depth, independence, or editorial quality would help me swap in stronger sources while I continue neutral copy-edits. If this question is better handled at WP:RSN or WT:CORP, I’m happy to take it there.
Thanks for the clarification and for your help. ThisUserIsVivid (talk) 12:28, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ThisUserIsVivid I find that Google Translate is almost always sufficient for checking references in languages not readily understood by the reviewer. We are able to determine with relative ease whether the reference passes WP:42. Unless, of course, we cannot.
I'll have a look at the draft without promising to review it. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:36, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ThisUserIsVivid no Declined with full rationale. You have work to do, and rather a lot of it, I fear. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:50, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent: Many thanks for the detailed spot-check and your feedback, that's super helpful for my understanding.
You’re right that several early citations are routine funding/announcement items. For context, some non-routine depth sources sit later in the list (I realise you checked the first 14). In addition to the FinanceFWD analysis you accepted, the following are currently №15, №17 and №19:
I know that might be too much too ask, but I have two questions to make sure I align with expectations:
  1. In your view, do these three meet WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:RS? And for avoidance of doubt, would you consider the t3n piece (currently #14) routine or acceptable secondary analysis?
  2. Is putting significant coverage in the front of the article (lead + early “History”), so it appears earlier in the reference list is the best way? Or is keeping article-order with routine/primary minimized equally fine?
Thanks again for the thorough review, your time and guidance. ThisUserIsVivid (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ThisUserIsVivid I would prefer a different reviewer to give those a look, if they are willing. I am standing now too close to the draft to be properly objective, and would do you a disservice.
However, you are a paid editor, thus, by dint of receiving payment, you are really required to have the ability to make that kind of decision, and should do so. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:29, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent: Thanks, understood. I’ll rework the draft and only resubmit once it clearly meets the guidelines, based on the latest feedback. ThisUserIsVivid (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:41, 6 November 2025 review of submission by YoYoSuryaPatra

[edit]

This organization appears to meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria based on multiple independent and reliable sources (Economic Times, Inc42, Mint, and others). The article has been revised for neutrality, formatting, and citations. Draft Resubmitted for Approval. Shashwat986, DesiMoore, Robert McClenon, GoingBatty, Onel5969YoYoSuryaPatra (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

YoYoSuryaPatra (ec) Your header is now fixed so it links to your draft as intended, instead of a nonexistent page entitled "Updated Moneyview Article – Requesting Review".
You have submitted it for review and it is pending. Asking for a review does not speed this volunteer process. Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Concurring with 331dot, pinging a large number of reviewers, some of whom had only minimal involvement with the draft, may annoy the reviewers. We may express our annoyance by ignoring the ping, which neither speeds up nor slows down the review. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@YoYoSuryaPatra What is your relationship with Moneyview, please? Full transparency is essential.
no Declined with invisible notability and failure to demonstrate a pass of WP:NCORP, coupled with WP:ROTM referencing and churnalism 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:57, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:57, 6 November 2025 review of submission by Ballj5

[edit]

Hi, I have had a recent rejection of the above page been approved and I am really stuck in terms of how I progress and could really do with some support

I’m new to the wiki world so I am not entirely up to date with the terminology used.

The above was recently rejected for not having secondary sources and the admins comment states a ‘lot of original research’

The research I used was off the Mexborough Montagu Cups website and I have added several newspaper articles along with details of a book publication which celebrated a recent anniversary of the competitions.

Am I required to add further newspaper articles on the subject to ensure there is more credible sources to the page? Ballj5 (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ballj5 The problem is that you have not provided references proving that this competition is notable. You have proved that it exists. I exist, but I am not notable. The distinction is large. While you might find references to prove the event to be notable you will not find references to prove that I am
We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
More references does not mean notability is proven. Better references might. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ballj5:, I declined this previously as I couldn't even find anything online other than some social media information. I looked again and see this so wondering if it was known by a different name in the past.--CNMall41 (talk) 00:54, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the article relates to the competition. It’s official name is the Mexborough Montagu Hospital Cup (this is engraved on the trophy etc) however all newspaper articles seem to shorten it to ‘Montagu Cup’ or simply ‘The Mont’ which is what it is known as locally. The article you have highlighted is for this competition.
do you think I need to add your link on that you have found, or look to change the name of the page to ‘Montagu Cup’ Ballj5 (talk) 13:14, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ballj5 Those matters can be handled by Redirects. I refer you to my comment above CNMall41's comment 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:59, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks @CNMall41 and @Timtrent , I have taken the comments on board and added additional citations onto the page to support evidence on the results, most succesful teams, hat tricks, as well as using the link CNMALL 41 presented which directs to a page supporting that the competition raises funds for the local hospital.
prior to me resubmitting (and potential rejection) is there any additional ideas you have that they page may need and a
if with the amendments added corresponds to the feedback that you suggested?
Many thanks Ballj5 (talk) 23:03, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For my part I suggest that you give your work a careful self-scan and check for good sourcing. All you need to do is to prove it passes WP:EVENT/WP:GNG. I suspect CNMall41 will hold a very similar view, but cannot speak for them 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:29, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with Timtrent's comments. My question about the sourcing was because I wanted to make sure that sources existed (I found very few under the full name). Note that the example I listed was just to determine if it was a different name (I am not saying it is a reliable source). Make sure the references are from reliable sources and cover the event in detail. You can resubmit when you feel the sourcing you have added shows notability. Good luck! --CNMall41 (talk) 01:25, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:14, 6 November 2025 review of submission by Wtbj24

[edit]

Hi there,

Thanks for taking the time to review my draft. I was just wondering why the sources were the problem with the draft? They are news articles covering the topic. I have also added another book as a source. I believe that the sources are in depth (they specifically cover the topic and don't deviate), independent as they're from media outlets and universities without links to the source (also covering the secondary aspect) as well as being reliable for covering related issues.

Please advise what else I need to do to have the article approved. Wtbj24 (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the draft is actually unsourced, and the sources you do have don't have significant coverage. The fact that you describe this as "new" is a strong indicator that it is too soon for an article about this topic. 331dot (talk) 12:35, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 7

[edit]

00:16, 7 November 2025 review of submission by AndyShow1000000

[edit]

I need help finding sources for this article. I have provided sources in the article, but they were not good enough. AndyShow1000000 (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would be shocked if the specific question about the pH value of water merited its own article. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:56, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like this would be better covered by another article, perhaps Properties of water which already mentions PH? @AndyShow1000000 in order to show that the PH of water is a widely debated topic, you'll need provide multiple reliable sources (preferably scholarly in nature) that discuss such a debate. My understanding is that the PH of water isn't widely debated – the consensus is that pure water is always 7, and that PH is changed by external factors. Nil🥝 02:32, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's my impression as well. I don't think there's any dispute that non-pure water is going to have different pH values depending on its exact composition, let alone a widely debated topic. But then again, I didn't know the exact spelling and punctuation of Lviv was apparently the biggest dispute in the history of mankind until I came to Wikipedia. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Independent Review - Draft:Safak Serez

[edit]

Hello, I kindly request an independent review for my draft article titled "Draft:Safak Serez".

The draft was written in a neutral, encyclopedic tone and is fully supported by verifiable references, including academic, library, and music registry sources (Harvard University, Yale University, Taylor & Francis, ASCAP, Zenodo, and others).

I understand Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines and would appreciate if a neutral editor could review, polish, or resubmit the article on my behalf to ensure full compliance with Wikipedia standards.

Thank you very much for your time and support. — User:Safakserez Safakserez (talk) 04:22, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User blocked, RIP GGOTCC 04:52, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:28, 7 November 2025 review of submission by ~2025-31144-93

[edit]

Why it didnt Move to main Article area. I am not asking ques about why, but i want to understand what we want to publish this in main area i mean what we need to do this ~2025-31144-93 (talk) 06:28, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in this draft that would explain why this person is any more notable than the other 100m 17-year-olds in the world. And even if there were some claim of notability, there is no evidence of it. If you want to tell the world about this person, you'll need to find a different platform for it, perhaps some blog or social media. (I'm deleting this draft, since it contains personal details of a minor. Please do not publish such information unnecessarily for safety and security reasons.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:01, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:36, 7 November 2025 review of submission by StephanReinerie

[edit]

Is there anything missing in this draft for it to be published? StephanReinerie (talk) 06:36, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@StephanReinerie: I don't know; we don't do pre-reviews here at the help desk. If you want to find out, submit it for review, that way you'll get a proper assessment. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:57, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay, thanks a lot StephanReinerie (talk) 07:10, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@StephanReinerie: We don't cite iTunes/Apple Music (online storefront), Spotify (streaming website), or Deezer (streaming werbsite). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:49, 7 November 2025 review of submission by Hysazemusic

[edit]

Hey everyone. I have created the page for Esports Awards, which is mentioned in hundreds of other esports/gaming/streamers related articles on Wikipedia. Took me a lot of time to compile everything and cite as many sources as possible. However, it's my first page creation, and I would love to get assistance from experienced editors! Draft: Esports_Awards Hysazemusic (talk) 06:49, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hysazemusic: can you be more specific, what assistance do you require?
To compile "everything" is not necessarily a good idea. A Wikipedia article should not be a comprehensive catalogue of every little factoid that is known about a subject. For instance, we don't necessarily need to know every winner in every award category for every year.
Also, citing "as many sources as possible" is not always helpful: see WP:REFBOMBING. By and large, it would be better to cite a few solid sources that establish notability as well as verifying the information in the draft/article, than citing dozens of flaky ones that don't.
Anyway, those are just general comments, while waiting to hear what help you actually need. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:56, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I actually meant that can someone experienced go through it to proofread and let me know if there is any issues with it, or do I just submit it for review directly?
By "everything", I meant everything important that should be in the article and by "as many citations", I meant all the links that must be necessary to verify important information. I don't think I added unnecesary info/links.
Thanks a lot for your quick response! Hysazemusic (talk) 06:59, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hysazemusic: I'll try to say this differently: your draft cites 78 (!!) sources. That's a lot for any reviewer to sift through, in the hope that some of them might establish notability, which is the main thing we're concerned with here. You may be in for a long wait for this to be reviewed. If you had, say 7-8 sources, that would take a reviewer mere minutes to check, and if they demonstrate notability, your draft might be accepted straight away. As I said, not everything that can be said about a subject needs to be said, and not everything that needs to be said needs to be said in the initial published version. One of the longest articles we currently have is Tartan, at massive 555,962 bytes, but when it started life 22 years ago, it was a tiny stub at 579 bytes consisting of a few short sentences only.
Anyway, you must of course do as you see fit.
To answer your question, we don't do pre-reviews here at the help desk. If and when you're ready, please submit your draft for full review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:13, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That definitely made everything much more clear for me. I guess I can remove some citations for sure. Just going through the Tartan article, that massive lol. Thanks a lot for your time and clear answer Hysazemusic (talk) 07:16, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:23, 7 November 2025 review of submission by Mohit Tolani 18

[edit]

This needs to be updated on the wikipedia. Mohit Tolani 18 (talk) 08:23, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mohit Tolani 18: I don't know what that means, but this draft has been rejected.
If this is about you, please see WP:AUTOBIO for some of the reasons why autobiographies are very strongly discouraged. (And if this isn't about you, then your username is problematic!)
Also, please don't use AI to generate drafts, or any other content for Wikipedia, for that matter. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:26, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:19, 7 November 2025 review of submission by Magic Earth

[edit]

Hello! I'm new to Wikipedia. But the page, titled Arafat Mohsin, is a famous music artist in Bangladesh. So, please review and publish the page quickly. Thank you. Magic Earth (talk) 09:19, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have submitted it for review and it is pending. Asking for a review does not speed this entirely volunteer driven process. Please be patient, it may not be reviewed immediately. Note that "famous" is not the same thing as "notable", the term we use- see our criteria to be a notable musician. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:02, 7 November 2025 review of submission by ~2025-31418-43

[edit]

label ~2025-31418-43 (talk) 11:02, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected, sorry. qcne (talk) 11:10, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:17, 7 November 2025 review of submission by ZillaVanilla

[edit]

Hi, this article was not written by AI, so I don't know how to change it; could you provide some more specific feedback? I actually consider myself to be somewhat of an expert in the field of Edge Computing and now Edge AI and I am pretty sure the article is very correct. So, please do let me know what the problem is. I am aware that many sources are ArXive, which cannot be considered a AAA publication - are they not good enough? I could add more consultancy / market analyst pages in easily, if that would be helpful. Please do let me know. I think it is high time to cover Edge AI on Wikipedia and I am happy to adapt the article (which already took quite some time). Thank you, ZillaVanilla ZillaVanilla (talk) 13:17, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ZillaVanilla Perosnal expertise in a topic may be a hindrance. Please read WP:ACADEME, though you are not precisely its target audience. Arxiv is useless to you.
It is only high time to cover this topic if you can find suitable references.
We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 14:02, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify further, arXiv and other preprints have been found by consensus to be generally unreliable to use as sources, and should be treated as self-published sources. Self-published sources can be used, but it's fairly strict in that reliable sources have to have indicated that the author is a particular subject-matter expert. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:50, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:42, 7 November 2025 review of submission by ~2025-31513-20

[edit]

Whats wrong with this page? ~2025-31513-20 (talk) 14:42, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is wholly promotional and now deleted. Articles are not a place for companies to tell about themselves. Please disclose your connection to the company per WP:PAID and WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Page was re-created after deletion; surprise surprise it's still wholly promotional. Tagged for WP:G11. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:20, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are seperate articles about bus routes in Hong Kong allowed on Wikipedia?

[edit]

I remember seeing a Wikipedia notability guideline saying that articles about bus routes are not necessary. However, I saw some seperate articles about individual bus routes in Hong Kong in the English Wikipedia. I would like to add more articles about bus routes in Hong Kong, but I am afraid that these drafts would get denied from being a full article. KobaltKolibri (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@VoitieVelocity Asking at WP:TEAHOUSE will give you a far better answer than here. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:51, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@VoitieVelocity: pretty much anything is acceptable, if it is sufficiently covered in reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG notability guideline.
That said, per WP:BUSOUTCOMES, individual bus routes are not normally found to be notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:52, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:28, 7 November 2025 review of submission by RasikaofVR

[edit]

Need help with what is needed RasikaofVR (talk) 16:28, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer has left you a message as to what is needed. Do you have a more specific question?
You seem to have some sort of connection to this person("of VR"); please see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By connection you know acquaintance? I know her as a phenomenal singer & probably she might recognize me in some concert when i walk up to her but no personal relationship. If this needs to be submitted for peer review I am fine with it too RasikaofVR (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This process is a review process.
If you're saying you're just a passionate fan, okay- but passionate fans are often mistaken for having a conflict of interest because they are so passionate they often fail to hear advice. 331dot (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, will submit through peer review RasikaofVR (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RaisakofVR: Every claim which could potentially be challenged by a reasonable person for any reason MUST be cited to a strong third-party source which explicitly corroborates it or (failing that) removed. This is a HARD REQUIREMENT when writing about living people and is NOT NEGOTIABLE. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:34, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah i provided what ever I could find, not sure what sources are considered reliable. It would be great if someone could specifically tell me which citations are not reliable. RasikaofVR (talk) 16:43, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Entire sections are unsourced- like the first two sections. Where are you getting this information?
Social media is generally not a reliable source, except as described at WP:PRIMARY.
No external links should be in the main body of text, except for citations- the external links in the Career section need to be formatted as citations(if that's how you intend them).
The awards are meaningless towards notability unless the awards themselves have articles about them(like Grammy Award). 331dot (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RasikaofVR: I told you yesterday not to keep submitting this same sort of promo content with insufficient referencing or evidence of notability, which you acknowledged. And then you went ahead and submitted practically identical copy as the previous ones, except with more inline external links (which aren't even allowed) and with more social media citations (which are useless). Can you please explain why? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry i very new to this & understand that you have been asking me to fix things. I will take help from someone before resubmitting. RasikaofVR (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your patience, the external links websites that has info about her Ex: All India Radio citation has her name when she was awarded the grade. Is there a way I can get exactly which links or citations are invalid I can try fixing them. Thank you ones again RasikaofVR (talk) 17:36, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How long will my article be saved in draft? Would need time gather all reliable source for citation. Got a lot of clarity & help from Live help RasikaofVR (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RasikaofVR: drafts are automatically deleted six months after the last (human, ie. not bot etc.) edit, and you will get a warning a month before that happens. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you RasikaofVR (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not able to find my draft has it been deleted, I was planning to add reliable citations to it. Thanks RasikaofVR (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was deleted as unambiguous promotion; if you have reliable sources, you should probably just start fresh, limiting yourself to summarizing what they say. 331dot (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you RasikaofVR (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:11, 7 November 2025 review of submission by Salmanabbaskhas

[edit]

to guide and tell me Salman Abbas Khaskheli (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for posting your resume; please use social media for that. We don't write about ourselves here, see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:26, 7 November 2025 review of submission by Ko Yunseo

[edit]

Requesting Review Hello, I’ve recently submitted this draft for review under Articles for Creation. Here’s the link: Draft:Illiberal_Democracy_in_South_Korea It discusses the concept of illiberal democracy in South Korea, with academic sources. I’d appreciate it if someone could take a look. Thank you! Ko Yunseo (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ko Yunseo I fixed your header so it links to your draft as intended and not to a nonexistent page entitled "Requesting review". I also fixed your link, the whole url is not needed.
You have submitted it and it is pending; asking for a review is unnecessary and doesn't speed the process. It will be reviewed in due course. 331dot (talk) 19:59, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been updated in accordance with the previous feedback. Kindly review it again. Thank you. Ko Yunseo (talk) 10:54, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ko Yunseo Please do not create additional threads, just edit this existing thread.
As I said, asking for a review does not speed the review process. You have submitted the draft and it is pending. Do you have a particular need for a speedy review? 331dot (talk) 10:58, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:07, 7 November 2025 review of submission by ~2025-31948-31

[edit]

I have been working on this draft to document the phenomenon of stress, burnout, and mental health issues common within the startup ecosystem, ensuring I use reliable, independent sources.

I am unsure if the current sources meet the General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG) requirements and would appreciate an experienced editor's feedback. Please advise if the topic is sufficiently notable and if the article is ready to be submitted for creation, or if there are specific areas (e.g., more secondary sources) that need strengthening.

Thank you for your time. ~2025-31948-31 (talk) 18:07, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do pre-review reviews here; if you would like feedback and you feel that you have addressed the issues raised by the prior review, please resubmit your draft. It's not the sources that need to meet GNG, it's the topic itself, the sources need to be reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:06, 7 November 2025 review of submission by Dmitryersler

[edit]

I am writing about a photographer who shoots such-and-such subjects. I have provided links to sufficiently authoritative sources where it is not mentioned indirectly but directly stated that this photographer shoots exactly what I described in the text, and the articles are illustrated with his photographs. Links are provided in all sections. Why are these links considered secondary, insignificant, or unreliable? In your opinion, what else should be written in these sources besides what is already stated? And if PhotoVOGUE or All About Photo are considered unreliable sources, which sources would you consider reliable? Thank you. Dmitryersler (talk) 19:06, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "work" section is entirely unsourced; not saying who is making tha analysis of your work. Awards are meaningless towards establishing notability unless the awards themselves merit articles(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). 331dot (talk) 19:28, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Writing about yourself is highly discouraged, please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:46, 7 November 2025 review of submission by JSInDepth

[edit]

I'm trying to publish an original article, but the feedback I'm getting isn't moving things forward, so I'm looking for help and guidance.

The first comments I received stated that the sources weren't in-depth or independent enough, so I went back several times to add better, more reliable third-party sources for the article.

The latest feedback says that it reads more like an advertisement, but my personal opinion is that the same could be said about any company with a Wikipedia page.

I think if this were public, we'd get more editors helping to add some character to it so it doesn't feel so stiff. I guess my struggle is not wanting to over editorialize it and to keep it factual, but I guess that makes it sound like an advertisement?

I'd like some clear direction on what specifically needs to change if at all possible.

Thanks in advance! JSInDepth (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JSInDepth Unless one has a conflict of interest or other restrictions in place, this process is usually voluntary. You may disregard what more experienced people are telling you and move the draft into the encyclopedia yourself. However, you would be rolling the dice that it would not be nominated for a deletion discussion.
Your draft just tells of the routine business activities of the company; this does not establish that the company is notable as Wikipedia defines a notable company. You need significant coverage in independent reliable sources(see WP:ORGDEPTH).
There are many inappropriate articles on Wikipedia, this cannot justify adding more; we judge each on their own merits, see other stuff exists. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Review Request: Draft:PeezyGoHard (Dallas rapper, Voyage Dallas + Apple Music)

[edit]

Hi, I submitted Draft:PeezyGoHard for review. Notability via: - Voyage Dallas Magazine interview (2024): https://voyagedallas.com/interview/hidden-gems-meet-peezygohard-of-black-dollar-records-llc/ - Apple Music EP "64 Jump Street" (2025): https://music.apple.com/us/album/64-jump-street-ep/1823618991 - Draft:Draft:PeezyGoHard

Short, sourced, neutral. Thanks for any help speeding it up! PeezyGoHardBDR (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PeezyGoHardBDR I fixed your draft link, the whole url is not needed. Asking for a review does not speed this entirely volunteer driven process; your draft lacks the information needed to formally submit it; I will add it, but if you were to submit it now, it would be declined quickly, as it is completely unsourced and provides no indication that this person is a notable musician. If you need help referencing, see Referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:37, 7 November 2025 review of submission by LEFTAN

[edit]

with all due respect,what makes my article "seem to be a test",how can i improve LEFTAN (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LEFTAN Well, your draft was also blank with no content. We can't accept blank drafts for hopefully obvious reasons. qcne (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 8

[edit]

02:51, 8 November 2025 review of submission by Allakas

[edit]

Hello! Recently, you rejected the page ‘Amit Kumar Das’ for being not significant enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. However, I believe that the 14 sources I have used back up the notability of Das. I am a bit confused why the article was still rejected. Could you please help me with this? Regards, Allakas (talk) 02:51, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Allakas Have you asked the rejecting reviewer why they have rejected it. Please do that first. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:23, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Allakas: It had already been declined six times for lack of notability, and once for promotional style. At least four times, the draft was resubmitted without any meaningful change; in the last six months you have added exactly one new source, which only mentions Das' name in passing, but you have submitted the draft five times. It is very clear that he is not notable, and resubmitting over and over with minimal surface changes is a waste of reviewer time. --bonadea contributions talk 21:03, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:19, 8 November 2025 review of submission by ~2025-32075-18

[edit]

Build ~2025-32075-18 (talk) 08:19, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-32075-18 With respect, it is blank. What is the possible point of your first submitting a blank draft and then coming here to say "Build". No-one will build it for you. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:26, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:17, 8 November 2025 review of submission by Piyushsharmasirsa

[edit]
Editor blocked for advertising 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:31, 8 November 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.

Please help me to write Piyushsharmasirsa (talk) 09:17, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Piyushsharmasirsa: we can't help you to write. We also don't get involved in co-editing here at the help desk.
I posted a message on your talk page about autobioraphies – did you read it? TL;DNR = please don't write about yourself. If you want to tell the world about your exploits, use eg. LinkedIn or some other social media platform. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:21, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had barely deleted it, when you went and reposted your promo piece. Please stop, or you will be blocked. Fair warning. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:23, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Help me to write Piyushsharmasirsa (talk) 11:42, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Piyushsharmasirsa. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn: please contribute there, instead of here. qcne (talk) 11:43, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piyushsharmasirsa please read HELP:YFA. However, please stop writing about yourself. Self promotion is really painful to see here. Write about something notable which interests you. You are perilously close to being blocked. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:10, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have merged these two threads. @Piyushsharmasirsa please do not open a new thread for each conversation. Please continue to use the existing thread. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:13, 8 November 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.

13:16, 8 November 2025 review of submission by Bean Person Exists

[edit]

Can you please tell why my submission was rejected and what I can do for it to be accepted? Bean Person Exists (talk) 13:16, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer rejected it, which means it cannot be resubmitted. The reason given was "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia", with the comment "Clearly not notable & unsourced", and this information was repeated on your talk page. What don't you understand? This someone's scratch project, with zero evidence of notability. Meters (talk) 13:35, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bean Person Exists Please read WP:N and WP:FAMOUS 🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 04:30, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:31, 8 November 2025 review of submission by Wikify777

[edit]

I did multiple edits to address the reason that was given for declining the article.

The Editor who declined the article has been blocked indefinitely because it is Suspected sockpuppets: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bakhtar40

Thus I kindly ask for another editor to review the article. 

Wikify777 (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Wikify777, you've successfully submitted the draft for a review, so it'll be reviewed in due course. I would recommend making sure this company meets our criteria for inclusion (Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion (organizations and companies)) - because from a very brief glance I do not see evidence it does. It's also pretty promotional in tone. qcne (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:51, 8 November 2025 review of submission by Umi951

[edit]

pls help with this submission Umi951 (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Umi951 Add sources to comply with our policy Wikipedia:Verifiability. Then speak to @Aesurias. qcne (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Umi951. Your draft was declined the first time because it had no sources and therefore no indication of notability. After you resubmitted it, once again with zero sources, it was rejected. Aesurias (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Umi951.
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:15, 8 November 2025 review of submission by ~2025-31803-90

[edit]

Sorry if this is obvious, the latest review said the draft lacked formal language and has peacock wording, I removed much of it after the last review but not sure what else is informal here. ~2025-31803-90 (talk) 20:15, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel you bave addressed the issues, you may resubmit the draft. 331dot (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, anonymous editor.
One thing I notice about the draft is that the citations have only a title and a URL. That is one step up from a bare URL, but it still missing some of the most important information: the author (if known), publisher, and date. It's very helpful in evaluating a source to know whether it was from a major publisher, a local paper, a society newsletter, or somebody's blog, for example; and to see at a glance how recent it was. ColinFine (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:50, 8 November 2025 review of submission by Delbiafanoflucie188

[edit]

The draft was declined due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Can someone help identify if the sources used are adequate or suggest the types of sources to look for? Delbiafanoflucie188 (talk) 22:50, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected, meaning you cannot resubmit it. You were given plenty of opportunities to improve the draft by adding reliable sources, but you never did so and it is now too late. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 23:21, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Delbiafanoflucie188 Forgive me for stating three obvious things:
  1. there are no references
  2. the draft was rejected It will proceed no further
  3. asking if the courses are adequate is a peculiar question when there are no sources
Please read HELP:YFA. Do not attempt to resubmit this again, it has been rejected. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:21, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Delbiafanoflucie188 You have now had the audacity to move this draft to the main encyclopaedia, which you have no right to do. This is disruptive and you are running out of goodwill here. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 23:26, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ClaudineChionh It's even more complicated than that. I have warned the editor for disruptive editing. They were running dual duplicate or near duplicate drafts, moved one to mainspace. Both were rejected, neither has any sources, and then they asked this question about sources here. My good faith is stretched unduly by editors behaving like this.
@Delbiafanoflucie188 Be told. This is unacceptable behaviour. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:35, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:36, 8 November 2025 review of submission by Divinedavisgidi

[edit]
Draft deleted. Nothing more to do here 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:55, 8 November 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.

I am submitting a draft for Octagram Tech, a Ghana-based technology and creative design company. I have prepared a neutral, placeholder draft with factual information and proper structure. The draft currently uses [citation needed] tags where independent, reliable sources are required.

I am requesting guidance on:

How to improve the draft’s references to meet Wikipedia’s notability standards.

Advice on submitting the draft safely to maximize approval chances once independent sources are available.

Any suggestions for formatting, neutrality, or additional content needed to pass review. Divinedavisgidi (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Divinedavisgidi The advice on all of these is encapsulated in this essay. Notability, demonstrated ad proven, is what we require. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:44, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Divinedavisgidi I have given you further help by requesting speedy deletion as an advert. You have declare a COI but I have reason to believe that you are a paid editor You have previously not answered a formal question on this matter.
You are welcome to try again, but please be clear, advertising will never succeed. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:50, 8 November 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.

23:51, 8 November 2025 review of submission by Bindusouhrudam

[edit]
This is now at WP:TEAHOUSE 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:52, 9 November 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.

All the details and sources of the page have been carefully verified and compiled. However, it was declined stating that it is by a LLM. How to fix this and what to correct? Bindusouhrudam (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bindusouhrudam You should start a conversation with Pythoncoder, the editor who declined it. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 00:00, 9 November 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.

November 9

[edit]

14:40, 9 November 2025 review of submission by OKWE DARIOUS

[edit]

How can i used verifiabile reference? 

OKWE DARIOUS (talk) 14:40, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@OKWE DARIOUS Please start by reading WP:REFB and WP:CITE. As this is a skills question, or I think it is, once you have read these please take questions of "How do I...?" to WP:TEAHOUSE where the folk there will be pleased to guide you. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 14:57, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:58, 9 November 2025 review of submission by MomentumHQ

[edit]
Editor indeffed. Unlikely to proceed further. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:22, 9 November 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.

Hi everyone, My draft was recently declined and then rejected by reviewers for two reasons:

Lack of notability

Promotional tone

I want to understand whether the topic can realistically meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, and what specific steps I should take to revise it if improvement is possible.

The reviewers mentioned that the draft reads like an advertisement and lacks independent, reliable sources. I want to make sure I’m approaching this correctly and following Wikipedia’s expectations.

Could someone please advise:

What kind of independent sources are required to establish notability?

How I can rewrite the draft to make it more neutral and encyclopedic?

Whether it’s worth continuing with this topic, or if it is unlikely to qualify for inclusion?

Thank you very much for any guidance. MomentumHQ (talk) 14:58, 9 November 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.

Help me! (Draft:Abbas Tashakkori)

[edit]
Moved from User talk:Enlight710

Please help me with... I am puzzled! There are references to my name across Wikipedia, but I don't have an entry that they can point to. Trying to create a short one, unsuccessfully (see Draft:Abbas Tashakkori). Providing links to four credible sources of information, but still no luck. Would appreciate any help. Enlight710 (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Enlight710 This search should assist you, assuming that is what you are asking to know. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:47, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. I have tried to address the main concern of not having reliable sources. Still getting the same message re. Draft:Abbas Tashakkori. Unsure of what to do. Enlight710 (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Zero indication of passing WP:GNG and clearly Amazon is NOT a reliable independent source. Theroadislong (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Enlight710.
I'm sorry but my advice is to stop trying this. Writing a Wikipedia article is much more difficult than most people realise, and writing one about yourself is so difficult that very few people have ever managed to do so successfully; consequently Wikipedia very strongly discourages trying: see autobiography.
In order to do so successfully, you would have to:
  • Find several places where people wholly unconnected with you have chosen, without reference to you, to publish material about you at some length at least a few paragraphs) in reliable publications: see WP:42. Nothing written, edited, published, or commissioned by you or any of your associated would count, nor anything based on an interview or press release from your or your associates, and nor would anything in unreliable sources such as wikis, forums, blogs, or social media. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
  • If you can find several such sources, then you would probably meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and an article would be possible.
  • Then you would need to effectively forget everything you know about yourself, and write a summary of what those sources say. Even if they leave important things out. Even if you think they are wrong. (The fundamental principle is verifiability, not truth).
Do you see why I say it is almost impossible? ColinFine (talk) 21:29, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:55, 9 November 2025 review of submission by ~2025-32037-90

[edit]

Hello I was writing a page for a youth footballer who I have seen on social media. I used his profile from transfermarkt however my draft was declined as apparently transfermarkt isn't a reliable source. I have a picture directly from the FA which states the player had been registered with the club. However I am unsure how to send that picture or upload it so it can be used as a source. ~2025-32037-90 (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A player being registered with a club does not make them inherently notable. They need to show significant coverage from independent, reliable sources—this typically means newspapers, TV outlets, etc. As the subject is only a youth player, there's a likelihood they won't meet criteria for several more years, if ever. All clubs have a number of youth players who will never play professionally or meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. – {{u|hekatlys}} WOOF 22:04, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:10, 9 November 2025 review of submission by Dietrich is tuff

[edit]

My article has gotten declined and it says it needs in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject) reliable secondary independent of the subject so I was wondering if you can help me with that. 

Dietrich is tuff (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there is not any (or only one or two) reliable, independent, in-depth sources on the topic, then there probably is not much that can be done. What would you like help on? GGOTCC 00:29, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:16, 9 November 2025 review of submission by Roslyn1886

[edit]

Hello, this project is supporting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby,_Tennessee, Tennessee. We are building out pages for each of the significant historical sites, and this page will be the first of several. Could you please assist me with specifics of why the article keeps being declined so I can correct the issues. Thanks! Roslyn1886 (talk) 23:16, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Roslyn1886: The issue seems to be it's somewhat undersourced; ideally everything will have an inline cite to a source that corroborates it. I will note that we do accept offline sources (assuming they are properly cited); do not feel like you are obligated to use online sources only. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:50, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 10

[edit]

03:48, 10 November 2025 review of submission by Lakhesis76

[edit]

Hi, I'm writing to request that my deleted draft on Dr Jaime J Miranda be restored to my user space so I can continue editing and submitting it.

I understand it cannot be resubmitted as it is, but I’d like to keep refining it in line with Wikipedia’s notability and sourcing guidelines. Dr Miranda is an illustrious academic in public health whose work has significant global impact. I don't understand at this stage why it has been rejected reasoning lack of notability but I'm willing to do what I can to draft sufficient proof. 

Lakhesis76 (talk) 03:48, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Lakhesis76, your draft seems to already be there? Meadowlark (talk) 05:37, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It has been rejected with no further opportunities to edit. Lakhesis76 (talk) 08:04, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:15, 10 November 2025 review of submission by ~2025-32489-50

[edit]

Hi, I am trying to make the english page for a slovenian insurance company. It has gotten declined two times now, on the basis of reading more like an advertisement.

Following that I used more neutral facts and more sources from different places. Some of them even being internation or from it's competition.

For comparison this is the page of their competition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zavarovalnica_Triglav, which has much fewer sources and most of them being internal (from the company or it's group).

I am not sure what more I can do. I ended up adding less information out of fear of accidentally adding impartial data. ~2025-32489-50 (talk) 07:15, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't notice that I wasn't signed in yet. This is my account. Palmula (talk) 07:33, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:37, 10 November 2025 review of submission by Elias314

[edit]

My draft was declined because my references were bad. But I had good references. Now I added more references. Could you please review it again? Elias314 (talk) 08:37, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Elias314: this draft wasn't declined because of "bad references", as such, but rather because the sources didn't show that the subject is notable. You've now resubmitted the draft, and it will be reviewed again once a reviewer gets around to it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:46, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Thank you for explaining this better than the reviewer did. Elias314 (talk) 08:50, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:17, 10 November 2025 review of submission by Incognitopublisher

[edit]

help me to create this article Incognitopublisher (talk) 09:17, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's time to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on. Theroadislong (talk) 09:20, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1321403967"