Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
CategoryList (sorting)
ApplyBy subject
Reviewing instructions

Nov 2023
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

December 4[edit]

09:01, 4 December 2023 review of submission by Basittali[edit]

Hi Zoglophie,

I have included the initial information along with certain citations and links. My intention was to add more information in subsequent edits, but my submissions have been consistently rejected. Could you please provide guidance on what I should do next? Basittali (talk) 09:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Basittali What is your connection to this individual, since you took his picture in his office and he posed for you?
Note that an article previously existed about this man that was deleted per a deletion discussion, and you seem to have not overcome the reasons for that deletion, this is why the draft was rejected and will not be considered further. He seems to be an ordinary lower-level government official without significant coverage in independent reliable sources as to what makes him notable. 331dot (talk) 09:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am just citizen of Islamabad and being benefited by the now healthcare system. I planned to add the reliable sources after the article is live. I was thinking to invite participants to edit it in their own way. Now i have only option to edit it but not to submit for review. Please guide me what to do now so that i will only submit the final version. Basittali (talk) 09:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Basittali Rejected means it is simply not notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. You are still free to contribute in other ways; as you seem to be interested in Pakistan's healthcare system, I can recommend articles in Category:Healthcare in Pakistan. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 13:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

11:09, 4 December 2023 review of submission by Flint314[edit]

Is there a way to get it approved. It describes a new technology, where most of the references are the standard text itself -- and initial articles from industry following news sites reporting on the introduction of the technology. Guidance is appreciated if it can be made acceptable. Flint314 (talk) 11:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Flint314: this draft has been rejected, which means it's the end of the road. If there are sources which weren't earlier considered, and which satisfy the WP:GNG standard for notability, then you can appeal directly to the reviewer who rejected this, but based on what you say I'm assuming such sources aren't available? Important to bear in mind that Wikipedia is almost never an early source to cover something new and emerging, as we only summarise what reliable and independent secondary sources have previously said. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

13:05, 4 December 2023 review of submission by Elijahwordpress[edit]

Getting a page approved and published Elijahwordpress (talk) 13:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Elijahwordpress: do you have a question you would like to ask? Otherwise I suggest you await the outcome of the pending review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay Elijahwordpress (talk) 13:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

14:12, 4 December 2023 review of submission by Kulturvetare[edit]

I have submitted this draft twice. The first round I understood what I needed to correct, but now I really don't. It's something about a source problem. The feedback was so short it didn't make much clear for me.

The sources need to be independent, third party - I get that. But she is an author and a scientist, so almost all sources have references to something she has made - it's the profession.

I will try once more and use another woman scientist from Sweden as a reference page, Emma Frans. Kulturvetare (talk) 14:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kulturvetare: on both occasions, this draft was declined for lack of evidence of notability, which means that the sources do not demonstrate how it meets any of the established notability guidelines, mainly WP:GNG. The second reviewer merely referred to the previous decline, saying that the problem (with sources) still remains.
It is possible for authors and scientists to meet a different notability guideline, namely WP:AUTHOR and WP:NACADEMIC, respectively. In this case, you do not need to show significant coverage of the subject in multiple independent secondary sources. You still do need to support the notability claims with reliable published sources, however. Note also that these guidelines are quite onerous, and meeting them can be difficult; we don't just want to see your assertion that notability is met, but objective evaluation and reliable evidence thereof. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do refer to PubMed - where almost all published research of hers are - but maybe I should list the scientific papers individually? I used this researcher wikipedia site as a reference now, and it is published with even fewer secondary sources: Emma Frans
There is a Swedish Wikipedia page as well: Kulturvetare (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

16:04, 4 December 2023 review of submission by MKutera74[edit]

Hello. I wanted to know why this article was rejected? It is in the Polish encyclopedia. I had to create this language version myself because the wiki translator informed me about some external errors. Please help somehow, what about this article now? MKutera74 (talk) 16:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

16:08, 4 December 2023 review of submission by MKutera74[edit]

Hello. I wanted to know why this article was rejected? It is in the Polish encyclopedia. I had to create this language version myself because the wiki translator informed me about some external errors. Please help somehow, what about this article now? MKutera74 (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

17:29, 4 December 2023 review of submission by Benraphy[edit]

Why this page is not appearing first when we search Milasha Joseph Benraphy (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Benraphy: because it has not been patrolled by a New Pages Reviewer, so it is not indexed by search engines. Please be patient – there are 12,000 articles waiting to be patrolled. Cremastra (talk) 18:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

17:32, 4 December 2023 review of submission by BVECJordan[edit]

Hello sir and respected writer i haved writen the articles of above mentioned page but recently i submitted and it was declined again, citing a reason of not a realiable source please kindly look into my article and help me out as i am a begineer. thank you. BVECJordan (talk) 17:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BVECJordan I fixed your link(it lacked the "Draft:"). The draft must do more than document the existence of the college and tell its offerings. It must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose to say about it, showing how it meets WP:ORG. 331dot (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ok sir thank you
Can U please tell me more clearly as I did not understand sir
Thank you BVECJordan (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BVECJordan Wikipedia wants to know what others say about the college and what they say makes important- what we call notability(please click to read). Be advised that writing a new article is the most difficult thing to do here. We usually suggest that new users first edit existing articles about topics that they like, to learn more about Wikipedia. You could also use the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

17:33, 4 December 2023 review of submission by Gatilic[edit]

Ok I understand what do you said, but just an ask, is the cites on the text reliable? Gatilic (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All of references were to Wikipedia, which should not be used as a source. That's leaving aside that this unfortunate car accident does not merit an article, see WP:NOTNEWS. 331dot (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

18:11, 4 December 2023 review of submission by Gatilic[edit]

I revised everthing and I think i solved all the problems, please could someone check again? Gatilic (talk) 18:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's been rejected, it's like a news article, your only citations are Wikipedia. You need to move on. Cremastra (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

18:36, 4 December 2023 review of submission by AaliyahCarterMusic[edit]

Trying to get a Biography of a new artist on Wikipedia. What needs to be changed?

-Ryan Russell AaliyahCarterMusic (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AaliyahCarterMusic: The article has a promotional tone and no reliable sources are cited. Furthermore, it is likely that the subject (you) of the article is not notable. To be notable, a subject needs significant, in-depth, 3rd-party coverage, and you have no coverage. It is highly unlikely the article will be published without you gaining more fame and coverage. I'd recommend reading WP:AUTO for more info. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)My Talk Page 18:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 5[edit]

00:30, 5 December 2023 review of submission by Guigo82[edit]


I've provided several links of the term being used in Brazil across the board, to show how it has become part of the soccer culture. I would like to understand why my submission is being denied if the theme is relevant and part of pop culture?


Guilherme Guigo82 (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Guigo82, KylieTastic wrote an explanation for you. Is there something you don't understand about that explanation? "Relevant and part of pop culture" isn't the issue. -- asilvering (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

00:30, 5 December 2023 review of submission by Adrain72[edit]

Look I'm just a newbie trying to create new articles. The editors or administrators shouldn't be so strict and mean as to reject my draft outright ! Theycould just accept the draft and let others who are more experienced than I am to improve on it ! Adrain72 (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's not how this process works. No one has been mean to you. The draft does not need to be complete, but it need to meet the bare minimum standards of notability. The draft does little more than document the existence of the business and is only sourced to its own website. It does not summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable business. 331dot (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could the draft article be reopened for resubmission then? Adrain72 (talk) 01:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you have three independent reliable sources that chose to write about this business and describe how it is a notable business? These should not be brief mentions, the company website, staff interviews, press releases, or announcements of activities. Are you associated with this business? 331dot (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I'm not associated with the business but I have a free email account with them. Adrain72 (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also do I need to request for the draft article to be reopened for resubmission?
If so, how is the process? Adrain72 (talk) 01:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

00:48, 5 December 2023 review of submission by Sirdvd12[edit]

This article was rejected for a second time. Someone else originally created this, and I took over as he had done a terrible job. We only included facts about the school with citations to the membership pages of the organizations. Furthermore, we are not sure how we could make the information more reliable.

Thank you Sirdvd12 (talk) 00:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This draft just documents the existence of the school. Wikipedia articles must do more, they muat summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen to say about it and what makes it a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you @331dot for your time to explain. I am relatively new to editing and this is my first page submission. I will sit down again and add more notability to the article before we resubmit. Thanks for your effort. Sirdvd12 (talk) 03:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

04:38, 5 December 2023 review of submission by[edit]

Again Request the Wikipedia team (talk) 04:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Remember to log in when posting. You don't ask what help you are seeking, but the draft has been rejected after numerous declines, meaning that it will not be considered further- and it has been furthermore nominated for deletion. 331dot (talk) 09:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

06:50, 5 December 2023 review of submission by Devtanuku[edit]

my article was get Submission declined, need help to do best Devtanuku (talk) 06:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Devtanuku What is your relationship with this person, since you took a picture of her and she posed for you?
It looks like you wrote the article text as references, you need to fix the reference formatting so that the article text appears in the main body. See Referencing for beginners to learn more about referencing. You will also need to show that this actress meets the definition of a notable actress. 331dot (talk) 09:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

07:33, 5 December 2023 review of submission by[edit]

I want to write the whole article from strach following the wikipedia guidelines. Please guide me what to do now (talk) 07:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Remember to log in when posting(if you are the original creator of the draft). If you are, you seem particularly invested in this draft, do you have a connection to this subject?
The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. This topic was also considered in a deletion discussion and deleted when it was in article space- you have a high bar to meet to overcome these things, and it seems unlikely that something has fundamentally changed in the last 24 hours enough to at least reverse the rejection. Otherwise, it wouldn't have been rejected. However, if something has fundamentally changed, like new sources not considered by the reviewer, the first step is to appeal to the last reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 09:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

07:39, 5 December 2023 review of submission by Karchive23[edit]

This company is pretty well known in its home country (Singapore) but mostly through word of mouth and through reviews for its shows. However, because it is a company founded in 1990 there isn't a solid track record of the company that I can personally find to meet Wiki's notability guidelines. All I have been finding are reviews with one website that dates pretty far back and another is a Fandom site covering all the gay theatre shows in Singapore. It also doesn't help that they've changed their name but I could not find a reason behind it. Any advice or someone that could help would be great as I think this company does warrant an article, just that I'm not experienced enough to go about this. Thanks! Karchive23 (talk) 07:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Karchive23 If you cannot find enough sources to summarize in an article and show notability as an organization, this organization does not merit an article at this time- no amount of editing can confer notability on a topic- it depends on the sources. Sources do not need to be online, but they do need to be somewhere that they can be verified, like a book in a library. Word of mouth is not acceptable.
Fandom is not an acceptable source as it is user-editable(like Wikipedia). 331dot (talk) 09:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

10:05, 5 December 2023 review of submission by Z4r4$m1th123[edit]

My submission has been declined. I have removed sources that are not independent and have now cited some more sources, which I believed is what was wrong with it previously. I have used news stories published about the company as my sources throughout - are these valid? Z4r4$m1th123 (talk) 10:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Z4r4$m1th123 Most of your sources seem to tell of the routine activities of the company; not significant coverage of the company that tells what makes it important/signficant/influential as a company- what we term the definition of a notable company.
You declared a conflict of interest with regards to this company, what is the general nature of it? 331dot (talk) 10:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

10:27, 5 December 2023 review of submission by Christopher W Gleason[edit]

Can i post this article under the creative section of wikipedia? if so how do I categorize this article? Christopher W Gleason (talk) 10:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Christopher W Gleason This draft is written in a promotional tone more like an essay and is completely unsourced. Wikipedia article writing is different from other forms of writing- an article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability.
I'm not sure what you mean by the "creative section"; if you were to place this draft in the encyclopedia yourself, it would quickly be nominated for deletion, or at best moved back to draft space, so I would advise you against moving it. 331dot (talk) 10:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Laughably non neutral tone... once-majestic, steeped in the history, the robustness of, former glory, audacious teenagers have imprinted their presence, As the sun cast its warm glow on the Embrey Power Station, etc. etc. Theroadislong (talk) 10:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

13:15, 5 December 2023 review of submission by Dengulligahunden[edit]

Hey! I am a reporter at Swedens biggest channel. What could I do next time?

Dengulligahunden (talk) 13:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dengulligahunden Read HELP:YFA before starting to write, perhaps. Then find references. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dengulligahunden it's clearly been written by ChatGPT. One would hope a reporter at "Sweden's biggest channel" would be able to write their own copy with relevant sources? Qcne (talk) 14:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

14:50, 5 December 2023 review of submission by Barkingbovine1[edit]

Hi, my article submission has been declined because it does not show significant coverage and it reads like an advertisement. A reviewer mentioned that Forbes lists are puffery, so I've removed that now, but I've linked several sources where Mardini has done interviews about himself and of course his role as CEO of Jetex. I've also tried to keep the tone neutral and factual. I also tried to compare my article to other similar Wiki bio pages to see how I can improve it in terms of style, format, so I checked the names under "Category:Saudi Arabian chief executives page" for example on how one is deemed notable by Wikipedia standards, and I believe the article has enough coverage for notability. Any help/ feedback would be appreciated regarding notability and neutral point of view. Barkingbovine1 (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Barkingbovine1 Interviews with the subject are primary sources. See WP:PRIMARY for what is and is not acceptable.
Unfortunately WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS shows that we have more poor articles than we have editors to police them. No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy
Your draft must stand or fail on its own merits. CEO is a "life role" but by no means is it a ticket to a Wikipedia article. Outside being a CEO something non WP:ROTM must be attributable to the subject. I was a CEO once, and there is no article on me, nor do I merit one. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

15:43, 5 December 2023 review of submission by Dmwiki27[edit]

Hi, how can I improve my article and get accepted? Dmwiki27 (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dmwiki27 Rejection means that there is nothing that you can do, as no amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. If something fundamentally changes about this topic, like new sources that the reviewer did not consider, the first step is to appeal to the last reviewer directly.
This is the only topic you have edited about. Do you work for this company? 331dot (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Remember to log in when posting. 331dot (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

15:56, 5 December 2023 review of submission by Santanu Puzari[edit]

I would like to know why my page has not been publish in wikipedia. Santanu Puzari (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Santanu Puzari I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft. You have not submitted it for a review, I will shortly add the appropriate information so you can do so.
You will also need to discuss your connection to this person(since you took a picture of him and he posed for you). Please see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Santanu Puzari: presumably you mean  Courtesy link: User:Santanu Puzari/sandbox? The primary reason why that hasn't been accepted is that you haven't even submitted it. Having said which, if you were to submit it, it still wouldn't be accepted, as it's mostly unreferenced, promotional, and provides no evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most local party officials do not meet the definition of a notable person. Do independent reliable sources state that he has been particularly influential in the party, either on its policies or the activities of the party? That's what we are looking for, not a mere description of him. 331dot (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I misunderstood; you seem to be writing about yourself. While not forbidden, this is highly discouraged, please read the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves. 331dot (talk) 16:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
no i am not writing about myself.Its a person from BJP party in Assam Santanu Puzari (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then you must change your username immediately- please go to Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS to make a username change request. You cannot use his name as your username unless you are him. Please answer my inquiry regarding the photo, did you take the image? 331dot (talk) 16:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No i did not take the photo he has send the photo through whatsapp Santanu Puzari (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The photo may not be his to give you, typically the photographer holds the copyright of an image. If it is his to give you, and he included a release permitting reuse of the image for any purpose with attribution, you will need to follow the instructions at donating copyrighted materials.
Note that images are not relevant to the draft approval process, which only considers the text and sources. Images can wait until the draft is accepted- my advice is that you remove the image and deal with it later, so you can focus on the draft. You will need to show significant coverage in independent reliable sources showing that he is a notable person. Most local party officials are not, unless it can be shown that they are particularly influential. 331dot (talk) 16:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

17:01, 5 December 2023 review of submission by MikeTimesONE[edit]

Where can I ask to delete this draft? I just found out someone already made a page for the game, so I no longer want to work on it. MikeTimesONE 17:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MikeTimesONE You can request a speedy deletion under criteria G7 or if you feel like there is content that can be put into that article, you can merge content. Klinetalk to me!contribs 18:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

17:05, 5 December 2023 review of submission by Danielromeroprobstmcswain[edit]

Hi, I am trying to understand what else can be done to this article in order for it to post? I have made the edits and added citations noted by the reviewer, but it has now been multiple days without a response and I don’t know how to move forward. Any help appreciated. Danielromeroprobstmcswain (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

17:12, 5 December 2023 review of submission by Clamar4409[edit]

I asked for a review of a submission article but the reviewer simply said he didn't believe my assertion, even while the citations (notable national newspapers in the country) made it clear. Do reviewers have limitations of multilingual posts? Should I take this into consideration when submitting an article that references information in Spanish? Clamar4409 (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Clamar4409: do you mean  Courtesy link: Draft:Jorge Solan? This draft was declined for lack of evident notability. On what basis are you challenging that? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DoubleGrazing The citation makes clear that the individual is indeed the new president of the club. ie. What the reviewer told me he didn't find believable. The Other club presidents in the league all seem to be notable enough, shouldn't he be? Clamar4409 (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clamar4409: being president of a country makes one inherently notable; being president of a club does not. The sources do not meet the WP:GNG standard for notability. Therefore the draft was correctly declined. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. So if I edit to include additional and more valid sources and his additional business impact or the nation of Costa Rica, being that he is the owner and manger of the main transportation hubs for the entire contry, does that make him relevant enough?
I'm not trying to be snippy it is just frustrating as hell. Clamar4409 (talk) 18:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clamar4409: without seeing whatever additional sources you're thinking of, I can't say whether they would be enough to establish notability (if that's what you mean by "relevant enough"), except to say that so far it is the sources which are letting down this draft. My advice is to carefully read and understand the WP:GNG guideline, so that you know exactly what we're looking for. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

17:49, 5 December 2023 review of submission by TerrionTavious[edit]

researching youtubers TerrionTavious (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TerrionTavious: that's not a question, and your draft isn't a viable article draft. What did you want to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

19:03, 5 December 2023 review of submission by Suctioncupman2024[edit]

why is this against the purpose of wiki

Suctioncupman2024 (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Suctioncupman2024: I think you know already, but basically because Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

19:24, 5 December 2023 review of submission by Lsrgsrd[edit]

I got article translaton declined, because "Please cite your sources using footnotes." but what parts of article i have to source - could you explain? Lsrgsrd (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Lsrgsrd Do you mean  Courtesy link: Draft:Sebastian Mikołajczak? The draft was declined due to a lack of inline citations in the article. For some help on this, see WP:MINREF and WP:ILC. Klinetalk to me!contribs 21:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

20:31, 5 December 2023 review of submission by[edit]

So why someone does not add those info you guys ask about and use as a reason to refuse the submission?

You can make a simple Google search for "Karzan Kardozi" in English for for "کارزان کاردۆزی" in Kurdish to find dozens of references and verification that this is an actual person, a Kurdish filmmakers and writer that so should have its page here on Wiki. I don't understand why so many Kurdish filmmakers and writers are denied to have their page? Real people, while there are millions of pages of fictional characters from books, movies, comic books, etc.

Why are these people censored? Because they are Kurdish? (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accusations of racism aren't going to help you with this. Race has nothing to do with this. The draft was rejected after several declines because this subject lacks the coverage needed to merit an article. That's it. Rejection means that it will not be considered further. If something fundamentally changes about this topic, such as new sources the reviewer did not consider, the first step is to appeal to the last reviewer. 331dot (talk) 09:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

21:53, 5 December 2023 review of submission by Victor Giarola[edit]

Wikipedia make this draft to an article please

Victor Giarola (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Zero chance, not notable. Theroadislong (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't beg or ask for your article to be approved, it is a waste of time for the editors to look at your post Jrmango (talk) 02:54, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 6[edit]

02:51, 6 December 2023 review of submission by Jrmango[edit]

Anybody have any notable sources for this one? Jrmango (talk) 02:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's rejected. The decision is final. Please let this go. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

05:19, 6 December 2023 review of submission by Udith Perera[edit]

I added information to this account Udith Perera (talk) 05:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this information not enough? Help create this profile Udith Perera (talk) 05:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Udith Perera We don't have profiles here, not a single one. Wikipedia has articles or in this case a draft article. Your draft was deleted as blatant promotion. It was sourced to nothing but sources associated with the subject and used much promotional language(" An Excellent Radio and Television Announcer"). Please read some of the guidance left on your user talk page, as well as Your First Article
If you work for this person, the Terms of Use require that to be disclosed, please see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 09:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not receive any payment for this.  I am setting up this Wikipedia page as a tribute to that person's service. Udith Perera (talk) 10:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We don't do "tributes". Our only interest is in summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. If you want to make a tribute for someone, that is precisely something social media or a personal website are for.
You didn't pick this person at random to edit about. How did you come to edit about them? 331dot (talk) 10:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

10:01, 6 December 2023 review of submission by up[edit]

why has my article have been rejected up (talk) 10:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] up: because there is no evidence that you are notable by Wikipedia standards, and because Wikipedia is not a place to tell the world about yourself; you should try some social media or blogging platform instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

11:41, 6 December 2023 review of submission by JennaHTN[edit]

Hi I hope you're fine. I am contacting you because my submission is refused because there are apparently missing sources, to be honest I don't understand because there are 7 sources, including more than 4 articles generally in French since the subject comes from this country but also articles from other countries, such as Italy and the United Kingdom. I looked at the rules concerning the sources there is no link with the subject, these are sources whose subject is the center and there are several articles which are distributed in different countries, so I do not see why is it refused? An article is evolving, it may not be perfect but there are sources on the subject, we could publish by putting a banner asking to add sources so that other contributors who may have information can add. Otherwise any help and advice and welcome. Thanks JennaHTN (talk) 11:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

JennaHTN sources cannot be just anything; they must be reliable, independent, and in-depth. Read the comment that the reviewer left you. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 14:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Sungodtemple , thank you for your reply. If I understand correctly, you need sources from bigger newspapers? Or is it something else? If you have any advice to give me, I'm listening. JennaHTN (talk) 15:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your draft contains irrelevant fan cruft and is VERY poorly sourced, Soundcloud, YouTube,, ZephyrMusic and Instagram are not reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've edited a lot of music articles, so the first question I'll ask is - what national chart hits has this artist had? If the answer is "none", then Wikipedia should probably not have an article about them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

16:33, 6 December 2023 review of submission by Bastianhilton[edit]

I'm reaching out with question as to why an article about a headless content management system is deleted and yet so many others such as Wordpress, Drupal, etc is still up and running? Bastianhilton (talk) 16:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bastianhilton Please see other stuff exists. The existence of other articles has no bearing on your draft, which is a clear advertisement. An article about this system was previously deleted(Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Directus) so that reasoning will need to be overcome as well. 331dot (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

18:01, 6 December 2023 review of submission by[edit]

Hello there, I am looking for some pointers on how to better edit my article to have a neutral point of view. If any experienced editors have some specific feedback to give to help me improve my draft and make it more suitable for Wikipedia's main page area I would really appreciate it.

I understand too if this question is vague. I'll do my best to provide more specific things to give feedback on if necessary. (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neutral point of view is not the only issue; you need to show that the company meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Merely describing its productions is insufficient, especially as none of them have English Wikipedia articles(but even if they did, it would be possible for a production to be notable but not the company producing it). 331dot (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

18:46, 6 December 2023 review of submission by Leherdzi[edit]

do all my references need to be independent from the subject because the syndrome i am writing about is so new all the information i found is from the research group that discovered it Leherdzi (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is a VERY strong indication that it maybe too soon for us to have an article. Theroadislong (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

19:42, 6 December 2023 review of submission by Jamesgrover247[edit]

I already added all the info which is required. I am not sure why the article is been declined. Jamesgrover247 (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jamesgrover247 It was not only declined, it was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. The reviewer left the reason, "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.". Your draft was completely unsourced and reads like a resume. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Left 'm my User:deepfriedokra/del, but alas, already blocked. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

20:51, 6 December 2023 review of submission by Gyphon[edit]

Page has been updated. How to resubmit? Gyphon (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rejection means that resubmission is not possible. Your draft is exclusively sourced to social media and its own website- an article must summarize independent reliable sources, not what a subject says about itself. 331dot (talk) 20:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

21:04, 6 December 2023 review of submission by DaringDonna[edit]

Hi. I recently submitted my draft for publishing, but I am not so surprised or disappointed that it was rejected. But I will tell you my problem. I started out just thinking that I would translate the Hebrew article into English, but then it turned into a HUGE project. I wonder if there is a way to get a few more editors involved, so creating an English version is not entirely my responsibility. I think it is clear that this important book by a Nobel Prize winner should have a page in English, but the work needed to get it to a decent state seems too much for me to do on my own. What do you suggest I do? Thanks so much. DaringDonna (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @DaringDonna It is largely up to the creator to provide sufficient sources, etc. to meet the notability criteria and there does not appear to be any active WikiProject about Jewish culture or history otherwise I would suggest seeking guidance at one of them. I think if you can significantly trim to the plot down to 750 words and focus more on what others said about the book that would go a long way and citing the book itself is not helpful. He may be a Nobel Prize winner but that does not automatically make his all of his work notable. Take a look at the notability guidelines for books. Perhaps the draft meets the guideline but is buried (i.e. simplify, you only need to meet the guideline). S0091 (talk) 21:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

21:21, 6 December 2023 review of submission by Sylvan1971[edit]

I have edited this article substantially since its rejection last May. Recently, an editor has, on my talk page (S0091 (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)), validated the notability of this subject. What is the process for removing the STOP sign and moving this article forward? Thank you. Sylvan1971 (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Typically, the first step is to appeal to the last reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is now twice @Sylvan1971 has asked this same question here (see WT:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#16:59, 1 December 2023 review of submission by Sylvan1971) and have received the same response. Per a discussion on their talk page they state they do have a COI with at least one other article, There is a COI with respect to another article I am editing and I will address that separately. but they haven't. I am not interested in engaging with someone who states they will address a COI and fails to do so. S0091 (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your reply. I asked for help again because, for the second consecutive time, you did not reply to my reply to you. Most recently, on 12/1, you asked me to confiirm no COI to the subject of DRAFT:BRUCE RYAN, which I confirmed. (By the way, I am not aware, when submitting articles, of a duty to affirm there is no COI.)
Each article must be evaluated on its own merit. As you noted, I have acknowledged a COI on another article I am working on and written that I will appropriately elaborate on it before resubmitting it.
The courtesy of a reply is appreciated. Thanks again. Sylvan1971 (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sylvan1971 if you are absolutely sure of its notability you can move it directly into article space using the Tools -> Move button. It will then be reviewed by a new page reviewer. (Note that it can still be deleted via Articles for Deletion).
The other option is to resubmit; the first step is asking the declining reviewer. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 02:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Appreciate your response. Out of respect for the most recent reviewer (who agrees the subject is notable) I will continue to try to work with them before trying those options. Thank you. Sylvan1971 (talk) 16:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

22:47, 6 December 2023 review of submission by CarnivalSorts[edit]

Have received a warning that a different Liam McCarthy page already exists. Is there any way in the draft process I can change the title to e.g. Liam McCarthy (Irish cricketer)? CarnivalSorts (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CarnivalSorts the article is currently in draft space, for articles that are in the process of being developed. If it is accepted via Articles for Creation, then it will be moved by the reviewer to "main" space, where articles are located. The reviewer will handle the page title for you. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 02:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 7[edit]

00:26, 7 December 2023 review of submission by LouieLumber[edit]

I'm confused, this person has White House press releases, Public Radio interviews, and has written laws signed by the Governor of Illinois.

What sources would be best to reference? Any help is appreciated! This is my first real article!

Thank you! LouieLumber (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LouieLumber, you may want to read WP:42 - which explains the standard for sources that confer notability. Essentially, you want 2-3 sources that are in-depth, reliable, and independent. For example, the first reference, a CBS article, is not in-depth, though it is reliable and probably independent. The second reference, the Illinois gov press release, is not in-depth nor independent, though it is reliable. Etc. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 02:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

04:20, 7 December 2023 review of submission by Gfs1234e[edit]

wiki page Gfs1234e (talk) 04:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gfs1234e: that's not a question, and your draft isn't a viable article draft. What did you want to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

07:48, 7 December 2023 review of submission by AnnaStoneG[edit]

Hi I recently edited this draft but my computer shut down. Is there any chance that you can see and send me the most recent version of this draft? I should be from yesterday or the day before that.

) AnnaStoneG (talk) 07:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AnnaStoneG: We can't see anything unless you save it. The most recent revision is from November 25. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 07:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok. Thank for answering so quickly :) AnnaStoneG (talk) 08:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

09:26, 7 December 2023 review of submission by Fine art at heart[edit]


My article had been rejected, how can I clean up the copy so it is approved? Fine art at heart (talk) 09:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fine art at heart It was declined, not rejected. In the draft submission process, "rejected" has a specific meaning, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means it may be resubmitted.
The draft has several unsourced sections, some of which are highly promotional(especially the background section). Your first two sources are this establishment itself, which cannot be used to establish notability, that requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The independent sources provided only briefly mention this business, and one is an interview with its personnel, which is not independent. 331dot (talk) 09:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have now rejected the draft, it is blatant advertising, with zero indication of notability and you have not declared your paid status despite repeated requests. Theroadislong (talk) 10:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was about to delete this draft per G11 but admin conflicted with Seraphimblade. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

10:58, 7 December 2023 review of submission by Chris Mkhize[edit]

I am a musician and a film director and I need my page approved to be more credible Chris Mkhize (talk) 10:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chris Mkhize Wikipedia has no interest in aiding your career; Wikipedia cannot control if third parties use Wikipedia to confer credibility(they shouldn't). You only merit an article if you meet our criteria. See WP:AUTO and WP:PROUD. 331dot (talk) 11:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

12:22, 7 December 2023 review of submission by Jazzmonke[edit]

Hi, could you please tell me exactly why my article was not approved? is it because it is too long for an amateur artist? Please, I worked hard for this, tell me what i need to do to get this published. thanks alot Jazzmonke (talk) 12:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jazzmonke: it's written in a promotional, non-encyclopaedic language; expressions like "captivating", "innate passion", "trajectory defined by unwavering dedication and artistic innovation", etc. are suitable for marketing collateral, but not for an encyclopaedia. Your job should be merely to describe, not promote, the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Text such as "Andy Penkow a multifaceted singer-songwriter with a captivating blend of country, Americana, alternative, and contemporary music, has emerged as a prominent figure in Australia's music landscape. Renowned for his evocative lyrics, soulful compositions, and distinctive vocal prowess, Penkow's musical journey spans an array of achievements, accolades, and chart-topping singles, solidifying his status as a revered artist within the Australian country music scene" is completely inappropriate prose for an encyclopedia article. Our essay on puffery has further information. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Understod, thanks for your feedback, I will make the neccesary changes and resubmit. Jazzmonke (talk) 09:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have managed to re-write it completely but still keep the inappropriate promotional Content like "Penkow is known for his dedication to music. His commitment to creating authentic, heartfelt music is reflected in his songwriting and performances. While much of his life is centered around music and his career, Outside his music, Penkow is passionate about health and fitness" is entirely promotional do you have a conflict of interest here by any chance? Theroadislong (talk) 12:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jazzmonke You took a picture of Mr. Penkow and he posed for you- and it appears to be a professionally taken image. You must describe your connection with him. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello @331dot, Yes, this picture is indeed a professionally taken photograph directly sourced from Mr Andy, by personally reaching out to him. I have no direct relationship to Mr Andy, however he is in a music domain where I am familiar with since I have been a country music fan for a long time. I chose Mr. Andy Penkow to write my first wikipedia article since I am familiar with this music domain and I have followed Andy's work closely for a while. The reason for me to invest my time on writing this wikipedia article is so that I can become an active contributor and to add this as sort of a personal achievement for myself, to have contributed to wikipedia. I await your further feedback on how to abide by the rules and regulations and I am happy to make necessary changes to make this article in accordance with all requirements. please do let me know if i need to acquire a different picture, and any other comments are welcome. thanks. Jazzmonke (talk) 13:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jazzmonke: if you haven't taken that photo yourself, then you shouldn't have uploaded it as your 'own work', because it clearly isn't. And by the same token, I'm assuming you don't own the copyright to it, either, and therefore should not be releasing it into the public domain under the Creative Commons licence, which I expect the copyright owner wouldn't be too happy about. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

13:39, 7 December 2023 review of submission by Abayan leo[edit]

Resubmission made after proper addition of citation. But targeted declining was made Abayan leo (talk) 13:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Resubmitted with zero improvement (Times of India is not a reliable source) now rejected so will not be considered further. Theroadislong (talk) 14:04, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
their blocked sock is asking for help on his user talk if you're so inclined @Theroadislong (I'm not). Star Mississippi 15:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

14:53, 7 December 2023 review of submission by Science and such[edit]

A draft article has been (re)submitted because the first reviewer stated that the sources were not notable. Making careful use of Wikipedia notability guidelines, the following sources were added. Note: these are all stories whereby the subject of the article is the main featured subject: The New York Times The New York Times Magazine The New Yorker The Guardian The Telegraph The Times

This feedback was then returned: Unfortunately the approach taken since the first review has been to add unsourced material which is not notable. This does not help. For instance, being a research associate is certainly not notable.


So the question is: why are these sources (which are a small selection of the total) not notable?

Thank you

Science and such (talk) 14:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Science and such, in order to count towards notability, sources must be reliable, independent, and in-depth. As such, any articles written by Sheldrake would not count, for example refs #6, #7, and #15, because they are not independent. Similarly, articles like refs #12 and #13 do not count, since they do not go into depth on Sheldrake. Etc. What are the three best sources that you have in the draft, according to these guidelines? Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 15:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, to answer your question, the three "best" sources (most reputable?) according to these guidelines: Science and such (talk) 15:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sungodtemplean additional reference to answer your question: Science and such (talk) 15:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first one is a high-quality reference. The second one has too much interview to really count, maybe half a reference. The fourth one is only tangentially about Sheldrake and doesn't count. The third one is paywalled, so I cannot exactly tell, but based on the title, a book review, it might or might not count, based on the amount of author background it gives. If I were an Articles for Creation reviewer, I would decline the draft, but only barely. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 16:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Science and such: there's no such thing as 'notable sources'; notability is an attribute of the subject, not of the sources. You usually need to produce certain quality and quantity of sources to demonstrate notability, and in so doing some sources are 'better' then others (say, The Guardian trumps The Express, etc.). But even then, what the source says is just as important as what the source is. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your response(s).
However, there are entire articles from notable sources which focus solely on the subject.
reference 4 is a complete article in The New Yorker solely about the subject
reference 8 is an entire piece in The New York Times Magazine entitled:
The Man Who Turned the World on to the Genius of Fungi
which is dedicated entirely to the subject at hand
reference 2 is from The Times and is a review solely addressing the subject's notability and expertise
I fail to see how these sources/ references do not qualify as Notable. Science and such (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I do not agree with the reviewer. I other words if I contend that these sources: The New York Times, The New York Times Magazine, The Times, and The New Yorker are reliable, independent, and in-depth, what is the next step? Science and such (talk) 15:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Reviewer submitted this comment:
Declining submission: bio - Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines and v - Submission is improperly sourced
However the person who is the subject of the article is the sole focus of multiple articles taken directly from the Wikipedia Notability guidelines for sources (generally reliable perennial sources:
The sources (partial list) are:
1. The New York Times
2. The New York Times Magazine
3. The New Yorker
4. The Times
5. Time
Conclusion: these sources should adequately demonstrate that Notability guidelines are fulfilled by Reliable sources.
Question: is the (main) objection that a number of the articles referenced are written by the person who is the subject of the draft? There are also a number of academic research papers cited which were (also) written by the subject of the (draft) article.
Request: will the reviewer please address the issue of Notability taking these points into account?
Thank you Science and such (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ldm1954 Science and such (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Science and such: I don't think it's quite as clear-cut as you suggest; refs 2 and 4 are not really about the person, other than indirectly perhaps, although I agree that ref 8 certainly is. Without having done a thorough source analysis, I'd say this is probably borderline, in what comes to WP:GNG notability. Whether it would have a better chance of meeting some special notability (WP:AUTHOR, WP:NACADEMIC?), I don't yet know.
In the meantime, there are a lot of other issues that need addressing, and I would suggest that you get on with those; they have been flagged up in the comments and with inline tags.
Also, what is your relationship with the subject? I've posted a COI query on your talk page; please read and action as relevant. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

17:03, 7 December 2023 review of submission by Mmalmborg30[edit]

Trying to figure out which specific part did not have sources? I included sources for all information. Mmalmborg30 (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mmalmborg30 To start, you have an incomplete section in the draft, the sources need to be reliable, and independent of the subject matter. Also, the sources need to go in depth about the subject. Also, see the comment on the draft for more info. Seawolf35 T--C 17:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe I have it fixed now Mmalmborg30 (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

18:15, 7 December 2023 review of submission by Rodeco[edit]

Why was it declined? Everything I said was factual Rodeco (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You cited no reliable sources and state M-1500 does not exist. S0091 (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

19:33, 7 December 2023 review of submission by Visaru[edit]

Hello! I am trying to publish this new article and have been told that it does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. From my understanding of, the article does meet two notability criteria for academics: “The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level” and “The person has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research”. The sources I found for both of these are press releases, which to my understanding should count, since the guidelines say, “For documenting that a person has held such an appointment (but not for a judgement of whether or not the institution is a major one), publications of the appointing institution are considered a reliable source.” Could you help me understand why it doesn't meet the requirements? Do I need additional sources proving the notability of CUNY and The Fulbright program? Thanks! Visaru (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Visaru I accepted the draft. S0091 (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

20:18, 7 December 2023 review of submission by Elainekmixa[edit]

the page was refused for creation however, I have found wiki pages with businesses similar to TMS Digital in which the sources are skewed. Why can't a local company have a wikipedia page? why does it have to be a billion dollar company in order to have a wikipedia page? TMS Digital, (originally Tarheel Publishing) is Johnston County, NC's oldest privately owned advertising company. That should stand for something. Elainekmixa (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Elainekmixa read WP:NCORP thoroughly. S0091 (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Elainekmixa Wikipedia is not a business directory of businesses that exist. There are criteria for inclusion(the aforementioned WP:NCORP). Being a "billion dollar company" is not one of the criteria.
See other stuff exists. These other articles(not "pages", which has a broader meaning) you have seen may also be inappropriate, and just not addressed yet, and you would be unaware of this. If you want to to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you have independent reliable sources that discuss the importance of being the oldest advertising company in a particular county? There are thousands of counties in the United States. 331dot (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your draft is in your sandbox, so I fixed your link. 331dot (talk) 01:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

22:31, 7 December 2023 review of submission by Manushvalo[edit]

How can I re-submit this as an article? Please help, thanks. Manushvalo (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Manushvalo you can click the blue resubmit button in the decline message but it will just be declined as you have cited no sources and nothing suggests the subject meets WP:NPOL or WP:NBIO. Most of it seems to be about father which is useless. S0091 (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

22:49, 7 December 2023 review of submission by 2601:18E:C380:7E0:75AA:4BA5:BF7:70A8[edit]

I wonder why a "a semi-active Indian Wikipedian" is qualified to reject an entry on a Canadian/American engineer who was a pioneer in computer design and has contributed significantly to the success of US national as well as international oceanographic research (see lists of Webb's awards and patents). Perhaps someone can advise on what the draft is missing. Does it need more references? a list of Webb's publications? Please help! 2601:18E:C380:7E0:75AA:4BA5:BF7:70A8 (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because they understand our guidelines and policies on WP:N, WP:V, and WP:ANYBIO. These guidelines have zero to do with locality of the subject. So I would recommend you read their advice and the links in my reply to better understand what is required. This approach above will not gain you any support here. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 23:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 8[edit]

01:14, 8 December 2023 review of submission by Faaksee[edit]

Hi, I cited numerous sources including national and regional news outlets and the article was still declined. Faaksee (talk) 01:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The sources do not hace significant coverage of the league. As the last reviewer said, see WP:SIGCOV. 331dot (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

02:09, 8 December 2023 review of submission by Gfs1234e[edit]

we need more pages Gfs1234e (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gfs1234e: What's your question? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 06:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

02:30, 8 December 2023 review of submission by[edit]

I don’t know how to make this notable enough to get my page accepted, I only need it for my website to show information and to send to people when they ask questions in my community server. (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ If it's not notable (which this doesn't appear to be) there's nothing you can do unfortunately. Try another wiki or blogsite perhaps. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 06:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

04:08, 8 December 2023 review of submission by Thejus G Zachariah[edit]

How can I post a Wiki article about a brand? Thejus G Zachariah (talk) 04:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Thejus G Zachariah: Wikipedia subjects need in-depth coverage (full-length articles, not just passing mentions) in usually at least 3 reliable sources that are not written by or affiliated with the subject. Also, if you have a conflict of interest you should declare it on your userpage. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

05:38, 8 December 2023 review of submission by KizzWRLD[edit]

I don’t know what exactly to use as draft title KizzWRLD (talk) 05:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@KizzWRLD: Is Draft:KizzWRLD not the correct title of your draft? Regardless, from a quick Google search, it is highly unlikely this is notable. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 06:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

06:33, 8 December 2023 review of submission by 31204V[edit]

How my article can be chanded to be accepted? 31204V (talk) 06:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@31204V: Wikipedia subjects need in-depth coverage (full-length articles, not just passing mentions) in usually at least 3 reliable sources that are not written by or affiliated with the subject. Your draft is written like an advertisement. Also, if you have a conflict of interest you should declare it on your userpage. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 06:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

10:22, 8 December 2023 review of submission by Dediggefedde[edit]

Hello! I tried to submit a draft, which is basically a translation of the German entry of Hans Geissel, which I also wrote together with Hans Geissel. However, the english draft ( was declined because of missing references.

In a response to a different question on this page, I saw the statement "in articles on living people (WP:BLP), every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal and family details must be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources" (by DoubleGrazing). The lack of such citations at times is also the case for this article, so I understand the decision for declining.

First question: How can I provide citations for biographical events that were not mentioned in publications?

I am in personal contact with Hans Geissel, but I see myself challenged finding public, independent citation sources for his biography data. In general, it seems difficult to prove where someone worked, studied or which experiment they build if there is no newspaper about it.

For example, the "DPG research grant 1982" does not seem to appear in any publication. I also didn't find any publications confirming his date or location of birth, or that he supervises students since 1985. I could leave everything like that out, but since there aren't many publications in general, the article not contain much biographical information. However, since he is the world record holder for the discovery of more than 280 new isotopes and for his other achievements, he is notable in my opinion and a detailed wiki page would be justified.

Second question: Which information does actually need references in practice?

The reviewer didn't specify which information requires citation, so I tried to look at other articles for reference, but it looks a bit inconsistent:

Dediggefedde First, if you are in contact with Mr. Geissel, you should declare a conflict of interest. Articles are typically written without any communication with, or even the knowledge of, the subject.
Second, what is acceptable on the German Wikipedia is not necessarily acceptable here. Each Wikipedia is a separate project, with its own editors and policies. The English version tends to be stricter than others.
Third, if you have no published reference for information, it cannot be on Wikipedia. Verification is an important principle of Wikipedia, and information without a reference cannot be verified. This is vital in articles about living people. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

10:56, 8 December 2023 review of submission by Hiwakariitsumo1901[edit]

I don't know why my article being declined. I want Wikipedia to assist me to remove all the things others author stated so my article can go into public.

Thank You Sincerely,

Hiwakari ItsumoHiwakariitsumo1901 (talk) 10:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hiwakariitsumo1901: this draft is completely unreferenced, which not only is wholly unacceptable in what comes to articles on living people (WP:BLP), it also means there is zero evidence that the subject is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

10:58, 8 December 2023 review of submission by Rcjqffm[edit]

I'm not sure what you mean by "The text of this has been mangled by a program." The text is, of course, taken from a Word file. So would you suggest deleting the whole entry and starting from scatch? Thanks for your help.

Rcjqffm (talk) 10:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rcjqffm: assuming the text is yours, ie. it came from your Word file and not some third party's, then I don't think that's a reason to TNT this; it just needs a bit of clean-up. I would be more interested in seeing you cite your sources via the usual method of inline citations and footnotes (see WP:REFB for advice), which makes it much easier for the reviewers, as well as future readers, to see where each bit of information came from. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

11:08, 8 December 2023 review of submission by Loftt 01[edit]

How do I find reliable sources. there is little else than the sources i found for the article i wrote. does wikipedia even view the topic i wrote about as not worthy becuase its too new? like how would someone write a legitimate articles about this game for wikipedia? nothing i wrote is wrong, all info came from released information, this is just a summarised version from the gameplay demo and websites. Loftt 01 (talk) 11:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Loftt 01: if, as you say, this is an "upcoming" game, then it almost certainly is not notable at this time. We are not interested in any pre-launch publicity materials and similar, we only want to see what independent and reliable sources have said. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

11:10, 8 December 2023 review of submission by Hiwakariitsumo1901[edit]

"This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia."

May I request Wikipedia to help me solve the problem, because I don't know what I can do to fix it and it is a lot. This person is well known, but have not list on Wikipedia, so I want to list him on Wikipedia and then there will be news and sources about him. Hiwakariitsumo1901 (talk) 11:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hiwakariitsumo1901: please don't start a new thread, I've already answered this a moment ago. We cannot accept unreferenced drafts, especially on living people. Where did all this information come from? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

11:57, 8 December 2023 review of submission by Anonymousartuser[edit]

My draft got declined once. I do not understand what are the unreliable links. Please could you help me? Anonymousartuser (talk) 11:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Anonymousartuser: that decline reason ("not adequately supported by reliable sources") can mean two different things. Either the sources cited are not reliable, or the citations do not adequately support the draft contents. Both apply here: the sources include LinkedIn and a WordPress blog, which are both user-generated; and there is too much unreferenced content – in articles on living people (WP:BLP), every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal details must be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS: What is your relationship to the subject of this draft? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PPS: Please see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

12:09, 8 December 2023 review of submission by Gerrumicum[edit]

Hello there,

I am trying to publish the Draft for a known art curator in Frankfurt, Germany. After the first submission from mid November had been declined due to the "person not yet [showing] to meet notability guidelines", I sourced the article (especially the bio) in detail. (

Now my submission was declined, too, and the reasoning is "prof - Submission is about a professor not yet shown to meet notability guidelines". (

I can see how the subject does not meet most of the eight academic-specific criteria, but on the other hand the sourcing seems to be fine? The internationally known curator is an art-professor, too, but that's not the focus of the article (or her work).

How can I revise the article and make sure, that it doesn't get declined because of her not being notable enough in the academic context of being a professor?

If necessary, I believe this could be omitted and the article should be focused on her work as art-curator.

Best wishes Gerrumicum (talk) 12:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gerrumicum: the latter decline reason also includes the same WP:GNG notability standard which was the reason for the earlier decline; in other words, it is saying that the subject does not meet WP:NPROF or GNG. But I can add a comment there to advise the next reviewer to consider only GNG, if you wish. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, thanks for your reply and your offer!
If applicable, I think GNG should be more fitting as the subject is a art-curator with some (but not alot) co-published literature. If you see the article, do you come across anything that might result in another declining? Do I have to resubmit in order to get the article checked by another reviewer? (with focus on GNG)
best wishes Gerrumicum (talk) 12:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gerrumicum: yes, you have to resubmit, in order to get another review. (And I have added a note about GNG.) However, as I mentioned, the latest review also states that GNG is not met, so without somehow addressing that claim, it seems pointless to resubmit as this would probably be declined again. At the very least you should highlight (either here or on the draft talk page) the 3+ sources that you feel are strongest in terms of satisfying GNG. This would in any case help the next reviewer, as there are quite a few sources to go through otherwise. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:24, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

12:14, 8 December 2023 review of submission by Ruslan Sharipov[edit]

I have got the message "Submission declined on 22 November 2023 by Stuartyeates (talk)". But the user page is said "This page does not exist". Is Stuartyeates a true legal reviewer? Ruslan Sharipov (talk) 12:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ruslan Sharipov: there is no obligation for users to have user pages; in this case, there used to be one, but it was deleted at the user's request. And yes, Stuartyeates is indeed a legitimate (and experienced) reviewer. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've answered @Ruslan Sharipov at User_talk:Stuartyeates#Request_on_10:32:55,_8_December_2023_for_assistance_on_AfC_submission_by_Ruslan_Sharipov. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

12:39, 8 December 2023 review of submission by Preksha30[edit]

I need to know the problem with the content of this page and why it is not getting accepted. Preksha30 (talk) 12:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Preksha30, it is a clear advert for Khatri. Thus, it is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 12:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

12:56, 8 December 2023 review of submission by Preksha30[edit]

I have made the required changes Preksha30 (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Preksha30 No you didn't, it still reads like an advert so my rejection still stands. Qcne (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

13:10, 8 December 2023 review of submission by[edit]

Please help me with my article so that it can be accepted. Because it is the campus's job to create personal biodata on Wikipedia. (talk) 13:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi IP editor.
It is a shame you have been asked to make this article by your boss. Please have a read of WP:BOSS.
The draft you created has been rejected and will not be considered further. Qcne (talk) 13:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

13:12, 8 December 2023 review of submission by Inyiyruma[edit]

My entry for VP Choice Awards was declined with the comment "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement." I'm uncertain about the issue. Could it be because our entry mentions brands and companies? As an award-giving entity, we recognize the people's choice in businesses, including brands and companies in the Philippines. I hope you can assist me in addressing this issue, as I might have overlooked something. Thank you. Inyiyruma (talk) 13:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Inyiyruma. Vast parts of the article is unsourced - you have a load of citations but they're hanging at the bottom of the article. They need to be in-line with the text.
However the wording of the article is problematic, it includes language that breaks our strict neutrality policy. Qcne (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good day! I've added reference links in the articles; I hope those are sufficient. Regarding the wording in the article, I've already rewritten it in the best neutral point of view possible. I would appreciate it if you could review it and let me know which parts need further attention or fixing. Inyiyruma (talk) 14:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A few things stand out to me, emphasis mine:
- notable personalities and celebrities (who said they're notable?)
- significantly increasing its reach and engagement on Facebook (marketing speak)
- making it one of the highly followed award ceremonies in the country (source?)
- gathered over 500 personalities, celebrities, and influencers, achieving substantial engagement with over 110 million reach on Facebook (more marketing speak)
- Looking ahead (not an encyclopaedic term)
However I simply don't think this ceremony meets our WP:GNG. Most of your sources are primary or not independent. Qcne (talk) 16:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you so much for your reply, really appreciated it. I have edited my wikipedia based on your remarks.
- notable personalities and celebrities (who said they're notable?) - Removed this part.
- significantly increasing its reach and engagement on Facebook (marketing speak) - Removed this part.
- making it one of the highly followed award ceremonies in the country (source?) - Removed this part.
- gathered over 500 personalities, celebrities, and influencers, achieving substantial engagement with over 110 million reach on Facebook (more marketing speak)- Rephrased to simply "attended by business personalities, celebrities and influencers.
- Looking ahead (not an encyclopaedic term) - Reworded this simply to: "Currently, the fifth VPCA....."
However I simply don't think this ceremony meets our WP:GNG. Most of your sources are primary or not independent. --I've reviewed the WP:GNG guideline, hope you can check further because the articles/write-ups from GMA Network, and or ABS-CBN should be considered independent entity because they are in no way related to VPCA. I have also added few more links from independent blogs and news outlet who wrote about the event in their own will.
If I have missed anything please let me know. Thanks so much for the assistance. Inyiyruma (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Qcne, my entry is reviewed and declined again by another reviewer. Is it necessary? because it gets a bit more confusing on what to improve in the article :-( Hope you can give it a review again please. thanks so much Inyiyruma (talk) 03:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pinging @Theroadislong who is a very experienced reviewer and will hopefully be able to help. Qcne (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
YouTube and blogs are not suitable sources and "Village Pipol" is not independent. Theroadislong (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

13:42, 8 December 2023 review of submission by Jussmenaas[edit]

I keep getting declined- but I am trying to create a page on an American Author and Lawyer that has two published books. I am unsure what to do. Jussmenaas (talk) 13:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jussmenaas: for starters, you have to improve your referencing. As pointed out already, Goodreads, Amazon, Facebook and Instagram are not acceptable sources. And pretty much everything needs to be supported by an inline citation to a reliable source – now eg. the 'Early Life and Education' section is completely unreferenced.
Can you also please confirm that you have read and understood WP:AUTOBIO? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)