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
June 2025
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


July 11

[edit]

06:02, 11 July 2025 review of submission by Dr.azuraidaacademy

[edit]

why is that the article is not notable and rejected? Dr.azuraidaacademy (talk) 06:02, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined, not rejected. Rejected would mean that it could not be resubmitted.
Are you writing about yourself? This is highly discouraged, please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 08:26, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Request for Help Creating a Biographical Article: Firas Aljazzar (Qusay Noor)
Hello,
I would like to request assistance from experienced Wikipedia editors to help create and publish a neutral, well-sourced biographical article about me, Firas Aljazzar, a Syrian journalist and photojournalist. For over a decade, I have worked with several international and regional media organizations including CNN, BBC Arabic, Anadolu Agency, The New Arab, and others, reporting extensively on the Syrian conflict—particularly from Eastern Ghouta and Damascus.
Between 2011 and 2018, I reported under the pseudonym Qusay Noor for safety reasons, due to the dangers of publishing material documenting government actions during the war. I have since publicly revealed my real name and continue to work in journalism.
I have drafted a version of the article written in accordance with Wikipedia’s content and notability guidelines, and I am happy to provide verifiable sources and references to my published work for review.
Here is my personal website, which includes links to published reports, photojournalism, and TV packages: [Insert website link here].
Could someone kindly assist with reviewing the draft and help move this forward toward publication, or advise on next steps for getting the article published properly?
Thank you very much for your time and support.
Best regards,
Firas Aljazzar (formerly known as Qusay Noor) QusayNoor.Sy (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:48, 11 July 2025 review of submission by Shunya Ranchi

[edit]

I am seeking help understanding how to improve my draft to meet Wikipedia's notability and sourcing guidelines. The draft was declined for lacking reliable sources. I’ve cited the India Book of Records, my university's official website, and my Amazon author page, but I understand these may not be considered independent or secondary. I would appreciate guidance on what types of sources (e.g., news articles, academic mentions, etc.) are required to establish notability, and whether the current draft could be improved with better references. Thank you for your time and support. Shunya Ranchi (talk) 07:48, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Shunya Ranchi: the draft is almost entirely unreferenced, and two of the four sources cited are completely useless. There is also no evidence that this person is notable enough to warrant an article in a global encyclopaedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:02, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: If you keep just resubmitting declined drafts without any attempt at addressing the decline reason, eventually the draft will get rejected outright with no option to resubmit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:03, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PPS: Oh, I only now realise you're writing about yourself. Please see WP:AUTOBIO for some of the reasons why that's not a good idea. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:05, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Shunya Ranchi. Please note that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject 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) 11:56, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarifications. Shunya Ranchi (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:08, 11 July 2025 review of submission by 2409:40D1:4:7746:F5BE:5BF1:BCE6:4607

[edit]

www.helptds.in review 2409:40D1:4:7746:F5BE:5BF1:BCE6:4607 (talk) 08:08, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Has been reviewed, rejected, and now deleted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:32, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And recreated again, empty. --ColinFine (talk) 11:58, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:11, 11 July 2025 review of submission by Jacek Krzysztoń

[edit]

Hello,

My submission was rejected with the note that it is "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia" and flagged as "original research." I kindly request clarification.

The article titled Theory of Pyramids as Socioeconomic Megaprojects is not unpublished speculation. It is based on my book (Egyptian Pyramids: Big Tombs or Big Business?, Amazon 2023) and a documentary inspired by that book (The Pyramids – Tools of Power, YouTube 2025).

I am also the author of five other published books in the fields of economics, real estate, and finance:

1. How to Profitably Sell Your Property?

2. Where to Live?

3. 7 Ways to Create Your Own Passive Income

4. Modern Entrepreneur

5. Invest in Rental Apartments

These books are distributed via platforms such as Empik, Bonito, and others.

The theory presented is documented, referenced, and consistent with some known archaeological interpretations (e.g., Lehner, Redding). It simply places greater emphasis on the socioeconomic function of pyramid construction. It is not a pseudoscientific theory.

🔎 My question: If a theory has been published and supported by evidence, but not yet widely cited, is it automatically considered "original research"? Would Copernicus' heliocentric theory have also been rejected from Wikipedia, simply because it lacked academic acceptance at the time — even if it was published?

I had always understood that Wikipedia reflects verifiable, published knowledge, not only what has already been accepted by a narrow academic consensus.

Please advise me on how to present this interpretation in a way that aligns with Wikipedia's guidelines. I'm fully willing to make necessary adjustments.

Thank you in advance, Jacek Krzysztoń Jacek Krzysztoń (talk) 08:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if your theory is supported, Wikipedia is not the place to publish it. Anyone can publish anything these days via self-publishing. Wikipedia is not merely a host of information or knowledge. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about topics that meet our criteria for inclusion, what we call notability. It isn't a place for people to just give information. If your theory is discussed in academic journals, that might be different. 331dot (talk) 08:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your time and for clearly explaining the principles behind how Wikipedia works.
I now understand that Wikipedia is not a platform for publishing new ideas, but rather a place that reflects concepts which have already gained recognition in independent, reliable sources.
I respect these rules, and if my theory gains more visibility in the future — for example through publications in popular science portals, secondary analyses, or citations — I will gladly return and submit the article again.
With best regards,
Jacek Krzysztoń Jacek Krzysztoń (talk) 11:43, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jacek Krzysztoń: you are, understandably perhaps but nevertheless mistakenly, trying to use Wikipedia to make your ideas known; whereas it works the other way around, Wikipedia only publishes articles on topics which are already widely known. We are never the first to publish on a topic; we always follow, never lead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:51, 11 July 2025 review of submission by हर्ष कुमार झा

[edit]

This article is very important because this profile share to casting director please comment notable. I have not more refrences. हर्ष कुमार झा (talk) 10:51, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately you are not notable by Wikipedia's standards. Wikipedia isn't a place for you to post a CV to show a casting director - you would be better off using Linkedin or another social media platform. CoconutOctopus talk 10:55, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't host "profiles" here, we have articles that are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the subject. If you want to post a profile of yourself somewhere, you should do as CoconutOctopus advises. 331dot (talk) 11:00, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:04, 11 July 2025 review of submission by SPQHH

[edit]

Good afternoon, Sir. Thank you for your review of the article. I am a local historian in the Haywards Heath and Lewes areas of Sussex. I would be grateful for guidance on the particular needs to publish this article. As far as I am aware, all the criteria is met. Do let me exactly where there is fault if so. SPQHH (talk) 13:04, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ping @SafariScribe qcne (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SPQHH, your draft fails WP:GNG because from the WP:unreliable sources, I couldn't find the citations that mentions the contents in the draft. Wp:verification is very necessary please. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 13:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SafariScribe, thank you for your prompt reply. In English common law, Lord of the Manor, Lord and Baron are all interchangeable terms. I inserted the citation to Jessel's 'Law of the Manor' which addresses all of the concerns raised. I urge you to acquire a copy and read it to understand this point, and then the rest of the article will make sense. As such, I only made one reference to it; however, it applies to the entire article as it stands. SPQHH (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not familiar with the English common law but according to my research now: "the terms "English common law," "Lord of the Manor," and "Lord and Baron" are not interchangeable. They represent different concepts within the English legal and social structure. "English common law" refers to the body of law derived from custom and judicial precedent. "Lord of the Manor" refers to the owner of a manor, a feudal landholding, who may or may not also be a peer. "Lord" and "Baron" are titles of nobility within the peerage system, with "Baron" being the lowest rank." Per this definition, I am at the verge of rejecting your draft as hoax. You should read WP:YFA and understand how sourcing works. Cheers! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 20:14, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply, @SafariScribe. Naturally, English common law is distinguished from Lord of the Manor, Lord and Baron (as the former relates to the system of law; the latter to titles of nobility). In English common law, Lord of the Manor is a title which applies to the historic rights over property and administration over an area of land called 'a manor'. During the Anglo Saxon period and the Norman conquest, baron was the title given to such lords and as such is another description to give of any lord of the manor. The terms are interchangeable. Do let me know if you need any authority on this point.
Evidently, Lord does not apply exclusively to the peerage system as it is in the title 'Lord of the Manor'. The argument for Baron has been raised above.
At the end of the day, this article aims to raise awareness for a local title with historical and legal significance within a province of England. As suggested again, some familiarity with the work of Jessel outlined earlier will confirm these points: far from a 'hoax' and very much based on the principles of English common law outlined in this universal authority on the subject.
That said, I shall endeavour to meet the expectations outlined by @ColinFine if the article remains insufficient.
If there is an editor from an English background or with familiarity with English land, administrative or constitutional law, I urge you to consult them on the article. After all, why exclude knowledge that may be of use to a wandering intellect?
Let me know if I may assist any further.
Beatrice x SPQHH (talk) 21:04, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, again, @Beatrice. I'm afraid that you are advancing your arguments in the wrong place. As I indicated earlier, Wikipedia is not the place for advancing arguments - it only reports on what has already been published in reliable places.
"Raising awareness" of anthing is emphatically not what Wikipedia is for - see WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS.
Knowledge of common law is not required in a Wikipedia reviewer of your draft, because the review is according to Wikipedia's policies, nothing else. Any argument about what the common law means in respect of the manor of Cuckfield is misplaced: the only thing that can ground such an article is a statement (or at least a discussion) in a reliable source about, specifically, the Barony of Cuckfield. ColinFine (talk) 09:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The title (though for Cokfeld which is an old spelling of Cuckfield) was according to one of the sources in the draft (https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/4689296) conveyed (probably meaning sold) on 20 August 2024 (there is a lively business in these titles which is separate from the rights or land that lords of the manor use to hold though sometimes the buyer tries to enforce "rights", see Mark Roberts (businessman)). The word 'baron' in English Common Law can also just mean 'husband' (see Baron and feme) as well as sometimes synonym for 'lord' or the peerage title. The current article title usage is unusual (if not outright wrong) and definitely would lead to confusion with the UK peerage title of "Baron". If nothing else the title to the article should be "Lord of the Manor of Cuckfield". In most cases the article should be about the manor not the title of the holder and even most manors are not now significant except as part of the history of a village, town, or city. A very few manors may be significant because of importance in history (e.g., the manor of Manchester where the community purchased the remaining rights in 1846 for a large sum, but even then there is no separate article on the manor). Erp (talk) 00:19, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Erp thank you for your response. Indeed, the title was sold and under imported Norman law this is allowed for manorial titles (which are different titles of nobility to peerages). I can provide a source if needed. Let me know. x
The title and the rights may, but are not necessarily, separate. The Roberts article quotes actually applies to claim to foreshore; the market rights were actually recognised and upheld so would contradict this.
The point on baron is correct; perhaps an explanatory point on this may help to avoid any confusion for readers. Though, I see and agree that one focusing on the Manor over the baronial title may be more comprehensive.
Though not as popular in the public arena as before, the Jessel work addressed that manorial right are actually very significant and have much influence on English land and administrative policy today.
Let me know how I can improve these problems and present this article in the objective light it needs. SPQHH (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @SPQHH. I suspect the problem is that you are not aware that original research is not permitted in a Wikipedia article.
Unless Magna Carta, or Jessel, specifically mention "Baron of Cuckfield", they are irrelevant to this article, and your claim of relevance is an example of synthesis (a species of OR).
A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several indepedent reliable sources individually about the subject, and very little else. In particular it should not contain any kind of argument or conclusion, with the possible exception of summarising an argument or conclusion that appears in one of the sources cited.
Also, Cuckfield Connections does not appear to be a reliable source as Wikikpedia uses the term, and cannot be cited; and Cuckfield.org as well as probably not being an RS is also not independent of the subject. ColinFine (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:17, 11 July 2025 review of submission by Hyggemule

[edit]

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.

This article has been rejected because of accessibility bias for people with disabilities who might depend on computing resources differently than others.

I find the language of the rejection to be abusive. Please consider the draft on its merits alone, instead of broadband bans that admit to not reading anything about the issue at hand. Hyggemule (talk) 13:17, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Context for other reviewers. I have no interest in communicating with a shit robot, but if any other reviewer wants to try feel free. qcne (talk) 13:22, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thankfully, your words are public. 130.44.160.143 (talk) 13:43, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you are saying that you have a condition which prevents you from typing, and requires you to use an AI, I am sorry to hear that. However, AI use is problematic for several reasons, detailed at WP:LLM. My suggestion would be that you work with another person on your end who can perhaps write for you/be your typist. They can also help you with formatting references. 331dot (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The references are formatted correctly and the editor that rejected the draft admitted to not reading it. What is someone do to? 130.44.160.143 (talk) 13:45, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The references seem to be AI generated hallucinations. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I read the draft and judged the sources to either be likely AI-generated promo pieces or not independent. I did not read the ridiculous walls of AI-generated text. But, I could of course have made an error on my judgement of the draft. Happy for any other reviewers to re-review. qcne (talk) 13:48, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The comments by Qcne are abusive and do nothing to further the creation of an encyclopedia. They are words meant to bash others.

This has been my consistent experience in communicating with "Editors" of the Wikipedia. Nobody so far in ANY communication has been helpful in furthering my submission about artist and photographer Matthew Swarts.

What recourse is there for someone like myself to submit reports of abuse? What about my draft, which is sound, references and all. When will that be taken seriously enough to be read by a human being? 130.44.160.143 (talk) 13:43, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We're all human beings here. Remember to log in when posting. If you brought this to WP:AN as a grievance it would likely WP:BOOMERANG back on you, quite frankly. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


This draft was unjustifiably deleted by a user who didn't read it and who wrote just that. I'm looking for real feedback from people knowledgeable with the subject matter at hand in this draft, and not harsh and abusive sanctions for simply asking questions and providing data about previous comments.

Please reinstate the draft. Thank you. Hyggemule (talk) 14:05, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has not been deleted it is here Draft:Matthew Swarts. Theroadislong (talk) 14:10, 11 July 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.

17:21, 11 July 2025 review of submission by 2600:1702:DB0:1DB0:B0A1:62DA:ABEE:8BB4

[edit]

the draft was not approved. How do I improve it to show the work of an author? 

2600:1702:DB0:1DB0:B0A1:62DA:ABEE:8BB4 (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. "Showing the work of an author" is not what a Wikipedia article is for.
A Wikipedia article should mostly be a summary of what people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and not much else. In particular, what the subject or their associates say or want to say, is of very little interest.
If the subject is an artist or other creative, and the above description is met, then a selected list of their works might be included - with a strong preference for works which have been independently written about. ColinFine (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:00, 11 July 2025 review of submission by Ken Takao

[edit]

I need technical help and tips on what to improve. Ken Takao (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ken Takao. You generated this draft with ChatGPT. It mistakenly added a decline notice to it. Please do not use ChatGPT to create drafts. See Wikipedia:Large language models.
I will remove the offending code that ChatGPT created to allow you to submit the draft properly. qcne (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any idea why it does that? It doesn't like its own drafts? 331dot (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We've been seeing this for months. See Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard#Edit filters related to logging and blocking AI edits qcne (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the director of this organization, you must disclose a paid editing relationship. 331dot (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i don't get payment, just organize everything Ken Takao (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ken Takao You still need to declare your conflict of interest. qcne (talk) 18:59, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ken Takao Wikipedia is not a place for an organization to tell about itself and what it does. A Wikipedia article about an organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. We're interested in what others say about the organization, not what it wants to say about itself. 331dot (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
how to declare conflict of interest Ken Takao (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You may just write out a statement on your user page(currently User:Ken Takao, though you are planning on changing your username) to the effect of "I have a conflict of interest with regards to All Styles Martial Arts, as I am the director". 331dot (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok i wrote, why i got message User:Liz deleted the value? Ken Takao (talk) 22:34, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Takao, your draft is entirely lacking in references to reliable published sources entirely independent of All Styles Martial Arts that devote significant coverage to All Styles Martial Arts. Without such independent sources, the draft cannot possibly be accepted. Cullen328 (talk) 03:32, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:25, 11 July 2025 review of submission by Alan Brew

[edit]

Can you tell me the specific reason the draft was not accepted. Alan Brew (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alan Brew You generated this draft with ChatGPT. It mistakenly added a decline notice to it. Please do not use ChatGPT to create drafts. See Wikipedia:Large language models. I will remove the offending code that ChatGPT created to allow you to submit the draft properly. Do not use ChatGPT to create a draft. qcne (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The specific reason is that the AI you used to write it added a decline message. See WP:LLM as to why using an AI is problematic. 331dot (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alan Brew Please read and respond to the conflict-of-interest inquiry on your talk page. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:20, 11 July 2025 review of submission by Padmarag

[edit]

The primary source of this article is from old books, there are very limited online sources. The links to the books are added in the article. Padmarag (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not why I rejected the draft and marked it for deletion, @Padmarag. Offline sources are fine and can be used. I rejected the draft because it has been entirely written by AI and is written in an incredibly inappropriate way for Wikipedia. You will have to start the draft completely from scratch. Nothing in the current text is suitable. qcne (talk) 21:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It has now been deleted. Please do not use AI to write articles on Wikipedia. qcne (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok, I will do a complete rewrite and re-submit. Thanks Padmarag (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Linking to Amazon is not an acceptable source. Please see Referencing for beginners to learn how to cite offline sources. 331dot (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 12

[edit]

01:05, 12 July 2025 review of submission by Ajrnm91

[edit]

I believe I added enough required sources and references and also provided clear confirmation of this person's notoriety in the state of New Mexico. I believe I am meeting all of Wikipedia's guidelines and I believe my denial should be reviewed and I would like to know specifically why it has been rejected and what specifically does it need to be accepted. Ajrnm91 (talk) 01:05, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajrnm91 As explained in a comment above the draft, the article was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Ronchetti (2nd nomination) and you need to show that the reasoning in that discussion no longer applies (which seems unlikely given that only three months have passed). Per WP:NPOL, political candidates are not considered notable just because they received coverage of their candidacy.
Did you use ChatGPT or other AI to expand the draft? AI will not help your draft get accepted, see WP:LLM. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:17, 12 July 2025 review of submission by Ajrnm91

[edit]

I believe I meet all Wikipedia guidelines for notability I provided all appropriate sources and references this person is very notable and well-known in the state of New Mexico , and has been for decades. Ajrnm91 (talk) 01:17, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ajrnm91, this person fails WP:NPOL as a political candidate who has never won an election. An article was previously deleted at AfD and you need to provide evidence that things have changed. They haven't. The only other plausible claim to notability is as a meteorologist but the references in the article do not support that claim. Writing your draft in an argumentative tone, insisting that he is notable, is the wrong approach. The Neutral point of view is a mandatory core content policy. And what the heck is going on with those bizarre double asterisks sprinkled through the draft? We don't write encyclopedia articles like that. Cullen328 (talk) 03:21, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The double asterisks are a common LLM addition- it's attempting to boldface, as many text editors outside WP use asterisks to bold. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 23:57, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:41, 12 July 2025 review of submission by 24.146.248.117

[edit]

what am i doing wrong? 24.146.248.117 (talk) 01:41, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft lacks references to reliable sources that are totally independent of Fanzo and the companies he is affiliated with. Significant coverage in reliable independent sources is mandatory to establish that Fanzo is notable and therefore eligible for a Wikipedia biography. Cullen328 (talk) 03:07, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:53, 12 July 2025 review of submission by Sahina78

[edit]

Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I have submitted my article multiple times, but unfortunately, it keeps getting rejected. I am respectfully requesting that if there are specific issues with my article, kindly let me know the exact reasons clearly so that I can correct them accordingly.

Alternatively, if possible, I would deeply appreciate it if you could help improve the article directly, or guide me step by step. I am willing to cooperate fully and follow all Wikipedia guidelines.

My intention is only to contribute helpful and accurate content to Wikipedia. Please help me understand what is wrong, so I can fix it or improve it under your supervision.

Thank you for your time and support.

Sincerely, [sahina] Sahina78 (talk) 05:53, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sahina78. Your draft violates the Neutral point of view, which is a mandatory and non-negotiable core content policy. Examples of non-neutral phrasing include noble and revered and renowned for her deep loyalty and dedication and spiritually rich and enlightened and surrounded by knowledge, piety, and a steadfast commitment to truth and justice. This noble upbringing imbued her with the values and virtues and so on. This is an encyclopedia not an Islamic tract and you must write in a dry "just the facts" style and not engage in any praise of this person in Wikipedia's voice. Your draft also lacks inline references, making it difficult for a reader to verify the statements that you make. Cullen328 (talk) 06:20, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for taking the time to review my draft and clearly pointing out the issues regarding the neutral point of view and lack of inline references. I truly appreciate your guidance.
If there are any other problems or shortcomings in the article, I kindly request you to let me know, so I can work on them as well.
Also, if it is possible and allowed, I would be very grateful if you could help me improve the article directly by making the necessary changes or showing me how to do it step by step. I am eager to learn and fully follow Wikipedia’s guidelines.
Thank you again for your support Sahina78 (talk) 08:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sahina78 Please read WP:REFB and WP:CITE. Instead of using citations you have clustered your references at the end. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:36, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sahina78, I do not read Arabic and have no knowledge of the topic area and which sources are reliable for this type of content, and which are not. Therefore, I cannot improve the draft myself. Please feel free to leave a message on my talk page after you have substantively revised the draft and I will comment then. Cullen328 (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Cullen328,
As you kindly suggested, I have now revised the draft of the article and made sincere efforts to fix the issues you pointed out, especially regarding the neutral point of view and the lack of inline references.
I’ve tried to rewrite it in a more encyclopedic and factual tone and have added citations to support key statements. If you have time, I would be very grateful if you could please take a look and let me know if it’s improved or if further changes are still needed.
Thank you again for your guidance and support Sahina78 (talk) 04:36, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sahina78, you have not addressed my points. The draft still violates the Neutral point of view and lacks inline references. Cullen328 (talk) 07:46, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.holykarbala.net/v2/index.php/ar/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%83%D8%AA%D8%A8%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A9/page/997#head1 Sahina78 (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The entire article has been composed after thoroughly studying the material from this source. Cullen, you may kindly review the link to verify the authenticity Sahina78 (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:58, 12 July 2025 review of submission by Rohit1976

[edit]

Last time I was told to use sources which are reliable and as per the policy of Wikipedia. I have tried my best to incorporate only those references which are reliable and fall within notability guidelines as per previous advice and suggestion. But the article has been rejected with the remark that the topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia but I have not been clarified how this topic is insufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia. There are many references which so far I think the topic is sufficiently notable. The person has had immense contribution as a writer and critic and even available on Google knowledge panel. There are so many reviews written on him by eminent writers, academics and scholars. Still it's surprising for me that the person does not fall under notability guidelines. It's more frustrating that even my right of further editing over this article has been taken away. May I humbly ask on which ground such claim has been made that this topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia? Rohit1976 (talk) 08:58, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please disclose your connection with Mr. Giri; you had access to him to take his picture where he posed for you. See WP:COI and WP:PAID.
You summarized his work but not summarized what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say makes him a notable creative professional or more broadly a notable person. 331dot (talk) 09:01, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do now see your discussion of the image on the draft talk page; please see my reply there. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors/reviewers, I also request you if I'm doing any mistake you should guide me. I have become confused over writing this article. There are many references over the internet. Every time I'm trying to make it better but it it is rejected. I have tried to choose best ones this time but the topic is again rejected and even I have been stopped from further editing. This is my first article. It'll be helpful if you help me step by step with your expertise.

Thanks and regards Rohit1976 (talk) 09:08, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit1976 Please do not create a new thread with every post, just edit this existing thread. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:19, 12 July 2025 review of submission by हर्ष कुमार झा

[edit]

This page not advertising ok. This page is notable person of Harsh Kumar Jha. Harsh Kumar Jha is an indian actor, singer, lyricist and many more occupations. हर्ष कुमार झा (talk) 09:19, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft was wholly promotional and was correctly rejected and then deleted. It seems that you are writing about yourself, this is highly discouraged, please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @हर्ष कुमार झा. A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people, wholly unconnected with the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else.
It follows that writing an article begins with finding reliable independent sources (see WP:42, and then continues with putting aside everything that the writer knows about the subject, and writing a neutral summary of what those sources say. Do you see why writing an wncyclopaedia article about yourself is so difficult? ColinFine (talk) 10:06, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:57, 12 July 2025 review of submission by Projowio

[edit]

Hello, I am not a native speaker and yes I use AI for translation. help me in writing the article. I am a Russian speaker, and this concept of the model has proven itself well in my homeland, and I would like it to develop worldwide, as it contributes to the development of good economic relations and global peace. here is my short retelling in Russian :"B4B (Business-for-Business, «бизнес для бизнеса») — управленческая концепция и модель взаимодействия между компаниями, в основе которой лежит идея создания взаимовыгодных партнёрских отношений как важного элемента устойчивого развития и роста бизнеса. Компании, применяющие принципы B4B, рассматривают долгосрочное сотрудничество с деловыми партнёрами в качестве одного из ключевых факторов повышения собственной конкурентоспособности. Подобное сотрудничество, как правило, включает технологическое и организационное развитие партнёров, обмен ресурсами, финансовую поддержку, совместную реализацию проектов, интеграцию бизнес-процессов, создание стратегических альянсов и другие формы совместной деятельности. Модель опирается на концепцию «win–win», которая применительно к В4В предполагает, что возникающая синергия способствует росту эффективности и развитию бизнеса всех участников партнёрской сети." Projowio (talk) 09:57, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are unable to write in English without using an AI, you should edit the Russian Wikipedia. AI is not perfect and has certain problems, see WP:LLM. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is already such an article on the Russian Wikipedia. Projowio (talk) 10:05, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. AI should be avoided here, be it for writing articles or communication with us. 331dot (talk) 10:08, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessary to publish it on my behalf, I just want everyone to have knowledge and not necessarily do business like sharks.That's why I'm asking for help. Projowio (talk) 10:10, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't really the place to ask for others to edit your draft for you; the help we offer here is related to the draft submission process itself. You could ask at the more general Help Desk, but the odds that someone will want to do as you ask are low. Your best bet would be to improve your English skills so that you can write a translation yourself.
Also, each language Wikipedia is a separate project, with its own editors and policies. What is acceptable on the Russian Wikipedia is not necessarily acceptable on the English Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 10:15, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the detailed answer, I'll try to fix it. Projowio (talk) 10:21, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Projowio. "I just want everyone to have knowledge and not necessarily do business like sharks." is, perhaps surprisingly, not consistent with the purposes of Wikipedia.
That sounds like either WP:PROMOTION or WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS, neither of which are appropriate. ColinFine (talk) 15:34, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:34, 12 July 2025 review of submission by BlackNightMan

[edit]

Why was article rejected? What's wrong with article? BlackNightMan (talk) 10:34, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @BlackNightMan. It doesn't appear to have any independent reliable 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.
Remember that a Wikipedia article should be a summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else. Unless you start with those reliable independent publications (see WP:42) your draft will have no chance of being accepted.
You appear to have taken a posed photograph of Astakhov yourself: what is your connection with him? If you have any sort of conflict of interest, you are strongly recommended to disclose this. ColinFine (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:50, 12 July 2025 review of submission by Rohit1976

[edit]

Dear editors, My article is being rejected over and again with this statement "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia" which I think is not enough to prove that the topic is not sufficiently notable. I think the reviewers should clarify in plain and simple words how this topic is not sufficiently notable for the inclusion in Wikipedia. If one googles Dipak Giri, one also finds him he has many followers on popular social medias and other platforms. This proves that the topic is notable. As regards good sources last time I was told to incorporate only three good sources to prove that the subject is notable. If you check my talk page you'll find. Keeping this in my mind, this time I have tried to incorporate more than three good sources. I have incorporates sources from popular newspaper and journals. These sources are even available on Wikipedia. These source are also unprofitable and have no relation with the subject. For example, Muse India, Journal of Comparative Literature and Aesthetics, Wilderness House Literary Review, The Hans India etc. are reliable sources and unquestionable and they are even available on Wikipedia. Still if you think I need any more improvement it's my humble and earnest request to locate the exact problem where it is. I'll surely try to solve the problem. However, it's not humanly if I'm being stopped from editing my article. I hope you'll take me request in positive way and allow me to work on my article. Rohit1976 (talk) 14:50, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors/reviewers,

My article has been rejected on the ground that it does not meet notability guidelines. Even my right over re-working on it is taken away. Now my situation is that I'm not able to work on it. Helplessly I'm looking forward to your help. In this connection I would like to bring your kind attention on the fact that my article was rejected some six years ago by TheBirdsShedTears who told me to incorporate three good sources to prove that the subject is notable. Keeping in mind what TheBirdsShedTears's once told me I have incorporated more than three good sources this time. Some of the sources incorporated by me this time are also available on Wikipedia, for example, Muse India, The Hans India, Journal of Comparative Literature and Aesthetics, Wilderness House Literary Review etc. These sources are popular journals and newspapers. I hope this time the article will be accepted but opposite to my expectation, it has been rejected and even my right over editing this article has been unjustly snatched away. Helplessly I'm looking forward to your help and proper guidance. Thanks and regards Rohit1976 (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rohit1976: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Your conflict of interest is not absolved by removing content, and repeatedly submitting a draft without making even a token effort to address concerns raised by reviewers generally leads to a rejection. I see claims that lack sources (unacceptable), massive walls of text (unreadable), and a promotional tone throughout (unwanted). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:46, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Better if you give me few examples from the text how they are unreadable and promotional instead of charging me that they lack sources (unacceptable), massive walls of text (unreadable), and a promotional tone throughout (unwanted). It'll help me for further improvement If you give me examples. I hope you'll respond to my humble prayer. Regards Rohit1976 (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rohit1976: Just remember, you asked for this. And I'm going to tear your sources apart as well.
Sources:
Text:
  • (born 7 March, 1984) - Source? (Yes, this does require a source.)
  • [Giri] was born and brought up in Cooch Behar, West Bengal, India. - Source? (Both sources cited here were dismissed above.)
  • He completed his PhD form Raiganj University, West Bengal, India[.] - Source? (You can't cite his own work for this; you'd need a third-party source.)
  • He started his career as a Part Time Lecturer in Cooch Behar College in 2007. - Source?
  • Since his first job as a Part Time Lecturer in Cooch Behar College... - Rambling. This needs to be broken up into discrete sentences, and each and every position mentioned requires a source.
  • The entire "Works" section is a massive wall of text, which makes it very difficult to read. It's incredibly easy for a reader to lose track of where they are in the text of a MWOT.
  • [Giri's] books encompass a wide range of subjects, especially related with Indian roots. - Irrelevant/redundant. 86 it.
  • [Giri's] main area of concern includes women, Dalits, tribes, homosexuals, transgenders & other marginalized people of Indian society. - Source? (Doesn't matter if you cite them elsewhere, you need to cite sources here as well.)
  • Apart from social issues, he has also brought out books of literary criticism, especially on Indian English literature. - Source? (The source cited here was dismissed above.)
  • [Indian English Drama: Themes and Techniques,] with twenty seven chapters includes all the major dramatists of India and their works. - This can be merged with the sentence before it and used to start a new paragraph.
  • As a critic [Giri] has had literary criticism in all possible genres of Indian literature, from poetry to drama, from short story to novel and from native Indian literature to diasporic literature. - Source?
  • [Indian English Poetry: A Critical Evaluation] captures the prominent poetic voices of India. - Editorialising. Attribute it.
  • Among other notable books, New Woman in Indian Literature: From Covert to Overt (2018) studies new woman in Indian literature against the old and conventional image of womanhood in Indian society.[sic] - Editorialising. Attribute it, remove "Among other notable books,".
  • Same Sex Desire in Present India: An Anthology of Literary Texts and Contexts (2019) quests for social validation of homosexual desire in reference to Indian literary texts.[sic] - Editorialising. Attribute it.
  • Woman-Nature Interface: An Ecofeminist Study (2019) glorifies Woman and Nature and seeks parallelism between the two. Add "according to Jernail Singh Anand" (and the source) at the end of the sentence and axe the direct quote from the review.
  • Queer sexualities in Indian Culture : Critical Responses (2020) scrutinizes the queer (LGBTQIA+) space in Indian culture in reference to all possible media of culture available to human world like art, literature and movie.[sic] - Source?
  • Perspectives on Indian Dalit Literature: Critical Responses (2020) deals with the plights and sufferings of Indian Dalits and their movements toward the attainment of mainstream social life. - editorialising. Attribute it.
  • Subaltern Perspectives in Indian Context: Critical Responses (2021) critiques subalterns in Indian context from all possible perspectives- from historical to modern and sexual to social. - editorialising. Attribute it.
  • Gender Perspectives in Indian Context: Critical Responses (2021) critiques against gender stereotypes in Indian society. - editorialising. Attribute it.
  • According to Indian critic P C K Prem... - 86 this sentence; the cite here is better off being used on the previous sentence with attribution to Prem.
  • Both of the awards are effectively unsourced as all their sources have been dismissed above.
  • "List of Major works" needs to be overhauled completely into a bibliography selection showing his most notable works, complete with ISBN/OCLC# and publisher.
Hopefully this is enough for you to chew on. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:15, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) You seem to have a very strong personal investment in this topic, yet you say you have no conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 15:49, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly give me some examples how I seem to you to have a very strong personal investment in this topic. Kindly give some examples so that I'll be careful from next time using such phrases or sentences. Rohit1976 (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most people don't persist with a subject this much, unless they have a connection to the subject matter. 331dot (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This opinion is not logical. I know Dipak Giri by his works only and so interested to write an article on him. Moreover, this is my first article on Wikipedia. So, I'm more interested to publish it. If I succeed to publish it, it will encourage me to write more articles. But unfortunately in my first article, I'm facing problems because I'm not meeting proper guidance and support. You're experiences editors/ reviewers so you should guide me properly instead of discouraging me. Rohit1976 (talk) 16:13, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, one has to read over the subject and collect references to establish the facts. I don't wish my labour to be spoilt so I'm persisting for guidance. Rohit1976 (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Rohit1976. As far as I can see, every single one of your 134 edits to date have been on, or connected with, this one draft.
The chances of you learning enough in that way about how Wikipedia works to successfully create an article, are low. It's like saying "I want to be a builder. I'm going to start building this house, and when something doesn't work I'll pester the volunteer experts until they explain the problem to me in terms that I can understand - they'd better not talk any technicalities about building."
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) 19:19, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm facing problems because I'm not (g)etting proper guidance and support"- that's not it, you are frustrated because we are not telling you what you want to hear. In any event, you're now blocked. 331dot (talk) 08:03, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:14, 12 July 2025 review of submission by CedarsToMaple

[edit]

Request for Clarification and Reconsideration of Rejected Article Submission – Antoine Tayar

Dear Wikipedia Review Team,

I am writing to respectfully request a reconsideration regarding the declined article submission on Antoine Tayar, a notable Canadian municipal councilor and community leader. I also seek clarification as to why the article is now blocked from resubmission, despite having been written with reliable sources and in alignment with Wikipedia’s notability and verifiability guidelines.

Antoine Tayar was elected as a city councilor in Ville de Mont-Royal, Quebec, in 2021, and in 2024, he received the King Charles III Coronation Medal in recognition of his public service. These are verifiable achievements, documented by reliable news sources such as The Suburban, La Presse, and Gulf News.

The article includes:

Public office held: Elected municipal councilor (2021)

National recognition: Coronation Medal (2024)

Professional roles in major organizations: Coca-Cola, American Chamber of Commerce, Chambre de Commerce et d’Industrie Canada-Liban

Community leadership: Chair of the FCCQ Overregulation Committee; multiple board positions in recognized institutions

While I understand Wikipedia’s high standards for inclusion, I have observed many biographies of public figures with comparable or lesser public engagement who have retained their pages. I would appreciate understanding why this particular article does not meet the threshold, especially when the subject has held elected office and received national honors.

The article avoids promotional tone, is supported by multiple third-party sources, and adheres to Wikipedia’s Biographies of Living Persons policy. I am committed to improving the article further if needed, but I believe a flat rejection and block from resubmission contradict the open and collaborative spirit of Wikipedia.

I kindly request a second review or at least the reinstatement of the ability to resubmit with improvements. Your clarification and guidance would be sincerely appreciated. 


CedarsToMaple (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CedarsToMaple Please do not communicate to us with a AI chatbot like ChatGPT. Councillors rarely meet Wikipedia:Notability (people) and I saw no indication that this person meets that criteria. There are, unfortunately, tens of thousands of articles on Wikipedia of people who do not meet our criteria. We do not wish to add more bad articles. Let me know if you have any questions, but I will not reply if you just send an AI-generated reply to me. qcne (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To add to this good advice, municipal officials do not meet WP:NPOLITICIAN. 331dot (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help with declined draft: Ethics and Privacy in AI-Enhanced Digital Marketing

[edit]

Hello! I recently submitted a draft titled "Ethics and Privacy in AI-Enhanced Digital Marketing", and it was declined. I would like to understand what specific improvements are needed for it to meet Wikipedia’s standards.

I'm new to Wikipedia editing and would really appreciate any guidance on how to improve the draft—especially regarding notability, tone, or references.

Here is the draft: User:Kellyfromgoi/sandbox

Thank you in advance for your help! — Kellyfromgoi (talk) 17:55, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use an AI to write articles or communicate with us. See WP:LLM. 331dot (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi :@Kellyfromgoi. I rejeced it, not declined it. If you want to try again you need to completely start the draft from scratch without using an AI chatbot. qcne (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Kellyfromgoi. A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several independent reliable sources have (separately) said about the subject, and very little else.
It should not contain any argumentation or conclusions, other than, possibly, summaries of the arguments or conclusions in a single reliable source.
Chatbots (at least, current ones) are unlikely to confine themselves to the sources, (even supposing that they cite real sources, not hallucinations), and they are also unlikely to distinguish good sources (that are reliable, independent, and contain significant coverage about the subject) from bad ones. See WP:42.
I notice that your bot has cited Wikipedia a couple of times: this should almost never be done, as it is not a reliable source. You also need to give proper bibliographic information for the citations from ResearchGate - author, title, date, publication etc. ColinFine (talk) 19:27, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:12, 12 July 2025 review of submission by IndianHistoryLover99

[edit]

Why is the draft being rejected again and again?

Also some editor Astra Travasso has commented this - "After multiple declines, the subject of this page issued a public relations (PR) release to note his role as "Media Advisor to the Government of India". It is mentioned in the first reference now, https://up18news.com/pm-modi-commends-media-advisor-soumyabrata-senguptas-role-in-indias-north-east/ However, there is no government press release that notes the same. For future reviewers, please note the page history before approving the page."

- This is an extremely uneducated comment on a person who has extensively worked in the North Eastern part of India under hostile conditions, and has been commended by the Prime Minister of the country for the same. He seems to be be quite aware of North East India as he seems to have edited several pages on the topic. But the tone of his language says otherwise.

He should understand that the subject 'Soumyabrata Sengupta' works as an independent media advisor (hence are are no government press releases about him) and he has his own PR team. So, of course he will share press releases to highlight his work, right? Just because a press release coincided with the timing of your edit, he commented such a stupid thing? How is he even allowed to be an editor? IndianHistoryLover99 (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IndianHistoryLover99 I highly suggest you strike out your personal attack on @Astra Travasso immediately, they are inappropriate for Wikipedia.. Please carefully read Wikipedia:No personal attacks.
I have read the draft and it's sources. I see no indication this person meets our criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people). If these are the only sources you have, please abandon this draft for now and edit something else. qcne (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @IndianHistoryLover99. I understand your frustration but since you posted this here for clarification, I thought this needed some explanation even though much was already provided. Also, I do not appreciate you leaving a long comment on my talk page which was unnecessary, especially, "extremely uneducated comment." I do live and work in Northeast India where the subject of this page works "under hostile conditions." So, I do know well enough the state politics and government working of the region. Here is a recap of the events (which I will also post on the talk page of draft), some of which were resolved,
  1. You fail to declare Wikipedia:COI at the start. The question on this comes from your access and posting of photographs of the subject which he uses on his social media pages which may just be a copyright issue. More significantly, you could trace his family lineage to the 11th century, which linking pages of his apparent great-great-grandfather, great-grandfather, grandfather, and father without citing any sources. Here it was important to know WP:INVALIDBIO. Thankfully, these sections were later edited out.
  2. Many people before me flagged the page for lack of significant coverage and/or independent sources right from the first submission. Some of these happened in a matter of days of the submission. Including @Kuru who pointed out to advertorials used twice. I am inclined to see your malafide intention in singling me out for your retribution.
  3. Thank you for admitting that the above mentioned link is a press release and probably issued by the subject himself. Please seeWP:GNG and note that these cannot be viewed as 'Independent of the subject'. While the timing of the release of the press release (after Wikipedia declines) to note nothing "new" your edit, my review, and release of the PR material is too strange. In addition, I could not find any mention of "honorary rank of Major in Indian Army’s Rajput Regiment" granted to him.
  4. The other claim to notability seems to show that the subject occupies the office of "media advisor" of the Government of India as which could also not be proved with independent sources. Only now, you have revised it as an "independent media advisor" further diluting the case for this page. Given how successive governments have viewed the Northeast of India, there are several government events every day organised even by the Indian Army. It is dubious that I could not find any mention even in the passing. Nevertheless, it does not add to the notability.
  5. The book published by the subject is also from a vanity press and/or self-publishing outlet.
  6. Returning to the attributes credited to the subject on the first submission, none could be found on independent sources: "His Excellency," entrepreneur, politician, author, and media advisor.
I rest my case. I promise I will never return to this draft again. Best wishes @IndianHistoryLover99
Thanks @Qcne for going through the draft and checking for the notability. Really appreciate your work and support. Sincerely, Astra Travasso (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:56, 12 July 2025 review of submission by Thelifestyleoftherichandfamous

[edit]

Please assist me if the article is correct and ready for submission? Thelifestyleoftherichandfamous (talk) 23:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 13

[edit]

Request review or feedback on Draft:Yousseif Abdellatif4

[edit]

Hello, and thank you in advance for your time.

I’ve recently submitted a draft titled Draft:Yousseif Abdellatif4, which is a biographical article about an Egyptian political writer and former local council member. The draft has been written carefully to follow Wikipedia’s standards regarding neutral point of view, reliable sourcing, and notability (WP:GNG and WP:BIO).

All statements are backed by independent and verifiable sources, including multiple published articles in reliable news platforms.

I’m kindly asking if an experienced editor could review the draft or provide guidance. If any issues remain that prevent it from being accepted, I would highly appreciate feedback or suggestions to improve it.

Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Yousseif_Abdellatif4

Thanks again for your support and time! 156.209.52.181 (talk) 00:18, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor, we don't respond to AI/chatbot-generated queries. Please write in your own words if you'd like a response. Meadowlark (talk) 02:06, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:04, 13 July 2025 review of submission by Unfinal

[edit]

nevermind, i've decided to delete the draft and will research the process more closely before submitting anything else

03:58, 13 July 2025 review of submission by Тараненко Артем

[edit]

Is it possible to ask someone to review this page? It's needed forfurther work on Venezuelan culture Тараненко Артем (talk) 03:58, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Тараненко Артем, I have gone through the submission. I do not question the notability of the subject in the Draft:José Joaquín Salazar Franco. However, you may need to work further to establish the notability by expanding on his work and providing appropriate citations. Best wishes, Astra Travasso (talk) 04:19, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. Your remarks were very helpful Тараненко Артем (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:40, 13 July 2025 review of submission by Diekette

[edit]

Dear Ladies and Gentleman, i recently resubmitted the article above mentioned and it got declined. From the feedback that was left by the reviewer it says it only mentions the personality in the references which is not true as in most references the persona is essential to the source it links to (artforum, frieze etc.) i added some more references and i would be happy to get some more feedback what i do wrong. thanks you. all the besy Diekette (talk) 04:40, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first issue jumping out at me is that you've cited wikipedia as a reference, twice - we don't cite ourselves, ever.
This link doesn't directly support the statement preceeding it, because you linked to a cover page and not the actual journal.
This link is broken.
This reference doesn't support the statement preceeding it all, it's just a bunch of pictures.
Something I can't figure out is that in this version all the references were well formatted, but you seem to have reverted to unformatted links - which isn't helpful.
I'd note that primary sources, like CVs and press releases, wont contribute to notability. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 07:06, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Diekette, where did the reviewer say that it only mentions the personality in the references? I'm wondering if perhaps there's been some confusion about what you need to improve. The only message I see is one telling you that you need better sources; each of your sources must comply with WP:42. Hopefully that page will be of use to you. Happy editing! Meadowlark (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Diekette. I'm not going to plough through a long list of bare URL references to see which are useful or not (the important bit of a citation is the title, author, date, publication, which lets a reviewer judge the provenance and likely content: a URL is in most cases a convenience for the reader, not an essential part of the citation. Please see WP:REFB), but I'm guessing that you are picking out just the first of the three different requirements mentioned.
Most references (and all references that are to contribute to establishing notability) are required to be all three of independent of the subject, reliably published, and containing significant coverage (see WP:42 for more detail).
If a source is published by a gallery or agent that has exhibited the artist, then it is not independent: it will not help to establish notability, and should be cited only for uncontroversial factual information. ColinFine (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I read all your comments and reworked the list of references, please let me know what you and I welcome some feedback. Thank you Diekette (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Veit Laurent Kurz Diekette (talk) 01:37, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How can I submit it again for review or is it automatically been resubmitted ? Diekette (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Diekette I have added the re-submit button for you. qcne (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:31, 13 July 2025 review of submission by Rofgonc

[edit]

Hi, somehow the references were edited out and I believe you reviewed without them, can you recheck please? I’ve re-entered them. Thank you Rofgonc Rofgonc (talk) 07:31, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rofgonc I fixed your header so the link to your draft is properly provided(it must be the exact, full title for the header to work).
To get another review, you need to resubmit the draft(click the blue "Resubmit" button at the bottom of the last review message. 331dot (talk) 08:05, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The references were there when this was reviewed, they just aren't sufficient to establish notability.
For whatever reason, there's another version of this at Draft:Richard Gonçalves / AKAROCS (artist). That one hasn't been submitted for review at all. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:11, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Rofgonc. Your user name suggests that you have some connection with Gonçalves.
Please clarify what that connection is: it is likely you have a conflict of interest in working on this draft. That does not prevent you from doing so, but it is highly recommended that you declare any COI you might have.
Please note that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject 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) 17:16, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:49, 13 July 2025 review of submission by 171.33.250.185

[edit]

1 171.33.250.185 (talk) 10:49, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

draft has been rejected, no indication of any notability, just unsourced promotion. Theroadislong (talk) 11:04, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:36, 13 July 2025 review of submission by Bibhutipattnayak

[edit]

This is not accepted but most of the link I have provided with the relevant sources, can you please guide me how we could make it better or can anyone support me to complete this. Bibhutipattnayak (talk) 13:36, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bibhutipattnayak, each of your sources needs to meet all three criteria in WP:42. The reviewer doesn't think any of the sources you have now meet those criteria. You might also want to look at WP:NCORP, which outlines our requirements for companies to have articles written about them.
If you don't mind, who is "we"? Wikipedia accounts cannot be shared, so if you are working on it with a colleague they will need their own account. Could you also please say whether you are employed by Xpertnest or whether they have paid you to create this draft? Meadowlark (talk) 13:46, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"We" means who will support me for the corrective action. because
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/10185772 - Company house article and it's government body there is nothing sponsored content.
https://growth500.businessleader.co.uk/?_hsenc=p2ANqtz--8kC8KD57QJ7bUMiIsJoeWmQTG7TI-qnuERdKjaihQLQ8Efhf5zoGxnngJUjahNje4TYROXLn0LGg8ZAVRFn0zeFVaBA&_hsmi=112710748&rank=salesGrowth2Years&search=xper&sort=rank&sortAsc=y&utm_content=112710748&utm_medium=email&utm_source=hs_email - this is published by the growth500
Still could not understand reviewer said all url but that is not true. Bibhutipattnayak (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Still could not understand reviewer said "Sources are all either WP:ORGTRIV, press releases, or paid advertorial pieces." but that is not true. Bibhutipattnayak (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Bibhutipattnayak, I'm still not clear what you mean by "who will support me for the corrective action".
All your sources need to meet all three of the WP:42 criteria. So the 'company house article' is no good because it is not significant coverage. The Growth500 source is no good either because it is not significant coverage. You need things like newspaper articles or books that talk about Xpertnest in detail. Meadowlark (talk) 02:35, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added 15 news links most of them have more than millions reader and it WP:42 satisfies, hence looking for help anything else i could do it . Bibhutipattnayak (talk) 06:37, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm afraid that I don't think you have, @Bibhutipattnayak.
I looked at one of your edits, that added two citations, from Zeebiz and CIO. Both refer to the same investment, neither is credited to a named author, and the two texts (at least the paragraph about Xpertnest) are paraphrases of each other. The natural conclusion is that they are both simply regurgitating a press release, presumable from BharatEarns. This means that they are not independent, they don't meet the criteria in WP:42, and they don't contribute to establishing notability.
Nothing said by Xpertnest, its staff, or its partners, in any form (including interviews and press releases) is of any use.
I've only looked at those two of your fifteen citations. Are any others any better? ColinFine (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:25, 13 July 2025 review of submission by Erne1982

[edit]

Hello, thanks for your time. Is it acceptable to use a LinkedIn post or YouTube video as a source? Erne1982 (talk) 15:25, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Erne1982 No, only in very limited circumstances. See Wikipedia:LINKEDIN and Wikipedia:YOUTUBE-EL qcne (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:07, 13 July 2025 review of submission by Projowio

[edit]

Hello, can I read more about the links? Did I add books and links to online magazines incorrectly? or are the links themselves not information confirming my identity? I am grateful in advance Projowio (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, can I read more about the links? Did I add books and links to online magazines incorrectly? or are the links themselves not the information confirming my article? I am grateful in advance Projowio (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, @Projowio, you appear to have added the two citations correctly.
Note that, if I'm reading correctly, the first citation is to the book which originally introduced the concept. This means that it is not an independent source, and will not contribute to establishing notability. I get the impression that the second book, similarly, was developing the concept, rather than an independent discussion about the concept, but I may have misunderstood.
A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications. When the subject is a concept or approach, then anybody who was involved in developing the concept approach is not independent. ColinFine (talk) 15:44, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, the concept itself was born at Toyota, Coca-Cola, and so on. There are two books that describe this, yes, in the same key, but they are completely neutral. B4B is an evolution of the B2B (Business-to-Business) concept - the books themselves did not invent this concept, it was born inside enterprises that began to develop internal relationships more strongly with both suppliers and sellers Projowio (talk) 10:03, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ColinFine Projowio (talk) 10:05, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:04, 13 July 2025 review of submission by Nigelt

[edit]

Hi there!

I received notice after a second submission attempt that the citations/references included in our article about Coastline Academy are not meeting standards and I was wondering if it would be possible to get some more insight as to what we change/improve in terms of those references and other content that would help our submission.

Thanks! Nigelt (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zero indication of passing WP:NCORP with no independent sources, Wikipedia is not a platform for promoting your company. Theroadislong (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Nigelt. Why do you say "we"? It appears that (apart from various cleanup actions) only your one account has contributed to the draft. A Wikipedia account is personal, and should not be used by multiple people. ColinFine (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:15, 13 July 2025 review of submission by StoneHarbor1989

[edit]

Based on Wikipedia’s notability criteria for musicians, my article clearly satisfies the requirements outlined in Section 1 and likely meets those in Section 2 as well. The references I’ve provided—drawn from online newspapers and websites maintained by professional music writers—are demonstrably credible. In fact, they are at least as authoritative as those cited in existing entries, such as the Wikipedia page for musical artist Manda Mosher, which includes sources like Riveting Riffs, an unpublished blog, which is not credible. This comparison highlights the strength of my citations and reinforces the case for inclusion. While I’m open to adopting a more academic tone if preferred, the substance and reliability of my sources remain sound. Therefore, I kindly ask that you reconsider my article. 

StoneHarbor1989 (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See other crap exists. Theroadislong (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please review again if possible. I feel strongly that Based on Wikipedia’s notability criteria for musicians, my article clearly satisfies the requirements outlined in Section 1 and likely meets those in Section 2 as well. The references I’ve provided—drawn from online newspapers and websites maintained by professional music writers—are demonstrably credible. While I’m open to adopting a more academic tone if preferred, the substance and reliability of my sources remain sound. Therefore, I kindly ask that you reconsider my article. StoneHarbor1989 (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may resubmit it, but it's not likely to work unless you address the concerns of the last review. Did you use AI to write it?
The "Euro Americana" chart doesn't seem to be a "national music chart". 331dot (talk) 21:59, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please edit this existing thread, do not create additional threads. 331dot (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:13, 13 July 2025 review of submission by 75.89.77.96

[edit]

What can I provide sirr 75.89.77.96 (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor, this draft has been rejected and will not be published. You should move on to working on other things now. Meadowlark (talk) 02:47, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 14

[edit]

01:30, 14 July 2025 review of submission by Tiezhongyu2010

[edit]

This article was written at least 5 years ago when no LLMs exist , but why it was said that draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model. Tiezhongyu2010 (talk) 01:30, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You say it was written 5 years ago, but the edit history says it was created in January 29th of this year. 331dot (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:26, 14 July 2025 review of submission by 2603:8000:4400:6F:AC7D:2C85:8BA4:1B9F

[edit]

How can I revise this page to be a viable submission? 2603:8000:4400:6F:AC7D:2C85:8BA4:1B9F (talk) 02:26, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor, the draft has been deleted as unambiguous promotion. Please read through WP:NOPROMO and WP:NORG for more information. Meadowlark (talk) 02:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:44, 14 July 2025 review of submission by 2A02:908:1265:3020:658E:A25B:B0B6:2DCC

[edit]

I`d like to know, why the submission was declined. Thank you in advance 2A02:908:1265:3020:658E:A25B:B0B6:2DCC (talk) 06:44, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is unreferenced, and therefore provides no evidence that the subject is notable. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:03, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:25, 14 July 2025 review of submission by Lene at Solidus company

[edit]

We have reviewed this page three times and adapted it each time. However, it keeps being declined, and we are unsure what more we can do to get it accepted. Are there any more suggestions for what we could add to our text? Or what we should delete? Lene at Solidus company (talk) 07:25, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lene at Solidus company: you should add sources that establish notability by satisfying the WP:NCORP guideline. Your current sources are press releases and routine business reporting (usually in turn also based on press releases), whereas we want to see what independent and reliable secondary sources have of their own volition decided to say about your business and what in their opinion makes it worthy of note. As it stands, this draft is just you telling the world about your company, supported by sources which are you doing telling the world about your company, and this is considered purely promotional on Wikipedia (see WP:YESPROMO). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:24, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:09, 14 July 2025 review of submission by 188.252.198.76

[edit]

Hi, could you please provide specific examples from the text that need to be edited in order for it to be published? Also, all the sources listed are reliable academic sources. Thank you 188.252.198.76 (talk) 09:09, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what several people, wholly unconnected with the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else.
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.
Can you point to three or four (no more) of the sources which meet all the criteria in WP:42: they are reliably published, their writing and publication did not involve Aronin or her colleagues, associates, or institutions, and they contain significant coverage of Aronin? ColinFine (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:09, 14 July 2025 review of submission by Korziox

[edit]

My draft at User:Korziox/sandbox about Gleb Korablev was declined by KylieTastic on July 14, 2025, for not meeting notability guidelines due to insufficient references. It currently uses one Wikinews source. I need help finding additional reliable, independent sources to demonstrate significant coverage and improve notability, or advice on whether the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. Korziox (talk) 11:09, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't really do co-editing or co-research here at this help desk(we deal more in helping with the actual submission process); it's up to you to have sources for whatever topic you are writing about; you should have these sources in-hand before beginning to write, see WP:BACKWARD.
Wikinews isn't a reliable source as it is user-editable, see WP:RSPWIKINEWS. 331dot (talk) 11:20, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will say that you could probably start by seeing what WikiNews used for sources. 331dot (talk) 11:27, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible that I find someone that I could co-edit and co-research with on Wikipedia Korziox (talk) 11:55, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this has been attempted to be created several times including Draft:Suicide of Gleb Korablev and the now deleted Draft:Gleb Vyacheslavovich Korablev. I think it is likely that the sources just do not exist. I assume a Russian language version does not exist? KylieTastic (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Korziox. It is possible that you can find somebody who will work with you, but not very likely. We are all volunteers, and work on what we choose.
An appeal that says "this is something I want. Who will work with me?" is not usually very fruitful. If you can find a WP:WikiProject that is relevant, you might ask there, and have a slightly better chance of finding somebody - but probably still not very large. Explaining why you think this is worth working on (ideally, including the reliable published sources which are a non-negotiable requirement) might attract some people, if what you say is interesting enough to them. ColinFine (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Screw it, nobody will work with me 凸( •̀_•́ )凸 (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:01, 14 July 2025 review of submission by NDrbs

[edit]

Hello,

I recently submitted a draft for review, which is an English version of an article that already exists on the French Wikipedia. The draft was declined by a reviewer @Caleb_Stanford, but the feedback provided was quite general and did not specify which parts of the text were problematic — even though the same content was accepted on the French version.

I reached out to the reviewer on their talk page to ask for clarification, but unfortunately did not receive a response. Of course, I fully understand that volunteers have limited time.

That said, I would be very grateful if one of you could take a quick look at the draft and let me know more specifically which parts might need improvement.

Kind regards, NDrbs (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @NDrbs.
I'm not going to read through your draft, but I'll make some general points.
  1. Each language Wikipedia is a separate project, with its own rules and procedures. Simply because an article exists in one does not mean that a translation of that article will be acceptable in another. It might - but it is up to the person creating the English draft to make sure it meets the current criteria for an English Wikipedia article.
  2. Even within English Wikipedia, there are thousands and thousands of articles which, if they were submitted for review today, would not be accepted. We review drafts according to the current criteria, not comparing with anything else. See other stuff exists
  3. When a draft is declined for "reads like an advertisement", this is usually because it appears to say what the subject wants to say. 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) 16:02, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:21, 14 July 2025 review of submission by Author ArtemH

[edit]

Why was this article declined? Author ArtemH (talk) 12:21, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Author ArtemH. You did not prove this person meets Wikipedia:Notability (people) criteria. A biographic article also requires in-line citations throughout: you have none. The tone is also promotional, which is prohibited. Did you use an AI chatbot like ChatGPT to write this draft? qcne (talk) 12:24, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
few sentences GPT help me, it’s true. So i need to change tone of my future page, like neutral, just informational Author ArtemH (talk) 12:26, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Author ArtemH Please do not use ChatGPT to write drafts. It is the reason the formatting is messed up throughout your draft. You will need to re-create the draft from scratch in your own words, not using an AI chatbot.
The most important thing is that you did not evidence how this person meets Wikipedia:Notability (people). If there is no evidence, then there can be no article.
I'd recommend reading Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1 and Wikipedia:Manual of Style. qcne (talk) 12:29, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:50, 14 July 2025 review of submission by Ludwig1662

[edit]

Thank you for the quick review! I found now that some of the links in the original French article were broken or linked to pages that no longer displayed text supporting the cited material. Fixed some and added additional ones. If still not acceptable, I would love to get pointers about acceptable reliable sources for this (i.e. which of the cited sources are not reliable enough, or which ones might be), also to inform my future new page submissions and edits. Have read the help/information pages about reliable sources and referencing, and it is not entirely clear to me what sources are considered reliable in particular for living persons. Ludwig1662 (talk) 13:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ludwig1662: primary sources that are close to the subject (ie. not independent) can only support entirely non-contentious, factual information, and in some cases not even that.
Perhaps more to the point, such sources cannot in most cases be used to establish notability. On that front, you need to cite sources that show this person meeting either the general WP:GNG or the special WP:MUSICBIO notability guideline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:00, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:11, 14 July 2025 review of submission by Sunshine2025

[edit]

Hi! I made significant edits to the lead and body of the article to clarify Faith Newman’s impact, and added high-quality secondary sources that offer independent coverage — including USA Today, XXL, Variety, Billboard, NPR, and Music Business Worldwide.

The most recent comment said the sources appeared to be mostly interviews. I tried to address that by leaning on articles that analyze or report on her contributions in the third person. I would really appreciate any advice on whether this is now sufficient or what might still be missing. Thank you!

Here’s my draft: Draft:Faith Newman Sunshine2025 (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sunshine2025: we don't do on-demand (pre-)reviews here at the help desk. You've resubmitted the draft, and will get it assessed when a reviewer gets around to it. If you have specific questions in the meantime, you're welcome to ask those of course. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification! While I wait, I do have one quick question — are interviews from major publications like NPR or Billboard ever considered sufficient secondary sources if the journalist is doing the analysis, rather than it being a Q&A? I'm just trying to ensure I understand what qualifies as significant, independent coverage for people in the music industry. Sunshine2025 (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Sunshine2025. Yes, if an article that contains an interview also contains what seems to be independent commentary by the interviewer, that part of it may be used as an independent source. If you cite such a source, make sure that the only things you cite from the interview part are appropriate for a primary source. See WP:INTERVIEW. ColinFine (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:13, 14 July 2025 review of submission by CedarsToMaple

[edit]

Hello Wiki Editor,

Regarding my last message for you, and you told me that is written by ChatGPT, so yes I wrote the message and polished it by ChatGPT so it is not the "smart move" that you mentioned this because I am using it to chat and deliver a message to you and not for an article. Second if you mentioned that there are already tens of thousands of worser articles on the web and you don't need more bad articles, I want to tell you that this is not a bad article and it is cited and well written and to be fair enough, either remove all those tens of thousands bad articles or accept the better ones like this one. CedarsToMaple (talk) 14:13, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CedarsToMaple: umm... okay?
Anyway, this draft has been rejected, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CedarsToMaple: Municipal politicians don't meet WP:NPOLITICIAN, which focuses on federal-level elections.
Calling this "better sourced" is somewhat arrogant; you have maybe one decent source if we're being generous (two if we're being very generous) and the rest are various levels of not-enough-coverage or connected. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:28, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:10, 14 July 2025 review of submission by NoteToWiki

[edit]

I submitted a draft article about Sreehari K Nair, and it was declined. Could someone please help me understand why it was declined and what I need to improve? NoteToWiki (talk) 15:10, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NoteToWiki: it was declined for insufficient evidence of notability. You need to show that this person meets either the general WP:GNG or the special WP:MUSICBIO notability guideline.
Personally, I would have added insufficient referencing as a second reason. Only the 'Career' section is referenced - where does the rest of the information come from? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I've posted a conflict of interest query on your talk page, please read and respond to it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:35, 14 July 2025 review of submission by MalachiaTshidino

[edit]

my page was rejected and marked for deletion MalachiaTshidino (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you writing about yourself? Your draft was wholly promotional.
I think you confused creating an article with creating an account. You edited your user page, which is not article space. New accounts cannot directly create articles and need to use the Article Wizard. 331dot (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:06, 14 July 2025 review of submission by Sergio58

[edit]

Thanks for the review. I am addressing the comment: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." To fix this problem, it would help me to know which cited sources are not reliable and/or which claims need to be supported. Sergio58 (talk) 18:06, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergio58: Every single section between the lede and "Properties" is effectively unsourced, barring a single citation at the very beginning of each of "Background" and "Evaluation". —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:27, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergio58 I also advise to not cite yourself and be mindful Wikipedia is not a text book (read that) nor a place to simply regurgitate your research. Original research (read that too) is not allowed here. S0091 (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:51, 14 July 2025 review of submission by Alonso Ruiz Navarro Alonchis

[edit]

I need help for my draft to be able to be an article, but I need some advice. Can I please receive someone and some edit to my draft please? Alonso Ruiz Navarro Alonchis (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alonso Ruiz Navarro Alonchis: You have provided no sources whatsoever other than the company's own web site. We aren't interested in what a subject has to say about itself--what we need is substantial coverage from reliable sources which are independent of the company. Without such sources, there is literally nothing upon which we can base a proper encyclopedia article. --Finngall talk 21:02, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:39, 14 July 2025 review of submission by 50.47.23.83

[edit]

The reviewer claims this is a copy&paste. It is not. The only information that is remotely the same is the episode guide, which I cite (and they don't) -- it's from Apple TV. If that's not a legitimate source, then I suggest we leave out the episode guide. TY. 50.47.23.83 (talk) 21:39, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 15

[edit]

06:05, 15 July 2025 review of submission by Harshit Gupta

[edit]

Could I get some specific inputs on what changes I need to make for this article to get published? The rejections are starting to feel a bit circular, and it’s hard to know what exactly needs fixing. 

Harshit Gupta (talk) 06:05, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just blatant advertising from beginning to end “association's mission is to "propagate biogas in a sustainable way," promoting environmentally responsible practices and fostering innovation across the bioenergy value chain.” “dedicated to advancing the biogas industry in India” “has been featured in prominent publications “ “ to promote equitable procurement rates,IBA has pushed for modifications to the pricing of compressed biogas” “ efforts have helped attract substantial investment into India’s biogas sector” “has advocated for specific assistance programs to fortify the biogas ecosystem” WP:TNT is required. Theroadislong (talk) 07:23, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Harshit Gupta.
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) 09:52, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:42, 15 July 2025 review of submission by SYParkOfBioneer

[edit]

Hello, My draft:Han-Oh_Park was declined for the following reasons:

Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. Their outputs usually have multiple issues that prevent them from meeting our guidelines on writing articles. These include: Promotional tone, editorializing and other words to watch Vague, generic, and speculative statements extrapolated from similar subjects Essay-like writing Hallucinations (plausible-sounding, but false information) and non-existent references Close paraphrasing Please address these issues. The best way to do it is usually to read reliable sources and summarize them, instead of using a large language model. See our help page on large language models.

I used all real and independent sources. Could you help me which sentences or sections seem promotional or problematic? I would like to rewrite it to Wikipedia standards, but I need more specific advice. Thank you! SYParkOfBioneer (talk) 07:42, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:21, 15 July 2025 review of submission by Ahmadintech

[edit]

Help me with advise on how to get it approved Ahmadintech (talk) 09:21, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection means that the draft will not be considered further, sorry. 331dot (talk) 09:24, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:43, 15 July 2025 review of submission by Brevard camper

[edit]

This article had a speedy deletion that warrants closer review. The entry for company SylvanSport has multiple external references and the products have received numerous awards and placement in a museum. The article was written in a factual, non-promotional way. Would be happy to edit further as directed but request it be reviewed. Brevard camper (talk) 14:43, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Brevard camper: okay, I've reviewed it. I concur with the earlier assessment; this was pure promotion.
If, as I'm guessing from your username, you work for this business, you need to disclose that. I've posted a paid-editing query on your talk page, please read and respond to it. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:54, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Brevard camper. I cannot see the deleted draft, as I'm not an admin. But usually when a draft is declined as advertising, it is because it is what the subject wants to tell the world about themselves.
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.
What makes it so difficult to write an article with a Conflict of interest is that, having found the required independent sources (see WP:42) you effectively have to forget everything you know about the subject, and write a summary of what those sources say - even if you think they've left out important matters, even if you think they're plain wrong. A foundation of Wikipedia is WP:verifiability, not truth. ColinFine (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Brevard camper, as an administrator, I could read your deleted draft. It resembled a company catalog/brochure much more than a neutrally written encyclopedia article. Plus, your references were formatted incorrectly. If you used some sort of artificial intelligence to help you, please be aware that in 2025, AI is not competent to help a new editor write acceptable Wikipedia articles. Cullen328 (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:43, 15 July 2025 review of submission by 2001:448A:4042:3D08:5941:6B4E:CCF9:CBD0

[edit]

I thought I had written clearly with sources. If it declined because of a lack of sources, please tell me where, and I'll add the source. 2001:448A:4042:3D08:5941:6B4E:CCF9:CBD0 (talk) 15:43, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting. There are large sections that are completely unsourced. 331dot (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:09, 15 July 2025 review of submission by Laurab1m

[edit]

Hello,

I recently submitted a draft article about FoodMarble to Articles for Creation, but it was declined without detailed feedback. I would like to understand what specific issues led to the decline so I can improve the draft accordingly.

Could an experienced reviewer please provide guidance on how to address any concerns, such as notability, sourcing, or tone, to meet Wikipedia’s standards?

Thank you very much for your help! Laurab1m (talk) 16:09, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have created a pre-declined draft, are you using AI by any chance? Theroadislong (talk) 16:14, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the fault of ChatGPT. @Laurab1m when you asked the chatbot to create a draft it added a broken bit of code to the top that included the decline notice. This means your draft was immediately declined on submitting it, purely because of the broken code ChatGPT added in. Remove the broken code, and you can submit the draft for review as normal. We've seen this same issue hundreds of times over the last few months.
Please don't use chatbots to write drafts. qcne (talk) 16:23, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from pre declining your draft, Laurab1m - the chatbot you used completely hallucinated a reference. One reference (now removed) gave the title "Validation of a hand-held breath analyzer for lactose malabsorption testing" by "A Shrestha" but no such paper paper exist - the URL and the DOI point to two completely different papers on unrelated topics. The claim preceeding that reference, that the validation actually happened - we may as well assume then is untrue. Not Lying is kind of key to how Wikipedia is supposed to work. I'm curious, what was your reason for creating a draft that you weren't interested in writing? -- D'n'B-📞 -- 17:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:35, 15 July 2025 review of submission by Bdonley33!

[edit]

I just tried to post a new article from my sandbox about a big home builder in West Texas (Betenbough Homes). I got a "speedy deletion" because it was too promotional...I just thought I was following Wikipedia guidelines by telling about the company, but apparently I was being too promotional. Can someone point me to a good place to learn how to write acceptable articles about businesses? They are one of the biggest businesses in West Texas and I was surprised they didn't have a page...Anyway, help would be much appreciated...Thanks! Bdonley33! (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Bdonley33!
Generally when a draft is declined or rejected for being promotional it is because it has been written to say what the subject wants people to know.
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) 17:51, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's great advice...
I need to do my due diligence with how Wikipedia works before trying to publish...
I appreciate your help!
Ben Bdonley33! (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about a company and its offerings. 331dot (talk) 17:53, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!
So, is it best to just put the basics of the company - when it was founded, by who, and how many employees - to start...? Bdonley33! (talk) 18:17, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The important thing isn't whether it's the basics or something more, but to establish notability, which requires it to be sourced from reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage of the subject. That means notability can not be established by things the company or its employees say, things said in interviews by people associated with the company, in press releases, or in very basic reporting of the normal day-to-day activities of a business. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wow!
Okay - That's incredibly helpful!
Time for me to do some research and get some reliable, independent sources...
I was just pulling from their website to get info - stupid me!
Oh well, I will learn how to be a good contributor in time!
Thanks for the great advice! Bdonley33! (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bdonley33, I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Don't just skim it. Read the entire thing word for word, and you will have a much better idea of what is necessary to write an acceptable article about a business. Cullen328 (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - I'm on it right now. I'll read it closely and several times!
Thanks for that...
Ben Bdonley33! (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:58, 15 July 2025 review of submission by Sergio58

[edit]

Is there a mechanism or process to withdraw or delete a draft that has been rejected? Sergio58 (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can request the draft be deleted by placing {{db-author}} at the top but if you do that, you should not recreate it as that will be seen as disruptive and may lead to you (or anyone else) being blocked. S0091 (talk) 22:06, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Of course. Will do. Also the pictures should go, as they served no other purpose. Sergio58 (talk) 17:10, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The images are on Commons under CC0; they're unlikely to be removed due to being unused because they do not fall under our nonfree content criteria (since they're freely-licenced). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:16, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 16

[edit]

00:38, 16 July 2025 review of submission by SMJPA

[edit]

This draft article on Sharon Jurd has been revised to address previous feedback by removing promotional language and adding inline citations in accordance with Wikipedia’s referencing guidelines. The content focuses on verifiable facts supported by multiple reliable sources, including independent industry publications and business award announcements.

While some sources are industry-specific, they represent significant recognition within her field. Further independent media coverage is limited but efforts continue to identify additional third-party sources to establish notability.

We welcome any further feedback to improve the article’s compliance with Wikipedia’s standards. SMJPA (talk) 00:38, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources specifically do you believe are reliable, independent, and contain significant coverage of Jurd? This message feels like an LLM saying what it thinks will convince reviewers, but doesn’t actually reflect your draft at all.
Also, who is “we”? Wikipedia accounts should not be used by more than one person. -- NotCharizard 🗨 07:03, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @SMJPA, please don't use AI/LLMs to create drafts or when talking to us - see WP:LLM. We want to speak to a human, not a machine, and we do not allow AI-generated drafts to become articles. Meadowlark (talk) 13:27, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:03, 16 July 2025 review of submission by Hirushakithmi

[edit]

I need to ask this page is good Hirushakithmi 06:03, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear what you're asking, but you have written a self-promotional blog post instead of an encyclopedia article. See WP:NOTESSAY and WP:NOTPROMO. I suggest creating a personal blog outside of Wikipedia if you want to write this kind of thing. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:12, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:33, 16 July 2025 review of submission by Marina.rubies

[edit]

Request to move sandbox article about Geoff Layer Hello, I’ve written an article in my sandbox about Geoff Layer, and I believe it’s ready to be published. I’ve read the Wikipedia guidelines carefully and tried to follow everything correctly. However, I’m not sure how to move it to the main page myself. I looked through other discussions here but didn’t find anything specific about this, so maybe I’m doing something wrong.

I would be very grateful if someone more experienced could review the article and move it to the mainspace if appropriate.

Here is the link: User:Marina.rubies/sandbox

Thank you so much! Marina.rubies (talk) 07:33, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Marina.rubies: you cannot yet move pages or publish articles yourself, because your account is too new (you are not yet 'autoconfirmed'). In any case, the point of the Articles for Creation review process (which is what this help desk is for) is that article drafts are... reviewed before publishing. I will add the AfC submission template to your draft, and move it into the draft space? You can then submit it for review when you feel ready. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:40, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your kind response. I really appreciate you taking the time to move the article and explain the process so clearly. It means a lot as I’m still new to editing Wikipedia.
I’ve made a few updates to the draft, such as correcting the tone and some grammatical issues. However, I’m not entirely sure if I’ve successfully submitted it for review through the AfC process. Would you be able to confirm if the draft has been submitted properly? Thank you again for your support!
Best, Marina.rubies (talk) 11:39, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: The draft is now at Draft:Geoff Layer. The AfC template has a blue button on it. When you click on that, it sends the draft for review. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:43, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your kind response. I really appreciate you taking the time to move the article and explain the process so clearly. It means a lot as I’m still new to editing Wikipedia.
Best, Marina.rubies (talk) 10:49, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Marina.rubles I fixed your header so you don't link to a nonexistent page titled "Request to move sandbox article". 331dot (talk) 12:39, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a connection to Mr. Layer? You took his picture. 331dot (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, The explanation of how I know Mr. Layer is in the Talk section of the article.Sorry if that’s not the right place for it—I thought I was doing the right thing by starting the discussion there!
Thanks!
Marina Marina.rubies (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there,
I’m a bit unsure about why the references I included are considered not reliable or independent. All the information I gathered about Geoff comes from the internet, and I believe the sources are trustworthy.
Could you please clarify what exactly you’re looking for? Are you perhaps expecting sources from newspapers or news articles?
Thanks in advance for your help! Marina.rubies (talk) 18:56, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:44, 16 July 2025 review of submission by TheWikiCraft

[edit]

If another company has invested in Afriwork, is it acceptable to cite the investor’s official website as a source in this article—especially when referencing the investment itself or related collaboration details? TheWikiCraft (talk) 07:44, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A company investing in another is a routine business activity that does not establish that this company is a notable company. See WP:ORGDEPTH. To establish notability you need significant coverage in independent reliable sources- coverage that goes beyond just documenting the activities of the company and describes what the source sees as important/significant/influential about the company. Staff interviews, press releases, and annoucements of routine business activities are not significant coverage. 331dot (talk) 07:50, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:16, 16 July 2025 review of submission by Amit635k

[edit]

please give me some idea for i approvedmy artical Amit635k (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves or post their resume, please read the autobiography policy. Please use social media to tell the world about yourself. Also know that an article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing. There are good reasons to not want one. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a place to promote yourself, @Amit635k. You do not meet our criteria for inclusion. qcne (talk) 10:26, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:53, 16 July 2025 review of submission by Shafiek Mouton

[edit]

I’m the subject of a declined draft article and need help from an experienced, neutral editor who can assist with rewriting and citing reliable sources. I understand I can’t edit the page myself due to a conflict of interest. Shafiek Mouton (talk) 10:53, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Shafiek Mouton. You can edit the draft - this is one of the reasons the draft process exists, to allow subjects to edit articles they have a CoI with.
You need to follow the referencing tutorial at Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1 to format your references properly. This is mandatory. Please also carefully read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons which states that every statement in your draft must be accompanied with an in-line citation. qcne (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:26, 16 July 2025 review of submission by FitnessMuseNC

[edit]

Hello, Can you assist me with making this article sounding less promotional? FitnessMuseNC (talk) 16:26, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Draft deleted, user blocked for socking.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:58, 16 July 2025 review of submission by 209.52.99.114

[edit]

I made the last changes as the reviewer mentioned. If I add the == References == <references /> in the bottom of the selected exhibitions it gives a long list of errors. Please let me know how it looks at this stage. Thank you 209.52.99.114 (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried following this tutorial Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1 in order to create citations, instead? qcne (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:29, 16 July 2025 review of submission by 2601:600:8F82:B890:7095:3C0D:9AA5:C967

[edit]

I don't understand why this submission wasn't good enough. Any suggestions for improvement that might change the outcome. This is an interesting group of women doing good work. Seems like it would be nice to have a record of them for history. Thanks for your help. 2601:600:8F82:B890:7095:3C0D:9AA5:C967 (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This draft is completely unsourced. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell the world about good things. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources state about a topic. If you have sources, please see Referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:53, 16 July 2025 review of submission by Undercoveranonymous

[edit]

I resubmitted the draft and I am waiting for a new review of the page. User Fade258 rejected it last time because of a previous lack of citations. I have since fixed the citations. I recently put citations in the article and such. I need someone to rereview the article then maybe make some edits to improve, then approve the article. I want the draft article to be approved because it is about a very significant crime case from years ago. Draft article needs to be approved. Undercoveranonymous (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Undercoveranonymous It will be reviewed when it is reviewed. If it is a very significant crime case from years ago then you will have added sufficient references passing WP:42 to verify any notability.
Wikipedia does not work o perceived need, it works on verified notability. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:55, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:40, 16 July 2025 review of submission by Dpatrick100

[edit]

Hi, I am very confused. I got a rejection I fixed it per the suggestions from the rejector...I resubmitted it per what i believed where correct process....not really sure if that is the case. I am also not sure if i completed everything required and I would certainly want to do that. Can some one take a look and tell me what i need to do? I would be very appreciative of any guidance at this time. 

Dpatrick100 (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at your draft you will see that it is submitted for review, done by you in this edit. Others have tidied the submission, including the restoration of prior decline template(s) which should not be deleted, and form part of the review history 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:53, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:58, 16 July 2025 review of submission by WillisBlackburn

[edit]

I'd like to continue a discussion from the May 9 page [1]. Please see my reply there. The TL;DR is that editors have suggested that disproving a mathematical conjecture does not necessarily mean that William Martin Boyce is notable, but a few days ago, a new page appeared for Hannah Cairo, who is notable for only one thing: disproving a mathematical conjecture through construction of a counterexample. Which is exactly what Boyce did. Boyce's case is stronger: his paper was published in a peer-reviewed journal (Transactions of the American Mathematical Society) and has been cited dozens of times, and he followed up with further research on the same topic. I think the main difference is that Boyce made his discovery in 1967, so he doesn't have the benefit of lots of recent, Internet-accessible coverage of his work. To be fair, there is an ongoing conversation about deleting the Cairo page. However, there was a similar discussion about whether Maryna Viazovska was notable for just solving a mathematical problem, and ultimately Wikipedia kept her page. WillisBlackburn (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. Articles are evaluated individually; whether other similar articles exist or do not exist has little precedential value on English Wikipedia. There are more than seven million articles on English Wikipedia, many of which aren't good. If you believe Boyce is notable, you have to argue for that notability using Wikipedia guidelines and policies. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:17, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:14, 16 July 2025 review of submission by 209.52.99.114

[edit]

Hi, I changed the refences in the selected exhibitions section. If the == References == 

is added at the end, errors show up. Right now they don’t show up which seems

Correct. Thanks 209.52.99.114 (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any errors 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:31, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:52, 16 July 2025 review of submission by Milliot68

[edit]

I created the Richard Otto Gläsel page. CivicInk posted: {{Multiple issues}}

I have included citations,can you explain how I can improve the citations? Milliot68 (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Milliot68: While you may find this a pedantic answer, this is not the correct help desk. Please ask at WP:TEAHOUSE where a different team will be able to help you. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:02, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:54, 16 July 2025 review of submission by Thomas93201

[edit]

Why was my draft declined Thomas93201 (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for a community to memorialize its war dead. To merit an article on this topic you would need to summarize what independent reliable sources say about this community's war casualties as a distinct topic, as a whole group- or, to show that each individual person meets WP:BIO(in which case each person should have an article). 331dot (talk) 22:18, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:00, 16 July 2025 review of submission by Anniyangx

[edit]

need help Anniyangx (talk) 23:00, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you need help with, @Anniyangx? Some links that may assist: WP:42 for what is required in a source; WP:NBIO for information about biographies; and WP:PROUD for the dangers inherent in being the subject of a Wikipedia article. Meadowlark (talk) 02:31, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 17

[edit]

03:16, 17 July 2025 review of submission by Fienkie84

[edit]

Need help improving sandbox draft on 24-hour self-service dog boarding facility Hello, I have written a draft article about the first 24-hour self-service dog boarding facility in Malaysia. My draft is here: User:Fienkie84/sandbox I have a COI, so I’m seeking neutral editor input before submitting. The topic is certified by the Malaysia Book of Records and has been covered by Free Malaysia Today and The Borneo Post. Could someone help me improve it for tone, sourcing, and structure? Fienkie84 (talk) 03:16, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a duplicate post of Wikipedia:Teahouse § Need help improving sandbox draft on 24-hour self-service dog boarding facility. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 04:44, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fienkie84: your draft has been deleted, twice, and you have been warned repeatedly against trying to use Wikipedia to promote your business. You are very close to being blocked from editing as a promotion-only user. Please stop this now, and find some other marketing channels for your dog boarding facility. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:42, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I truly apologize if my edits appeared promotional cos that wasn't my intention. My main goal was to share an innovative concept that is already working in practice and could be meaningful for today’s busy generation. The self-service model—starting with dog boarding—could potentially inspire similar ideas in other fields, which is why I thought it was worth documenting on Wikipedia for broader awareness. Somemore this concept had been recognised by The Malaysia Book of Records as First 24-Hour Self-Service Dog Boarding Facility . I understand and respect Wikipedia's strict guidelines on neutrality and verifiability. That’s exactly why I had been asking others for help to improve the draft — to ensure it meets Wikipedia’s standards. Perhaps, if you’re open to it, and since you clearly have experience and a deep understanding of the platform, you might be kind enough to guide me — or even help revise the draft into a version that is neutral, factual, and verifiable. I am more than willing to collaborate and learn, and I truly appreciate any constructive input that can help contribute meaningful content to the Wikipedia community.

Fienkie84 (talk) 07:47, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fienkie84: 'sharing information', creating 'broader awareness', etc. are just alternative spellings for 'promoting'; see WP:YESPROMO. And when this is you telling the world about your business, rather than summarising what independent third party sources have said about it, that is when it crosses the border into advertising.
I get why you would think that it would be helpful for your business to be featured in a global encyclopaedia and one of the top ten websites in the world, but even that isn't necessarily so. If this article were accepted for publication, you would no longer be allowed it edit it yourself – but anyone and everyone else would, and they might include information that you would rather not be included, such as negative press coverage and controversies. This is one of the reasons why having an article about yourself or your business isn't necessarily a good thing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:01, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thoughtful reply and for taking the time to explain the guidelines so clearly.
Frankly speaking , I don’t have any ambitions to expand my business globally or to use Wikipedia as a promotional platform. That was never my goal. My intention was simply to share an idea concept that’s already working in our local community and might be useful or inspiring in other areas, especially in today’s fast-paced world where convenience and self-service solutions are becoming more relevant. If there are criticisms and negative feedback, actually for myself I will more happy to welcome that. Honest input helps us grow and improve. Thats part of life ,we learn from our mistakes and keep evolving. I believe progress comes from sharing ideas, learning from each other, and continuously improving and it's really what motivated me, not to promote a business, but to introduce something new that could benefit others, or even be improved on by someone else. I truly believe we live in a connected world (Global Village), where sharing knowledge and innovation can have a meaningful impact.That said, I truly hope you can understand where I’m coming from. I respect Wikipedia’s policies and the community behind it, and I’m not here to push any agenda. My hope is that, if the idea is ever seen as notable enough, it can be presented in a neutral and meaningful way and if you're willing, I’d really appreciate your help or guidance in shaping it to fit within Wikipedia’s standards. Terima Kasih (Thank you ),❤️ Fienkie84 (talk) 08:34, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fienkie84 I fixed your header so it contains a link to your draft and doesn't link to a nonexistent page titled "Need help improving sandbox draft on 24-hour self-service dog boarding facility". You say you want to just "share an idea concept"; that is promotional here. Wikipedia is not for merely sharing information. 331dot (talk) 08:43, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you again for making the correction to the header .I truly appreciate that.
    Really apologies for using the sharing an idea, I understand the concern about "sharing an idea" being seen as promotional. However, I want to clarify that my intention is not to use Wikipedia to market a service or business, but rather to document a real-world development that reflects a broader trend in how certain services are evolving. Fienkie84 (talk) 08:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:37, 17 July 2025 review of submission by Pandaboop

[edit]

Hi! I'd like to know which citations need to be replaced, please, so I can fix them with reliable sources! Pandaboop (talk) 03:37, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pandaboop: every material statement you make must be supported by a reliable source. And note that IMDb, Discogs, and LiveJournal are not considered reliable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:45, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:03, 17 July 2025 review of submission by Ross.mary16

[edit]

Hello,

I would like to ask for help regarding my draft Draft:Gomibo, which was recently declined. I understand that the reason given was that the article reads too much like an advertisement and does not meet neutrality standards.

I want to clarify that I have disclosed my conflict of interest (COI) on my user page and the draft’s talk page, and I have tried my best to follow Wikipedia’s neutrality guidelines. I also want to be transparent that I used a large language model (LLM) to help prepare the first draft: I started creating the text by looking for reliable sources, and then asked LLM for help to improve my writing. I carefully reviewed the output created and edited it myself, aiming to remove any promotional language or hallucination, and base the content only on sourced information.

As this is my first time contributing to Wikipedia, I am still learning. I would like to request assistance from experienced Wikipedia editors to help me improve the draft. It would be very helpful if someone could give me more specific guidance on which parts of the draft are too promotional or non-neutral, or what improvements are needed to bring it closer to Wikipedia’s standards. In this way, I will be able to make the right changes and improve it.

Thank you very much for your time and any advice you can offer!

Ross.mary16 (talk) 08:03, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ross.mary16: we are happy to answer specific questions, but I rather doubt anyone is going to start co-creating this with you (aka. doing your job for you). As a paid editor wanting to get free publicity for your employer on Wikipedia, the onus is squarely on you to come up with an acceptable draft.
But, as I said already, if you have specific questions about the drafting and reviewing process, you're welcome to put those to us. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:19, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:43, 17 July 2025 review of submission by Smaddl

[edit]

I have reworked the article multiple times, trying to react to reviewers comments. But they are so generic with very little concrete guidance that it is very difficult for me to understand what to improve right now. The last review repeated the criticism that "The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you."

But it didn't put any "citation needed" pointers or otherwise explained what exactly is insufficient or missing. If a reviewer gives this feedback, he/she must have stumbled across one or more concrete passages which need to be reworked, why are they not identified/pointed to? This would be much more efficient.

Maybe you can help me out here. Smaddl (talk) 10:43, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1300964926"